# The rather boring reality of self defence (for some)



## Paul_D (Feb 12, 2016)

Judging by some of the posts which are made in the name of self defence, it seems some members live in very hostile (and indeed possibly historical) parts of the worlds.  The realities of self defence where I live however are slightly more dull, and so amidst the posts about learning to defend yourself against attacks form Ninjas, military knife fighting special forces, or highly skilled combat sport athletes, I thought I would share with you an incident which typifies self defence for those of us who don’t live in live in a warzone or 16th Century Feudal Japan:-

_Can you help to identify four youths who robbed a man as he walked along *******?_

_The incident happened at around 7pm on Wednesday, February 10, near the mini roundabout at the junction with ********._

_The 57-year-old victim passed a group of four youths - who he said were all aged around 16-years-old – and was assaulted from behind._

_He fell to the floor and his wife’s orange purse – which he was carrying – was stolen._

_The suspects were said to be white, around 6ft tall and of medium build. All wore grey jogging bottoms with hooded tops in various colours. All had their hoods up._

_The victim was treated for minor head injuries at ******** General Hospital._

_Anyone with information is asked to call *********._

So what skills would have been most useful (not useful full stop, but _most _useful) to this gentleman in such a situation?  If you are on the floor before you even knows what’s gone on, and if they have run off with your possession before you have been able to right yourself and give chase (not that you would give chase anyway, are you really going to risk possibly being stabbed for the contents of your purse?) then it would seem your physical skills have been effectively removed from the equation.

Whilst Ninjas, elite special forces and highly skilled combat sport athletes may indeed attempt you fight you, _this_ is how criminals will instead chose to operate. They remove your physical skills from the equation, they do not attempt to fight you as this introduces the possibility that they may lose.  They will use a combination of the four Ds’ (dialogue, deception, distraction, destruction) superior numbers, or any advantage they can get to stack the odds in their favour, or take you out of the game before you even knew you were in it. 

Whilst physical skills of course have their place, what are often forgotten are the non-physical skills of self defence.  Which, would have been far more useful to this gentleman.

Threat Awareness & Evaluation/Coopers Colour Codes/Situational Awareness
Being aware of what, and who, is going on around you is key. Seeing four hooded youths standing in the street should be a red flag to anyone who notices them, allowing you to either avoid them, or at the very least look over your shoulder after passing them to see if they have decided to follow you.  Giving you advanced warning and if nothing else allowing you to hand over your purse standing and intact (if that is the option you chose) rather than it being taken from you while you are on the floor with head injuries. 

If you don’t notice them, then there was a gap in your awareness.  As Lee Morrison says, people will often say “He came out of nowhere”.  But he didn’t just appear out of thin air, this isn’t Star Trek, he was there all along you just didn’t notice him (or in this case “them”).

Engaging in your environment and the people in it is key.  During the victim selection stage criminals avoid people who are aware, who are looking around, people who are switched on.  Instead they look for people who are disconnected form their environment, switched off, unaware, what is known in Coopers Colour Codes as Code white or what the FBI call victim state.

Of course there will be people who will reply that their art has a jumping spinning triple head kick that allows them to take out three people in one go (or some other such nonsense) but unless your art also endows you with the Spidey Sense to know you are about to be blindside from behind, then it isn’t going to hurt to add the non physical SD skills to your armoury.

Target hardening
Pretty much does what it say on the tin, and in this incident a very easy one.  Carrying a bright orange purse in plain view is pretty much asking to be mugged.  Keeping it out of site makes you less likely to be selected as a victim.

It’s the same reason you don’t wave your cash in the air when you withdraw it from a cash machine, or you don’t take that short cut through the woods or down the dark alley.  Making yourself a more difficult target removes their opportunity to make you a victim.

Non physical skills are able to prevent situations like this occurring during the victim selection stage, or keep you form position yourself in potentially dangerous situations in the first place.  Not always no, but in a lot of cases yes.  It is a lot like protecting your house from burglars.  If they really truly want to get in, then they will.  That is not what alarms, security lights, or owning a dog are for.  They are simply there to persuade criminals to go and find an easier house to burgle. 

The very boring reality of self defence for a lot of people means nonphysical skills are more (not only, but more) important than spending 15 years becoming an elite fighter, that sort of skill is simply not necessary for the majority.

Once again I apologise that I live in a very boring part of the world, and am not prone to attack by bands of masterless Ronin looting and pillaging, MMA fighters starting bar brawls, or special ops forces slitting my neighbour’s throats as they sleep


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 12, 2016)

Learning how to fall safely would also be helpful in the situation you described.

I agree with your assessment.

This happened recently:

Brazilian MMA fighter shot, likely paralyzed after armed robbery

The point you make is valid.  Most of us (hopefully) will never confront the type of 'street fight' scenario in which we would square off with another human being, "West Side Story" style, and be able to calmly and dispassionately engage our training to defend ourselves.

However, more basic self-defense skills, such as situational awareness, avoiding dangerous people, places, and events, and staying in a group, can be the biggest part of self-defense; and martial arts fighting skills *may* be useful in some circumstances (providing the assailant doesn't have a gun and decides to use it).

Fortunately, I do not train solely for self-defense.  That's just gravy for me.  I train for far more important things.

Keep training, keep your head on a swivel, and stay safe.  Running away is a self-defense skill too.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 12, 2016)

Good points, this addresses the more educated evolution of the definition of what is considered self defense. In years gone by self defense and fighting ability were synonymous terms. Traditional martial arts commonly referred to their styles as self defense arts. The same guys also claimed their tradition was centuries old, but I doubt they were talking about situational awareness hundreds of years ago.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 12, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Learning how to fall safely would also be helpful in the situation you described.



From a practical self protection position... many of us are much more likely to use the ability to fall and land safely than any other "self defense" skill...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 12, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> Good points, this addresses the more educated evolution of the definition of what is considered self defense. In years gone by self defense and fighting ability were synonymous terms. Traditional martial arts commonly referred to their styles as self defense arts. The same guys also claimed their tradition was centuries old, but I doubt they were talking about situational awareness hundreds of years ago.



Oh, I beg to differ:

Memoirs of a Grasshopper: The Eight Laws of the Fist

The so-called "8 Laws of the Fist" from the Bubishi, has been translated many different ways, but often enough, one sees this:

_7. Me wa shiho wo miru wa yosu.
The eyes must not miss even the slightest change.
8. Mimi wa yoku happo wo kiku.
The ears listen well in all eight directions.
_​I'd call that 'situational awareness,' wouldn't you?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2016)

Not really self defence as it is defined as a use of force. But yes there are many skills you need in life that are not martial arts.

Eg. This happened recently.

Two stung by irukandji, four box jellyfish found

Knowing not to go swimming arroung during jellyfish season would have helped these people a lot more that physical skills.

Mabye there is a colour code or something.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 12, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oh, I beg to differ:
> 
> Memoirs of a Grasshopper: The Eight Laws of the Fist
> 
> ...


It depends on the context, the rest of the poem is your typical martial arts philosophy stuff. It's not very specific and doesn't put the lines you quoted into any particular context. "The eyes must not miss the slightest change..." In what? Is he talking about the opponent? Your surroundings? It doesn't really put it into context, the same for the next quote. We can look and find something that sounds reminiscent of self defense taken out of context, like how some traditional arts claim they have anti grappling techniques that of been there all along


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 12, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> It depends on the context, the rest of the poem is your typical martial arts philosophy stuff. It's not very specific and doesn't put the lines you quoted into any particular context. "The eyes must not miss the slightest change..." In what? Is he talking about the opponent? Your surroundings? It doesn't really put it into context, the same for the next quote. We can look and find something that sounds reminiscent of self defense taken out of context, like how some traditional arts claim they have anti grappling techniques that of been there all along



Nice try, but no.  You can't wave it away, it's perfectly clear.  Self-defense training from the earliest days of martial arts has taught awareness as a vital aspect of that training.  It's not a new thing.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nice try, but no.  You can't wave it away, it's perfectly clear.  Self-defense training from the earliest days of martial arts has taught awareness as a vital aspect of that training.  It's not a new thing.



Yeah that story about the samurai and the pot above the door. Or the one where the master just ambushes the student all the time.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 15, 2016)

Awareness and physical ability to defend yourself are not 2 separate things. One does not trump the other.  Being aware helps but that's all that it does. It makes you aware.  Being aware doesn't mean that you won't be attacked.  It just helps you stay a couple of steps ahead of a potential attack.  The sooner you are aware the sooner you can add more steps between you and the attacker.

  In a simple biological example, just because the prey is aware of the lion means that they are safe.  It just means that the prey is aware of lion.  In most cases that's enough for the prey to position itself to get away.  But in other cases it gives the prey a chance to better position themselves for a fight or to defend against blows.

Self-Defense is a 2 part system: Being aware and being capable to physically defend.  Unfortunately many people think one or the other is enough to keep them safe instead of embracing both methods.  Be aware to help prevent and better position yourself for a bad situation and then be capable for when the "crap hits the fan."

The saddest part is that many people don't think they need to learn how to physically defend themselves, until they find themselves actually having to do so, but by then it's too late for the classes.


----------



## DaveB (Feb 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Judging by some of the posts which are made in the name of self defence, it seems some members live in very hostile (and indeed possibly historical) parts of the worlds.  The realities of self defence where I live however are slightly more dull, and so amidst the posts about learning to defend yourself against attacks form Ninjas, military knife fighting special forces, or highly skilled combat sport athletes, I thought I would share with you an incident which typifies self defence for those of us who don’t live in live in a warzone or 16th Century Feudal Japan:-
> 
> _Can you help to identify four youths who robbed a man as he walked along *******?_
> 
> ...



Paul. 100% agreement. Good post!


----------



## DaveB (Feb 16, 2016)

So, the physical element of SD is important too..

So you are the 60ish year old, you check behind you just in time to spot the punch.
What aspect/technique from your chosen art do you employ to defend against it?

Then, facing four larger opponents each around a quarter of your age and an eighth of your morals, what do you do next?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 16, 2016)

DaveB said:


> So, the physical element of SD is important too..
> 
> So you are the 60ish year old, you check behind you just in time to spot the punch.
> What aspect/technique from your chosen art do you employ to defend against it?
> ...


you defend yourself to the best of your abilities. There are many articles and news reports of people older than 60 defending themselves. 
There is an assumption that old means helpless and that one no longer had the ability to fight back after a certain age and that's just not representative of those in their 60's and 70's who have done that against the odds and against a younger attacker.  
Bernard hopkins is in his 50s and still has good movement. Watch a couple of videos of people in their 50s and older hit heavy bags.

Everyone has the same 2 options when being physically attacked, you either fight back or you don't.  If the only reason that you don't fight back is because you think you are to old then that's a bad mindset for self defense.  There's a big difference in being capable to fight back and unable to fight back.  As for fighting multiple attackers sometimes you only need to beat 1 to keep the others from jumping in. And for the technique that will be used, it be the one he felt was the best move either by reflex or thought.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> you defend yourself to the best of your abilities. There are many articles and news reports of people older than 60 defending themselves.
> There is an assumption that old means helpless and that one no longer had the ability to fight back after a certain age and that's just not representative of those in their 60's and 70's who have done that against the odds and against a younger attacker.
> Bernard hopkins is in his 50s and still has good movement. Watch a couple of videos of people in their 50s and older hit heavy bags.
> 
> Everyone has the same 2 options when being physically attacked, you either fight back or you don't.  If the only reason that you don't fight back is because you think you are to old then that's a bad mindset for self defense.  There's a big difference in being capable to fight back and unable to fight back.  As for fighting multiple attackers sometimes you only need to beat 1 to keep the others from jumping in. And for the technique that will be used, it be the one he felt was the best move either by reflex or thought.



Agreed. For example, Relson Gracie is 62. Heaven help anyone who decides to attack that guy.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 16, 2016)

The biggest problem with many old people is that they allowed themselves to get "old" and it started when they were in their 30s and 40s when they decided not to be physically active.  There are many people in their 30s and 40s who are so out of shape that they couldn't run away if they wanted to.  Many couldn't punch the air as fast as possible for a minute without stopping.  By the time my friends reached their 30s they had already made up their minds that they will just accept being out of shape and that they will be out of shape when they turn old.  unfortunately for them that won't make being old easier.


----------



## DaveB (Feb 16, 2016)

That's great but it skirts around the question. I wasn't asking to be difficult. I can see the other side of the argument that this is a martial arts forum so let's discuss the application of martial arts. 

There's your scenario, you are armed with the knowledge of your chosen ma, what do you do? I am genuinely interested in the answers, especially in comparing different styles. 

That being said if your answer is "try to talk my way out or run" it does validate the op's point, that attitudes to ma and it's applications in life can be far apart.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Awareness and physical ability to defend yourself are not 2 separate things. One does not trump the other.  Being aware helps but that's all that it does. It makes you aware.  Being aware doesn't mean that you won't be attacked.  It just helps you stay a couple of steps ahead of a potential attack.  The sooner you are aware the sooner you can add more steps between you and the attacker.
> 
> In a simple biological example, just because the prey is aware of the lion means that they are safe.  It just means that the prey is aware of lion.  In most cases that's enough for the prey to position itself to get away.  But in other cases it gives the prey a chance to better position themselves for a fight or to defend against blows.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I've seen SD schools that seemed to entirely ignore the mental awareness aspect. I've also heard of SD seminars that seemed to entirely ignore the physical defense aspect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

DaveB said:


> So, the physical element of SD is important too..
> 
> So you are the 60ish year old, you check behind you just in time to spot the punch.
> What aspect/technique from your chosen art do you employ to defend against it?
> ...


Both of those are highly situational.

For the first question, it might be a kick, a counter-punch, a block, a "body block", a throw, etc. It depends upon the distance, speed, posture, and position of the attacker. That's why we train so much.

For the second, the preferred response should be "get the hell outta there!" That's not always possible. If I can't escape, I'll hurt whichever I can get to first, hopefully in a way that either renders him unconscious or makes him scream in pain. Success beating all 4 is unlikely in any realistic scenario, but maybe I can hurt one bad enough to make the others slow down and gain an escape. If not, I'll try to hurt the next one, and so on, until either I'm down or they all are.

In every self-defense situation, escape is the priority, unless it is low-percentage, impossible, or outweighed by another priority (a small child in the room, for instance).

EDIT: in re-reading your post, I assumed the second was an imminent attack. It doesn't appear so, so the first order of business (if immediate escape isn't possible) would, of course, be to try to de-escalate the situation (or even confuse them with a thought-pattern interrupt). That's part of the "escape" focus.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

DaveB said:


> So, the physical element of SD is important too..
> 
> So you are the 60ish year old, you check behind you just in time to spot the punch.
> What aspect/technique from your chosen art do you employ to defend against it?
> ...



You get bashed.

They are going to stop because you are convincing is as likley as you are going to win that fight


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Agreed. For example, Relson Gracie is 62. Heaven help anyone who decides to attack that guy.


exactly. Not all old people have crippled wrinkled bodies that can barely walk.


DaveB said:


> That's great but it skirts around the question. I wasn't asking to be difficult. I can see the other side of the argument that this is a martial arts forum so let's discuss the application of martial arts.
> 
> There's your scenario, you are armed with the knowledge of your chosen ma, what do you do? I am genuinely interested in the answers, especially in comparing different styles.
> 
> That being said if your answer is "try to talk my way out or run" it does validate the op's point, that attitudes to ma and it's applications in life can be far apart.


I understand.
The best plan is always try to walk away from conflict or avoid the conflict no matter the age.  But if walking away is your only plan then you are missing half of what is needed for self-defense.  Running or walking away does not guarantee an escape from the conflict. If plan A fails then things are going to get Physical and at this point.  Sometimes running away is only possible after fighting off an attacker.  There is no rule to being assaulted saying that the attacker has to give you the opportunity to run away or the time to talk your way out of the attack. In a real self-defense situation there's no guarantee that things will happen in a particular order or that one action of self defense is a solve all.  Some self-defense tactics could be to talk if not for the purpose of delaying an attack long enough for you to put yourself in a better position to defend.  Sometimes the opportunity isn't there to do that.

As for what applications will be done in the heat of the moment, there's just no way to determine that because it all depends on the environment, the moment of attack, and the level of awareness that the victim had before and during the attack.  There's no instant solution of "Hey do this, then do that."   There is only fight or flight.  You will either fight back or not fight back.

The only thing that I can really see about self-defense is that those who are trained in self-defense (both the physical and non physical aspects) do a much better job with handling violent situations than those who have been trained in physical self-defense.

I guess I look at it like everything else we do in life.  Those who are trained to play tennis do better at tennis than those who aren't trained to play tennis.  Those who are trained to fight do better than those who don't train to fight.  Those who are trained to remain calm during chaos do better than those who are aren't trained to deal with Chaos.  I don't see why those who are trained in self-defense would do worse than someone who wasn't trained in self-defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> exactly. Not all old people have crippled wrinkled bodies that can barely walk.
> 
> I understand.
> The best plan is always try to walk away from conflict or avoid the conflict no matter the age.  But if walking away is your only plan then you are missing half of what is needed for self-defense.  Running or walking away does not guarantee an escape from the conflict. If plan A fails then things are going to get Physical and at this point.  Sometimes running away is only possible after fighting off an attacker.  There is no rule to being assaulted saying that the attacker has to give you the opportunity to run away or the time to talk your way out of the attack. In a real self-defense situation there's no guarantee that things will happen in a particular order or that one action of self defense is a solve all.  Some self-defense tactics could be to talk if not for the purpose of delaying an attack long enough for you to put yourself in a better position to defend.  Sometimes the opportunity isn't there to do that.
> ...



Depends how they are trained. I could learn to fight fires at mma school. But that would put me about on par with someone who didn't bother to learn anything.

And a person who did scuba would be a step ahead of me because at least he could use ba gear


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Depends how they are trained. I could learn to fight fires at mma school. But that would put me about on par with someone who didn't bother to learn anything.
> 
> And a person who did scuba would be a step ahead of me because at least he could use ba gear


I think the issue is whether they are trained for self-defense, or simply trained in something called "self-defense". Delusion doesn't count as training.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I think the issue is whether they are trained for self-defense, or simply trained in something called "self-defense". Delusion doesn't count as training.



Then your self defence training would have to have some sort of quantifiable result. Or the person teaching the system woud nred to be some sort of expert.

I would learn to fight fires off a fireman.

The boring reality of self defence is self defence instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Depends how they are trained. I could learn to fight fires at mma school. But that would put me about on par with someone who didn't bother to learn anything.
> 
> And a person who did scuba would be a step ahead of me because at least he could use ba gear


Since you are headed in this direction of 2 things that don't mix.  If the fire department sent a qualified firefighter trainer to teach and train fire safety at then it wouldn't matter how they were trained.  Sometimes having information is all the training that you need for example, what to do when the room is full of smoke and how to put out a fire from a pot that has oil in it. No one is going to get simulation or live training in these situations.  But the knowledge that they have can still be used in application.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Then your self defence training would have to have some sort of quantifiable result. Or the person teaching the system woud nred to be some sort of expert.
> 
> I would learn to fight fires off a fireman.
> 
> The boring reality of self defence is self defence instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.


I wouldn't say that self-defense instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.  It's just like everything else with finding a good instructor for fighting, there's no central organization that monitors "what makes good self-defense"  The police departments in the U.S. are often times the ones providing a community service by teaching self-defense. They speak based off their experiences and their training.  But there are some people who teach self-defense without concept of what it really means, just like some martial teachers teach martial arts and have no clue to what they teaching.

Like with martial arts, very few people actually research what self-defense is all about and that's where they get into trouble.  You say that most of the people who teach self-defense aren't qualified, but I find it interesting that many of us who train in martial arts have no problem in identifying the horrible self-defense programs with only the knowledge that we have of our own fighting system and in some cases personal experiences.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The boring reality of self defence is self defence instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.


Based on what?


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Feb 17, 2016)

A good example of having deadly capability, but lack of awareness was two weeks ago.  There was a gentleman who decided to open-carry his handgun.  He woke up with a sore head, missing his gun and wallet after being blind-sided by an attacker.  He never had the chance to employ his weapon.  It's likely his $500+ gun looked valuable enough to encourage his attacker to choose him, despite the risk the weapon might present if employed.  His attacker took a calculated risk that he could get close and knock out the open-carrier, before the weapon could be drawn. 
Most of us on MT train in some form, and would hopefully have enough skill to fight an attacker if we are aware enough to know the fight has started (and we weren't able to escape).  But if you lack awareness, those skills are moot.  
Like the earlier example with the lions, maintaining awareness does two things: it gives you a chance to either avoid or prepare for the encounter; and it lets the attacker know you're aware, and thus not as easy of a target for them.  Most predators prefer targets they know they can beat.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Based on what?



Based on the lack of any standards. And the lack of any controlled testing.

Very few self defence programs require a person to be qualified in the fields they teach.

So if someone teaches awareness what qualification do they have?Compared to say home hardening where I could get advice from a qualified builder.

And no real judgement on whether the methods even work. It is basically witch doctoring.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Very few self defence programs require a person to be qualified in the fields they teach.


 And this is where the problem lies and why we often see people create self-defense videos that make no sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Based on the lack of any standards. And the lack of any controlled testing.
> 
> Very few self defence programs require a person to be qualified in the fields they teach.
> 
> ...


You are equating lack of verifiable standards with lack of qualification. That is like saying someone who doesn't have a Computer Science degree can't possibly be qualified to do any programming. 

Due to the low incidence of SD incidents, it would be impossible to verify the effectiveness of any but the larger programs and then only if we have a controlled population (like the program mentioned by Steve in another thread). Avoided incidents are the best result, and the hardest to verify. Physical successes are easier to see, but then we have to figure out whether the success is due to the training or some other factor - too many variables to be controlled with the relatively small numbers available.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You are equating lack of verifiable standards with lack of qualification. That is like saying someone who doesn't have a Computer Science degree can't possibly be qualified to do any programming.
> 
> Due to the low incidence of SD incidents, it would be impossible to verify the effectiveness of any but the larger programs and then only if we have a controlled population (like the program mentioned by Steve in another thread). Avoided incidents are the best result, and the hardest to verify. Physical successes are easier to see, but then we have to figure out whether the success is due to the training or some other factor - too many variables to be controlled with the relatively small numbers available.



Well it is still like saying witch doctoring. It might work. It might not. But basically people are making it up as they go along.

At least with a computer you have an end result. It is either fixed or broken.

At the end of self defence training you have no measurable difference. Except in one program that actually did a study on the difference. And even that was limited because there was no control group.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2016)

That is still not the same as saying someone is unqualified. Unverified is not the same thing.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That is still not the same as saying someone is unqualified. Unverified is not the same thing.



How is it not both?


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Well it is still like saying witch doctoring. It might work. It might not. But basically people are making it up as they go along.
> 
> At least with a computer you have an end result. It is either fixed or broken.
> 
> At the end of self defence training you have no measurable difference. Except in one program that actually did a study on the difference. And even that was limited because there was no control group.


If you're referring to the 12 hour course in Canada, there was a control group.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> If you're referring to the 12 hour course in Canada, there was a control group.



Ok.  Fair enough.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Fair enough.


Sorry I was on a phone yesterday and couldn't elaborate more.  The quote below is the summary of the methods used, emphasis is mine.



> *Methods*
> *We randomly assigned first-year female students at three universities in Canada to the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act Sexual Assault Resistance program (resistance group) or to a session providing access to brochures on sexual assault, as was common university practice (control group).* The resistance program consists of four 3-hour units in which information is provided and skills are taught and practiced, with the goal of being able to assess risk from acquaintances, overcome emotional barriers in acknowledging danger, and engage in effective verbal and physical self-defense. The primary outcome was completed rape, as measured by the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization, during 1 year of follow-up.



The control and resistance groups were roughly the same size:



> A total of 442 women were assigned to the control group and attended 1 of the 45 control sessions that were held during the course of the study (mean number of women per session, 9.8; range, 3 to 21).
> 
> A total of 451 women were assigned to the resistance group and attended 1 of the 48 four-unit resistance sessions that were held during the course of the study (mean number of women per session, 9.4; range, 3 to 23).



The program is well documented on the New England Journal of Medicine:  Efficacy of A Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women

If we did studies like this more often, I believe self defense training would look a lot different.


----------



## aedrasteia (Feb 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> Sorry I was on a phone yesterday and couldn't elaborate more.  The quote below is the summary of the methods used, emphasis is mine.
> 
> The control and resistance groups were roughly the same size:
> 
> ...



Thanks Steve, especially for the link. The tested SD4W program is described in the report. It looks _nothing_ like the majority of SD  offered by the MA community that I have joined, observed or had described to me from multiple states, schools etc.

The elements that are most significant are not a part of any program/series of classes from a MA orientation (regardless of style etc)  other than those developed by MAs who are part of the NWMAF (National Women's Martial Arts Federation).
If anyone wishes to learn more about that see: National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Self-Defense
and National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Self-Defense Instructors' Conference.

There are a substantial number of MA instructors (women) offering a SD4W program/series that have multiple common elements matching those in the program described in the New England Journal article. I'm certainly willing to discuss those elements if anyone is interested. My personal experience over 20+ years, confirms that the most frequently offered MA based classes (generally by men in MA)  _no matter which_ style , include almost none of these elements. Likely because of lack of interest, lack of familiarilty (or acceptance of) with actual experience of girls and women, And most disturbing, a profound, visible absence of any interest in making the sizable committment to acquiring that knowledge and developing the skills and competency to successfully work with 'average', girls and women not training in their particular MA.

I don't post much but my past posts here are available for anyone to see how I think about this.

The NEJOM report made the rounds among many people (mostly women)  working in this area. Thanks again for putting it in front of folks.
w/respect   A


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 20, 2016)

aedrasteia said:


> My personal experience over 20+ years, confirms that the most frequently offered MA based classes (generally by men in MA) _no matter which_ style , include almost none of these elements. Likely because of lack of interest, lack of familiarilty (or acceptance of) with actual experience of girls and women, And most disturbing, a profound, visible absence of any interest in making the sizable committment to acquiring that knowledge and developing the skills and competency to successfully work with 'average', girls and women not training in their particular MA.


 More women should take martial arts and become instructors and this would change.  The thing that I notice from many women when I was in my 20's and in college is the mindset of "It won't happen to me." There are also some women who thinks it makes them less of a woman to be able to fight or defend herself.

Much of this probably culturally taught where women have to act a certain way and that men should come to a woman's rescue.  I think once that image goes away, more women will begin to have an interest in taking martial arts, learning how to fight, and how to take a martial art system that focuses on self-defense.  The biggest mistake that most people make is not thinking that they need to learn self-defense.


----------



## Steve (Feb 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> More women should take martial arts and become instructors and this would change.  The thing that I notice from many women when I was in my 20's and in college is the mindset of "It won't happen to me." There are also some women who thinks it makes them less of a woman to be able to fight or defend herself.
> 
> Much of this probably culturally taught where women have to act a certain way and that men should come to a woman's rescue.  I think once that image goes away, more women will begin to have an interest in taking martial arts, learning how to fight, and how to take a martial art system that focuses on self-defense.  The biggest mistake that most people make is not thinking that they need to learn self-defense.


What if you were being molested by a beloved aunt?   Or a creep woman who won't leave you alone in a bar?  Would you kick her ***?  Cause that's a little closer to,the kind of self defense most women find themselves facing.   

The boring reality of self defense for women is that they are most st risk from people they trust or are in positions of authority or influence.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2016)

Steve said:


> What if you were being molested by a beloved aunt?   Or a creep woman who won't leave you alone in a bar?  Would you kick her ***?  Cause that's a little closer to,the kind of self defense most women find themselves facing.
> 
> The boring reality of self defense for women is that they are most st risk from people they trust or are in positions of authority or influence.


from what women have told me, some of them did hit the creepy guy in the bar or the uncle that tried to molest her, or the boyfriend that tried to tape her on the car.  And to answer your question if hitting them was the only way to stop the assault, then yes,  I would hit them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2016)

Stop means stop but it doesn't mean that the attacker will stop. At that the question becomes "now what do I do" and depending on the type of assault, you may only have a few seconds to come up with an answer.


----------



## Rayrob (Feb 22, 2016)

Going back to the OP'S original post, in these circumstances the best course of action would be to reach behind you, grab a handful of faeces and throw it hard into your attackers faces..................      No faeces to hand? Don't worry there will be, lol.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Stop means stop but it doesn't mean that the attacker will stop. At that the question becomes "now what do I do" and depending on the type of assault, you may only have a few seconds to come up with an answer.


While the legal definition of self defense centers around a response to violence, it's really not that simple.  Is it?  Depending upon who you are and in what specific context, an assault isn't necessarily life threatening.  And it often isn't as simple as punching your way out of it.  Isn't the above really the fundamental point of the thread?  And so, respectfully, when you suggest that women just need to learn to fight better, and dumb down the entire complex subject of self defense for women to punching the bad guy, I think you're missing the point a little.

I'll just repeat my own opinion, for what it's worth.  I think most self defense training is like a placebo.  It's all non-specific and provides benefits that are tangential to actually making a person safer or better able to defend him/herself.  It's like a security blanket.

For it to be truly beneficial, I think there needs to be some analysis up front of what specific dangers are being addressed, and a plan for measuring the effectiveness of the program in addressing these specific dangers.  The link to the study in Canada is a good example of what one type of self defense training program could look like to address one very specific group of people.

There is a self serving lack of interest in statistical analysis that I find very troubling.

Self defense for a cop is just fundamentally different than for a non-cop.  Similarly, self defense for the college coed is fundamentally different than for a middle-aged, white collar worker.  Male vs female is different.

I took some time to read through the links provided by aedrasteia.  Very interesting stuff, and I appreciate her sharing it.  I poked around some of the instructors sites and was curious to see what was offered in Washington State.  This was the first paragraph on the first page:


> *You know those encounters:* a young dude eyeballing you across the parking lot or on the bus, a guy trying too hard to buy you a drink at the dance club, or the chatty friend of a friend introduced at a party begins asking questions a bit too personal. Maybe your brother-in-law is giving you a look that gives you the chills, a co-worker's barely appropriate "humor" puts you on edge, or a client's comments suggest his prime interest isn't business. Let's face it, every female over the age of 14 (and many under that age) has experienced a creepy approach.
> 
> Is this person messing with you -- or planning to harm you?
> 
> *How can you tell -- and what can you do -- before something happens?*


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2016)

Steve said:


> While the legal definition of self defense centers around a response to violence, it's really not that simple. Is it? Depending upon who you are and in what specific context, an assault isn't necessarily life threatening. And it often isn't as simple as punching your way out of it. Isn't the above really the fundamental point of the thread?


 This is why I say if the only way to stop the assault is to hit back then hit back.  An assault doesn't have to be life threatening to justify hitting back or fighting back.  



Steve said:


> when you suggest that women just need to learn to fight better, and dumb down the entire complex subject of self defense for women to punching the bad guy, I think you're missing the point a little.


 Interesting. There's no argument when men are encourage to learn to fight better, but when women learn to fight better it suddenly becomes a "dumb down" issue.   

Not sure why men are so intimidated about a woman's wanting to learn how to fight well enough where she can beat up a man.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is why I say if the only way to stop the assault is to hit back then hit back.  An assault doesn't have to be life threatening to justify hitting back or fighting back.
> 
> Interesting. There's no argument when men are encourage to learn to fight better, but when women learn to fight better it suddenly becomes a "dumb down" issue.
> 
> Not sure why men are so intimidated about a woman's wanting to learn how to fight well enough where she can beat up a man.


I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that learning to fight is a placebo for most people, male or female. 

It's so funny to me that you're trying to frame this the way you are.  If someone suggests that you're not getting it, and he's a male, it's because he's intimidated.  If someone suggests that you're not getting, and she's a female, you just kind of ignore her, like you did with aedrasteia's post. 

To be clear, regarding women's self defense, I'm entirely deferring to people who are in a position to be credible on the subject.  That's not me.  And, after reading your opinions on the subject, I don't think it's you, either.  Instead, that's the people who have done the research and are heavily invested in the development and delivery of effective training for that demographic.  Links to a few of those people have been shared in this thread.

While I've stated several times that I believe self defense training must be tailored to a specific demographic and targeting some specific, measurable goals, what those goals are is not for me to say.  People have done extensive research into women's self defense, and what they have found is well stated and available for anyone who's interested in learning more about it. 

To the subject of this thread, the boring reality of self defense is that it is not the same for you as it is for me as it is for someone else.  AND, it seldom has to do with punching someone in the nose.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2016)

Steve said:


> It's so funny to me that you're trying to frame this the way you are. If someone suggests that you're not getting it, and he's a male, it's because he's intimidated. If someone suggests that you're not getting, and she's a female, you just kind of ignore her, like you did with aedrasteia's post.



So your assumption about that I'm ignoring aedrasteia's post is based off what? Just because I don't respond to something, press like, or press agree doesn't mean I'm not reading. I didn't realize I had to let everyone know what I read and don't read in here.
My bookmarks show something different


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> So your assumption about that I'm ignoring aedrasteia's post is based off what? Just because I don't respond to something, press like, or press agree doesn't mean I'm not reading. I didn't realize I had to let everyone know what I read and don't read in here.
> My bookmarks show something different


 Awesome.  I presumed you were ignoring her post because of what you wrote.   Glad to hear from you otherwise.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2016)

Steve said:


> Awesome.  I presumed you were ignoring her post because of what you wrote.   Glad to hear from you otherwise.


I'm really big on woman's self-defense. I've known way too many women of sexual assault, physical assault, and harassment.  I've also known women who didn't get much of it and those women walked and carry themselves in a different vibe.  If they told a person to stop, it wasn't from the perspective of a victim.  It was from the perspective of a warning.  When I tell people to stop or that I don't want to fight.  It's not from the perspective of a victim it's from the perspective that I'll hurt them if they don't.  Me saying stop or I don't want to fight is me being nice, and helps to position myself legally for the pain I'm about to bring. lol.

But seriously, I have family members that have been victims of this. So I'm all for a woman being able to learn to fight better.  I'm not saying this as a put down because I tell my son the same thing.  He's gotta learn to fight better form a self-defense perspective.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 23, 2016)

Dont forget, someone who knows how to fight always has the option not to. The same can not always be said vice versa.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm really big on woman's self-defense. I've known way too many women of sexual assault, physical assault, and harassment.  I've also known women who didn't get much of it and those women walked and carry themselves in a different vibe.  If they told a person to stop, it wasn't from the perspective of a victim.  It was from the perspective of a warning.  When I tell people to stop or that I don't want to fight.  It's not from the perspective of a victim it's from the perspective that I'll hurt them if they don't.  Me saying stop or I don't want to fight is me being nice, and helps to position myself legally for the pain I'm about to bring. lol.
> 
> But seriously, I have family members that have been victims of this. So I'm all for a woman being able to learn to fight better.  I'm not saying this as a put down because I tell my son the same thing.  He's gotta learn to fight better form a self-defense perspective.



You are suggesting a whole bunch of methods based on no evidence. And comparing them to a system that is evidence based.

Where are your results?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You are suggesting a whole bunch of methods based on no evidence. And comparing them to a system that is evidence based.
> 
> Where are your results?


What are you talking about? What methods have I suggested?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> What are you talking about? What methods have I suggested?



Hitting people. Mostly. Which I am all for by the way. But you do have to follow the evidence.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Hitting people. Mostly. Which I am all for by the way. But you do have to follow the evidence.


here's my statement.  What evidence is needed?


JowGaWolf said:


> if hitting them was the only way to stop the assault, then yes, I would hit them.


----------



## aedrasteia (Feb 23, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> here's my statement.  What evidence is needed?



I'm thinking we can benefit from starting a new thread. Your thoughts?  Others?  Moderators?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Hitting people. Mostly. Which I am all for by the way. But you do have to follow the evidence.


Yes I think it's a good idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That is still not the same as saying someone is unqualified. Unverified is not the same thing.


The difference is that with someone whose qualification has not been (or cannot be) verified, you simply don't know whether they are qualified or not. If some valid test or trial has been applied, you know one way or another. 

To say unverified is the same as unqualified would be to say that someone cannot hit a home run with their odd swing because you've never seen them hit one, nor heard any verifiable claim of it. Obviously, if they've been playing a while and watched, the lack of verification makes it really likely they are unqualified to hit a home run. However, maybe they simply haven't been watched by anyone who could report it to you.

The point is, not knowing is not the same as knowing a negative. Wherever possible, validation is a good thing. Its absence is not proof of a problem - just lack of proof of a solution.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The difference is that with someone whose qualification has not been (or cannot be) verified, you simply don't know whether they are qualified or not. If some valid test or trial has been applied, you know one way or another.
> 
> To say unverified is the same as unqualified would be to say that someone cannot hit a home run with their odd swing because you've never seen them hit one, nor heard any verifiable claim of it. Obviously, if they've been playing a while and watched, the lack of verification makes it really likely they are unqualified to hit a home run. However, maybe they simply haven't been watched by anyone who could report it to you.
> 
> The point is, not knowing is not the same as knowing a negative. Wherever possible, validation is a good thing. Its absence is not proof of a problem - just lack of proof of a solution.



There is this concept called the celestial tea cup.
Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

It is not up to me to disprove the claims or ability of any given self defence guru. It is up to them to prove it.

So if they are unqualified and unverified. I am a lot safer assuming they are crap than I am assuming they are good but I just haven't seen the results yet.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 3, 2016)

I don't think you are using Celestial tea cup correctly here.

If you did, that would mean your mother was a virgin when she gave birth to you. After all you have no proof she actually 'did it'. It is just hearsay from those involved. This would make you a holy man, but do not let that go to your head.

Secondly noone on a forum can ever provide proof over a forum, any attempt of doing so can be argued and as such nothing is true if written on the internet. A healthy view to have perhaps but would also make the existence of a forum rather boring for all non-trolls.

To conclude, celestial tea cup is just a non-proven theory you brought up that can not be proven because it is just as celestial as the tea cup itself. Without proof the theory of nothing being true unless proven is not true. Or is it? Since if it is not true, that means it could be true without being proven.

Logic hurts.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I don't think you are using Celestial tea cup correctly here.
> 
> If you did, that would mean your mother was a virgin when she gave birth to you. After all you have no proof she actually 'did it'. It is just hearsay from those involved. This would make you a holy man, but do not let that go to your head.
> 
> ...



There are accepted arguments in logic. The celestial tea cup is very applicable to the constantly shifting goal posts of self defence. Which almost always relies on heresay and dogma to support their views. 

You can provide proof over the internet and it can be scrutinised for veracity. So to suggest proof is the same as no proof is not correct. 

You can still use logic as evidence. Especially accepted logic..


----------



## Phobius (Mar 4, 2016)

I actually disagree, proof can only be peovided when people can agree on terms and definitions. The only ones you can prove anything to is A. Yourself and B. Those that want to believe you.

There of course exceptions such as discussing terms where all parameters can be experienced by each individual such as that humans have five toes on each foot. And still that is not anything than an incorrectly defined statement which is proven false already.

Truth be told you should not care about whether or not someone makes an attempt to prove themselves. Simply have a discussion and allow people to clarify themselves and argue with you.

Celestial teapot is missing one aspect, most things in life is neither True nor False. Both alive and dead until you actually look on it for real. Therefore proof is not the term here, sane is. Is it sane. Logic can be argued and is based on the person you talk to.

As for this discussion, You dont need any proof and you know that.. You only need to understand, try or visualize and then make up your own mind. If you wish you can then argue that your truth must be same for all but the statement that your truth is the truth for all would be a celestial teapot. It would be impossible to prove AND True or not would change nothing for anyone.


----------



## Buka (Mar 4, 2016)

*So, the physical element of SD is important too..

So you are the 60ish year old, you check behind you just in time to spot the punch.
What aspect/technique from your chosen art do you employ to defend against it?

Then, facing four larger opponents each around a quarter of your age and an eighth of your morals, what do you do next?*

First aspect_ -_ I move as I turn, angling and drawing blade_. _I'd use a number six strike on the draw, slashing upwards from right to left (hardest to see, hardest to evade) I'm still moving using what we call "landscaping" to take advantage of position within their numbers.

Let's give the four guys the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they're well trained, even their combined training years isn't equal to mine. And I was trained by better people (or I would know these four). If they're not trained, let's call them hard core city boys. They're time on the streets doesn't add up to mine. Neither does their familiarity with violence. Either this is their first time attacking one individual, in which case they are seriously screwed, but more than likely they've done it before and had success. If so, they're not used to adapting to a situation that's gone haywire. (they hardly ever are). By this point you don't have to beat all four, as one will be running because in the time it took to type this two more have been cut repeatedly.

As for morals, I gave up morals in street fighting before any of these four morons were born.

The second thing I'm going to do is invoke my right to remain silent and wait for my attorney.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 4, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I actually disagree, proof can only be peovided when people can agree on terms and definitions. The only ones you can prove anything to is A. Yourself and B. Those that want to believe you.
> 
> There of course exceptions such as discussing terms where all parameters can be experienced by each individual such as that humans have five toes on each foot. And still that is not anything than an incorrectly defined statement which is proven false already.
> 
> ...




But we are not arguing my truth against yours. This is not two conflicting dogmas.

We are arguing dogma against evidence as a way of determining if the self defence program is the martial arts equivalent of astrology.

The reason for this is at some point you may want to actually use the self defence system for self defence.

So yes I do need proof.

*Celestial teapot is missing one aspect, most things in life is neither True nor False. Both alive and dead until you actually look on it for real. Therefore proof is not the term here, sane is. Is it sane. Logic can be argued and is based on the person you talk to.*


"Until you actually look at it for real" is proof. And is the point of the celestial tea cup. Anything can be argued that it exists. Just not everything does.

Otherwise you don't have to agree on terms and definitions. People try that mess and it is a cheap means of controlling the conversation. Like this thread. Let's define self defence as exactly the scenario I want. And so therefore I am right.

You just explain your own definition when you are using it. Happens all the time.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 5, 2016)

Self defense is already defined legally. Nothing you or I can do to redefine it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is this concept called the celestial tea cup.
> Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki
> 
> It is not up to me to disprove the claims or ability of any given self defence guru. It is up to them to prove it.
> ...



Yes, except for the part where you again mis-apply the term "unqualified". And the same holds true for ANYONE claiming their teaching is effective for self-defense - including MMA folks, BJJ folks, cops, Marines, Krav Maga, etc. Unless their students are regularly attacked on the streets and able to defend themselves, there is no valid testing. Testing in competition is not a valid measure of self-defense. You and I both know it's a reasonable assessment of skill, and maybe the best testing we can reasonably get, but it's still not actually a valid test for self-defense. (And, here, I'm using the term "valid" as it is used in scientific references - does the test actually test for what it claims.)

All we can really do is evaluate it for ourselves. We should all go in assuming the training is NOT valid, and then judge for ourselves. Still, for all that, "unverified" does not equal "unqualified". They are entirely different things.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 5, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, except for the part where you again mis-apply the term "unqualified". And the same holds true for ANYONE claiming their teaching is effective for self-defense - including MMA folks, BJJ folks, cops, Marines, Krav Maga, etc. Unless their students are regularly attacked on the streets and able to defend themselves, there is no valid testing. Testing in competition is not a valid measure of self-defense. You and I both know it's a reasonable assessment of skill, and maybe the best testing we can reasonably get, but it's still not actually a valid test for self-defense. (And, here, I'm using the term "valid" as it is used in scientific references - does the test actually test for what it claims.)
> 
> All we can really do is evaluate it for ourselves. We should all go in assuming the training is NOT valid, and then judge for ourselves. Still, for all that, "unverified" does not equal "unqualified". They are entirely different things.



I can make my home safer by seeking advice from a qualified builder. Self defence from a qualified instructor.

I can seek advice from a qualified fighter. Self defence from a qualified instructor.

I could learn to run from a qualified instructor. I could verify that by competing in running races.

I can go on lonley planet and use their verified saftey tips. 

I could go to a self defence school and learn from an instructor that is unqualified and use a method that is unverified. And be expected to evaluate for my self.

What we can't do is evaluate for ourselves because as humans we are basically terrible at that. Hence things like astrology.


----------



## Steve (Mar 5, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Self defense is already defined legally. Nothing you or I can do to redefine it.


even self defense experts around here use the term in different ways.  The legal meaning is only one of the many different ways the term is used.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I can make my home safer by seeking advice from a qualified builder. Self defence from a qualified instructor.
> 
> I can seek advice from a qualified fighter. Self defence from a qualified instructor.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with any of those statements, though I find the "unqualified and unverified" statement a continuing combining of dissimilar concepts. In that sentence, you've restated the same thing we've discussed over the last few exchanges, but I'm not sure I'm any clearer on where our disagreement is.

Okay, so we're back to a question I should have asked earlier: how do you define "qualified" in regards to a self-defense instructor (before you have a chance to evaluate it yourself)?


----------



## MaxRob (Mar 6, 2016)

I live in a part ofthe world where you can be mugged even killed for 10 $, where at night you are at high risk on the street, certain parts one avoids, as you cannot beat them all.further there are terrorism risks.
As a result I train  and have trained specifically for self defense and for situational issues, all forms of martial arts interest me.
In this field I need to thank the teachings of Adriano Emperado, in Kajukembo and his philosophy "that if someone was afraid of pain they would be defeated the first time in conflict, the main teacher was pain " "make pain your friend" whereas this is not for everyone, for those of us with a  high to v high genetic pain threshold, Adriano Directo Emperado's teachings in self defense are tantamount, it gives us that edge in self defense , we can use received painful blows, providing they are not knock out head or neck strikes , to our advantage , your opponent expects you do scream or go down in pain, you can scream but hit the person with an ace in your sleeve they don't see it coming. Ok the big bully knees you a low one, with the intention to knife you,next that person has no eyes, sorry for the horror but self defense is keeping alive against all odds, rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I agree self defense is not MMA fights in the ring,but a way to getting quickly to safety ,if necessary run, in fact running is an excellent practice,
Last thing is conflict, but it may be necessary to get away.
Self defense is highly situational, use and make use of all weapons around you, and be prepared to cause maximum damage, don't trust the classic painful spots as people can have high pain thresholds or be filled with narcotics, speed is of maximum essence once you decide to strike it is war, the laws of the ring do not apply, if one is hit but not knocked out despite all pain resist, soil in the eyes etc all situational wepons around  use,repeated strikes till the opponent is out cold, in the case of multiple attackers, best to run for it, or hit who you feel is the ring leader, find a weapon use it, shout out lowd, disable who you can
Fight tooth and nail, bite, gouge and run for it.
An important part I find in this training is how to improvise available weapons and use them.
Then there is armed attack, again very situational,attacks can ome from behind, making defense tricky, a game of words may help gain time, but it may not, if they are after valuables or money and are multiple and one has judged ones chances, best give them the required, if there is no firearm one can try to strike and run. Disabling a person with a firearm at close range, if it is the only firearm can be possible with great skill,but is v tricky and one could die.

 Calm mind ,Awareness and avoidance are main self defense pillars, and these require an insight, eyes , ears , voice tone, and maybe a sense to feel danger. Some have got away by mimicking an epileptic fit, but it would not be my choice.

I would rather be bored than be like a spring reay to recoil.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I don't disagree with any of those statements, though I find the "unqualified and unverified" statement a continuing combining of dissimilar concepts. In that sentence, you've restated the same thing we've discussed over the last few exchanges, but I'm not sure I'm any clearer on where our disagreement is.
> 
> Okay, so we're back to a question I should have asked earlier: how do you define "qualified" in regards to a self-defense instructor (before you have a chance to evaluate it yourself)?



There isn't a qualification in self defence. There may be qualifications in some of the components. Like asking for a qualified witch doctor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There isn't a qualification in self defence. There may be qualifications in some of the components. Like asking for a qualified witch doctor.


That makes sense. So, what qualifications would you look for before going to check it out, and in what components? For me, I really only have "red flags", so anti-qualifications, and those are all judgement calls - things like language in the website, listing too many qualifications (ironically), etc.


----------



## Paul_D (Mar 24, 2016)

Apologies for my unplanned absence soon after posting the OP, I had issues in the real world that took priority.  I have not been ignoring you all on purpose, honest ;-)  The replies, as always, make interesting reading, and it is good to see things thought other peoples eyes, and get a different perspective on things.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That makes sense. So, what qualifications would you look for before going to check it out, and in what components? For me, I really only have "red flags", so anti-qualifications, and those are all judgement calls - things like language in the website, listing too many qualifications (ironically), etc.



I judge by my own experience. But i have experience in self defence.

Honestly they do have to be able to understand fighting. Not because it is the be all but because it gives me something solid i can take a guage off.

Red flags for me is dogma and hypotheticals.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I judge by my own experience. But i have experience in self defence.
> 
> Honestly they do have to be able to understand fighting. Not because it is the be all but because it gives me something solid i can take a guage off.
> 
> Red flags for me is dogma and hypotheticals.


Like you, I only have my own judgement to go on. I wish there was a good way to create qualifications, but I don't think we could find an objective standard that fits all styles fairly. I've seen YouTube videos saying things like, "If they don't have a full Redman suit, they don't teach effective self-defense." Which means they don't think you can practice ANYTHING useful without that suit. A suit which, by the way, greatly restricts the attacker's mobility and ability to feel strikes, and also renders them difficult to throw with many standard techniques.

I don't mind hypotheticals (to me, that's just someone saying, "If this happens..."). I'm not going to wait around for someone in the dojo to actually give an attack I want to train against - I'll teach someone to give the attack so we can practice on it. I do want the hypothetical situation to then be tested in multiple ways (full speed if safe, full resistance unless that would just lead to a different defense, etc.).

Like your reading their ability from fighting, I read it in the students' attacks. I can watch a few students give attacks (not new ones - someone who's been around a year or more), and I can tell if there's much realism going on. I know some fantastic technicians - even one who has put this stuff to the test in some messy encounters, so you know he can - whose students give lousy attacks, so don't learn as much as they might.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Like you, I only have my own judgement to go on. I wish there was a good way to create qualifications, but I don't think we could find an objective standard that fits all styles fairly. I've seen YouTube videos saying things like, "If they don't have a full Redman suit, they don't teach effective self-defense." Which means they don't think you can practice ANYTHING useful without that suit. A suit which, by the way, greatly restricts the attacker's mobility and ability to feel strikes, and also renders them difficult to throw with many standard techniques.
> 
> I don't mind hypotheticals (to me, that's just someone saying, "If this happens..."). I'm not going to wait around for someone in the dojo to actually give an attack I want to train against - I'll teach someone to give the attack so we can practice on it. I do want the hypothetical situation to then be tested in multiple ways (full speed if safe, full resistance unless that would just lead to a different defense, etc.).
> 
> Like your reading their ability from fighting, I read it in the students' attacks. I can watch a few students give attacks (not new ones - someone who's been around a year or more), and I can tell if there's much realism going on. I know some fantastic technicians - even one who has put this stuff to the test in some messy encounters, so you know he can - whose students give lousy attacks, so don't learn as much as they might.



The hypotheticals are these stories like "a fight is always at close range. So we have to constantly fight in the pocket" silliness


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The hypotheticals are these stories like "a fight is always at close range. So we have to constantly fight in the pocket" silliness


Ah, to me those aren't hypotheticals - they're bad assumptions (that's just semantics, though - we essentially agree on the problem). They're okay for a given study (what if we have to fight in the pocket), but lousy as an overall basis for training (we always have to fight in the pocket).


----------

