# Why Krav Maga when nothing is enough?



## marques (Apr 18, 2016)

Why Krav Maga when nothing is enough?

Watch: Woman Holding Baby Fights Off Gunman


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2016)

Who says she hasn't had training in something? With or without training that could have gone horribly wrong.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 18, 2016)

What does krav maga have to do with the link? I'm not seeing the relation


----------



## marques (Apr 18, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> What does krav maga have to do with the link? I'm not seeing the relation


Don't be too serious. I could say "I training martial arts when nothing is enough?" but it is a situation heavily marketed in Krav Maga...

And @Tez3, she doesn't look very skilled to me, just astonishing relaxed! Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 18, 2016)

Her and the man with the chair were lucky the gunman was a wimp that didn't want to shoot. A lot of guys wouldn't hesitate to put a few rounds in them.


----------



## marques (Apr 18, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Her and the man with the chair were lucky the gunman was a wimp that didn't want to shoot. A lot of guys wouldn't hesitate to put a few rounds in them.


Probably a fake or uncharged gun. At least a shot in the void would avoid the ridiculous and made him some profit...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 18, 2016)

Still don't see the relation to martial arts in general. As far as I know, neither person practiced a martial art. One guy couldnt/didnt pull the trigger, the lady called the bluff. What about krav/martial arts is not enough?


----------



## lklawson (Apr 18, 2016)

marques said:


> Why Krav Maga when nothing is enough?
> 
> Watch: Woman Holding Baby Fights Off Gunman


What point are you trying to make?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## marques (Apr 18, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> As far as I know, neither person practiced a martial art.


Exactly. No training was enough (no training was required) to solve a situation like this. Lucky people..
Yet, some may argue there is training here...


----------



## marques (Apr 18, 2016)

lklawson said:


> What point are you trying to make?


My point was: 
Gun disarming may have application in real world (_en plus_, where I lived), contradicting my belief that it is 'impossible' and this situation 'never' happens. And the woman in fact had the opportunity to disarm the guy... Also, it was fun.

You can make your points.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 18, 2016)

marques said:


> You can make your points.


I was trying to figure out yours, not make one of my own.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 18, 2016)

Ah, I understand now, I misunderstood what you were originally saying.
Training may not have been necessary in this encounter, but there are plenty of other times when a lack of training would have been very risky/result in the person being killed/hurt/raped/etc. There are times when it won't help, but your chances are better if you have training


----------



## marques (Apr 18, 2016)

marques said:


> Probably a fake or uncharged gun. At least a shot in the void would avoid the ridiculous and made him some profit...


...And it seems that in fact there was 2 shots. Lucky people...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2016)

marques said:


> Feel free to disagree.



Moi? 

Mothers and she is one you can tell by the way she's holding the child, are prepared for anything and will take on anyone, mothers are fierce.


----------



## Steve (Apr 18, 2016)

The specter of confirmation bias in self defense rears its ugly head again.    She is lucky she survived, if untrained, or proof her particular style of MA works if she is trained.  Of course, if she had not survived, she would be either unlucky or she should have taken some classes in {insert whatever art you teach}.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> The specter of confirmation bias in self defense rears its ugly head again.    She is lucky she survived, if untrained, or proof her particular style of MA works if she is trained.  Of course, if she had not survived, she would be either unlucky or she should have taken some classes in {insert whatever art you teach}.


Are you contending that physical defensive training is not effective? Not useful? There's no confirmation bias in the statement that she was lucky. I (and most martial artists I know) would say the same thing for anyone who survives a gun attack, regardless of their training.

And, if she had training, and if the training showed in a response (using techniques and principles from her training) then it would, in fact, be some reasonable evidence of effectiveness (in that specific situation) for that training.


----------



## Steve (Apr 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Are you contending that physical defensive training is not effective? Not useful? There's no confirmation bias in the statement that she was lucky. I (and most martial artists I know) would say the same thing for anyone who survives a gun attack, regardless of their training.
> 
> And, if she had training, and if the training showed in a response (using techniques and principles from her training) then it would, in fact, be some reasonable evidence of effectiveness (in that specific situation) for that training.


I think there's no incentive for martial arts instructors to explore other possibilities.  

I contend that there is a self serving bias when reviewing any scenario like this.   There are only four possibilities ever entertained, often without or in some cases contrary to statistical evidence.  

1:  the person is trained in a style (any style) and survives.  This is evidence that the style is effective.

2:  this same person does not survive.  Bad luck and certainly not evidence that the style is ineffective.  

3:   The person is untrained and survives.   He/she is lucky. 

4:   This untrained person does not survive.   Should have trained.

This is pretty much how these discussions go.   This is a 3 but could be a1, as tez suggests.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think there's no incentive for martial arts instructors to explore other possibilities.
> 
> I contend that there is a self serving bias when reviewing any scenario like this.   There are only four possibilities ever entertained, often without or in some cases contrary to statistical evidence.
> 
> ...



As I said, the martial artists I know would be more likely to say, "Good thing that person had training - got lucky and survived that one!" They see the training as contributing, but the situation is low-percentage, so training is a help but not an assurance.

You say there's no incentive for martial artists to look for other explanations, but I'd argue that. For skeptical martial artists (those who are not simply taking everything at face value - including one of my favorite students), and for the open-minded martial artists (those who love to learn from every source they can find - including me), there is much incentive to look for what worked. I haven't looked at the video yet, but when I do, I'll be looking for what worked, what seemed to not have an effect, and what seemed to create a more dangerous situation in the moment, and what could have been different in the situation to change any of those three classifications. I do that regardless of whether the clip is of a martial artist or of an untrained person. I think I'm not alone in that.


----------



## Steve (Apr 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, the martial artists I know would be more likely to say, "Good thing that person had training - got lucky and survived that one!" They see the training as contributing, but the situation is low-percentage, so training is a help but not an assurance.
> 
> You say there's no incentive for martial artists to look for other explanations, but I'd argue that. For skeptical martial artists (those who are not simply taking everything at face value - including one of my favorite students), and for the open-minded martial artists (those who love to learn from every source they can find - including me), there is much incentive to look for what worked. I haven't looked at the video yet, but when I do, I'll be looking for what worked, what seemed to not have an effect, and what seemed to create a more dangerous situation in the moment, and what could have been different in the situation to change any of those three classifications. I do that regardless of whether the clip is of a martial artist or of an untrained person. I think I'm not alone in that.


Okay. My experience is that it always comes back to one of these four explanations, which is well documented in several years of reading these threads.   I look forward to your non-self serving analysis, where you don't start discussing all of the things you teach that would actually have helped her survive better, or the things that she did wrong that still worked, but you teach your students never to do.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think there's no incentive for martial arts instructors to explore other possibilities.
> 
> I contend that there is a self serving bias when reviewing any scenario like this.   There are only four possibilities ever entertained, often without or in some cases contrary to statistical evidence.
> 
> ...


I contend that this confrontation is a 3 on your list of 4. If it was considered a 1, as Tez contends, then you have to consider the shooters lack of nerve, or lack of skill, for her surviving.
And let's not discount the guy with the chair. For we all know that a chair will always stop a flurry of bullets


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> Okay. My experience is that it always comes back to one of these four explanations, which is well documented in several years of reading these threads.   I look forward to your non-self serving analysis, where you don't start discussing all of the things you teach that would actually have helped her survive better, or the things that she did wrong that still worked, but you teach your students never to do.


If they worked in that situation, they aren't wrong. On the other hand, if they just barely didn't make things worse, they might be wrong...in that situation. That shouldn't be a matter of style, but a matter of objective analysis of the situation. Given that most techniques look like crap in real use, it would be difficult to term anything "wrong" unless it's nearly always going to make things more dangerous (like telling a yelling person to "calm down").


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 20, 2016)

For me, it is not a question of martial arts.  Whether someone is totally untrained, or they have a wall full of balck belt ceritifiactes is irrelevent, to me the only relevant question should be; Do I want to risk dying for the contents of my till?


----------



## Steve (Apr 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> If they worked in that situation, they aren't wrong. On the other hand, if they just barely didn't make things worse, they might be wrong...in that situation. That shouldn't be a matter of style, but a matter of objective analysis of the situation. Given that most techniques look like crap in real use, it would be difficult to term anything "wrong" unless it's nearly always going to make things more dangerous (like telling a yelling person to "calm down").


Not necessarily.  Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation.   Things can be very misleading if you're lookojg for support for a predetermined position.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 21, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Are you contending that physical defensive training is not effective? Not useful? There's no confirmation bias in the statement that she was lucky. I (and most martial artists I know) would say the same thing for anyone who survives a gun attack, regardless of their training.
> 
> And, if she had training, and if the training showed in a response (using techniques and principles from her training) then it would, in fact, be some reasonable evidence of effectiveness (in that specific situation) for that training.



It is not the style it is the individual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 30, 2016)

Steve said:


> Not necessarily.  Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation.   Things can be very misleading if you're lookojg for support for a predetermined position.


Nothing in my comment in any way spoke to correlation of any sort.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is not the style it is the individual.


It is actually both. If the person has been taught ineffective techniques, and has learned them very well (so that they become habitual), their intent won't matter as much as if they have learned reasonably effective technique. On the other hand, if two people learn reasonably effective techniques, and one is more committed (both to the training, and to their defense), that person will be far more effective in the application of the techniques.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 30, 2016)

Is there a point in this thread, anywhere? I'm just curious.


----------



## Steve (Apr 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Nothing in my comment in any way spoke to correlation of any sort.


You said if it worked its not wrong.   If it worked it may be wrong or not wrong or completely irrelevant.


----------



## Steve (Apr 30, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Is there a point in this thread, anywhere? I'm just curious.


aren't you trying to make a point of your own by asking your question?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 30, 2016)

Steve said:


> aren't you trying to make a point of your own by asking your question?


 Indeed. With style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> You said if it worked its not wrong.   If it worked it may be wrong or not wrong or completely irrelevant.


Exactly. Correlation is a statistical term. I was speaking about individual incidents.


----------



## lklawson (May 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Exactly. Correlation is a statistical term. I was speaking about individual incidents.


It's a polite way of saying that your referenced anecdotal evidence is exactly that: anecdotal and trying to expand it to an entire group is scientifically unsound.

Have you heard the one about ice-cream causing snake-bite or "post hoc ergo propter hoc?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 2, 2016)

lklawson said:


> It's a polite way of saying that your referenced anecdotal evidence is exactly that: anecdotal and trying to expand it to an entire group is scientifically unsound.
> 
> Have you heard the one about ice-cream causing snake-bite or "post hoc ergo propter hoc?"
> 
> ...


Except that I didn't expand it to an entire group. I said if an action or choice worked in that moment then it was effective in that moment. It might be again later - probably would be, in a very similar situation. That makes no statement about the art's effectiveness. Perhaps I wasn't clear in that distinction - I'm actually too lazy to go back and re-read my own statement at the moment, so there may be a point there.

Anyway, my point was that the effectiveness of something in a given situation can only be judged against that situation. Did it appear (all we can usually say) to be effective, neutral, or dangerous in that particular moment. Then, of course, we have to do our best to figure out the "why" (for all three possible outcomes), so we can make some generalized decision for later use. This last part is the most dubious, and where there's the most room for argument. I might think it worked because the person moved a certain way, while you might think it worked because of the type of strike they moved, and another person might think it's all about the way the person yelled - startling the attacker, while someone else (why are all these people butting into our argument?) might think it was entirely a matter of the person's strength.

In no case would I think it's appropriate to generalize from a single instance (or even a few) to the effectiveness of an art, style, system, or method of training. You need a ton more evidence (and the resulting randomness that controls other variables) before you can start to cross that correlation-causality line.


----------

