# FASD Street Fighting Strategy



## First Action (Feb 2, 2013)

This is a direct excerpt from the book 'How To Street Fight'. First Action Self Defense Manual One.


-----


The key to fighting, like most things in life, is simplicity. You want to win the fight in the simplest possible way. Even strategy is not complicated. In a fight you do not want, or need to think hard about strategy. If you have been training for realism then it will be second nature, that is, you want your strategies to be instinctive so you don't lose time with thought.


1.301 Adopt The Correct Mindset


Know in yourself that you are going to win. Having the correct winners mindset is often enough on its own to win a fight, however, you need to keep it balanced. Never under or overestimate your opponent or yourself. Fight as best you can every time.


Treat every fight as if you're fighting for your life. Never give up and expect to be hit. It is the mindset of a warrior, or soldier at war. You can cultivate this mindset in training firstly by channelling your anger when Sparring. If you find it hard to channel your anger, or you're generally not an angry person, try repeating the mantra 'KILL KILL KILL' in your head as you attack. Some people dont like doing this because they feel it will change them internally and they do not wish to have a killer mindset. This is not true. In fact, I have found that by releasing your anger in this way, you are more calm in your normal course of life. It is in fact a healthy release of emotion.


In the midst of all this, you must also keep calm. Your personal calmness can infect those around you which may be enough to make your attacker(s) leave you alone. More importantly, being calm makes you less likely to make poor decisions and enhances your awareness. Calmness and awareness can be instilled through meditation. Meditation is covered in the FASD Survival Fitness Manual.


1.302 Your Ultimate Aim In A Street Fight


To incapacitate your opponent in the fastest possible way, while incurring the least possible damage to yourself.


Note: Incurring the least damage to yourself is not limited to personal physical well-being. It also covers your emotional damage, damage to loved ones, property etc. and entails any legal ramifications that may follow. The amount of damage you inflict on your opponent should be 'capped' at what is needed to stop him/her/them from being a threat.


To incapacitate your opponent basically means to leave him on the ground for long enough for you to escape. This is achieved by using one or more of four basic strategies. They are presented in order of preference, which means that you should always think to apply strategy one first. If that is not possible, then move onto strategy two and so on. Moving through these strategies can happen extremly fast, and resorting back to any of them when the opporunity presents itself is what will give you the best chance of victory.


Basic Strategy One: Disable with a weapon


Basic Strategy Two: Disable from behind


Basic Strategy Three: Disable from the front


Basic Strategy Four: Disable on the ground


Whilst adapting these strategies you use what is known in FASD (First Action Self Defense) as Position and Disable. Position refers to adopting and keeping advantages positions in order to Disable. Once in Position, Disable techniques are used to incapacitate your enemy. Disable techniques are grouped into the following categories:


Choke. Choke your opponent until he's unconscious


KO (Knock Out). Strike your opponent to the point where he can't get up


Break. Incapacitate your opponent by breaking one or more of his bones


Eyes. Take out your opponents' vision either directly or indirectly


Ground And Finish. Put him to the ground and then incapacitate him there. The best way to finish is to KO him by stomping since you wont have to crouch over him, unless you take him down using a lock in which case you may as well take him out with a break. There are others ways also. To prevent being Taken Down, if he is on the ground and you want to attack, its best to come in from the side.


There any many different ways to Position, the preference of which is different depending on which strategy you are using. Likewise, the preference of which Disable you use is dependant on the Position you are using.


1.303 Go Hard And Don't Let Up


When you strike, hit hard, every time, and never let up or give him time to recover. Always be on the attack, and attack hard. Go 100% from your first strike until he is disabled. The fight should be finished in under 10 seconds, preferably in 3. Any more than this and your either on the floor grappling or you must use longer fighting strategies.


There is no room for compassion until after he has been disabled. It is true that if you give him 'time to breathe' and room to escape he may do so, but if he chooses not to then you have just allowed him time to recover. Also, it gives him the chance to escalate the situation eg pulling out a weapon, getting friends etc. People, like animals, are most dangerous when they feel cornered, so do not give him the chance to get more dangerous than you. Compassion is a wonderful thing in life, but there is no room for it in a life threatening situation. The risk is not worth it. Once you have disabled him you can show your compassion by calling him an ambulance or rendering him first aid.


Note: This does not mean that you are attacking your opponent until his life is threatened. In reality, you should not need to render him first aid or call him an ambulance. The word disabled in this context is to the point where he can not harm you. It is not to mean that you are actually beating him until he is disabled. He only need be disabled for a length of time for you to be able to get away safely. However, different situations will require different outcomes so it is up to you to make the decision of 'how far you go'.


1.304 The Element Of Surprise


Whenever possible, use the element of surprise. This is more commonly done at the very start of a fight, but can also be utilised during a fight. The most obvious form of this is to attack when he is not ready. This may mean attacking from behind or distracting your opponent the moment before you attack. The distraction can be caused by you e.g. screaming, spitting in his face, throwing something at him etc. or by taking advantage of situational distractions i.e. as soon as he shifts his attention to something other than you, even for a split second, attack. Taking opportunity to make the first effective attack will increase your chance of winning at multitude.


Methods of surprise while fighting are more indirect and can include things like getting behind him (be sure to protect your own back at all times) or altering his vision. You could drop under his line of sight, attack his blind spots, manoeuvre so objects and/or the sun blocks his sight, strike his nose (which will make his eyes water), throw something in his eyes eg sand (if throwing sand or similar, be aware of wind direction, you don't want it to blow back into you), knocking his glassed off, physically forcing his head down so he cant see, using his arm to block his view (trapping) etc. In contrast, you must discipline yourself not to get distracted. Never look away from him and always be mindful and alert.


All strategies, positions, disablers etc. are intertwined. You will use any number of them in an infinite number of combinations in order to achieve your ultimate aim during any single fight.


Training in how to do this is what the rest of this manual is focused on.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 2, 2013)

Based on just this exerpt, I see a few things I disagree with. They may be more thouroughly discussed later in your manual though and bring up the issues I am thinking of.


----------



## First Action (Feb 3, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Based on just this exerpt, I see a few things I disagree with. They may be more thouroughly discussed later in your manual though and bring up the issues I am thinking of.



I imagine everyone will disagree with something. I encourage discussion. It is why I posted it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 3, 2013)

Yeah... look, to be honest, I'd argue with pretty much everything. You mis-use the term "strategy" when you mean "tactic", the "mindset" you're talking about is suited to sports, not self defence/street fighting, your "ultimate aim" is very bad advice, your "basic strategies" are again, poorly suited to a realistic look at self defence (but aren't too bad if you're teaching people to be aggressors/street thugs), your methods of finishing the opponent are limiting to the point of negating the types of tactics that should be far higher on the hierarchy, your idea of "go hard" can be seen as overly violent and illegal in many places, leaving the poor student who follows such advice ending up in jail, and again, your comments in "element of surprise" show that you're not really considering realistic self defence, but more teaching to be a street predator/thug. Not advised.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 3, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> (but aren't too bad if you're teaching people to be aggressors/street thugs)



That being said, ive seen folks (Ok, two in total in the course of my entire life, but thats out of a pool of about four instances. 50%. While it would be useful to be able to draw from a bigger pool of firsthand reference, id prefer not having a bigger pool of firsthand reference.) with more reliable tactics/strategies/whathaveyou.



Chris Parker said:


> your comments in "element of surprise" show that you're not really considering realistic self defence, but more teaching to be a street predator/thug. Not advised.



And a street predator will at least be using reliable tactics. I wouldnt call this a good guide to being a street predator. 

To the OP: I have a long version of this reply, and if you want to read it, ill post it. In the interests of being polite, im not initially posting an entire post declining almost everything you just posted.


----------



## chinto (Feb 3, 2013)

I see most of that as invalid and dangerous. who wrote that thing??   Just for starters and I will leave this one for now ... Street fight, as in Self Defense, YOUR Primary Goal is SURVIVAL! so staying to "finish it"  or worrying about a KO or something is sport! Survival is being alive and unhurt! Consider what in there is conducive to the Survival and unhurt part and getting clear and safe?


----------



## First Action (Feb 4, 2013)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll attempt to respond to the points without spending hours on it.

Chris: 





> your methods of finishing the opponent are limiting to the point of negating the types of tactics that should be far higher on the hierarchy



I'd like to hear more about the tactics that should be higher on the hierachy



> your idea of "go hard" can be seen as overly violent and illegal in many places, leaving the poor student who follows such advice ending up in jail, and again, your comments in "element of surprise" show that you're not really considering realistic self defence, but more teaching to be a street predator/thug



My theory is that if every other option of escape has failed eg you can run, talk etc your way out of it, and you are fearing for your life.. then you need to do whatever it takes to win. 

I stand by my ultimate aim and mindset.

Cyracus: 





> To the OP: I have a long version of this reply, and if you want to read it, ill post it. In the interests of being polite, im not initially posting an entire post declining almost everything you just posted.



I too am not interested in replying to essays. But if you one to discuss subjects one by one then Im more than happy.

Chinto:
I agree with most of what you say. Please remember I have titled the post street fighting strategy ie once you are already fighting. This chapter does not intend to cover the aspect of intial ways to get away safely without fighting (which is covered in a previous chapter). 

This post DOES NOT encompass the 'mindset' of FASD, only the mindset of when you are 'forced' to fight.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 4, 2013)

First Action said:


> Cyracus:
> 
> I too am not interested in replying to essays. But if you one to discuss subjects one by one then Im more than happy.



Its not really an essay - However, it covers every single paragraph seperately. On those grounds, im sure you can live without my criticism.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 4, 2013)

First Action said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll attempt to respond to the points without spending hours on it.



Hmm. Let's see how we go, then.



First Action said:


> Chris:
> 
> I'd like to hear more about the tactics that should be higher on the hierachy



The first thing to do is to look at exactly what your listed tactics are. They are, in your order: 
- Choke
- Knock out 
- Break
- Eyes
- Ground and Pound.

With the exception of the attacks to the eyes (which is largely unrealistic, for the record), what you have there are MMA (sporting) tactics. And each of them are great when you're in a ring/cage, there's only one opponent, no weapons, and a ref watching what's happening. But once you get to the more unpredictable street, each are far from recommended. A choke can take 10 to 15 seconds to have a major effect, during which time weapons (such as knives) can do a lot of damage, or friends of your opponent can easily take advantage of the way you're tangled up. The same goes for the Ground and Pound approach at the end. When you talk about "KO'ing" someone, your exact words are "Strike your opponent to the point where he can't get up". Again, that can take quite a fair bit of time and effort, and being focused on such outcomes can blind you to opportunities to escape, or better, faster ways to finish things. Breaks are really just submissions that are taken to an extreme, and require a much more solid grip than you might realize... which again means that you'd be tangled up, leaving you open to weapons and other attackers.

In other words, the entire list is bad (for the context of self defence).

When it comes to better tactics, they should all be centered around the idea of breaking away from the attack and escaping. Pure and simple. Distracting strikes, pre-emptive and retaliatory (depending on the situation) would be preferred... assuming we've gone past the possibility of de-escalation (more passive and aggressive versions).



First Action said:


> My theory is that if every other option of escape has failed eg you can run, talk etc your way out of it, and you are fearing for your life.. then you need to do whatever it takes to win.
> 
> I stand by my ultimate aim and mindset.



The problem is that it's just not that cut and dried... there are a huge degree of variances that can be encountered, both situational and legal, and your approach fails to recognize that. There is no "one size fits all" approach the way it's presented here.



First Action said:


> Cyracus:
> 
> I too am not interested in replying to essays. But if you one to discuss subjects one by one then Im more than happy.



Ha, you're not interested in replying to essays, but invited me to answer.... you haven't seen much of my posts, have you? Mind you, I've been quite gentle this time round.... so far....



First Action said:


> Chinto:
> I agree with most of what you say. Please remember I have titled the post street fighting strategy ie once you are already fighting. This chapter does not intend to cover the aspect of intial ways to get away safely without fighting (which is covered in a previous chapter).
> 
> This post DOES NOT encompass the 'mindset' of FASD, only the mindset of when you are 'forced' to fight.



You missed his point. Chinto was addressing the "fight" part as well... and was saying that the tactics you were suggesting were badly thought out and poorly chosen. In fact, even your signature has things in the wrong order. And, speaking of your signature, I followed the link through to your website, to get a more well-rounded look at where you were coming from... and, I have to say, there was nothing impressive at all. There is no indication of any background of any instructors, just a passing reference to FASD being founded in 2009 (but starting formulation in 2002), but nothing about where it came from, what the training of the founding members was in, or anything to show any credibility for the information being touted. Looking through the various videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/FirstActioncomau/videos), they all struck me as amateurish, nervous, and deeply flawed. There is no reality to the attacks, many of the defensive actions are dangerous (at best!), the weapon defence was terrible, the "use of pen" was borderline illegal in places, and honestly, showed a desperate lack of understanding of violence, weaponry, anatomy, targeting, and many other things.

If I was to offer any advice, it would be to rethink whether or not you're really in a position to be giving self defence advice... being able to self-publish a book and make you-tube videos just isn't good enough, nor are they the relevant credentials. And the relevant credentials seem to be completely lacking. Okay, that was less gentle in the end...


----------



## chinto (Feb 4, 2013)

First Action said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll attempt to respond to the points without spending hours on it.
> 
> Chris:
> 
> ...


Ok it makes more sense once you have been forced to engage, but again getting clear is a major goal. Brake contact and get clear.  For one thing they never seem to come at you one at a time, and 2, a weapon may very well be present... a blade or a gun of one kind or other.  So getting clear is a great Idea if you can. if multiples I do agree with grab one and do a number fast and final on him/her! do it as fast and efficiently as you can! that might buy you that brake to get clear, and if not well one out of combat.  

Depending on where you are , some states have "Duty to Retreat laws" that may make you criminally liable if you did not Retreat as long as you physically could. I understand in some states I understand that it was ruled to include crawling out on a ledge of a building on upper floors to not engage a burglar~! ( that is insane to my way of thinking.. and one more case of safer working conditions for criminals laws ) ..  So I would say check with an attorney about your aria and its laws.


----------



## zDom (Feb 4, 2013)

First Action said:


> You can cultivate this mindset in training firstly by channelling your anger when Sparring. If you find it hard to channel your anger, or you're generally not an angry person, try repeating the mantra 'KILL KILL KILL' in your head as you attack.




... really?


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 4, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, you're not interested in replying to essays, but invited me to answer.... you haven't seen much of my posts, have you? Mind you, I've been quite gentle this time round.... so far....



You have motivated me to not care about the target audience, good sir.

Now,i dont have enough hours in the day to read an entire book, but i dohave enough to read this. (Its busy! Im in the middle of a flood, imboarding people, and im sleep deprived as it is  )




FirstAction said:


> This is a direct excerpt from the book 'How To StreetFight'. First Action Self Defense Manual One.





FirstAction said:


> -----
> 
> 
> Thekey to fighting, like most things in life, is simplicity. You want towin the fight in the simplest possible way. Even strategy is notcomplicated. In a fight you do not want, or need to think hard aboutstrategy. If you have been training for realism then it will besecond nature, that is, you want your strategies to be instinctive soyou don't lose time with thought.



Simplecomes with alot of caveats and definitions. Simple for one personcould be complicated for another. The ability to formulate your owntactics/strategies is important, however there is no codified waythat can be done. Also, im making a mental note to not offeralternatives to whats listed here. Im not your personal trainer noranyone elses 



> 1.301Adopt The Correct Mindset
> 
> 
> Knowin yourself that you are going to win. Having the correct winnersmindset is often enough on its own to win a fight, however, you needto keep it balanced. Never under or overestimate your opponent oryourself. Fight as best you can every time.



Ifyou know you are going to win, youre already overestimating yourself.But since this is just a fight, and not an assault, believing inyourself is fine, i guess.



> Treatevery fight as if you're fighting for your life. Never give up andexpect to be hit. It is the mindset of a warrior, or soldier at war.You can cultivate this mindset in training firstly by channellingyour anger when Sparring. If you find it hard to channel your anger,or you're generally not an angry person, try repeating the mantra'KILL KILL KILL' in your head as you attack. Some people dont likedoing this because they feel it will change them internally and theydo not wish to have a killer mindset. This is not true. In fact, Ihave found that by releasing your anger in this way, you are morecalm in your normal course of life. It is in fact a healthy releaseof emotion.



Mostfights possess a low risk to your life. Fights dont often take placewhen one person is trying to kill the other. Death is most oftenaccidental (or unintentional). If you never give up, you can feedsomeones fire. Say youre laying on the ground with a concussion, andyou kick the guy in the leg while hes posturing and declaring himselfvictorious. Now your dinky fight can escalate to someone giving youbrain damage because you didnt give up 20 seconds ago when he wassatisfied. Expect to be hit is a given. The mindset of a warrior orsoldier in a warzone is to survive and to follow orders - In war, youarent dealing with fights. You can repeat a mantra in training, itwont do much to your emotional state. If you genuinely adopted thatemotional state, youd go kick a wall, leave the gym, arm yourself,wait outside, and murder your sparring partner in front of everyonewhen he leaves to go home and embrace the consequences of youractions. Theres your warrior mindset. At best youre making yourselffeel like youve cheated your way to winning in a sparring bout bythinking one word. Neuro Linguistics dont quite work thatway.



> Inthe midst of all this, you must also keep calm. Your personalcalmness can infect those around you which may be enough to make yourattacker(s) leave you alone. More importantly, being calm makes youless likely to make poor decisions and enhances your awareness.Calmness and awareness can be instilled through meditation.Meditation is covered in the FASD Survival FitnessManual.



Calmnessis a point of view. I cant argue with a point ofview 




> 1.302Your Ultimate Aim In A Street Fight
> 
> 
> Toincapacitate your opponent in the fastest possible way, whileincurring the least possible damage to yourself.



Again,wont argue with opinions. But the other guy feelssimilarly.



> Note:Incurring the least damage to yourself is not limited to personalphysical well-being. It also covers your emotional damage, damage toloved ones, property etc. and entails any legal ramifications thatmay follow. The amount of damage you inflict on your opponent shouldbe 'capped' at what is needed to stop him/her/them from being athreat.



Well,since this is just a mundane fight, the chances of there being damageto your emotions, loved ones, property, or legal ramifications arelimited. Unless it gets off the handle at some stage. By the soundsof it, this manual would get you escalating the situation by tryingthings like spitting at people or screaming at them.



> Toincapacitate your opponent basically means to leave him on the groundfor long enough for you to escape. This is achieved by using one ormore of four basic strategies. They are presented in order ofpreference, which means that you should always think to applystrategy one first. If that is not possible, then move onto strategytwo and so on. Moving through these strategies can happen extremlyfast, and resorting back to any of them when the opporunity presentsitself is what will give you the best chance ofvictory.



Again,i cant and wont argue with points of view. Nothing wrong with thispart.



> BasicStrategy One: Disable with a weapon
> 
> 
> BasicStrategy Two: Disable from behind
> ...



Strategy1 is inherently violent. Itd depend on the situation, of course,however if you get into an unarmed fight, and you are reliant on aweapon to not just freeze up, you should probably let them hit you,take a fall, and live with the ego drop. This is where the word'fight' may have a different meaning than you think it does.Dangerous violent actions dont often come in the form of fights. Ifyou have some vague amount of confidence in your unarmed training,think of it like a game. Thats all it is, most of the time. In thefights that are life threatening, its gonna be multiple people andescape is your best defense. If escape is impossible youre in for afight where no training will give you much of an advantage.
Strategy2 doesnt really make much sense. Youre defending yourself from behindsomeone? If youre behind someone, youre already in a position toleave.
Strategy3 is kinda the definition of fighting.
Strategy4 is also kinda the definition of fighting.
Also,youve pretty much just described your average UFC Bout, if youdisambiguate disabling from behind as being a submission locked infrom behind.



> Whilstadapting these strategies you use what is known in FASD (First ActionSelf Defense) as Position and Disable. Position refers to adoptingand keeping advantages positions in order to Disable. Once inPosition, Disable techniques are used to incapacitate your enemy.Disable techniques are grouped into the followingcategories:



Sure.Again, wont argue with viewpoints.



> Choke.Choke your opponent until he's unconscious
> 
> 
> KO(Knock Out). Strike your opponent to the point where he can't getup
> ...



Chokingcan be hard to do without the element of surprise or without firsthaving an extensive engagement.
Knockingpeople out can be very difficult if theyre among the many people whocouldnt care less about getting hit. Theres alot of people like that,and alot of the time, theyll be glad for a chance to fight someonewho can hit hard for a change.
Peoplecan keep fighting with broken bones of all sorts, and often breakingbones leaves you vulnerable to be hit.
Targettingthe eyes isnt very reliable. As much as impeded vision gives you anadvantage, it could also make someone go from wanting to fight you towanting to murder you for damaging their eyesight.



> GroundAnd Finish. Put him to the ground and then incapacitate him there.The best way to finish is to KO him by stomping since you wont haveto crouch over him, unless you take him down using a lock in whichcase you may as well take him out with a break. There are others waysalso. To prevent being Taken Down, if he is on the ground and youwant to attack, its best to come in from theside.



Stompingis a great way to accidentally kill someone, as mentioned before.That wont knock them out, itll bash their head into the concrete.Also, youre wearing shoes under most normal circumstances. But then,if you have someone down and unable to defend themself, youve alreadywon, from a self defense angle. From a more thuggish angle, a simplestomp works, but there are a fair few 'better' ways to top itoff.



> Thereany many different ways to Position, the preference of which isdifferent depending on which strategy you are using. Likewise, thepreference of which Disable you use is dependant on the Position youare using.



Imwilling to bet youve overcomplicated alot of angles and positions inrelation to the other person 
Forwhat its worth, ive done that. I experimentally codify systems forfun some days when i have nothing else to do. Ive beenthere.



> 1.303Go Hard And Don't Let Up
> 
> 
> Whenyou strike, hit hard, every time, and never let up or give him timeto recover. Always be on the attack, and attack hard. Go 100% fromyour first strike until he is disabled. The fight should be finishedin under 10 seconds, preferably in 3. Any more than this and youreither on the floor grappling or you must use longer fightingstrategies.



Thefight can also be finished in 10 or 3 seconds if he just does thesame to you. Youve pretty much just declared that your strategy iswhat people do when they have no idea what theyre doing. Chargeheadlong into danger with full out aggression hitting nonstop as hardas they can, tangling together, ending up in either a standing orgrounded grappling match, then finishing quickly. Takes about 3-30seconds. Incidentally, its not a bad strategy. But theres a lot moreto methodology than just saying go in there 100%. If it were thatsimple, you could have just pasted that on your inside cover and soldit for a dollar.



> Thereis no room for compassion until after he has been disabled. It istrue that if you give him 'time to breathe' and room to escape he maydo so, but if he chooses not to then you have just allowed him timeto recover. Also, it gives him the chance to escalate the situationeg pulling out a weapon, getting friends etc. People, like animals,are most dangerous when they feel cornered, so do not give him thechance to get more dangerous than you. Compassion is a wonderfulthing in life, but there is no room for it in a life threateningsituation. The risk is not worth it. Once you have disabled him youcan show your compassion by calling him an ambulance or rendering himfirst aid.
> 
> 
> > Chancesare, you wont be thinking about any of that, even in a mundane fight.Even if you were, since its just a fight, provided you havent triedto use a weapon, or attacked his eyes, or tried to stomp on him, hemay well just concur defeat. *shrugs*
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 4, 2013)

Just to add to some of Cyriacus' comments, and because I will argue with opinions....



First Action said:


> 1.301 Adopt The Correct Mindset
> 
> 
> Know in yourself that you are going to win. Having the correct winners mindset is often enough on its own to win a fight, however, you need to keep it balanced. Never under or overestimate your opponent or yourself. Fight as best you can every time.
> ...



Er... no. Everything written here... no. 




Cyriacus said:


> First Action said:
> 
> 
> > In the midst of all this, you must also keep calm. Your personal calmness can infect those around you which may be enough to make your attacker(s) leave you alone. More importantly, being calm makes you less likely to make poor decisions and enhances your awareness. Calmness and awareness can be instilled through meditation. Meditation is covered in the FASD Survival Fitness Manual.
> ...



While a sense of calmness is personal and relative, the idea of "your personal calmness can infect those around you" (when we're dealing with an assault in progress) is just plain fantasy. Additionally, calmness (in high stress, adrenalized situations) isn't instilled via meditation, it's instilled through repeated drilling methods. So, again, this is, at it's heart, wrong.



Cyriacus said:


> First Action said:
> 
> 
> > 1.302 Your Ultimate Aim In A Street Fight
> ...




Oh, I'd argue that opinion!That is far from your "ultimate aim" in street violence... and is all about the idea of "winning" against someone. Your ultimate aim is to escape (safely) and get away. By having the idea of "incapacitating" your opponent as part of the primary ideal, you've missed the point and reality.



Cyriacus said:


> First Action said:
> 
> 
> > To incapacitate your opponent basically means to leave him on the ground for long enough for you to escape. This is achieved by using one or more of four basic strategies. They are presented in order of preference, which means that you should always think to apply strategy one first. If that is not possible, then move onto strategy two and so on. Moving through these strategies can happen extremly fast, and resorting back to any of them when the opporunity presents itself is what will give you the best chance of victory.
> ...




There's a lot wrong with that part... firstly, that the necessary step is to leave the opponent on the ground is again taking things to a point that is unnecessary, and can have you too focused on a single outcome, ignoring the realities of the situation. From there, your entire list of what the "strategies" that should be employed are, and the order, is irresponsible, unrealistic, and, again, borderline (if not outright in some locations) illegal.



First Action said:


> Basic Strategy One: Disable with a weapon
> 
> Basic Strategy Two: Disable from behind
> 
> ...



Yeah, those ones. Cyriacus dealt with them well, but I just wanted to ensure that they were part of this post as well, to show just how bad your advice is.



Cyriacus said:


> First Action said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst adapting these strategies you use what is known in FASD (First Action Self Defense) as Position and Disable. Position refers to adopting and keeping advantages positions in order to Disable. Once in Position, Disable techniques are used to incapacitate your enemy. Disable techniques are grouped into the following categories:
> ...




And, again, I will. This is how to win an MMA-style match, not how to apply self defence strategies and tactics. Everything here smacks of coming from a lack of education in real violence, self defence, and a lack of understanding of sporting methods, such as MMA. Moving to an advantageous position (in self defence) is not the same as moving to one in a competition format, and is not about being able to "incapacitate" the opponent.... it's about escaping safely.

As I said earlier, I don't think there's any real basis to your ideas, other than fantasy. To give an idea of where you're coming from (in combative terms), I would suggest people look over your videos... but, for those that don't like to click on links, I'm going to show just one here. It's on "Chokes", and it is filled with dangerous, poorly applied methods, a lack of knowledge of each choke shown, ineffective defences, a complete lack of ability to apply anything at all.

Hmm, actually, just went to do so, and it appears you've disabled the channel....


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 4, 2013)

See, now i cant help myself. The following is me adding to your comments whilst being in a bit of a time constraint, and not spending the time editing all the relevant previous quotes in together. 



Chris Parker said:


> Oh, I'd argue that opinion!That is far from your "ultimate aim" in street violence... and is all about the idea of "winning" against someone. Your ultimate aim is to escape (safely) and get away. By having the idea of "incapacitating" your opponent as part of the primary ideal, you've missed the point and reality.



Additionally, incapacitating people isnt especially easy. Im going to reference MMA here: Person A does X, person B responds with Y then follows up with Z. Thats sparring for you. X is ineffectual due to Y and Z is effective. Fighting =/= Sparring, and thats still keeping myself from exploding with a rant about how fighting is relatively safe. A question to all: Are you slow, stupid, and monolinear? If so, good for you. If not, name someone you know personally who does not suffer from any defect making them that way who is.



> There's a lot wrong with that part... firstly, that the necessary step is to leave the opponent on the ground is again taking things to a point that is unnecessary, and can have you too focused on a single outcome, ignoring the realities of the situation. From there, your entire list of what the "strategies" that should be employed are, and the order, is irresponsible, unrealistic, and, again, borderline (if not outright in some locations) illegal.



Even if they were legal, its something ive seen in alot of people. They overreact to not knowing what to do and go to what they perceive as being extremes to make up for it.



> And, again, I will. This is how to win an MMA-style match, not how to apply self defence strategies and tactics. Everything here smacks of coming from a lack of education in real violence, self defence, and a lack of understanding of sporting methods, such as MMA. Moving to an advantageous position (in self defence) is not the same as moving to one in a competition format, and is not about being able to "incapacitate" the opponent.... it's about escaping safely.



And even if it were, position isnt overly important so long as you can reach them. Position is overanalysed so that it can be codified. Range and angle matter, but you dont really need to think about them so much as long as youre aware of them.



> As I said earlier, I don't think there's any real basis to your ideas, other than fantasy. To give an idea of where you're coming from (in combative terms), I would suggest people look over your videos... but, for those that don't like to click on links, I'm going to show just one here. It's on "Chokes", and it is filled with dangerous, poorly applied methods, a lack of knowledge of each choke shown, ineffective defences, a complete lack of ability to apply anything at all.
> 
> Hmm, actually, just went to do so, and it appears you've disabled the channel....
> 
> ...



:drinkbeer


----------



## First Action (Feb 4, 2013)

Re-write... I look forward to suggestions on second round revisions.

Also, please read this post... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...vest-your-knowledge-Help-me-improve-my-system


---


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thisis the strategy to adopt while fighting. It assumes that all otheravenues of escape have been exhausted and you are 'forced' to fight.Escape is always your primary goal and every opportunity for escapeshould be taken as soon as it presents itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*1.301Adopt The Correct Mindset*[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Itis common to be afraid in a situation where you are forced to fight,but try to stay calm. Your personal calmness can infect those aroundyou which may be enough to make your attacker(s) leave you alone.Calmness and awareness can be instilled through meditation.Meditation is covered in the FASD Survival Fitness Manual.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Onceyou are engaging in a fight, do not give up. It is not realistic toimagine that you will come out unscathed, but have confidence inyourself that you are going to win. Once you give up in your mind,you have already lost. Never under or overestimate your opponent oryourself. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*1.302Your Ultimate Aim In A Street Fight*[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Toescape to safety with the least amount of damage to yourself and yourloved ones.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Note:*Incurring the least damage to yourself is not limited to personalphysical well-being. It also covers your emotional damage, damage toloved ones, property etc. and entails any legal ramifications thatmay follow. The amount of damage you inflict on your opponent shouldbe 'capped' at what is needed to stop him/her/them from being athreat. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Note2: *This manual covers themethod of escape referred to as Fighting. All other physical methodsof escape are covered in the Survival Fitness manual.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In*extreme/life threatening circumstances*, you may find itnecessary to incapacitate your opponent. This is achieved by usingone or more of four basic strategies. They are presented in order ofpreference, which means that you should always think to applystrategy one first. If that is not possible, then move onto strategytwo and so on. Moving through these strategies can happen extremlyfast, and resorting back to any of them when the opporunity presentsitself is what will give you the best chance of victory.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*BasicStrategy One:* Disable with a weapon[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*BasicStrategy Two:* Disable from behind[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*BasicStrategy Three:* Disable from the front[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*BasicStrategy Four:* Disable on the ground[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Whilstadapting these strategies you use what is known in FASD (First ActionSelf Defense) as Position and Disable. Position refers to adoptingand keeping advantages positions in order to Disable. Once inPosition, Disable techniques are used to incapacitate your enemy.Disable techniques are grouped into the following categories:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Choke.*Choke your opponent until he's unconscious[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*KO(Knock Out). *Strike your opponent to the point where he can't getup[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Break.*Incapacitate your opponent by breaking one or more of his bones[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Eyes.*Take out your opponents' vision either directly or indirectly [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*GroundAnd Finish.* Put him to the ground and then incapacitate himthere. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Note:*The above disable techniques have the ability to cause permanantdamage, including brain damage and even death. Please review the Useof Force chapter. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thereany many different ways to Position, the preference of which isdifferent depending on which strategy you are using. Likewise, thepreference of which Disable you use is dependant on the Position youare using. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*1.303Go Hard And Don't Let Up*[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Whenyou strike, hit hard, every time, and never let up or give him timeto recover. Always be on the attack, and attack hard. Go 100% fromyour first strike until he is disabled. The fight should be finishedin under 10 seconds, preferably in 3. Any more than this and youreither on the floor grappling or you must use longer fightingstrategies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thereis no room for compassion until after he has been disabled. It istrue that if you give him 'time to  breathe' and room to escape hemay do so, but if he chooses not to then you have just allowed himtime to recover. Also, it gives him the chance to escalate thesituation eg pulling out a weapon, getting friends etc. People, likeanimals, are most dangerous when they feelcornered, so do not give him the chance to get more dangerous thanyou. Compassion is a wonderful thing in life, but there is no roomfor it in a life threatening situation. The risk is not worth it.Once you have disabled him you can show your compassion by callinghim an ambulance or rendering him first aid.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Note:*This does not mean that you are attacking your opponent until hislife is threatened. In reality, you should not need to render himfirst aid or call him an ambulance. The word disabled in this contextis to the point where he can not harm you. It is not to mean that youare actually beating him until he is disabled. He only need bedisabled for a length of time for you to be able to get away safely.However, different situations will require different outcomes so itis up to you to make the decision of 'how far you go'.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*1.304The Element Of Surprise*[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Wheneverpossible, use the element of surprise. This is more commonly done atthe very start of a fight, but can also be utilised during a fight.The most obvious form of this is to attack when he is not ready. Thismay mean attacking from behind (for example, if you are aiding aloved one who is under attack) or distracting your opponent themoment before you attack. The distraction can be caused by you e.g.screaming, spitting in his face, throwing something at him etc. or bytaking advantage of situational distractions i.e. as soon as heshifts his attention to something other than you, even for a splitsecond, attack. Taking opportunity to make the first effective attackwill increase your chance of winning at multitude. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Methodsof surprise while fighting are more indirect and can include thingslike getting behind him (be sure to protect your own back at alltimes) or altering his vision. You could drop under his line ofsight, attack his blind spots, manoeuvre so objects and/or the sunblocks his sight, strike his nose (which will make his eyes water),throw something in his eyes eg sand (if throwing sand or similar, beaware of wind direction, you don't want it to blow back into you),knocking his glassed off, physically forcing his head down so he cantsee, using his arm to block his view (trapping) etc. In contrast, youmust discipline yourself not to get distracted. Never look away fromhim and always be mindful and alert. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Allstrategies, positions, disablers etc. are intertwined. You will useany number of them in an infinite number of combinations in order toachieve your ultimate aim during any single fight. *[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]*Training in how to do this iswhat the rest of this manual is focused on.* [/FONT]


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 4, 2013)

No, your trying to paste in what we've said without understanding how it fits with everything else. For example, you've changed the "ultimate aim" to incorporate the idea of escaping safely, but then still have your main methods being the same as before, including attacking with a weapon, attacking from behind... does that really sound like a self defence situation to you? All in all, it's still based in a lack of experience and understanding, and my advice is to abandon it until that is changed.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 4, 2013)

First Action said:


> Re-write... I look forward to suggestions on second round revisions.



Mate, no offense, but just ammending things over and over doesnt make it better. Alot of it is just overstating the effectiveness of what youve mentioned so far, and as Chris said, youre just tacking on other peoples comments. And even they arent entirely accurate, since im fairly sure im not the only person whos not telling you the alternatives because were not your personal trainers.

As for your other thread ([h=2]I want to harvest your knowledge/Help me improve my system)[/h]
So you want us to tell you how to make your system? Mate, i can make my own systems. Why should i help to make yours, and why should someone else? Id rather feel sorry for someone who reads something youve put together like this and takes it as something worth learning.

Im going to reply to your other thread here, since it will lack context if i reply to this thread there.
Your sources of information are horribly flawed.

A training manual cant be perfect, but it can be useful. This isnt useful. Opinions and schools of thought might differ, but by that logic, your system is flawless elite military self defense because opinions and schools of thought are allowed to differ, and so forth. Reality is, some stuff just isnt useful. Round peg meets small square hole.

"So what I would like to do is post this training manual on this forum, so that the wealth of knowledge here can help me in making it better. Perhaps a chapter every other day. I would like feedback on all aspects. For example (but not limited to)"

So you want US to write your book for you? Us to correct all your mistakes, and guzzle our life experience, knowledge, and training into it just for your benefit? Why? The better option would be for you to stop trying to make a book thats been done multiple times by people vastly more qualified whove already covered all the important stuff. 

"- Different schools of thought on theories
- Improvement of technical descriptions
- If you think that something just flat out is not right (preferably accompanied by how to improve it/what is right)
- If you think something is good but you have an improvement
- Gramatical errors (US English)
- Anything you think I should add or remove"

Ive been trying not to be rude, but ive got to break that flow briefly.
Different schools of thought only apply to the means, not the end.
Improving the methods would be better than improving your descriptions.
As to everything else except the grammar part, you can accomplish all of them by removing the manual from existence.

"I will then use the information I feel valid to re-write the manual (Ill post the revisions)."

The information you feel is valid? Thats reassuring.

"Basically any constructive information you have."

Constructive meaning that you agree with, or feel is valid?

"The system has not been created in the mind of replacing formal training or established 'styles'."

That should go without saying - Its not Karate, therefore it isnt replacing Karate. It isnt Judo, therefore it isnt replacing Judo. If it cant stand on its own two legs, its nothing in and of itself.

"Rather, the aim is for the participant to be able to learn the basis of fighting techniques in a short time, and then, if he/she wishes, can continue to train himself and his loved ones. It is hoped that from these base techniques that he/she will be able to adapt and apply the principles to other situations."

Well, so far, i can think of countless ways of teaching people how to fight that can be done without the need for an entire manual. If thats what makes up a system, give me a piece of notebook paper and a pen. Dont actually give me one though, because i dont know you.

"If it is ok, can you suggest a single place where I can post these chapters. It covers a fairlry wide range of subjects and I think it would be better if they where all in one place rather than all over the forum. "

Well, theres the recycle bin.
Or possibly dropbox, if you actually want to waste your time trying to get people to do your job for you.


----------



## First Action (Feb 5, 2013)

I realize that the tone of the comments are not at all flattering to me, and even emotionally driven, so I apologize if I have offended/angered anyone. Its was not my intention. 

In any case, you guys have given me alot to think about.. and your advise also carries on indirectly to other unrelated projects

So under advise given im going to lay off the project in this forum

Thanks for your time


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 5, 2013)

We're not emotionally invested one way or the other, you realize... so no, we haven't been acting (posting) emotionally. In fact, we've been rather clinical in our observations. But, that said, you have still not answered the most important questions (well, any questions, really), namely what experience or background do you have to think you're in a position to offer the type of advice and instruction you're trying to? Additionally, our advice wasn't to stop you pursuing your book and research here (although the way you e gone about it is hardly going to have anyone want to help you), our advice is to spend the necessary time learning first. At the moment, what we see is someone with no clue, a head full of fantasy, no real background, no credibility, little to no skill, trying to put themselves in a position as a source of legitimate, valid information... and, I gotta tell ya, that you ain't. 

In essence, our advice is simple. Stop. Stop putting out books filled with bad advice, dangerous ideas, and misinformation. Stop believing you have something to offer (as a teacher), because you really don't. Stop trying to get others to fill in the blanks for you, go to a proper school for that. I asked where you are (geographically) so we could help with that, again, no answer from you. Pull down your website and Facebook page, they're just feeding a delusion. But above all, stop. Stop so you  can get a clean start.

I really don't want to go through another Destroyer Style or Zenjael saga again...


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 5, 2013)

First Action said:


> I realize that the tone of the comments are not at all flattering to me, and even emotionally driven, so I apologize if I have offended/angered anyone. Its was not my intention.
> 
> In any case, you guys have given me alot to think about.. and your advise also carries on indirectly to other unrelated projects
> 
> ...


Emotionally?
For what its worth, i for one dont get emotional about forum threads 

Well, have fun drifting around seeking a receptive audience rather than a qualified one! (Thats not a promotion of this site - More a comment about where youd find a receptive audience.)
Thats a prediction, more than anything. 



Chris Parker said:


> I really don't want to go through another Destroyer Style or Zenjael saga again...



But theyre so much fun!


----------



## First Action (Feb 5, 2013)

> Well, have fun drifting around seeking a receptive audience rather than a qualified one


But i have been seeking the audience of this forum... ?

Anyway, not important.. I did how-ever come to this realisation this morning..

The problem is that since FASD Fight Training is not a martial art, the place I thought it would fit was in self defense. Clearly it is not. What it actually is, is just a different method of fighting.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In case anyone cares (i realise this statement is open to 'attack', but some of the comments on other threads have made me giggle more than just a little) I am currently updating literature to reflect as such.[/FONT]
--
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]So thanks again for your input and honesty. I would not have come to this realisation without it. 

Also, id just like to point out that you have been basing all your opinions of FASD on a single chapter

Chris - i cant remember if Ive said it yet but my reasons for being here are not to prove myself or seek approval. All I want to do is share ideas and learn from others. My back-ground of knowledge should not be of concern. Does it really matter if someone has given me a certificate or not? If you do not like my ideas, dont read my posts. 

So now, to totally go against all of that, here is a cut and paste of 'my background'..

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Iwas introduced to Martial Arts (Jiu-Jitsu) around 1990. My familymoved every few years and I enjoyed learning from many schools ofthought so I  studied a number of different styles (Shoalin Kung Fu,Jeet Kune Do, Ninjitsu, Boxing, Muay Thai, Shoot Wrestling, Arnissand other various eclectic schools) but never really dedicated toone.  [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In2003 I discovered my passion of travel. I still wanted to train andliked the informality and combination of stand-up and grappling ofMMA (Mixed Martial Arts) so whenever I was settled for a month or 2 Iwould pay on a class by class basis. Also, many MMA gyms offeredother classes (fitness, Muay Thai, Boxing, Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu etc)that I could take advantage of. This, however, did not satisfy mywant for training in weaponry and self defense type techniques, so Ibegan self training.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Selftraining is fine whilst travelling. It is a good way to keep fit andcontinue to practice your skills. However, when-ever I decided tostay in one place for more than a week or two, I discovered  that Idid not have anyone I could spar with. MMA gyms where good forunarmed sparring, but my fight training had weaponry and othertechniques not used in MMA. I decided to create a training program,with the specific aim of training others to have the competance tospar in a short time.  [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]InitiallyI just trained friends. In 2009 I took a year off traveling so beganteaching my method commercially in Australia. I called it FirstAction Self Defense (FASD). During that year it became apparent to methat Self Defense was much more than just fighting, so I extened FASDto  encompasses all aspects of self preservation. The aim being thatif you are ever in any type of danger, whatever it may be, you&#8217;llhave the best possible chance to survive.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In2010 I started traveling again. As I travel I continue to researchand improve FASD in all it's areas. (Withthe philosophy of constant improvement, FASD will continue to bedeveloped and improved for years to come.) I also facilitate trainingcourses (friends and commercially) in all areas of FASD to anyone whowants to learn. [/FONT]


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 6, 2013)

Oh dear...



First Action said:


> But i have been seeking the audience of this forum... ?



That's kinda the point Cyriacus was making, there... here, you have a "qualified" audience (in other words, one who knows what they're talking about, an informed audience is perhaps better), with the only positive response I've seen for you on fighttips, where, honestly, the lack of understanding there on these topics is enormous. They're a MMA forum, and know what works for MMA, with no real understanding of self defence at all (this was seen from reading through a lot of their forum). They would be your "receptive" audience... one that's happy to pat you on the back, and tell you you're doing good. People who know what they're talking about won't. And, as you're not getting the reception you're after here, you've said that you're going to stop bringing this "project" up here... in other words, you're looking for people who will tell you you're doing the right things, rather than tell you what you really need to hear, which is that you're completely unqualified to even begin to attempt teaching these topics.



First Action said:


> Anyway, not important.. I did how-ever come to this realisation this morning..
> 
> The problem is that since FASD Fight Training is not a martial art, the place I thought it would fit was in self defense. Clearly it is not. What it actually is, is just a different method of fighting.
> 
> ...




No.

The problem is that all the advice you offer is bad, and that you have no idea of what you're talking about. That then extends into you having no place thinking of yourself as being in a position to teach these topics, which is really where all this is coming from, and is what you should have taken out of this.



First Action said:


> Also, id just like to point out that you have been basing all your opinions of FASD on a single chapter



No.

My opinion is based on your entire website, your facebook page, your twitter page, all of your videos (before you closed down the channel... and before you came up with the weak, easily disprovable excuses over on MAP that you'd "forgotten" they were there... even though the way I found them was from a blog link on your own website, by you, two days ago to one of the clips), your posts, and so on. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are completely unqualified to teach these topics.



First Action said:


> Chris - i cant remember if Ive said it yet but my reasons for being here are not to prove myself or seek approval. All I want to do is share ideas and learn from others. My back-ground of knowledge should not be of concern. Does it really matter if someone has given me a certificate or not? If you do not like my ideas, dont read my posts.



And wow, do you miss the point there... it's got nothing to do with "proving yourself", it's to do with the fact that you're presenting yourself as a teacher of self defence, and your ideas are so far out of whack with reality that yes, your background of knowledge is absolutely of concern. If you have no real background, no real experience, no real basis for what you're presenting as "good advice and instruction", then yes, it's absolutely of concern.



First Action said:


> So now, to totally go against all of that, here is a cut and paste of 'my background'..
> 
> Iwas introduced to Martial Arts (Jiu-Jitsu) around 1990. My familymoved every few years and I enjoyed learning from many schools ofthought so I  studied a number of different styles (Shoalin Kung Fu,Jeet Kune Do, Ninjitsu, Boxing, Muay Thai, Shoot Wrestling, Arnissand other various eclectic schools) but never really dedicated toone.
> 
> ...



So you did little bits of this and that, with no real basis, no commitment to anything, thinking only of mechanics, and then made a bunch of stuff up. Your longest training is a couple of classes here and there ("when settled for a month or two"), and then a lot of "self training" (in what?)....

Dude, you've learnt a couple of words, maybe a phrase or two, in half a dozen languages, but no diction, no grammar, no structure, no syntax, no conjugation, no formality, and have no fluency or even proper accent or pronunciation.... yet, you're teaching people to "speak foreign languages".

You have no experience, no basis, nothing at all that qualifies you to be a teacher of self defence. You really shouldn't be thinking of yourself as a teacher, you've never even really been a student.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 6, 2013)

Everything Chris said - Additionally, Fighttips is mostly teenagers whos experience comes from high school. Thats not a joke, mind you. Ask them.



First Action said:


> But i have been seeking the audience of this forum... ?
> 
> Anyway, not important.. I did how-ever come to this realisation this morning..
> 
> The problem is that since FASD Fight Training is not a martial art, the place I thought it would fit was in self defense. Clearly it is not. What it actually is, is just a different method of fighting.



Actually, its a poor attempt at emulating self defense. I personally dont value Martial Arts very highly. Im far from biased.



> In case anyone cares (i realise this statement is open to 'attack', but some of the comments on other threads have made me giggle more than just a little) I am currently updating literature to reflect as such.
> --
> 
> So thanks again for your input and honesty. I would not have come to this realisation without it.
> ...



A single chapter that talks about the contents of the book. If you spent a whole chapter providing useless information i dont expect much better from the book.



> Chris - i cant remember if Ive said it yet but my reasons for being here are not to prove myself or seek approval. All I want to do is share ideas and learn from others. My back-ground of knowledge should not be of concern. Does it really matter if someone has given me a certificate or not? If you do not like my ideas, dont read my posts.



So if someone doesnt agree with you or support you, you dont want them to read your post? So you only want people who agree with you to talk to you?
Mate, were all here to learn. But you have to be receptive to learning for that to happen.

Your credentials arent important. Where youre getting your information from is. It IS and SHOULD be the concern of anyone whos reading any of what you have to say. Im not going to learn to wrestle from a gymnast whos never wrestled.



> So now, to totally go against all of that, here is a cut and paste of 'my background'..
> 
> Iwas introduced to Martial Arts (Jiu-Jitsu) around 1990. My familymoved every few years and I enjoyed learning from many schools ofthought so I  studied a number of different styles (Shoalin Kung Fu,Jeet Kune Do, Ninjitsu, Boxing, Muay Thai, Shoot Wrestling, Arnissand other various eclectic schools) but never really dedicated toone.
> 
> ...



You didnt succeed.



> In2010 I started traveling again. As I travel I continue to researchand improve FASD in all it's areas. (Withthe philosophy of constant improvement, FASD will continue to bedeveloped and improved for years to come.) I also facilitate trainingcourses (friends and commercially) in all areas of FASD to anyone whowants to learn.



See, you say youre here to learn, then no matter how much criticsm you receive, you talk about giving people courses and training, whilst 'improving' your system. If you dont want negative feedback, you shouldnt risk getting any to begin with. If you get negative feedback and dont accept it, maybe its you who should be ignoring us.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 6, 2013)

Terrible freaking advice in OP.  How to streetfight?  Really?  Its a bunch of theorycraft malarky based upon ego and fantasy.  Here's the bare bones of street fighting or AKA self defense, don't put your **** in a place where you will find trouble.  if you have accidently put your butt in a bad place, do what you have to do to get out of that place as quickly as you can, using violence as a last resort.  IF violence happens, know what is real and what isn't.  That means using crap that you know intimately and know the likely results of using it.  Adrenaline and fear will f up the best laid plans and really mess with your finer motor skills.  So all this do this and don't do that advice will be at best wasted, at worse a hindrance that keeps someone from just reacting.  I really, really despise these advice post on what to do in a fight.  Very few of them have anything worth while.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 6, 2013)

Everyone has already made any point I was going to make on what is wrong with your viewpoint towards self-defense and fighting. I'm just here to add my support to what has already been said by those whose posts I've placed a thanks under.
I want you to know First Action, that we aren't trying to insult you, it just seems based off what you've presented that you haven't had any solid education in martial arts. If you did (and I encourage you to seek out an art you like now) you would see how your assumptions simply don't match reality.


----------



## First Action (Feb 7, 2013)

This post is probably just going to piss you off even more cause im just going to write.. but whatever.. 

I skimmed through your posts and im not going to address eveything cause its basically the same thing you guys have been saying in different words, and Id probably just repeat the same responses in different words.

I do have an observation for you though. Its a bit off the thread topic topic but that doesnt seem to be a concern.

I've only been active on the forums for about a week, and I posted the exact same posts on numerous forums. I got a variety of responces. Some negative and some positive. I continued to post and converse with all views of thought . Heres what I noticed. This forum and map have very similiar views, and most of you have very similiar ways of expressing them. I think alot of you, like me, are members of both.. so the 'culture' is the same. 

Yes, fight tips is more receptive, which may be due to the points some of you raised, but they seem to understand my questions straight away, and then respond accordingly and on topic. Another forum I post on is selfprotection.com. I mention them because they are like a happy medium. From what Ive read on that forum, some of them have a ton of experience, and they also have many of the same views as you guys but they express them in a very different way. Its hard or me to explain it.. but I gues its like the difference of in real life someone asks you to do something, or someone asks you to do something with a smile. Dont get me wrong, they are not all like that... Ive been slayed pretty hard there too, I guess the difference is that they all express their opinions in a different way with different points, instead of just 'jumping on the repetitive bandwagon' 

-- just an observation

Usually if I think someone is giving poor advice I just ignore it, and if they keep doing it, I start to ignore them as a whole (they usually get a few chances, actually Im quite tolerant so I probs give them more chances than most people would). Im not special with this, almost everyone Ive met does the same. I've mostly done the same here, so why are others different just because we are in a forum setting.

Anyway, in case any of you are still reading (or even started), Im just chillin out for another couple of weeks before I hit the road again... so I've got plenty of time. As you may have noticed I dont take myself or life as a whole too seriously so keep posting and Ill probably just keep responding. Hell, I may even start another thread in a couple of days (assuming I dont get banned)

ahh, free writing is a great way to relax.

Thanks y'all


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 7, 2013)

First Action said:


> This post is probably just going to piss you off even more cause im just going to write.. but whatever..



It really isnt. None of us are pissed off, as you put it. So far, youve suggested that were both pissed off and emotional. Im led to wonder why that is.



> Usually if I think someone is giving poor advice I just ignore it



How do you determine what advice is good and what advice is bad? What qualifies you to determine what advice is good and what advice is bad? Do you consider things which you have written which have been criticized as still being good, by your determination?




> Anyway, in case any of you are still reading (or even started), Im just chillin out for another couple of weeks before I hit the road again... so I've got plenty of time. As you may have noticed I dont take myself or life as a whole too seriously so keep posting and Ill probably just keep responding. Hell, I may even start another thread in a couple of days (assuming I dont get banned)



Banned for what? Do you think youve done something wrong?



> ahh, free writing is a great way to relax.
> 
> Thanks y'all



Sure, but i dont see what you wrote here thats different in tone to your other posts.
As long as you want to discuss this, i dont doubt people will continue to reply. Youre not responding to us, good sir. We are responding to you. And as long as you keep coming back, people will keep responding.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 7, 2013)

http://firstactionselfdefense.net/beat-hostile-gang-street-fight/

Discuss.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 7, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> http://firstactionselfdefense.net/beat-hostile-gang-street-fight/
> 
> Discuss.



Yikes... On so many levels.  Bottom line: he's right that fighting a group is a very bad situation.  His tactics are, apparently, the result of watching too many tv shows and movies.  Among other things -- the leader of a group is often NOT the largest or biggest guy.  His tactics are confrontational, and very likely to create the fight he's talking about trying to avoid.

I'd like him to answer my questions in another thread:

What is his basis for claiming authority to teach self defense?  Does he know the laws on self defense?  Understand the nature of a violent attack, and different types of violence?


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 7, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> http://firstactionselfdefense.net/beat-hostile-gang-street-fight/
> 
> Discuss.



My pleasure.

"If all this fails and physical conflict is inevitable"

Why are you there again?

"Go for the leader of the attackers first and be excessive on him to warn the others"

Right, because the others arent going to be doing anything, those mentally challenged cowards. Because all gangs are a bunch of wimpy cowards, right? Right? And youre a warrior!

" then encourage them to take their friend to hospital."

Because thats totally going to happen.

"Make use of your peripheral vision to detect the direction and nature of the first attack."

That really wont help much.

"It is usually the person who is the first to move towards you in an aggressive fashion."

Ive never seen the leader of a gang make the first move.

"To give yourself the best chance, you want to have it so you only have to take on one attacker at a time."

Yeah! Stick it to those mentally challenged idiots! Just fight them one at a time!

"This can be achieved by lining them up so that they are forced in each others way. Using single lanes and other surroundings can also aid you in this."

Because thatll totally work.

"You could also push them into each other."

Whilst they stand there and let you because theyre mentally challenged cowards. Like all gang members, right?

"If you do get surrounded, break through the circle and take out who you think is the weakest link."

Because getting out of being surrounded by a gang of people intent on hurting you is as simple as exploiting how mentally challenged they are just going for the weak link youll totally be able to identify before youre curled up on the ball crying like a little girl praying for a chance at survival.

"You may also consider finding a weapon, but keep in mind that if you are disarmed then it is more likely that it will be used against you than if you had not picked it up in the first place."

Because those foolish people will obviously give you enough time to do that. You know, being slow and stupid and all that.

"It is very hard to fight more than one person if you are tangled up, so avoid grappling"

Tell them that. If you have to, that is. They might be too stupid to know how to hold you in place.

" and especially being taken to the ground. This means that you need to take care of your balance more than usual, so unnecessary kicking should not be employed. Work to the flanks, try to gain distance, and always continue to look for escape so that you can run as soon as viable."

...right.



The moral of the story is, theres nothing to discuss. This is basically a whole article insulting the intelligence of gang members and making them out to be a bunch of retards, whilst glorifying the abilities of the _vastly superior_ protagonist.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 7, 2013)

Not spending more than 2 seconds on youtube, I found this video that effectively contradicts the information found in the link that Chris Parker posted above.. .






As Cyriacus pointed out, the gang/mob/whatever is not going to fight you one at a time like in the movies.. .


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 7, 2013)

I didn't catch the "if you get surrounded, break through and take out the weakest" line...

Let's see how much is wrong with that...

You're in deep doody already because you're surrounded.  But you see a way out...  and, even more amazingly, you manage to escape.  So, you're going to turn around and attack?!  OK... What was the goal again?  Oh, yeah... survive.  You're out -- keep going!  Especially since you now have this little legal issue that, if you attack, you've now lost the argument that you were defending yourself without a hell of a lot of justification.  

Let me make this real clear.  The legal side is at least as important as the physical side.  Their is a level of truth in the old saw about being tried by 12... because you must survive for it to matter at all.  But if you can't successfully articulate your justifications for you actions, or your actions our outside the law, you may well find yourself as the newest enrollee in Big Bubba's Dancing Class at the state pen...  Or seeing the majority of every paycheck you get for the rest of your life going to someone else's family.

What I've seen of First Action's "self defense" ideas seems heavily influenced by tv and movies, and probably a scattered martial arts background.  My advice is to do some real training, with people who have authority to speak.  That authority can come from training, or experience, or ideally from both.


----------



## First Action (Feb 8, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Do you consider things which you have written which have been criticized as still being good, by your determination?



Some of it, yes.



> Banned for what? Do you think youve done something wrong?


No



> And as long as you keep coming back, people will keep responding.



Excellent

Thanks


----------



## First Action (Feb 8, 2013)

Hi, 

Im just going to respond to Cyriacus points, cause it laid out easy and he brings up alot of things very methodically... so sorry if it doesnt cover everything.

"If all this fails and physical conflict is inevitable"

Why are you there again

--I dont fully understand where you are coming from with this so sorry if I miss the point, perhaps your being mugged??

"Go for the leader of the attackers first and be excessive on him to warn the others"

Right, because the others arent going to be doing anything, those mentally challenged cowards. Because all gangs are a bunch of wimpy cowards, right? Right? And youre a warrior!

--- no, but there is the chance that it will work, and Id rather take the chance then do nothing at all

" then encourage them to take their friend to hospital."

Because thats totally going to happen.

-- it might. and it is the decent thing to do

"Make use of your peripheral vision to detect the direction and nature of the first attack."

That really wont help much.

-- also I believe it takes time to train you perephial vision. Interestingly enough  (on a different topic), naturally womens periphial vision is alot better than mens. They rekon it stems form back in the hunter gatherer days where men needed 'long sight' to hunt and women needed to be more aware of whats around them, like kids and that.

but the essence of the sentence is to open yor awareness to where the attack will come from.. im guessing if you are in that situation youll be pretty aware anyway.

"It is usually the person who is the first to move towards you in an aggressive fashion."

Ive never seen the leader of a gang make the first move.

-- agreed

"To give yourself the best chance, you want to have it so you only have to take on one attacker at a time."

Yeah! Stick it to those mentally challenged idiots! Just fight them one at a time!

"This can be achieved by lining them up so that they are forced in each others way. Using single lanes and other surroundings can also aid you in this."

Because thatll totally work.

--- again, it might. and doing something is better than doing nothing

"You could also push them into each other."

Whilst they stand there and let you because theyre mentally challenged cowards. Like all gang members, right?

-- you really like using this point

"If you do get surrounded, break through the circle and take out who you think is the weakest link."

Because getting out of being surrounded by a gang of people intent on hurting you is as simple as exploiting how mentally challenged they are just going for the weak link youll totally be able to identify before youre curled up on the ball crying like a little girl praying for a chance at survival.

--- I dont think the post ever refers to the situation as being simple or that the gang members are retarted (yes I say think, because I havent re-read it.. i suppose I should have done that before replying)

"You may also consider finding a weapon, but keep in mind that if you are disarmed then it is more likely that it will be used against you than if you had not picked it up in the first place."

Because those foolish people will obviously give you enough time to do that. You know, being slow and stupid and all that.

-- Sorry, I didnt mean to say that thig about using the same line all the time.. cause im going to do the same thing...  Trying to do something is better than doing nothing

"It is very hard to fight more than one person if you are tangled up, so avoid grappling"

Tell them that. If you have to, that is. They might be too stupid to know how to hold you in place.

-- this is a stupid comment. Im sure deep down you actually agree that grappling when against multiple opponents is a bad idea, so try your best to avoid it.

" and especially being taken to the ground. This means that you need to take care of your balance more than usual, so unnecessary kicking should not be employed. Work to the flanks, try to gain distance, and always continue to look for escape so that you can run as soon as viable."

...right.

-- right

The moral of the story is, theres nothing to discuss. This is basically a whole article insulting the intelligence of gang members and making them out to be a bunch of retards, whilst glorifying the abilities of the _vastly superior_ protagonist.[/QUOTE]

I wish I read this last sentence before I started replying..  then I wouldnt have discussed it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 8, 2013)

I was kinda hoping you'd discuss your blog post first, but hey, this is fine.



First Action said:


> Hi,
> 
> Im just going to respond to Cyriacus points, cause it laid out easy and he brings up alot of things very methodically... so sorry if it doesnt cover everything.



Right... I'm going to try to avoid actually correcting you here, just pointing out that you really don't have a clue... and stealing our ideas to give yourself credibility is not something I have any interest in supporting.



First Action said:


> "If all this fails and physical conflict is inevitable"
> 
> Why are you there again
> 
> --I dont fully understand where you are coming from with this so sorry if I miss the point, perhaps your being mugged??



No kidding you don't understand...




First Action said:


> "Go for the leader of the attackers first and be excessive on him to warn the others"
> 
> Right, because the others arent going to be doing anything, those mentally challenged cowards. Because all gangs are a bunch of wimpy cowards, right? Right? And youre a warrior!
> 
> --- no, but there is the chance that it will work, and Id rather take the chance then do nothing at all



The "chance" it might work? So you're saying that you really don't have any experience or education on this topic, any real understanding of how group assaults work, no real understanding of the realities of psychology or it's applications, but you're fine offering this deeply flawed, borderline suicidal line of advice because "there is the chance that it will work"?!?!

Kid, grow up, and realize you don't know the first thing you're trying to teach people about.




First Action said:


> " then encourage them to take their friend to hospital."
> 
> Because thats totally going to happen.
> 
> -- it might. and it is the decent thing to do



Garbage. Firstly, garbage that it might happen, and secondly, garbage that you'd be saying anything like that anywhere other than in the fevered, fantasy-riddled mind of someone who's never experienced anything like real adrenaline or violence. Thirdly, garbage that you need to be concerned about the "decent thing to do"...




First Action said:


> "Make use of your peripheral vision to detect the direction and nature of the first attack."
> 
> That really wont help much.
> 
> -- also I believe it takes time to train you perephial vision. Interestingly enough  (on a different topic), naturally womens periphial vision is alot better than mens. They rekon it stems form back in the hunter gatherer days where men needed 'long sight' to hunt and women needed to be more aware of whats around them, like kids and that.




Do you have the first clue about how that is done (training your peripheral vision)? Or why it's needed? Bluntly, I seriously doubt it.




First Action said:


> but the essence of the sentence is to open yor awareness to where the attack will come from.. im guessing if you are in that situation youll be pretty aware anyway.



Nope. Quite the opposite, in fact.



First Action said:


> "It is usually the person who is the first to move towards you in an aggressive fashion."
> 
> Ive never seen the leader of a gang make the first move.
> 
> -- agreed



So... you agree that Cyriacus' observation, which goes completely contrary to your written statements about who you think instigates the attack, is correct? When what he said was basically "You're completely wrong"? Really?




First Action said:


> "To give yourself the best chance, you want to have it so you only have to take on one attacker at a time."
> 
> Yeah! Stick it to those mentally challenged idiots! Just fight them one at a time!
> 
> ...



No, it really is such a low-percentage tactic that it's not really an option the way you presented it. And it's not the only option other than "do nothing". And yes, it could result in far worse consequences than even doing nothing. You're better off learning a better, more high-return, more effective set of strategies... at this point, you don't even know how to recognize what they would be. And no, I'm not about to give you anything that you will steal and put up as your own work.




First Action said:


> "You could also push them into each other."
> 
> Whilst they stand there and let you because theyre mentally challenged cowards. Like all gang members, right?
> 
> -- you really like using this point




Because it's the only way your tactics would have a chance of being effective. Understand?




First Action said:


> "If you do get surrounded, break through the circle and take out who you think is the weakest link."
> 
> Because getting out of being surrounded by a gang of people intent on hurting you is as simple as exploiting how mentally challenged they are just going for the weak link youll totally be able to identify before youre curled up on the ball crying like a little girl praying for a chance at survival.
> 
> --- I dont think the post ever refers to the situation as being simple or that the gang members are retarted (yes I say think, because I havent re-read it.. i suppose I should have done that before replying)




You have contextually described the attackers in such a way that has them simply standing around, waiting for you to push them at each other, cowering as you "use your voice and yell", being overwhelmed by your sheer presence, and so on. How would you read that? It's certainly not the behaviour of an actual, real-life gang, especially not a violent one. A group of school children, maybe... if they were very young....




First Action said:


> "You may also consider finding a weapon, but keep in mind that if you are disarmed then it is more likely that it will be used against you than if you had not picked it up in the first place."
> 
> Because those foolish people will obviously give you enough time to do that. You know, being slow and stupid and all that.
> 
> -- Sorry, I didnt mean to say that thig about using the same line all the time.. cause im going to do the same thing...  Trying to do something is better than doing nothing




But if the "something" you're suggesting is unrealistic, ineffective, flawed, unfeasible, or based in fantasy, is that really "better than doing nothing"? Incidentally, "nothing" is more likely what you'd do.... for the record...




First Action said:


> "It is very hard to fight more than one person if you are tangled up, so avoid grappling"
> 
> Tell them that. If you have to, that is. They might be too stupid to know how to hold you in place.
> 
> -- this is a stupid comment. Im sure deep down you actually agree that grappling when against multiple opponents is a bad idea, so try your best to avoid it.




A group assault of, say, five on one. Starts with punches, but very (very!) quickly, two or more are grabbing hold of you and holding your arms/legs, as the others continue to punch. Your decision there is....?




First Action said:


> " and especially being taken to the ground. This means that you need to take care of your balance more than usual, so unnecessary kicking should not be employed. Work to the flanks, try to gain distance, and always continue to look for escape so that you can run as soon as viable."
> 
> ...right.
> 
> -- right



The problem is not saying "avoid the ground"... that's actually fine. It's the way you describe going about it, as it reflects no understanding or experience in the skills needed, nor in the realities of such events.




First Action said:


> The moral of the story is, theres nothing to discuss. This is basically a whole article insulting the intelligence of gang members and making them out to be a bunch of retards, whilst glorifying the abilities of the _vastly superior_ protagonist.
> 
> - I wish I read this last sentence before I started replying..  then I wouldnt have discussed it.



Yeah.... replying didn't help you much.


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 8, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> I was kinda hoping you'd discuss your blog post first, but hey, this is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Theres nothing i planned on saying that isnt said here. So ill just second all of the above.
I will however add:

"_I dont think the post ever refers to the situation as being simple or that the gang members are retarted"

_You really do talk about them like a bunch of retards.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 8, 2013)

You know what, I'm going to do FirstAction a little favour here, and suggest he reads the following thread. It also featured a young, largely inexperienced person who put themselves forth as a teacher, despite no real credentials to do so. It may have taken a fair bit, but eventually, he listened, and hopefully is getting the real education he needs to go ahead with his desire to teach and help people. I genuinely hope that he is. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/81621-The-Destroyer-Style


----------



## First Action (Feb 8, 2013)

Im pretty tired so Im not going to write too much tonight.

Thanks for the thread link Chris. I read the first couple of pages... robs read a bit more later (its a pretty long thread)



> I was kinda hoping you'd discuss your blog post first, but hey, this is fine.


Yeah, sorry bout that. I just reply to the thread I view first.





> just pointing out that you really don't have a clue..


.
Youve made this point pretty clear. I can save you some time and say you dont have to say it again. Ill just keep it as a 'tone setter' for when I read your replies to my posts.




> The "chance" it might work?




Yes. Because how can you know if something will definitely work.




> Garbage. Firstly, garbage that it might happen, and secondly, garbage that you'd be saying anything like that anywhere other than in the fevered, fantasy-riddled mind of someone who's never experienced anything like real adrenaline or violence. Thirdly, garbage that you need to be concerned about the "decent thing to do"...



yeah.. i spose your right. I probs wouldnt suggest it. 

Do you have the first clue about how that is done (training your peripheral vision)? Or why it's needed? Bluntly, I seriously doubt it.

I train it, simply by using it when I remember to



> Nope. Quite the opposite, in fact.



I disagree. Whenever I think im in a potentially dangeous situation, my awareness definately spikes



> So... you agree that Cyriacus' observation, which goes completely contrary to your written statements about who you think instigates the attack, is correct? When what he said was basically "You're completely wrong"? Really?



Yes


> No, it really is such a low-percentage tactic that it's not really an option the way you presented it.




Its not tactic where Im say 'just line them up' as the only tactic. I realise it is not that simple. More that it is something to do, while using other tactics. Tactics are used together. (I apologise if my sentences arent making perfect sense gramatically, but you get the idea (hopefully))



> And it's not the only option other than "do nothing".



Right



> Because it's the only way your tactics would have a chance of being effective. Understand?



Not true. You would not have to be an idiot for these tactics to work. What you may be forgetting is that you guys know how to fight. Alot of people do not. So, yes,  i guess you could say they are retarted fighters, but not necessarily retarted. 

Also, i know its training, but I have tested these things on other people that also know 'how to fight'



> You have contextually described the attackers in such a way that has them simply standing around,



maybe.. unintentional descriptive flaw. But others have read it and understood they where not to be just standing there. 




> But if the "something" you're suggesting is unrealistic, ineffective, flawed, unfeasible, or based in fantasy, is that really "better than doing nothing"? Incidentally, "nothing" is more likely what you'd do.... for the record...



the tactics arent ineffective if you use them as intended. ie as a collomative (i dont think this is a word)  of tactics, together with your combined knowledge of other teachings.

Posts/chapters are meant to be taken in retrospect, together with other posts/chapters. Not any one tactic will work all the time.



> A group assault of, say, five on one. Starts with punches, but very (very!) quickly, two or more are grabbing hold of you and holding your arms/legs, as the others continue to punch. Your decision there is....?



my decision?? do whatever I can to escape.


> The problem is not saying "avoid the ground"... that's actually fine. It's the way you describe going about it, as it reflects no understanding or experience in the skills needed, nor in the realities of such events.



I didnt describe at all how to avoid it, except maybe the comment of not using kicks. It wasnt something I intended that post to get in to. 



> Yeah.... replying didn't help you much.



I dont know.. it got some good insights from you

Thanks


----------



## EddieCyrax (Feb 8, 2013)

1


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 9, 2013)

First Action said:


> Im pretty tired so Im not going to write too much tonight.
> 
> Thanks for the thread link Chris. I read the first couple of pages... robs read a bit more later (its a pretty long thread)



Okay. Honestly, what I'm hoping you get out of it is that, without the proper experience/education, what you're doing is an incredibly bad and dangerous thing to do. Cody (Destroyer Style) actually has some physical talent, a lot more than you showed in your videos, but he was completely ignorant of what was required to teach or develop methods to teach in this area, as are you. Eventually he seemed to realize that... I'm hoping you manage the same.



First Action said:


> Yeah, sorry bout that. I just reply to the thread I view first.



Okay, then, when you get to it, can you say where you base your advice on? What experience do you have that leads you to think you can offer advice for group assaults? What training have you gone through in that area?



First Action said:


> Youve made this point pretty clear. I can save you some time and say you dont have to say it again. Ill just keep it as a 'tone setter' for when I read your replies to my posts.



The reason I keep repeating it is that you say, as you do here, that you've heard me say it... and then continue to demonstrate that you don't understand just how much you don't have a clue. This post is yet another example. So while you've heard me tell you you don't have a clue, it hasn't sunk in yet.... you still think you have something to offer, and that your opinion on fighting (and self defence) is valid. It isn't. 



First Action said:


> Yes. Because how can you know if something will definitely work.



You don't seem to get subtlety, so I'll be blunt. Your advice has the same "chance" of working as telling someone that they can win a game of pool by closing their eyes and just swinging the cue across the table... they might hit the cue-ball, and it might knock the other balls into the pockets, but the chances of that happening are so remote that it's not worth advising people to try.

The idea of "how can you know if something will definitely work" is just showing how little you understand here. There are no 100% guarantees in this area, but there are some things that just shouldn't be advised, as they fly in the face of reality. Your advice fits that description. Your advice is bad. It is dangerous. The result of people following your advice would be that they would get themselves beaten up badly, when they could have avoided it entirely. People following your advice would likely be hospitalized. It is purely bad advice, given by someone who really shouldn't be giving advice at all.




First Action said:


> yeah.. i spose your right. I probs wouldnt suggest it.


 

You did suggest it, though. They were your words. Oh, and the reason I copied the entire blog here was to provide an archive if you start editing the original to include your mis-understood take on what we say here. So you know.




First Action said:


> Do you have the first clue about how that is done (training your peripheral vision)? Or why it's needed? Bluntly, I seriously doubt it.
> 
> I train it, simply by using it when I remember to



So that's a no, then.



First Action said:


> I disagree. Whenever I think im in a potentially dangeous situation, my awareness definately spikes



No, it focuses. And unless you understand what that actually means, and what the difference is, then you really shouldn't be stating anything or offering advice.



First Action said:


> Yes



You agree that you were completely wrong? And still think that you are offering valid advice in everything else? Can you not see the delusions at work here?



First Action said:


> Its not tactic where Im say 'just line them up' as the only tactic. I realise it is not that simple. More that it is something to do, while using other tactics. Tactics are used together. (I apologise if my sentences arent making perfect sense gramatically, but you get the idea (hopefully))



I understand tactics to a much deeper level than you realize, as well as the one you're discussing. And your entire take on it is unrealistic, ill-advised, and dangerous. 



First Action said:


> Right



Oh dear lord...




First Action said:


> Not true. You would not have to be an idiot for these tactics to work. What you may be forgetting is that you guys know how to fight. Alot of people do not. So, yes,  i guess you could say they are retarted fighters, but not necessarily retarted.
> 
> Also, i know its training, but I have tested these things on other people that also know 'how to fight'




No, the attackers would have to be idiots. And what you're forgetting is that you don't have a clue about the realities you're attempting to address. This entire passage shows that, by the way.

Oh, and I have serious doubts about any validity of your "testing" these things, especially based on the videos of you and your friend. Neither of you have a clue about violence. I actually kinda wish they were still up, just to highlight what I'm talking about. The one on chokes would be best, if you still have a copy... 



First Action said:


> maybe.. unintentional descriptive flaw. But others have read it and understood they where not to be just standing there.



Except that, once you have pro-active attackers (realistic ones), all your tactics fall in a heap and fail dismally.



First Action said:


> the tactics arent ineffective if you use them as intended. ie as a collomative (i dont think this is a word)  of tactics, together with your combined knowledge of other teachings.
> 
> Posts/chapters are meant to be taken in retrospect, together with other posts/chapters. Not any one tactic will work all the time.



I think you meant "cumulative"... but, to the point, you've missed the point of tactical approaches here. Completely.



First Action said:


> my decision?? do whatever I can to escape.



Wow, did you miss the point of that one...



First Action said:


> I didnt describe at all how to avoid it, except maybe the comment of not using kicks. It wasnt something I intended that post to get in to.



Yes you did. You described (vaguely) ideas about "looking to your balance more", which is what lead to your comments about not kicking (which is really besides the point... the reasons you would tend not to kick are rather different, which again shows you don't know what you're talking about.... as well as other issues...



First Action said:


> I dont know.. it got some good insights from you
> 
> Thanks



Right. The insight you should have gotten is that all the advice you have given is deeply, dangerously, fundamentally flawed. The types of people who would read and follow it are those who don't know any better, and trust that someone who has founded their own system/organisation/group named "First Action Self Defence", with the tag-line of "More than just fighting" knows what they're talking about, and don't have the experience to apply critical assessment of the material you're proffering. But the fact is that you don't have the requisite background or experience to offer anything of value, and what you are giving is largely just going to get people hurt. And, as far as the whole "I don't teach self defence, I just teach fighting" that you've started saying now, firstly, no, you don't. You present it as self defence (hell, look at your tag-line), so just just saying that "changing the name is too much bother" shows that you have no concern for anyone looking at your material, or presenting anything accurately. Secondly, you don't have any fighting ability or knowledge, so you're really teaching  "First Action Self Defence; Not Even Fighting". 

Seriously. There is nothing of value on your site. You present yourself as an expert (just by having the site), and if people trust it, they will get hurt. Badly. I don't care if you just do this yourself, and get yourself beaten up on a daily basis, but if you're going to present it to a worldwide community, then I'm going to be concerned when it is that damn dangerous and poor. And for that reason, I say again:

Stop. Take down the website.

And just stop.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 9, 2013)

Oh for goodness sakes, you are selling books to advise others on "how to fight"?!?!  You are not qualified to do so.  Your advise will get someone hurt.  That makes you a fraud.  I know that is harsh, but it is the reality of it.  Either your ego or your drive to sell your non-expert opinion books has driven you to put yourself forward as something you are not.  You are putting ill informed people who take your advice seriously at risk.  If someone gets into a violent confrontation and uses much of what you suggest, they are going to be injured...or killed.  Really think about that.  It is something anyone who teaches self defense should put a lot of thought into.  Remove the motivations for what you are doing.  Look at the feedback you are recieving from experienced martial artist (some VERY experienced) and LEOs.  Then ask yourself if your conscience will be effected if someone is injured or even killed because they followed your advice.  Teaching others to "defend" themselves is a HUGE responsibility.  You are abdicating that responsibility if you do so without having the proper foundation yourself to do so.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 10, 2013)

Ok, I&#8217;m gonna take my hand at your briefarticle and try and be as fair as possible to you. You&#8217;ll still likely heresome of the things already said, but maybe hearing it from someone else willhelp you understand it better. I know for me, sometimes I have to hearsomething explained dozens of times before I finally start to comprehend it.

That said here I go.

_&#8220;Wheneverfaced with more than one opponent, the threat level goes up exponentially.Escape is the only priority. It is not a time to test your skills and try totake them all out.&#8221;
_
Yes, more attackers mean a greater threat.Especially if they are armed, and if they plan on committing violence theyprobably will be. Escape should be the only priority in any SD scenario, orelse it isn&#8217;t really SD. No SD scenario should never be the time to &#8220;test yourskills&#8221;, but by suggesting these&#8230;behaviors, you have listed, you areessentially encouraging people to try these suggestions instead of just runningthe hell away. It&#8217;s irresponsible. 
_
&#8220;Ifall they want to do is *take your wallet then you&#8217;re probably better off justhanding it over&#8221;
_
Ok. This is rather obvious, but some peopledo lack common sense so maybe it is worth saying after all.

_&#8220; Inany case, do your best not to get surrounded and create as much distance as youcan between you and the attackers. As always, protect your back, and as soon asyou see a chance for escape, take it.&#8221;
_
How?
This is where you show your level ofinexperience and why you should not be suggesting anything. You give no exampleon _how_ someone can do these things.Telling people &#8220;not to get surrounded&#8221; and &#8220;create as much distance as you can&#8221;is more common sense. People will do this naturally as they flee, but if youare advocating needing to actually fight the attackers, how do you advise doingthis? And what do you mean by &#8220;protect your back&#8221;? If I&#8217;m not surrounded, whyis this important, and how should someone properly do this?

_&#8220;Ifa non-violent attempt at escape fails, and physical conflict is inevitable,then you should not hold back. Fight as if your life depends on it (as it verymay will) until you feel you can safely escape.&#8221;
_
This really depends on the situation. Fightfor your life could be good advice, but it might not be for legal reasons. Youwould be surprised how easily one could escalate a low level assault to abattery with a deadly weapon simply by using excessive force. This advice, likemost the advice you give, is vague and rather meaningless. _ 
_
_&#8220;Facingone opponent at a time is obviously easier so if you can, line them up. Usefootwork and your surrounding environment (including them) can aid you&#8221;
_
I actually agree that it is possible to stackaggressors into single file lines for split seconds of time. What you do whiledoing that is rather important, and lacking in your description here. Again,like before, you give no examples on how to do this. That leads me to believeyou don&#8217;t know, and if you don&#8217;t know you should not be presenting yourselflike someone who does.

_&#8220;Keep moving and work to the flanks.&#8221;
_
You lost me here. If you are trying to linethem up, you ideally should be breaking the first person and moving through theline. If they flank you then they swarm you.

_&#8220;BasicFASD Strategy states that in a life threateningsituation you should first try to use a weapon.&#8221;
_
What kind of weapon? How should I use it?Where can I get it? If I am successful what happens next? 

_&#8220;Considerthe following: If you are disarmed then it is more likely that it will be usedagainst you than if you had not picked it up in the first place.&#8221;
_
You just contradicted yourself.
You basically said, &#8220;Grab a weapon first, butremember they will probably try to take it from you and use it on you. So, nevermind.&#8221; 

_&#8220;Ifyou are proficient in weaponry and/or they are already using weapons, then yourdecision will be easier.&#8221;
_
How do you define proficiency?  Andhere is something you might want to remember. Major decisions on how you planto respond to conflict need to be made before the conflict occurs not during.Your brain will not be able to process such things under the stress of violenceconfrontation fast enough for them to actually matter.

_&#8220;Itis very hard to fight more than one person if you are tangled up, so avoidgrappling, and especially being taken to the ground.&#8221;
_
Nearly all violent confrontations that I haveseen, heard about, or experienced involved grappling of some kind. It reallydepends here what you mean by grappling. There are some instances where it mayeven be the preferred method. There are a lot of variances to your scenariohere, and you are not in position to advocate anything to anyone.

_&#8220;Thismeans that you need to take care of your balance more than usual, sounnecessary kicking should not be employed.&#8221; 
_
Again there are variances.  Kicking could be possible and recommended dependingon a lot of things, or it could be unrealistic and ill-advised in othercircumstances.  You are not experiencedto know when to do something and when not to do it, you should not be giving adviceon self-defense or fighting, because you do not understand them.
If you think you do understand them, I, among others, wouldlike to know where you base your authority in these subjects.


----------



## First Action (Feb 11, 2013)

Hi Chris, 

Replying to posts of this nature takes up time that I feel could be better spent else where. Im not saying that it is not a valuable use of time (I do learn alot and my ideas have been challenged and it has forced me to re-consider my points of views), just that there are other areas that this takes time away from and I should give them some attention. 

So in the hope of ending this thread I am going to address what I feel are your main points of view as a whole. 

I've also decided to include some things for you to think about. They are just my opinions. I am not after a responce, but should you feel the need to, I will read them.

*1. I don't understand the core of what you are trying to tell me.* Also the statements about me having no skill, I don't know how to teach etc fit into this. 

How can you possibly know what I do or do not understand, how skilled of a fighter I am, if I understand teaching principles etc. You have no basis for these things. You've never seen me fight or teach (the videos are not an accurate representation) and there is no way you can possibly know if another I have understood something or not.

*For You:* Perhaps you are the one that doesn't understand my points of view. It seems, as of late, that you reply to me with the initial outset of 'shooting me down', and hence, much like a scientist that wants to prove a theory, you 'manipulate the results' to match your thoughts, as opposed to viewing each idea objectively. 

In the case that you are right and I do not understand, at least I am open minded engough to try to. 

*2. What I base my information on.*

Belive it or not, I dont just make things up out of the blue. I've done alot of research over the years, probably more than most, and all information has come from somewhere. In regard to the tactics of the post, in particular lining them up and avoiding grappling, the same information came from 2 resources that I highly respect ie My Zen Do Kai instructor (as a youth), and my MSD instuctor (as an adult). These tactics have been employed, with success, by me and other practitioners in quite realistic training in the military, and in less realistic training but still valid, in Zen Do Kai. I have also had to employ it once 'for real'

*Note:* When I used it 'for real' I was a youth as were the attackers, and I admit the result was different than in Zen Do Kai training, but i am sure I faired better using them than if I didnt. 

*For You*: One of the disciplines I highly regard is ninjitsu. This is mainly due to the fact that the teachings extend to things such as conceilment, survival etc, but I have also integrated some of their fighting techniques and tactics. So when you say that ALL of my ideas are 'rubbish', it re-instates my thoughts on you not understanding the essence of FASD, or bothered to look into it from an objective perspecive. 

Also, please consider this. Is what you teach still true to the art of Ninjitsu? ... It is my understanding that they also practised methods of espionage, pyrotechnics, survival skills etc. Do you teach these things? If not, then perhaps what your school actually offers is Ninjukai, and even then, do you accurately represent the essence of that? After all, they were Japanese Assasins. 

FASD Fight Training may not be a correct representation of 'Self Defense', but at least I have realised that and am making changes.

*Note:* These are rhetorical questions/statements and have only been made to enhance my point of view. I have no doubt that what your 'school' teaches are extremely valuable lessons and disciplines for your students. 

*3. That I live in a deluded fantasy world*

I am certain views on the way the universe works. They may not match yours, but they are my core values which have been formulated in a deep way. Im am more aware of my reality than most of the general population. For example:

- I have the mindset of constant learning and improvement. When people tell me something is wrong, I learn and improve. Also, I do not mind sharing ideas, even if they are bad, because if I dont, then nobody will ever tell me they are bad. (I recall a whole subject thread on how I wanted peoples opinions to help improve my ideas).

- I believe that if you wait for things to be perfect before you start them, then you may never get started. Which is another reason why there are concepts on the site which I can change in good conscience. Its also why there is a 4th edition to the manual, and why the editions will continue to refined and updated.  

There are a few others. If your interested you can PM me.

*For You*: You seem fine to shoot down my ideas, but you offer no constructive alternatives (recently). Eg How do you train your periphial vision? What tactics would you use against multiple opponents? Etc.

Perhaps you are worried that people will disagree, therefore tainting you reputation? I have no reputation that I wish to uphold. I don't really care if no-one buys my materials or takes my courses. It does not effect my lifestyle. FASD is something I have created, believe in, and want to improve and share, but there is no other dependance on its success. 

*4. My content is dangerous.* I feel this is your main concern.

I think you (and many others) think that (I have simplified this) I just show people techniques and tactics and then tell them to go fight without trying to escape in other ways first. This is not true. There are 3 avenues in which people can learn about FASD, and I will address them individually

a) Training Manuals: You have only read one chapter of this. Pre-empting the chapter you read, there are also chapters on use of force (ie the law), safety in training, disclaimers, methods of escape etc. 

b) Courses. You can rest assured that I actually dont hold very many courses, and when I do, unlike most 'schools', I pick whom I teach, and I don't teach those that I think will mis-use the information. 

c) Blog. This one I can not justify. It is open source. Contrary to your advice, I am not going to take the website down. What I will do is put a disclaimer on the blog. Something along the lines of "this information has been called dangerous, be aware of laws, is for training only etc etc". Actually, I'll probably just use the disclaimer that is in the manual.

I hope that some of these things have answered your 'concerns'. Like I said at the beginning, I wish to end this thread, but I will check back in case there are any other major points you wish to make publically. Other than that, feel free to PM me questions, or begin a new topical thread and pm me the link. 

Incidently, although I disagree with some of your points of view, I appreciate your honesty and that you take the time to challenge me. It shows you care about the things you believe in and is commendable. 

Finally for you enjoyment, and since it seems to come up alot, I have also attached a detailed description of my experiences. I spent a while putting it together so as to be completly honest and accurate. As such, it will be on the website in due time so readers can also deliberate on it before deciding whether FASD is worth their time. 

.. turns out I cant add attachments. Ill put in html and give post the address shortly

Thanks


----------



## First Action (Feb 11, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Ok, I&#8217;m gonna take my hand at your briefarticle and try and be as fair as possible to you. You&#8217;ll still likely heresome of the things already said, but maybe hearing it from someone else willhelp you understand it better. I know for me, sometimes I have to hearsomething explained dozens of times before I finally start to comprehend it.




Hi Himura. I wasnt going to reply to anything more on this apart from the post I just did, but I appreciate you taking the time and you are coming from a helpful place, so thank you. I hope it is ok, I am only going to respond to some thing ie not things I agree with or have been covered before. Also, i think there are a few things that are covered in the above post so Ill skip them also.




> _&#8220; Inany case, do your best not to get surrounded and create as much distance as youcan between you and the attackers. As always, protect your back, and as soon asyou see a chance for escape, take it.&#8221;
> _
> How?



I had a skim of this post before replying so I think this comes up a couple of times. Explaining everything in detail was not the intention of this post. That is what the manual is for. I suppose an intro chapter explaining this (which admittedly could probably be put on many of my posts) could solve this confusion. 



> keep moving and work to the flanks



I beleive this is sound advice. Perhaps it needs to be clarafied a bit more in the post



> _&#8220;Considerthe following: If you are disarmed then it is more likely that it will be usedagainst you than if you had not picked it up in the first place.&#8221;_
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> You basically said, &#8220;Grab a weapon first, butremember they will probably try to take it from you and use it on you. So, nevermind.&#8221;



The important words are 'consider this'. It implies to think about things for yourself and make your own decision about what you would do in any given situation. 



> How do you define proficiency?


 
It is up to the reader to decide. If they do indeed feel they are proficient then they obviously (hopefully) have trained with weapons. A big part of FASD fighting is for the practitioner to make informed decisions based upon basic principles. It is in the spririt that they should train in those things that work best for them (depending on any number of variables). This too is explained in the manual. 



> Andhere is something you might want to remember. Major decisions on how you planto respond to conflict need to be made before the conflict occurs not during.Your brain will not be able to process such things under the stress of violenceconfrontation fast enough for them to actually matter.



Yes, that it why they should consider it.

Thanks again for bringing up some new things for me to consider.


----------



## First Action (Feb 11, 2013)

page where to find a detailed description of experiences http://firstactionselfdefense.net/exp.html


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 11, 2013)

First Action said:


> Hi Chris,



Hi. 



First Action said:


> Replying to posts of this nature takes up time that I feel could be better spent else where. Im not saying that it is not a valuable use of time (I do learn alot and my ideas have been challenged and it has forced me to re-consider my points of views), just that there are other areas that this takes time away from and I should give them some attention.
> 
> So in the hope of ending this thread I am going to address what I feel are your main points of view as a whole.
> 
> I've also decided to include some things for you to think about. They are just my opinions. I am not after a responce, but should you feel the need to, I will read them.



And I thought you said you had a few weeks rest, so had nothing better to do? Really?

Oh, and you don't get to decide when the thread ends, you realize....



First Action said:


> *1. I don't understand the core of what you are trying to tell me.* Also the statements about me having no skill, I don't know how to teach etc fit into this.
> 
> How can you possibly know what I do or do not understand, how skilled of a fighter I am, if I understand teaching principles etc. You have no basis for these things. You've never seen me fight or teach (the videos are not an accurate representation) and there is no way you can possibly know if another I have understood something or not.



I've read your posts. They are filled with evidence as to the lack of depth of your education. I've seen your videos. You have no technical ability whatsoever. I've read your blogs. They are littered with poor tactical ideas and misunderstandings.

In other words, I got that impression from you. And yeah, I get that you don't understand what you're being told. That's a big part of the problem, and again, a lot of evidence of why you shouldn't be trying to teach anyone. But hey, it's not just me. If it was, you'd have some basis of just not understanding what I am telling you, but it seems to be across the board(s)...

http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8735-fasd-street-fighting-strategy

http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8740-ways-to-escape-without-fighting

http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8728-basic-footwork

http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8725-shin-kick-and-short-side-kick

http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8739-i-want-to-harvest-your-knowledge-help-me-improve-my-system

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114343

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114373

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114371

Seriously, everywhere you go, people are telling you that you shouldn't be teaching, or offering advice in this subject at all. Do you really think that everyone is wrong, and you must be right? 



First Action said:


> *For You:* Perhaps you are the one that doesn't understand my points of view. It seems, as of late, that you reply to me with the initial outset of 'shooting me down', and hence, much like a scientist that wants to prove a theory, you 'manipulate the results' to match your thoughts, as opposed to viewing each idea objectively.
> 
> In the case that you are right and I do not understand, at least I am open minded engough to try to.



I haven't needed to "manipulate" anything, mate. See above. 



First Action said:


> *2. What I base my information on.*
> 
> Belive it or not, I dont just make things up out of the blue. I've done alot of research over the years, probably more than most, and all information has come from somewhere. In regard to the tactics of the post, in particular lining them up and avoiding grappling, the same information came from 2 resources that I highly respect ie My Zen Do Kai instructor (as a youth), and my MSD instuctor (as an adult). These tactics have been employed, with success, by me and other practitioners in quite realistic training in the military, and in less realistic training but still valid, in Zen Do Kai. I have also had to employ it once 'for real'
> 
> *Note:* When I used it 'for real' I was a youth as were the attackers, and I admit the result was different than in Zen Do Kai training, but i am sure I faired better using them than if I didnt.



So... when you said "some of it I make up", that didn't mean that you made it up?

Look, the way your material reads is that you've come across some real, correct material, but haven't understood it. As a result, when you present it, you miss the reality of it, and we get what you present for us, which is deeply and desperately flawed. 



First Action said:


> *For You*: One of the disciplines I highly regard is ninjitsu. This is mainly due to the fact that the teachings extend to things such as conceilment, survival etc, but I have also integrated some of their fighting techniques and tactics. So when you say that ALL of my ideas are 'rubbish', it re-instates my thoughts on you not understanding the essence of FASD, or bothered to look into it from an objective perspecive.
> 
> Also, please consider this. Is what you teach still true to the art of Ninjitsu? ... It is my understanding that they also practised methods of espionage, pyrotechnics, survival skills etc. Do you teach these things? If not, then perhaps what your school actually offers is Ninjukai, and even then, do you accurately represent the essence of that? After all, they were Japanese Assasins.
> 
> ...



Oh, for crying out loud, kid. No, the ninja were NOT Japanese assassins... and you have no clue whatsoever about Ninjutsu. So what you "highly regard" is something you have no understanding of, nor any clue about. 

And don't damn well mention Ang's Ninjukai in relation to what I do. Kay?

But, to the point, your FASD "Fight Training" is bad self defence, and bad "fight training". And, as long as you don't get any real education, it really can't be any more than that. And, being that, it is dangerous (for potential students who believe that what you're teaching is good, valid material). 



First Action said:


> *3. That I live in a deluded fantasy world*
> 
> I am certain views on the way the universe works. They may not match yours, but they are my core values which have been formulated in a deep way. Im am more aware of my reality than most of the general population. For example:
> 
> ...



See above, kid. Pretty much everywhere you go, you are told that you don't have a clue, your advice is dangerous and bad, you are desperately unqualified, and more. You somehow still think that you know what you're talking about. Tell me, how is that not delusional?



First Action said:


> *For You*: You seem fine to shoot down my ideas, but you offer no constructive alternatives (recently). Eg How do you train your periphial vision? What tactics would you use against multiple opponents? Etc.
> 
> Perhaps you are worried that people will disagree, therefore tainting you reputation? I have no reputation that I wish to uphold. I don't really care if no-one buys my materials or takes my courses. It does not effect my lifestyle. FASD is something I have created, believe in, and want to improve and share, but there is no other dependance on its success.



Damn right I don't. As long as you continue to put yourself in a position as a teacher, and continue to show such a deep lack of understanding of what you're being told, refuse to get proper training, then no, I'm not about to provide you with material for you to profit off of without you having any real comprehension of it.

And I'm hardly worried about people disagreeing with me. I've shared enough over my time here and in other places to know that that's not the case. Hell, my pointing out your shortcomings, and the agreement from my fellow forum members here is more than enough to show that my ideas are far more in line with what is known by people who know what they're talking about. But if you don't care if people don't buy your material, or attend your courses etc, then why do you insist on having them? In the end, though, if you really, genuinely want to improve this little creation of yours, get a real education in the subject! It's that simple! 



First Action said:


> *4. My content is dangerous.* I feel this is your main concern.
> 
> I think you (and many others) think that (I have simplified this) I just show people techniques and tactics and then tell them to go fight without trying to escape in other ways first. This is not true. There are 3 avenues in which people can learn about FASD, and I will address them individually
> 
> ...



No, that's not what we think. We think that the tactics you teach, the "techniques" you show, and so on, are deeply flawed, and dangerous to be employed. And what on earth do you mean when you say your own blog you "cannot justify"?!? Whose blog is it?



First Action said:


> I hope that some of these things have answered your 'concerns'. Like I said at the beginning, I wish to end this thread, but I will check back in case there are any other major points you wish to make publically. Other than that, feel free to PM me questions, or begin a new topical thread and pm me the link.



No, actually, you've just shown that you still can't follow the simple criticisms of your approach, and refuse to hear anything that really conflicts with your self image (as someone who knows what they're talking about). And, again, you don't get to say when the thread ends, son. 



First Action said:


> Incidently, although I disagree with some of your points of view, I appreciate your honesty and that you take the time to challenge me. It shows you care about the things you believe in and is commendable.



I care that people aren't giving terrible, bad advice in such a serious and potentially dangerous area as self defence, yeah. If you try this stuff, and end up in hospital, that's your own issue. If someone else finds your site, and believes that you know what you're talking about, follows your advice, and get's beaten up or worse, I care about that. The fact that you don't seem to speaks volumes. 



First Action said:


> Finally for you enjoyment, and since it seems to come up alot, I have also attached a detailed description of my experiences. I spent a while putting it together so as to be completly honest and accurate. As such, it will be on the website in due time so readers can also deliberate on it before deciding whether FASD is worth their time.
> 
> .. turns out I cant add attachments. Ill put in html and give post the address shortly
> 
> Thanks



This includes your "getting to 3/4 of the way through the curriculum" of your various arts, even though you don't seem to understand what the curriculum of the arts even are? Thinking that "3/4 of the way to black belt" is really anything at all, even when corrected.....


----------



## MJS (Feb 11, 2013)

Sigh...I usually cringe, seriously, when I read threads like this.  Why?  Because 99.99% of the time, when we're talking about self training, and things of this nature, they end up like all the others...in the crapper!  However, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and offer my .02 to the thread.

First, I'll start by saying I've been a member of this thread for a long time.  I've had the chance to interact, via thread, PM, and in some cases, via phone and actually having the opportunity to actually train with many of the people here.  This forum, is, IMHO, fantastic.  Why?  Because we're fortunate to have a huge number of highly talented and skilled people here, many of which have offered some fantastic advice on the forum, many of which who have tested and proven what they say.  

So, that said, I have to agree with alot of whats already been said.  IMO, unless you're devoting numerous hours a week in the dojo as well as some additional hours, outside, training, then NO....there is no self teaching, no training at 10 different places over the course of a year, that will amount to any serious training and/or skill level.  Furthermore, giving someone advice, if you haven't trained for any serious amount of time, is foolish.  Now, how much time is enough?  IMO, you gotta have at least a year, and thats assuming the student is busting their *** training during that time, before I'd even suggest someone giving someone else advice on how to fight, defend themselves, training tips, etc.  

As for the 'tone' of the thread or the 'attitude'...let me say this.  I've learned not to get so emotional from these threads..lol.  I give my advice and of course people are free to do as they wish.  In the 20+ yrs that I've been training, I never claim to be the final say on anything, nor do I claim to be a master.  However, like Chris, and some others on here, I tend to not sugar coat things.  I call 'em like I see 'em.  Alot of the time, the person asking the question, gets pissed off, because they don't like the answer(s) that they're getting.  The person who asks the question wants to here what THEY want to hear, and nothing else.  If it doesnt fit that spectrum, they get all pissed and huffy.  Sorry, if something clearly sucks, I'm not going to lie and say its great.  Why give the person a false impression?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 11, 2013)

First Action said:


> page where to find a detailed description of experiences http://firstactionselfdefense.net/exp.html



Oh, for crying out loud.... "I read some books, did some self training, and had a little time in a couple of schools, but didn't go anywhere with any of it". 

Was that really supposed to be impressive? At all?


----------



## MJS (Feb 11, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8735-fasd-street-fighting-strategy
> 
> http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/t8740-ways-to-escape-without-fighting
> 
> ...



Oh my....

I'm a member of that forum, although I haven't posted in a long time.  Lots of quality members there...well, at least there was when I was there...I'm assuming they're still there, but in any case, to post stuff there, like we're seeing here...well, I can already see guys like Dave Turton shaking his head! LOL!


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 11, 2013)

Read the threads.... it's worth it!


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 11, 2013)

Congratulations on doing all of the following in one post:

-Taking the word dangerous and saying youll add a warning to your blog that makes it sound like your training is dangerous to the other guy, and not dangerous in the sense that itll cause people who take the advice to ultimately lose horribly.
-Claimed that just because you have a chapter about methods of escape despite recently making an article asking how to avoid fighting.
-Assume that everyones wrong and drawing the wrong conclusions and that they would understand if they just thought about it your way (See your first paragraph).
-That you picking who you teach is of some kind of importance when the stuff you teach isnt even worth learning, let alone worth getting onto your list of exclusive course students.
-Thinking that even if you taught it to anyone that 'misusing' the information would lead to anything more than them getting hurt worse than they would have otherwise been.
-Saying that you cant justify a blog you made and making it sound like thats justified by it being 'open source'.
-Assume that we even want to discuss this further, and that we havent just been explaining the same thing to you again and again, and that youre 'explanations' are things that justify your previous statements.
-Believing that were challenging you, when were all trying to give you simple advice (The 'challenge' lasted the first paragraph of everyones first reply, at the most. After that, the challenge was long gone).
-That disagreeing with our points of view is a matter of debate on some points, and that what were saying are just opinions to be agreed or disagreed with.
-Thinking people deliberate over limited qualifications (Because by the looks of it, id close the webpage after reading them).

Peace.



First Action said:


> I think you (and many others) think that (I have simplified this) I just show people techniques and tactics and then tell them to go fight without trying to escape in other ways first. This is not true. There are 3 avenues in which people can learn about FASD, and I will address them individually
> 
> a) Training Manuals: You have only read one chapter of this. Pre-empting the chapter you read, there are also chapters on use of force (ie the law), safety in training, disclaimers, methods of escape etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Feb 11, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Read the threads.... it's worth it!



Only if you can tell me how to stop my eyes from burning.


----------



## First Action (Feb 12, 2013)

Hi Chris, 

As I said before I'm ending this thread (I know i cant physically end it (i dont think), but it implies that Im just not going to monitor it anymore.. ie we all have a choice of how we respond to things) I have read you responses, a lot of it is 'nit-picking' and repeated material, but there are some good things in there also. I was going to reply to the useful points but it will just never end.. so Ive opted not to. I honestly feel your time could be best spent elsewhere than on someone you have lost all hope on. 

If you are really, deeply in need for a response you can PM me. Other than that you can catch me on other threads, in the case that you are tracking me, which it seems you are. (Im impressed you have spent the time to do so)

MJS - 

Thanks for your comments (although much of it has been said), i appreciate in the manner that you have responded ie emotionally balanced. 



> not to get so emotional from these threads..lol. I give my advice and of course people are free to do as they wish.



If you replace 'these threads' with 'what other people say', its pretty much my point of view

Cyriacus:
Despite telling Chris i wasnt going to respond to things point by point, i will do for you because I think you have misinterpreted alot of it and/or taken it out of context

... But the part about not monitoring this post still stands, so for you also, if you really want to discuss it further you can PM me (although I dont think you really care that much)  



> -Taking the word dangerous and saying youll add a warning to your blog that makes it sound like your training is dangerous to the other guy, and not dangerous in the sense that itll cause people who take the advice to ultimately lose horribly.



Out of context.. please wait till I put the disclaimer up until commenting on it



> -Claimed that just because you have a chapter about methods of escape despite recently making an article asking how to avoid fighting.



Out of context. The research the responces from that question are for use in a different section of FASD ie survival fitness. Related, but different



> -Assume that everyones wrong and drawing the wrong conclusions and that they would understand if they just thought about it your way (See your first paragraph).



I cant see how my first paragraph related to this, but in any case I think this is an incorrect assumption about the way I think



> -That you picking who you teach is of some kind of importance when the stuff you teach isnt even worth learning, let alone worth getting onto your list of exclusive course students.



It wasnt meant to be about getting onto my 'exclusive list'. Apart from 2009 I have not (yet) done any active marketing for courses (theres a tab on the website but if you look there is nothing actually there). Alll people I have trained since then are a result of them having witnessed me/us train, and asking for it. What I meant was, if they want to train for the wrong reasons (eg, I want to kick some guys ***), then I wont let them train with me/us.



> -Thinking that even if you taught it to anyone that 'misusing' the information would lead to anything more than them getting hurt worse than they would have otherwise been.


A repeated statement, which in my opinion is wrong. Tp simplify the s**t out of it. If 2 people where going to have a fight, and they are exactly the same (although I realise this is impossible) and one of them did nothing, and the other guy had 1 day of training with me, then the next day the guy that trained with me would 'win' 



> -Saying that you cant justify a blog you made and making it sound like thats justified by it being 'open source'.



I meant that I cant justify that it is open source. A mistake on my part, which I change by adding a disclaimer. 



> -Assume that we even want to discuss this further, and that we havent just been explaining the same thing to you again and again, and that youre 'explanations' are things that justify your previous statements.



If you dont want to discuss something, then dont. Dont post, dont even read the thread. Like how I want to end the discussion, so this is the last time Im reading this thread. Simple. 



> -Believing that were challenging you, when were all trying to give you simple advice (The 'challenge' lasted the first paragraph of everyones first reply, at the most. After that, the challenge was long gone).



Not challenging as in 'i challenge you to a duel'. I mean challenging as in inspiring thought. 



> -That disagreeing with our points of view is a matter of debate on some points, and that what were saying are just opinions to be agreed or disagreed with.



Yes. I truly believe EVERYTHING is subjective. Its the way I view the world. Its also why.. actually, never mind. I could go on for a while about this. 



> -Thinking people deliberate over limited qualifications (Because by the looks of it, id close the webpage after reading them).



Whether they deliberate them or not is not of my concern. Its there to be read. If they continue to read fine, if they decide to close the page, also fine. 

Chris: In case your still reading. I did not post it to impress. If I wanted it to impress I would have embellished the hell out of it. The only reason I did it was because people on this kept asking about my experience.

So just so you dont waste your time replying and not getting a response (from me, feel free to discuss amongst yourselves), I will re-iterate that Im not following this thread anymore.

If ANYONE really feels the need for a responce from me feel to PM.

Thanks


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2013)

MJS said:


> Oh my....
> 
> I'm a member of that forum, although I haven't posted in a long time. Lots of quality members there...well, at least there was when I was there...I'm assuming they're still there, but in any case, to post stuff there, like we're seeing here...well, I can already see guys like *Dave Turton shaking his head*! LOL!




That's what I thought when I read his name (and comments), he's an absolute star that man!


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 12, 2013)

First Action said:


> A repeated statement, which in my opinion is wrong. Tp simplify the s**t out of it. If 2 people where going to have a fight, and they are exactly the same (although I realise this is impossible) and one of them did nothing, and the other guy had 1 day of training with me, then the next day the guy that trained with me would 'win'



And thats where im going to have to disagree. Theres no need to discuss this further - If you really dont want to accept that after all this time and after being told by so many people on other forums, to continue is a pointless endeavour. I shall leave you with your belief.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 12, 2013)

First Action said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> A repeated statement, which in my opinion is wrong. Tp simplify the s**t out of it. If 2 people where going to have a fight, and they are exactly the same (although I realise this is impossible) and one of them did nothing, and the other guy had 1 day of training with me, then the next day the guy that trained with me would 'win'



I think this is an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion. Based on what I've seen of your training methods (what you've posted here, plus wading through your "training manual" I think the person might well be better off without your training.


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> That's what I thought when I read his name (and comments), he's an absolute star that man!



I've read alot of his posts over there, and while I've never met the man, I certainly would like to, if I had the opportunity.  Certainly seems like a wealth of knowledge.  Have you ever had the chance to meet and/or train with him?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2013)

MJS said:


> I've read alot of his posts over there, and while I've never met the man, I certainly would like to, if I had the opportunity. Certainly seems like a wealth of knowledge. Have you ever had the chance to meet and/or train with him?



I met him a few years ago but haven't had the chance to train with him, my instructor has though. Having said that he's having a '65th Birthday' weekend seminar later in the year to which everyones welcome. It's being held at a mutual friend's Dojo not far from me so I have high hopes of being able to go.


----------



## K-man (Feb 12, 2013)

I read the early posts and decided that what I read was so bad it wasn't worthy of comment. But *Chris* posted those interesting links above and I couldn't resist a peak. Dave Turton! A legend! Was he impressed? Well, no. Not even a little bit. I have some of Dave's videos and he is one mean SOB when it comes to SD. I love the guy. He's up there with Bas Ruten. Actually, when I think think about it, he is even meaner than Bas.  

Sorry *First Action.* I think this project should be called 'Last Action'!        :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2013)

K-man said:


> I read the early posts and decided that what I read was so bad it wasn't worthy of comment. But *Chris* posted those interesting links above and I couldn't resist a peak. Dave Turton! A legend! Was he impressed? Well, no. Not even a little bit. I have some of Dave's videos and he is one mean SOB when it comes to SD. I love the guy. He's up there with Bas Ruten. Actually, when I think think about it, he is even meaner than Bas.
> 
> Sorry *First Action.* I think this project should be called 'Last Action'! :asian:



No disrespect to Chris at all, I agree with what he says but if Dave Turton says it's pants it certainly is! He's hugely highly thought of here and his experience outranks most peoples I know. So what he says goes as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## StudentCarl (Feb 27, 2013)

First Action--
You don't explain what you intend to do with this thing you're writing, but I suggest some caution:
1) Your guidance is a recipe for jail time, losing your home and all your money, and maybe getting crippled to boot...and that's just for you.
2) If you are planning to share this and present yourself as an instructor, you are buying criminal liability and setting others up for #1 above.

At the very least you should read some of what Rory Miller has written and recognize that Street Fighting is very different from self-defense. I know of people who have done some of the things you suggest only to go to jail for a long time, lose everything including their family, and basically be shunned by their community, job, and everything they've built.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## StreetReady (Mar 5, 2013)

OP, you have some valid points in your street fighting system. A lot of the concepts you discuss are typically used by thugs when they're out victimizing people. Only thugs have the Kill, Kill, Kill mentality that you mention. Using a weapon on somebody who doesn't have a weapon is typical thug behavior. Attacking somebody from behind or using the element of surprise 'ambush or sucker punch' is typical thug behavior. Using a lot of these concepts in the street will land you a nice comfy bed in a prison cell. Head stomps and weapons are usually considered use of deadly force in the eyes of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. If you're using these brutal concepts on people in the street, it makes you look like a thug. 

On the bright side, I think your system would be great for somebody who is already in prison or will be entering prison soon. I know people who have been in prison and their concept of fighting matches your ideas. They've told me horror stories of people getting attacked and stabbed from behind. Also of people getting knocked unconscious by  sucker-punches and getting their heads tap-danced on until they're retarded. 

My two cents.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 5, 2013)

StreetReady said:


> OP, you have some valid points in your street fighting system. A lot of the concepts you discuss are typically used by thugs when they're out victimizing people. Only thugs have the Kill, Kill, Kill mentality that you mention. Using a weapon on somebody who doesn't have a weapon is typical thug behavior. Attacking somebody from behind or using the element of surprise 'ambush or sucker punch' is typical thug behavior. Using a lot of these concepts in the street will land you a nice comfy bed in a prison cell. Head stomps and weapons are usually considered use of deadly force in the eyes of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. If you're using these brutal concepts on people in the street, it makes you look like a thug.
> 
> On the bright side, I think your system would be great for somebody who is already in prison or will be entering prison soon. I know people who have been in prison and their concept of fighting matches your ideas. They've told me horror stories of people getting attacked and stabbed from behind. Also of people getting knocked unconscious by  sucker-punches and getting their heads tap-danced on until they're retarded.
> 
> My two cents.



Those principles alone may be the case, however, the context in which theyre taught isnt. You dont need to learn how to attack someone. If you wanted to summise all of that, just ask any old person to spend a few minutes seriously considering how to go about doing it. Its not exactly complex, and writing a guide on it only serves to limit you to thinking in whats, and whens, and ifs. What they get from just thinking about it for five seconds will be better, try it yourself. A sucker punch isnt a technique, its the fine art of waltzing over and flailing your arm. It can be the crappiest punch in the world and itll still work.


----------



## StreetReady (Mar 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> A sucker punch isnt a technique, its the fine art of waltzing over and flailing your arm. It can be the crappiest punch in the world and itll still work.



I agree with that. It's not a technique, it's a concept. You hit them when they're not expecting it.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2013)

StreetReady said:


> I agree with that. It's not a technique, it's a concept. *You hit them when they're not expecting it*.



I thought that's what you were supposed to do anyway?


----------



## StreetReady (Mar 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I thought that's what you were supposed to do anyway?



Ideally yeah, but if it's a mutual fight, they'll be expecting you to hit them, so they kind of expect it. Sucker punches work best when you're not dueling. The element of surprise or ambush is what sets apart the sucker punch from other types of strikes/attacks. But I'm sure you're already familiar with that...


----------



## Drasken (Mar 5, 2013)

StreetReady said:


> Ideally yeah, but if it's a mutual fight, they'll be expecting you to hit them, so they kind of expect it. Sucker punches work best when you're not dueling. The element of surprise or ambush is what sets apart the sucker punch from other types of strikes/attacks. But I'm sure you're already familiar with that...



Yeah, kinda hard to play the self defense angle when you sucker punch someone....


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 5, 2013)

StreetReady said:


> Ideally yeah, but if it's a mutual fight, they'll be expecting you to hit them



Well, id normally expect to be bum rushed before any hitting takes place, but hey


----------

