a weak woman

[KenpoMaster805]

Any kind of martial arts will do dont matter if your thin or not you can do many martial arts like karate kung fu taekwondo tai chi etc you just have to choose. i have heart disease and ive been doing karate for 7 years so if i can do it u can do it if you cant do certain cardio tell your instructor he or she will understand.

 

[oftheherd11]

this looks great !

Sometimes one needs to strike whatever is available. However, men tend to be protective of their private parts and a simple turn of hips to cover them with a thigh will often protect them well. I usually recommend an attack to one or both knees.

 

[oftheherd11]

are you afraid a woman is better than you? hang ups? self defence is just that no rules on the streets. I know a woman who was raped. you do not understand. what kind of mod are you?

A few points to ponder if you wish.
v
@jobo can be difficult to take. I don't think English is his 1st language, but I think it s more the way he expresses himself than any difficulty with English. He can even be abrasive from time to time. Once you get past that you may find the occasional pearl of wisdom escaping from his lips

Moderators are people too. They also are martial artists with varying amounts of knowledge in MA and people skills. The point being, you came here asking advice and have side-slipped to giving it on MA. You also take issue with other aspects of using MA with no obvious knowledge to base that on. If something is said that you disagree with, why don't you say it and give your reason the that belief. You don't need to be huffy about it unless it clearly crosses the bounds.

FWIW, I don't see the correctness of the comments of sexual assault in the context of protecting oneself from an attack. If you are attacked by a man (or woman), any amount of pain/damage you inflict (possibly short of lethal actions) that are within the bounds of you locality's laws, to be able to get away, is acceptable in my book.

My advice on a martial art is one almost always given here at Martial Talk, check those that seem interesting to you, and are close enough for you to be able to get to them easily. Go watch some of their classes to see if it is a fit for you. Then make a decision. Don't be afraid to change your mind after a few initial lessons. Do let the instruction know your goals and physical condition before you make your final decision.

A final point. I don't recommend Hapkido or Aikido unless you are sure you won't be put off by the close contact and grabbing. In my experience women are very uncomfortable with that. You may be different and if so, then consider them. Schools are what their owner/teacher wants them to be. But again, in my experience, Hapkido is more likely to want to cause pain and/or damage. Aikido practitioners know many ways to do that, but are satisfied to simply protect themselves until an attacker gets tired and leaves. Not everyon may agree with that.

 

[oftheherd11]

Preemptive striking is the very basis for effective self defence. If a woman waits for an aggressor to strike first the fight has most likely already been lost.

Grabbing nuts is not the most effective self defence move, but it has worked and that’s why it’s taught so much in pretty much EVERY women’s self defence program.

But you must know more about women’s self defense than ALL the other reputable self defence instructors around the told who teach such techniques.

By the way: this thread is meant to help the OP find a good martial arts school, not for non-lawyers to discuss the legality of the martial arts technique taught.

Virtually every martial arts technique discussed in this forum is potentially illegal - depending on the personal whim of the sitting judge.

So a bunch of non-lawyers coming to this thread to write “you can’t do that, it’s potentially illegal!” is the ultimate in stating the obvious.



Definitely try the JKD school, depending on the instructor it may be even better than the KM.

I disagree with pretty much everything you have said. You would do well to do some fact checking.

BTW, how many reputable self defence programs have you attended to know what they all teach? Surely must keep you busy.

 

[oftheherd11]

well in a POST covid world, things should be back to normal, the question is, when will this be¹

id be reluctant to tell someone to learn from videos, this was a bad idea before, the present situation hasnt made it better, just left it as the only option in some cases, particularly if its videos like the groin grab one

my advice to anyone who identifies as " weak" would be to spend much of their inial efforts trying to stop being " weak" which ever aspect of their fitness they are refering to.

as there is no doubt that a reasonable level of fitness makes any number of self defence techniques more viable

well in a POST covid world, things should be back to normal, the question is, when will this be¹

id be reluctant to tell someone to learn from videos, this was a bad idea before, the present situation hasnt made it better, just left it as the only option in some cases, particularly if its videos like the groin grab one

my advice to anyone who identifies as " weak" would be to spend much of their inial efforts trying to stop being " weak" which ever aspect of their fitness they are refering to.

as there is no doubt that a reasonable level of fitness makes any number of self defence techniques more viable

I pretty much agree. What I really like is that you made me realize what I think most of us (certainly myself!) have missed. The OP is a self proclaimed weak person with lung problems. We have concentrated on what martial art she should take (of course she did ask), not much on safety from COVID19, and her weak and with lung problems. One member here who loves to put others down, has encouraged her to join a specific group MA with no knowledge of the qualifications of the instructor or his character, nor how that instructor may protect his students from COVID.

Lisa, you need to find out more about that school and its instructor. You need to find how teachers protect their students in any school you might find yourself interested in. You might wish to spend your time on exercises you can safely do at home until you find a school you like. Start slow and work up from their. Good luck!

 

[isshinryuronin]

Re: women's self-defense - A basic strategy in most any combat-like situation is to exploit the opponent's weaknesses and maximize your strengths. The opposite is also true - avoid the opponent's strengths and minimize the window to your own weaknesses. I think this is a very sound foundation for strategy. This is true for everyone, but especially so for female vs male conflicts since the differences between men and women (physically and psychologically) are often greater than in male vs male conflicts.

So here are some thoughts I have on this general topic...please accept these are generalizations. (Yes, there are men and women who are out of the norm and exceptional - like being the male 95 lb. weakling or Rhonda Rousey strong and skilled.)

The typical male is stronger and heavier than the typical female. So, to minimize the male's advantage in this area, it seems wise to avoid grappling. In light of this, I don't understand considering BJJ or judo as an ideal art for women's self-defense. Staying off the ground, to me, would be one of my primary goals against a bigger, stronger, attacker. A female on the ground is akin to being forced into a car - At these points, the probable results are grim, so should be avoided at any cost. I would suggest that a striking MA would be most effective. Subtle and nuanced arts take longer to master and are often indirect with less margin of error.

In battle, the solution to a weak force having to fight a superior force is hit and run, like guerrilla warfare or special forces. A sustained engagement is almost always in the superior force's favor. Such situations have caused the greatest losses to the SEALs and other light armed security forces (Panama, Ethiopia, Benghazi).

IMO, a female's best option is to strike fast to vulnerable, high value, targets, immediately follow-up with striking until the attacker is at least semi-disabled, and get the heck away ASAP. Unlike a gun, body mass targets are not ideal. I think good targets are finger joints, eyes, throat, nose, ears (a la Mike Tyson vs Norton), temple, knees and groin. Good attacks are grabbing and ripping or snapping, biting, elbows, stomping and well placed kicking.

Psychologically, a woman must be mentally prepared to be vicious in executing the above. This takes practice, just as in physical moves. A man's biggest weakness, I think, is overconfidence when approaching a women for attack and should be exploited. IMO, the woman should not raise a guard or attempt an attack until he is in striking distance. I would not tip him off, keep him off-guard for as long as possible and then viciously surprise attack, continuing until the chance to escape presents itself.

Naturally, all of these are last resort tactics. Avoidance and evasion should be the first choices whenever possible.

 

[Lisa lyons]

@jobo can be difficult to take. I don't think English is his 1st language, but I think it s more the way he expresses himself than any difficulty with English. He can even be abrasive from time to time. Once you get past that you may find the occasional pearl of wisdom escaping from his lips

oh i don´t really mind. I sort of feel sorry for the man having 10,000 posts. seems to be on here 24/7.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A final point. I don't recommend Hapkido or Aikido unless you are sure you won't be put off by the close contact and grabbing. In my experience women are very uncomfortable with that. You may be different and if so, then consider them.

I'll just point out that the closest (and most grabby) kind of contact will come in BJJ. (Judo would be probably be next, in my range of experience) and Hapkido and Aikido a half-step (literally) more distant on average. That close contact is part of the real value of those, as it focuses more on controlling position and protecting, which is pretty core to defensive fighting (trying to get out of a bad situation) IMO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Re: women's self-defense - A basic strategy in most any combat-like situation is to exploit the opponent's weaknesses and maximize your strengths. The opposite is also true - avoid the opponent's strengths and minimize the window to your own weaknesses. I think this is a very sound foundation for strategy. This is true for everyone, but especially so for female vs male conflicts since the differences between men and women (physically and psychologically) are often greater than in male vs male conflicts.

So here are some thoughts I have on this general topic...please accept these are generalizations. (Yes, there are men and women who are out of the norm and exceptional - like being the male 95 lb. weakling or Rhonda Rousey strong and skilled.)

The typical male is stronger and heavier than the typical female. So, to minimize the male's advantage in this area, it seems wise to avoid grappling. In light of this, I don't understand considering BJJ or judo as an ideal art for women's self-defense. Staying off the ground, to me, would be one of my primary goals against a bigger, stronger, attacker. A female on the ground is akin to being forced into a car - At these points, the probable results are grim, so should be avoided at any cost. I would suggest that a striking MA would be most effective. Subtle and nuanced arts take longer to master and are often indirect with less margin of error.

In battle, the solution to a weak force having to fight a superior force is hit and run, like guerrilla warfare or special forces. A sustained engagement is almost always in the superior force's favor. Such situations have caused the greatest losses to the SEALs and other light armed security forces (Panama, Ethiopia, Benghazi).

IMO, a female's best option is to strike fast to vulnerable, high value, targets, immediately follow-up with striking until the attacker is at least semi-disabled, and get the heck away ASAP. Unlike a gun, body mass targets are not ideal. I think good targets are finger joints, eyes, throat, nose, ears (a la Mike Tyson vs Norton), temple, knees and groin. Good attacks are grabbing and ripping or snapping, biting, elbows, stomping and well placed kicking.

Psychologically, a woman must be mentally prepared to be vicious in executing the above. This takes practice, just as in physical moves. A man's biggest weakness, I think, is overconfidence when approaching a women for attack and should be exploited. IMO, the woman should not raise a guard or attempt an attack until he is in striking distance. I would not tip him off, keep him off-guard for as long as possible and then viciously surprise attack, continuing until the chance to escape presents itself.

Naturally, all of these are last resort tactics. Avoidance and evasion should be the first choices whenever possible.

The issue with striking, alone, is that in my experience it takes a relatively long time to learn to deliver damaging strikes unless you have mass (and strength) on your side. For someone who is slightly built and/or weak, their strikes may not be able to do enough damage to deter an attacker, until they get quite skilled at them. And if someone is attacking (not just fighting), they probably aren't going to stay out at sparring distance. Since the attacker is likelly to close that range, it's best to be able to deal with the grabbing and attempts to control. This is what grappling arts do.

I agree going to the ground isn't a best option, but if someone outweighing me by 60+ lbs and with more strength wants to put me there, I won't be able to stop them unless I'm more skilled at grappling. And if they do get me there, grappling is the only feasible way to get back up. Also, grappling locks (especially those found in groundwork) can often be used in ways that reduce the strength differential (getting legs involved against arms, putting the attacker in positions where he doesn't have good leverage, etc.).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

oh i don´t really mind. I sort of feel sorry for the man having 10,000 posts. seems to be on here 24/7.

Why do you have a problem with people who've been on a forum for a long time?

 

[Lisa lyons]

Why do you have a problem with people who've been on a forum for a long time?

is it not better to write fewer quality posts rather than just argumentative negative posts?
if we put it into a martial arts contex why learn 1,000s of teqniques when you could learn less but more training quality. do you see my point?

 

[oftheherd11]

I'll just point out that the closest (and most grabby) kind of contact will come in BJJ. (Judo would be probably be next, in my range of experience) and Hapkido and Aikido a half-step (literally) more distant on average. That close contact is part of the real value of those, as it focuses more on controlling position and protecting, which is pretty core to defensive fighting (trying to get out of a bad situation) IMO.

I am sure you have more experience with other arts, especially grappling arts, than I do. I had thought that the BJJ grappling differed in its desire to get an opponent to the ground, go with him, and apply grapples that usually attacked an opponent's arms or legs, or whatever other things might present themselves. I thought Hapkido would grab whatever it could and attack joints if possible, didn't mind putting an opponent to the ground, but didn't want to be there themselves. Aikido might as well, but might not wish to pin an opponent although they wouldn't mind it, but would be happy to keep throwing an opponent around until he go tired and quit being aggressive. All that in general terms of course.

Live and learn.

 

[jobo]

I am sure you have more experience with other arts, especially grappling arts, than I do. I had thought that the BJJ grappling differed in its desire to get an opponent to the ground, go with him, and apply grapples that usually attacked an opponent's arms or legs, or whatever other things might present themselves. I thought Hapkido would grab whatever it could and attack joints if possible, didn't mind putting an opponent to the ground, but didn't want to be there themselves. Aikido might as well, but might not wish to pin an opponent although they wouldn't mind it, but would be happy to keep throwing an opponent around until he go tired and quit being aggressive. All that in general terms of course.

Live and learn.

i think his point maybe, that wrapping your self round an attacker, may not be the best for quickly extraditing yourself from a situation

 

[JowGaWolf]

Any kind of martial arts will do dont matter if your thin or not you can do many martial arts like karate kung fu taekwondo tai chi etc you just have to choose. i have heart disease and ive been doing karate for 7 years so if i can do it u can do it if you cant do certain cardio tell your instructor he or she will understand.

This is more along the lines I'm thinking of. I'm weak or think I'm weak, then any martial art will make me stronger. If a person is weak then almost any martial art activity will make them physically stronger in one way or the the other.

Based on what the OP described, she could do bicep curls with 5 or 10 pounds and still get stronger than she is now. She could do push ups and get stronger from that. Everyone gets stronger from push ups no matter how much they can lift. Right now she's in a good spot in terms of getting results, because anything that she does will make her stronger.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The issue with striking, alone, is that in my experience it takes a relatively long time to learn to deliver damaging strikes unless you have mass (and strength) on your side. For someone who is slightly built and/or weak, their strikes may not be able to do enough damage to deter an attacker, until they get quite skilled at them

You offer this as the reason for embracing grappling for SD. I think the opposite - that basic, effective striking takes less time to learn and requires less raw strength than grappling. I wrestled in junior college and it was the most exhaustive training I've done. While I haven't done BJJ, I have seen a lot and it seems that, aside from weight and strength, the shorter limbs of the smaller person would make many BJJ techniques hard to execute. Am I wrong here? I still think going to the ground should be the LAST strategy for the smaller, weaker, opponent unless very, very, well trained.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

is it not better to write fewer quality posts rather than just argumentative negative posts?
if we put it into a martial arts contex why learn 1,000s of teqniques when you could learn less but more training quality. do you see my point?

Is it not also an apt analogy that it's better to do a drill 1,000 times than once?

I agree that negative posts aren't necessary. That's why I asked about your negative comment about active members of a forum.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am sure you have more experience with other arts, especially grappling arts, than I do. I had thought that the BJJ grappling differed in its desire to get an opponent to the ground, go with him, and apply grapples that usually attacked an opponent's arms or legs, or whatever other things might present themselves. I thought Hapkido would grab whatever it could and attack joints if possible, didn't mind putting an opponent to the ground, but didn't want to be there themselves. Aikido might as well, but might not wish to pin an opponent although they wouldn't mind it, but would be happy to keep throwing an opponent around until he go tired and quit being aggressive. All that in general terms of course.

Live and learn.

Those are reasonable generalizations, but the distance is also a big differentiator. BJJ tends (because it heavily focuses on groundwork) to work a VERY close distances a lot. To compare Judo to Aikido/Hapkido (same base), Kano once referred to Aikido as "Judo at arm's length" or something similar.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You offer this as the reason for embracing grappling for SD. I think the opposite - that basic, effective striking takes less time to learn and requires less raw strength than grappling. I wrestled in junior college and it was the most exhaustive training I've done. While I haven't done BJJ, I have seen a lot and it seems that, aside from weight and strength, the shorter limbs of the smaller person would make many BJJ techniques hard to execute. Am I wrong here? I still think going to the ground should be the LAST strategy for the smaller, weaker, opponent unless very, very, well trained.

Imagine a small man punching against a larger man. Imagine both are highly experienced boxers. The difference in mass makes the outcome pretty predictable. Now if the smaller guy is highly skilled and the bigger guy is not, that changes. But moderately skilled person who is much smaller than their opponent has a problem if all they can rely upon is strikes, because that bigger person can probably get ahold of them and bear them to the ground. Grappling can even some of that out pretty quickly, by allowing better control of that close range, which opens up escape routes.

I agree striking is easier to learn to basic proficiency (it's an area of early emphasis in my curriculum for that reason). I just don't think that most basic level goes far enough in giving opportunities to control the situation against a larger attacker. If it fails, having solid basic groundwork is a good idea.

Ideally, a mixture of both gives better choices.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Imagine a small man punching against a larger man. Imagine both are highly experienced boxers. The difference in mass makes the outcome pretty predictable. Now if the smaller guy is highly skilled and the bigger guy is not, that changes. But moderately skilled person who is much smaller than their opponent has a problem if all they can rely upon is strikes, because that bigger person can probably get ahold of them and bear them to the ground. Grappling can even some of that out pretty quickly, by allowing better control of that close range, which opens up escape routes.

I agree striking is easier to learn to basic proficiency (it's an area of early emphasis in my curriculum for that reason). I just don't think that most basic level goes far enough in giving opportunities to control the situation against a larger attacker. If it fails, having solid basic groundwork is a good idea.

Ideally, a mixture of both gives better choices.

When I taught self defense to teens, it was always in the context of someone one larger attacking them. The first things that I taught them were awareness, sensitivity, and escape. The awareness is keep to any self-defense. Sensitivity and escape were directed towards escaping someone's attempts to grab them.

I didn't teach them any attacks because I didn't want them to bite off more than they could chew in a bad situation. I didn't teach them to strike because I didn't want them to think that they could punch their way out of everything. This was before BJJ hit mainstream. I would probably take the same path today, but would include defense against take downs for when they are in a position that requires them to stand their ground. My entire concept of self-defense is. Striking only works when they can strike you. Grappling only works when they can grab you. So be good at denying your attacker those things then escape.

 

[Steve]

I may be mistaken but I think you guys are being trolled by the OP and some of her friends.