Anecdotal vs. empirical

[drop bear]

I get what you're saying on both posts.

But there inherently are things "too dangerous to train." How do you realistically eye gouge (your example) in practice? I've got better things to do than lose any eye. I've been eye gouged in wrestling and an actual fight. Really sucked both times, and it easily got me to let go. In fact, both times were worse and more effective than any time I've had me boys grabbed in wrestling (there were a few). Maybe the eye gouge guys did something special, but I'll put faith in the technique working, as it worked against me. It didn't end the encounter either time, but it got me to break my grip long enough.

How do you propose kicking someone's knees in practice? I've seen countless knees blown out in sports from contact. I don't need that

Knife hand across the throat or back of the neck? I've been hit in the throat, and I've seen it done (intentionally in a fight and unintentionally in sports). It'll definitely stop someone. Not a death blow per se, but if you're looking for that second or so to get away and it's there, it's a viable option.

Some things really are too dangerous to practice with resistance. Not the setup of them, but the techniques themselves. This is the very essence of why grapplers tap - both parties know the technique will cause real injury and don't follow through. Same as a roundhouse to the outside of the knee, a knife hand to the throat or back of the neck, etc.

The resistance in training techniques like that should be in resisting the opening; the person doing it shouldn't actually hit it.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page though. Too many people think they can do it without developing the setup, timing, power, etc. Throwing roundhouse kicks knee height in the air isn't going to do it. Throwing them hard against a heavy bag is a great start.

You train throwing a similar technique you can use.

 

[Steve]

This isn't really an issue, so long as those discussing at any given time agree to use a specific definition. Paul D and I, for instance, include different material within the scope of "self-defense", but we're capable of discussing it sanely, because we can temporarily adopt each other's definition to discuss what was posted. So, for instance, when Paul posts something about "self-defense", I know he's including what I call "self-protection" (target hardening, de-escalation, etc.), so when I reply to his post, I don't reply as if he meant what I mean when I use the term.

Problems begin when people refuse to accept each others' definition in replying. If I refused to use Paul's definition when replying to him when disagreeing about some point, my arguments would all be strawmen, since they'd be based upon the premise that he uses my definition of SD.

I disagree. Not that you can discuss things sanely with Paul D (who seems like a reasonable fellow most times). That a shared understanding of the term can be reached. I don't see that ever happening around here beyond a very, very micro level understanding within the context of a single thread, and even then the shared understanding lasts only a few posts before things careen off in another direction.

Some people think Self Defense is all fighting. Some people think it's not fighting at all. Some think it's what LEOs do. Some think it's what MMA fighters do. Some think it's what Bouncers do. Some think it's everything that happens before physical altercation. Some think it's everything that happens once things get physical. It's literally anything you want it to be.

 

[drop bear]

The issue isn't using LEO to draw reasonable conclusions about what can work. There are, however, a couple of issues. First, people tend to cherry pick. Some endorse LEO, but refuse to acknowledge other sources, such as bouncing or competitions. And vice versa.

The second issue is that people who endorse one source tend to conflate that source with civilian self defense as a direct link. What LEO does and what will work or is even relevant to a non-cop are not the same. Similarly, there are issues with mma. So, while some things cops know can be relevant and helpful, very little of what cops do crosses over.

And we can do empirical studies, but interestingly, the few that do exist are largely ignored.

Or in simple terms an appeal to authority.

 

[Martial D]

I disagree. Not that you can discuss things sanely with Paul D (who seems like a reasonable fellow most times). That a shared understanding of the term can be reached. I don't see that ever happening around here beyond a very, very micro level understanding within the context of a single thread, and even then the shared understanding lasts only a few posts before things careen off in another direction.

Some people think Self Defense is all fighting. Some people think it's not fighting at all. Some think it's what LEOs do. Some think it's what MMA fighters do. Some think it's what Bouncers do. Some think it's everything that happens before physical altercation. Some think it's everything that happens once things get physical. It's literally anything you want it to be.

When in reality, the action of it is contained in the title. Any and all things done in a dangerous situation that leads to you being able to walk(or run) away from it.

Seems simple to me.

 

[drop bear]

When in reality, the action of it is contained in the title. Any and all things done in a dangerous situation that leads to you being able to walk(or run) away from it.

Seems simple to me.

So crocodile awareness is self defense?

 

[Martial D]

So crocodile awareness is self defense?

LOL

I guess 'a dangerous situation involving one or more hostile human beings' then. Escaping an avalanche isn't really SD either...

 

[Steve]

LOL

I guess 'a dangerous situation involving one or more hostile human beings' then. Escaping an avalanche isn't really SD either...

Not as simple as one might think, after all.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Nah. Self defense has to be undefined otherwise we would start to be able to gain empirical evidence.

The difficulty in gathering empirical evidence has little to do with definitions - that can be dealt with at any point, for the sake of data gathering. The problem is - and always will be - the sheer number of uncontrollable confounding variables. The only way to deal with uncontrollable variables is to have a large enough sample size to control for them in the analysis. We will simply never have a large enough sample to control for all the variables involved - there probably aren't enough incidents in the entirety of history (assuming we had objective information about every single one) to control for even half of them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are a lot of systems in place that allowed martial BS to flourish.

MMA did not invent realism. But it did remove the isolation of martial arts training. And a lot of the ego from martial arts status.

So traditionally cross style competition was either frowned upon or seen as a serious insult.

So I walk in to you dojo,spit on the floor, fight your instructor for sheep stations. Then go back to doing the same old thing.

I would look for styles and artists I could beat to validate my method.

MMA looks for artists and styles that can beat them to improve their method.

And that is the shift.

Interesting assumptions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And we can do empirical studies, but interestingly, the few that do exist are largely ignored.

Empirical studies of technique effectiveness for SD? I'd be interested in seeing that? Or are you talking about the studies regarding the non-physical things that reduce the chances of being a victim?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree. Not that you can discuss things sanely with Paul D (who seems like a reasonable fellow most times). That a shared understanding of the term can be reached. I don't see that ever happening around here beyond a very, very micro level understanding within the context of a single thread, and even then the shared understanding lasts only a few posts before things careen off in another direction.

Some people think Self Defense is all fighting. Some people think it's not fighting at all. Some think it's what LEOs do. Some think it's what MMA fighters do. Some think it's what Bouncers do. Some think it's everything that happens before physical altercation. Some think it's everything that happens once things get physical. It's literally anything you want it to be.

A shared understanding can be reached. Some refuse to do so, even for the length of a discussion, but it does happen. I've had some pretty significant discussions with folks who used a different definition than I do, and we just agreed on one for the purpose of the discussion - usually whichever was used first in that discussion. Or we pick another term to use that means roughly the same thing to both of us.

There are certainly those who like to argue enough that they will refuse to settle on a definition with someone - often arguing from semantics, rather than having a point (e.g., arguing that a statement about "self-defense" is incorrect, simply because they don't agree with the definition of SD used, and even supplied, within the statement). But those folks will tend to do that with other topics, as well, so that's not unique to SD.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So crocodile awareness is self defense?

By some folks' definition, that actually does fit. And if that's the definition they start with (something like, "Anything that helps you avoid danger and improves your chances of going home uninjured"), then I'm okay with that.

 

[Steve]

Empirical studies of technique effectiveness for SD? I'd be interested in seeing that? Or are you talking about the studies regarding the non-physical things that reduce the chances of being a victim?

Come on, man. I've shared at least one link with you before.

 

[Steve]

A shared understanding can be reached. Some refuse to do so, even for the length of a discussion, but it does happen. I've had some pretty significant discussions with folks who used a different definition than I do, and we just agreed on one for the purpose of the discussion - usually whichever was used first in that discussion. Or we pick another term to use that means roughly the same thing to both of us.

There are certainly those who like to argue enough that they will refuse to settle on a definition with someone - often arguing from semantics, rather than having a point (e.g., arguing that a statement about "self-defense" is incorrect, simply because they don't agree with the definition of SD used, and even supplied, within the statement). But those folks will tend to do that with other topics, as well, so that's not unique to SD.

Okay. And we have seen examples of what I'm referring to in this very thread.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

LOL

I guess 'a dangerous situation involving one or more hostile human beings' then. Escaping an avalanche isn't really SD either...

Maybe not, but there is an overlap of skills. Knowledge of your surroundings, awareness of potential threats and learning how to minimize risks are all skills needed for self-protection, whether from animals, people or mother nature.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Come on, man. I've shared at least one link with you before.

Unless my brain is completely giving out, you're talking about the non-physical stuff (the part I collect in the term "self-protection"). That's why I asked that the way I did. I had read the OP as discussing the physical side, though there's a strong chance that's just my read, as I look back at it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. And we have seen examples of what I'm referring to in this very thread.

Agreed. If we nitpick any definition, it won't matter which one we choose to work from. Any definition will include too much or exclude too much - probably both. But that doesn't mean folks can't agree on a working definition. Some just won't, and will prefer to pick at whatever is proposed.

 

[Paul_D]

Check out the first three UFC events from the 90s. Back then everyone believed they had 'the real sh#t', until it was actually tested. Keep in mind there wasn't really any rules at that time.

Well yes there were, rules written to favour ground fighters, such as no rounds so the fighters didn’t have to stand back up again.

'my style handles multiple attackers but mma doesn't'

Etc. None of it holds any real water.

True, but I think this one holds of water, in the examples I gave.

 

[Paul_D]

Lol. Prove it.

Where of you think the techniques which work in MMA came from? Was judo was like the WWE until people took their gi off and did it in a cage?

 

[Paul_D]

No where did anybody say or argue or even imply that self defense is all about fighting.

We were discussing a non fighting scenario, and you started talking about it fighting styles. Every time we talk about SD, you only ever talk about it in terms of men getting into fights with each other, because that is all you understand. Now you don't see how that implies SD is all about fighting. If you don't even understand your own posts what chance do you have with other peoples?

And then we can discuss your argument that all styles don't work for self defense.

I never made that argument. Do you struggle with English? As I am typing one thing but you are reading something completely different.

I thought just argued for the sake of it, but I see now you genuinely are mentally subnormal. You struggle to grasp basic English, and don't even understand your own posts. Trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to wrestle a pig, I just end up covered in **** and the pig ends up happy.

You are back on ignore where you belong. I don't have the time or the crayons to keep explaining your own posts to you let alone everyone else's. It's not my job to be the Idiot Whisperer.