Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

[drop bear]

Yes and no. Being able to avoid violence at the hands of non normal members of society is self defense. It's easy for 2 normal people to avoid violence because as you said that's normal behavior. Avioding physical confrontation with crazy, intoxicated, or criminals is self defense

Yes. But if you want to play that game you also want to be able to fight or run. And some time spent learning to wholesale whoop *** becomes more relevant.

I feel the idea that self defence is not also fighting is more of a platitude than a solution.

 

[drop bear]

and that a rubbing some dirt in the cut will stop the bleeding

Sorry what?

Use some dunny paper or something.

 

[Brian King]

And all of those assumptions would be false Brian. Just like your assumptions surrounding my training methods earlier.

You say so, yet, your posting seems to strongly suggest otherwise on all counts? Oh well, not my problem. Good luck to you and to anyone you happen to train with or be around.

Perhaps as an exercise, you could address the same hypothetical as I gave to Steve. The one up thread about creating a self defense program for the university in question. What would be your curriculum and how would you test it?

Regards
Brian King

 

[Brian King]

Sorry what?

Use some dunny paper or something.

Ha, I had to look up dunny paper! Never heard TP called that. In the service I was an engineer...of sorts, had to spend a lot of time in the field. TP was prized and not to be wasted on something so menial as sopping up a bit blood.

Anyway, funny post and I learned a new name for TP, I call that a win.

Regards
Brian King

 

[K-man]

Ha, I had to look up dunny paper! Never heard TP called that. In the service I was an engineer...of sorts, had to spend a lot of time in the field. TP was prized and not to be wasted on something so menial as sopping up a bit blood.

Anyway, funny post and I learned a new name for TP, I call that a win.

Regards
Brian King

Those of us who started shaving in the 60s or earlier often used the same DP to stem the bleeding from the more primative shaving gear we had available back then.

 

[drop bear]

You say so, yet, your posting seems to strongly suggest otherwise on all counts? Oh well, not my problem. Good luck to you and to anyone you happen to train with or be around.

Perhaps as an exercise, you could address the same hypothetical as I gave to Steve. The one up thread about creating a self defense program for the university in question. What would be your curriculum and how would you test it?

Regards
Brian King

New thread for the hypothetical?

It is a big topic.

 

[drop bear]

Those of us who started shaving in the 60s or earlier often used the same DP to stem the bleeding from the more primative shaving gear we had available back then.

It is a major component of our first aid kit.

 

[Hanzou]

You say so, yet, your posting seems to strongly suggest otherwise on all counts? Oh well, not my problem. Good luck to you and to anyone you happen to train with or be around.

Perhaps as an exercise, you could address the same hypothetical as I gave to Steve. The one up thread about creating a self defense program for the university in question. What would be your curriculum and how would you test it?

Regards
Brian King

I would teach them Bjj. Probably something along these lines;
9 Rules for BJJ Self Defense - Grapplearts

 

[elder999]

I 'll have a little more time later to address some of the things I've brought up-I'm kinda delighted with this discussion and the way it has progressed-there are a few other things that I think might need some quick housekeeping on my part.

Way upthread,we had this post:

I never teach students to use a "style" or even a martial art. I teach them to use approaches that don't require years to develop the skill. I make sure they understand that complicated moves and fine motor skills will leave them so use basic concepts and principles. When attacked, no one is in the "proper" mindset and they WILL be at a disadvantage. However, 95% of what I do recommend to them does come from martial arts.

Specifically, weapons first. Always be armed even if it is nothing more than a ballpoint pen, I tell them; but a knife or gun is best. Since most do not carry guns or knives the emphasis is on "environmental weapons", items to be naturally found on or around them. I, myself carry knives, rarely a gun; and since I need a cane to walk that becomes my primary weapon.

Secondly, I teach them that there is no such thing as self defense. Reason being that defense is a response to a prior advantage directed at them; you can't punch backing up, so to speak. What I prepare them to do is at the moment it appears an attack is forthcoming YOU become the aggressor. I think most people know when something bad is about to come down so it makes no sense to politely give the thug first dibs. In such situations you must EXPLODE into a violent and loud attack with everything and anything you know or have with you. Any attacker should not be left in a condition to regain his feet for at least a good while. The results of your initial action, they are instructed, will determine what your next move will be; be it to quickly leave the area or stay around. Always, I tell them, always call the police asap. Often the police don't like the idea of people protecting themselves but this fascist attitude is their problem, not yours.

Basically these are my pillars of self protection. There's more, of course, but this is the basic outline.

The "practical" parts of which were.......interesting.....I just need to say that in the original actual event that led to this thread being started, the woman was ambushed and tackled. Most people who train weapons don't seem to include deploying a weapon from such a compromised position: I've trained with knives for....well, for a long time, now, and I had to seek out training on getting the knife out and using it in just this situation. Ditto-especially-firearms. In fact, I've had policemen who were more than a little helpless in this situation: I've taken them down and not only kept them from getting to their (Airsoft) pistol, I've controlled them with their duty belt, and often taken the pistol (don't usually like to scare the cops....)..then shown them how to fill in the gaps in their 6 months at the academy.....

As for the discenment and use of "environmental weapons," thatt could be a whole other thread...

Seems a bit like false advertising really. People tend to equate self defense with fighting prowess. Essentially a person who could fight was well adept at defending themselves against someone doing them harm.

It seems rather bizarre to hear instructors say that the point isn't to fight at all. Well if that's the point, why are you teaching people how to kill someone for the vast majority of your class time? That's quite the contradiction.

Of course it would be difficult to fill those training halls with people if you spent the entire lesson teaching about how to de-escalate a situation or turn the other cheek instead of teaching people how to smash windpipes. Right?

Here's a Japanese saying that predates judo, or "karate," never mind BJJ, and comes from a time when martial arts were martial arts:

"Arasoi no nai no ga bu no riso," which means, "Not to fight is the ideal of martial arts."

That was said by Katayama Hoki no Kami Hisayasu, who lived from 1575 to 1615, and founded the Hoki ryu.....

Of course, we're not really necessarily talking about "martial arts" here as much as we are "self-defense," a distinction that might also take up a whole other thread. In any case, while self defense teaching can and should be mostly the physical techniques of self-defense (as these are the very things that take the most to learn, not necessarily "what people are paying for") , proper training-to be properly "defensive" should, at the very least, include knowing when not to fight, something about de-escalation, and how and when to run away.

 

[Hanzou]

Here's a Japanese saying that predates judo, or "karate," never mind BJJ, and comes from a time when martial arts were martial arts:

"Arasoi no nai no ga bu no riso," which means, "Not to fight is the ideal of martial arts."

That was said by Katayama Hoki no Kami Hisayasu, who lived from 1575 to 1615, and founded the Hoki ryu.....

Of course, we're not really necessarily talking about "martial arts" here as much as we are "self-defense," a distinction that might also take up a whole other thread. In any case, while self defense teaching can and should be mostly the physical techniques of self-defense (as these are the very things that take the most to learn, not necessarily "what people are paying for") , proper training-to be properly "defensive" should, at the very least, include knowing when not to fight, something about de-escalation, and how and when to run away.

Tell that to the woman in the video in the OP. She chose not to fight and got brutalized, risking the life of herself and her child.

Look, I'm all for Samurai platitudes, but that guy (if we're talking about the same person) lived during the era of Japanese peace following the warring states period, and he was a sword instructor to the elite. Unlike Musashi, he never saw a battle or duel in his entire plushy life and lived well into his late 70s. I'm not seeing how he is any more of a martial artist than anyone living today.

 

[elder999]

Tell that to the woman in the video in the OP. She chose not to fight and got brutalized, risking the life of herself and her child.

Look, I'm all for Samurai platitudes, but that guy (if we're talking about the same person) lived during the era of Japanese peace following the warring states period, and he was a sword instructor to the elite. Unlike Musashi, he never saw a battle or duel in his entire plushy life and lived well into his late 70s. I'm not seeing how he is any more of a martial artist than anyone living today.

Same fellow-but not quite right : if we mark the end of the Sengoku, what you're calling the "warring states period," with the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate, that occurred in 1603, when Katayama was 28. He'd have reached his majority at 15, and we can't really say he
never had a duel, because we don't really know....he was only a bit less than a decade older than Musashi, so who knows what occurred on his musha shugyo?

(oh, and I gave the wrong year for his death, for some reason-he died in 1650)

As for the rest, the things you're not seeing rarely surprise me anymore.

 

[Hanzou]

Same fellow-but not quite right : if we mark the end of the Sengoku, what you're calling the "warring states period," with the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate, that occurred in 1603, when Katayama was 28. He'd have reached his majority at 15, and we can't really say he
never had a duel, because we don't really know....he was only a bit less than a decade older than Musashi, so who knows what occurred on his musha shugyo?

(oh, and I gave the wrong year for his death, for some reason-he died in 1650)

As for the rest, the things you're not seeing rarely surprise me anymore.

I'm pretty sure that if this guy was an amazing duelist, his followers would have recorded it.

Anyway, I'm simply against these silly platitudes being regurgitated over and over again. Sure, its better not to fight than it is to engage in fighting, but sometimes you don't have a choice. The woman in the OP survived because her assailant didn't want to kill her, he just wanted to beat on her and then rob her house. I don't believe anyone should willfully put their lives in the hands of someone else.

 

[elder999]

Sure, its better not to fight than it is to engage in fighting, but sometimes you don't have a choice. The woman in the OP survived because her assailant didn't want to kill her, he just wanted to beat on her and then rob her house. I don't believe anyone should willfully put their lives in the hands of someone else.

Now, everyone reading this thread can agree that there can be more than one way to solve a problem. For example 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 10-6=4, 16 divided by 4 = 4… which is the correct math formula, depends entirely on context. Let’s try to discuss the messages and not so much the messengers although a little background on the posters experiences if they want, might help to add context?

Thank you

Brian King

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

. Any physical component is something other than self defense.
.

Steve, no one has said this. Obviously in reading the thread this is what you have decided but it is you alone saying this. Personal protection skills certainly involve a physical component. Self-defense is a legal term where someone is claiming self-defense based off already being in a violent situation. They are admitting to the guilt of being in a physical encounter but here is why they did it! Personal protection training that also includes self-defense training has mental, physical and yes even spiritual components as executing training effectively in a moment while being attacked quite often draws off your unique spiritual aspect. However, the mental skill sets are very, very important where you or I and probably many others would disagree is your idea that it should be at the 80/20 rule.

It would appear that you are trying to categorize training into a certain mold that fits your perception.

It would also seem that you are trying to create and argument to fit your reason for training and that Hanzou is attempting to take it to the next extreme. (ie. to justify what and why you do what you do in BJJ) Which is not helpful to this thread or what the OP intended! This thread is a discussion what are the fundamental pillars of self-defense. Of which a heavy component will be non-physical yet there is also physical component to being able to protect yourself! This really isn't hard to understand!

I would suggest some reading for both you and Hanzou to get better acquainted with personal protection and self-defense in general:

Rory Miller - Facing Violence
Marc MacYoung - Self Defense: What you need to Know, When you need to know it

I will leave you with the thought that you are trying to pigeon hole a broad area of knowledge into a little square. So it is nice and tidy. Which would be an incorrect thing to do!

 

[Tgace]

Its similar to warfare. While combat is where the issue is decided, a military victory is dependent on so many other things ( logistics, training, transportation, manufacturing, equipment, intelligence, etc) including all of the hundreds of support and administration jobs that the actual fighting is really a small fraction of the overall effort. But if you loose the fight all that other stuff is sort of irrelevant.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Brian King]

I would teach them Bjj. Probably something along these lines;
9 Rules for BJJ Self Defense - Grapplearts

I love Stephan's work. Have a few of his DVD's around somewhere. The thing is Stephan isn't here. You wrote that "probably something along these lines. Not sure what that means, you like 1-7 and not 2 and 4 is ok? See what I mean? For the sake of conversation how about rewriting the rules in your own words to take out the probably so folks are on the same page?

Regards
Brian King

 

[drop bear]

Steve, no one has said this. Obviously in reading the thread this is what you have decided but it is you alone saying this. Personal protection skills certainly involve a physical component. Self-defense is a legal term where someone is claiming self-defense based off already being in a violent situation. They are admitting to the guilt of being in a physical encounter but here is why they did it! Personal protection training that also includes self-defense training has mental, physical and yes even spiritual components as executing training effectively in a moment while being attacked quite often draws off your unique spiritual aspect. However, the mental skill sets are very, very important where you or I and probably many others would disagree is your idea that it should be at the 80/20 rule.

It would appear that you are trying to categorize training into a certain mold that fits your perception.

It would also seem that you are trying to create and argument to fit your reason for training and that Hanzou is attempting to take it to the next extreme. (ie. to justify what and why you do what you do in BJJ) Which is not helpful to this thread or what the OP intended! This thread is a discussion what are the fundamental pillars of self-defense. Of which a heavy component will be non-physical yet there is also physical component to being able to protect yourself! This really isn't hard to understand!

I would suggest some reading for both you and Hanzou to get better acquainted with personal protection and self-defense in general:

Rory Miller - Facing Violence
Marc MacYoung - Self Defense: What you need to Know, When you need to know it

I will leave you with the thought that you are trying to pigeon hole a broad area of knowledge into a little square. So it is nice and tidy. Which would be an incorrect thing to do!

Well the training and the fit would be two fold. If for example you did whatever martial arts but don't get attacked very often. Then the non physical aspect is already handled.

Training to avoid fights you are avoiding anyway especially from a guy who has avoided fights becomes a bit of a theoretical argument like me training to dodge falling planes. Then teaching others to do it.

If you are in a high violence environment then the avoiding fights training becomes more applicable.

Now if you cant avoid fights you want to train to win them. And that would be the physical component applies. And so a method that focuses on majority physical technique is far more applicable.

So say Steve does not routinely fight and trains bjj for self defence. Then his self defence method is absolutely applicable.

It is where people take ownership of the term self defence. By suggesting that they have the secret sauce that the schools like bjj don't have. That creates the issue.

 

[Dr.Smith]

Self defense is a pretty broad area of study. If your talking about defending yourself physically then its simple as 1+1=2, physical ability plus basic martial skill equals adequate self defense. It will never be anything other than that easy.

 

[oftheherd1]

Being able to mostly avoid violence is not self defence. That is called being a normal functional member of society.

Being able to handle a violence is.

So if a bully approaches me and begins an argument with an apparent attempt to monkey dance for a while, then attacks me, any attempts on my part to dissuade the bully without fighting are not defense, and therefore self defense?

Thank you for the thoughtful post, Brian. In the end, after reading this thread and a few others, I'm honestly puzzled at any preoccupation with fighting at all. It seems to me that any time spent training fighting techniques is a distraction from what you guys suggest is self defense.

I don't recall reading that but maybe someone did say it and I missed it. I know I didn't say it.

But I do find it interesting that you seem to find fighting the only self defense. I understand how those of us who are MA are interested in effective fighting, and how we place a high value on effective fighting. But wouldn't the action I take to prevent a fight be defensive, as in my hypothetical question for drop bear above? I don't see how you can separate out what prevents a fight, from having as much value as the successful conclusion of a fight.

Self defence is victim blaming. All of it. Because you are taking the victim and saying that their behaviour determines if they are a victim or not. Rather than the actions of the aggressor.

Saying the potential victim is still victim blaming.

So what you are saying is true.

I guess I didn't understand you after all.

 

[drop bear]

So if a bully approaches me and begins an argument with an apparent attempt to monkey dance for a while, then attacks me, any attempts on my part to dissuade the bully without fighting are not defense, and therefore self defense?

Ok if you missed primary school. Here are some basic methods to deal with bullies.

Bullying at school helping your child Raising Children Network

A basic tool for being a functional member of society.