Chris Parker
Grandmaster
i'm waiting for Mr Parker to come in and rip all this apart and correct where he feels necessary
he's not been wrong yet and he sure as hell knows his stuff
sherman you'd be a lot better off asking Mr Parker for his thoughts on how to improve things either that or get out of the self defence industry.........
Right. Uh… this isn't going to be short… I might suggest getting a light snack, and recommending people stay hydrated if you're going to try tackling this in a single sitting…
The main reason I decided to come back to this thread and go through everything, even though I stated that this isn't really the place for it, is Sherman's comment of:
I'll come back to the post where that comment is made as we go.
Before we get too far into this, I'm going to highlight the last part of your very first post here… "I hope to get feedback from you guys on what works and what doesn't"… okay. Sherman, please bear in mind that that's what I am (and have been) doing here. That said, I'm not going to go particularly easy here… so I hope you can take what I say with the understanding that I'm going to be using an absolute fine-toothed comb, pulling this entire thing apart in as much detail as I can. Some comments are going to be about what you're presenting… others are going to feel more like personal criticisms of you as a person. Believe me that there is no attack intended here… there will be very good reasons that I will discuss your personal presentation… and hopefully I'll be able to make that clear.
Right, let's look at the video.
First things first. You've been refuting the idea that this is your material, saying that it comes from your friend instead, and that what your showing isn't supposed to be taken as "the way", and that you are not offering these videos as expert advice, particularly not for martial artists, instead, it's just meant to be ideas for non-martial artists. I'll deal with the second part in a bit… but the idea that the ownership of the presentation isn't really down to you should be shut down straight away. The title on the video is "How to move out of the line of Attack in Sherman Self Defense (SSD) episode 2". It's presented, not as "Sherman's Friends' Self Defence", but as "Sherman Self Defence". Any criticism, therefore, is going to be levelled towards yourself.
Right. The first 13 seconds are you going through a motion of a compression block (wrapping your arm around the side of your head), dropping low, then coming up and forward, leading with the elbow. As a drill, provided the context is made clear for the application, all good. However, you are spending an inordinate amount of time in the air, you would be off-balance (airborne) at the point of impact, making this a very flawed demonstration lacking any real effect or power, your weight is centred in your upper chest, you're focusing on pushing with the elbow, to the point that it weakens your entire structure, and you're bouncing up and down. If this was applied the way it's demonstrated here against anyone even someone stable, you'd bounce straight off them. The drive needs to come from your rear leg, with your weight centring through your hips (in Japanese arts, your hara, or tanden… tan dien in Chinese). That would allow you to actually remain standing, at the least.
Your introduction. Look, I know it takes a lot of courage to put yourself out there, up on camera, and not everyone are born showmen, but your delivery lacks any strength or confidence. I'm realising that English may not be your first language, with the strong clipped accent you have, so I'm not talking about that… I'm talking about the half smile constantly playing about the edges of your mouth, the questioning in your voice, the indecisive body language, and so on. You also continue to describe it as "Sherman Self Defence"… so it really is you putting it up as advice/suggestions, whether it's from your friend or not.
20 seconds - 1:20 is your description of "Centre Line"… you demonstrate two punches here, one outside and one held in… and, honestly, neither of them are good. Your body structure is contorted, there's a real lack of congruence with your arm and everything else (on both), there's no penetration, and no sense of impact. Your head is artificially held back, pulling your chin in (not down), which is an indication of a few things I won't bring up here… but none of them particularly good. Your delivery is more confident… I get the feeling that you're not using a script here, but were for the intro… that suits you better. It's more serious in tone, and is more believable that you might grasp the nature of what you're talking about. However, your description is a bit lacking… "What is the centre line? (Runs hands down the middle of body in a line) Centre line… of our body". Okay… but no explanation of why it's important at all. You try to demonstrate that a hook/cross is "outside our centreline, so it does not use our bodyweight… but if it's in the middle, and I punch, then I use my body weight". Uh… no. Believe me, that hook can have just as much body weight behind it as your straight punch… in fact, it can have a lot more power, as it travels further, picking up momentum energy as it goes. The idea that punching from the centreline is preferred is really far from universal… and is what I would consider a specialist martial arts method, not really a general self defence one. You're almost never going to come up against an attacker giving that sort of attack other than a kick, unless you're being attacked by a Wing Chun student.
You demonstrate another weak compression block/cover with forward movement (all of which looks like you're really unsure of how to do it, with hesitation in your movement, a noticeable pause before you act, poor body positioning, and having almost your entire body open to other strikes), before moving on to talk about moving off the centreline (which is the line down the middle of your body, according to your brief description… how you're meant to move your body outside of your body is something I'm a little unsure of…
, then moving in with your centreline again to attack. Well, there's a fair bit of confusion here… firstly, the line you're talking about moving off from isn't the centreline (especially not as you've described it), it's what's referred to as the primal line… the instinctive directional orientation that you're hardwired to respond with, either forwards or backwards… next, if you're actually dealing with the more common forms of attack, you'll be dealing with a hook/haymaker… and the direction you've just moved in is walking straight into a punch. Lastly (well, not lastly… but I'm trying to keep this relatively short, while being thorough… hmm), the movement you make to enter afterwards has your cover on the exact wrong side of your body… all it would do there is open your body up and protect a side that's not able to be attacked. If you're using it as a spiking elbow strike, it's incredibly weak, your weight is too high, you're off balance as you land (after the moment of impact), and your angling would have your elbow miss past the back of an opponent's head. 1:20-1:32 "Let's continue on with the centreline concept by extending it to the elbow and the shoulder. The elbow controls the direction of the force, and the shoulder controls the strength of the force." Slick wavy hand movements aside, let's just look at what you're saying here. No, the shoulder doesn't control the strength of the impact/strike… you've been talking about body weight… which means the strength comes from shifting your weight forwards… which comes from the legs and hips. The elbow is only a small part of the directional control as well… it can only move within the parameters that the shoulder allows… so the shoulder is really in control of the direction. In other words, biomechanically, your comment is both flawed and contradictory to the rest of your comments so far.
The next thing you do is to bring in a partner to demonstrate the deflection at the elbow… now, as I've said, I'm with you on controlling the elbow there… but the way it's done here, it wouldn't work. The first issue is that the punches are nowhere near you… the first one is a foot short, the rest are closer, but still out of range, and targeted nowhere near your face/chin… in fact, they're already trailing off to the left before you deflect them, and they're largely aiming at the upper chest… with no real target available. Your execution is also rather flawed, as there is basically no lateral or linear evasion, the deflection is rather weak, and comes across as a minor slap… nothing that would really give the opponent pause, let alone provide an opening for a counter. Your body movement is jerky, with your shoulders hunched (again, an indication of a real lack of confidence, either in the technique, or your ability), there's no sense of the hips being involved at all, with your weight centred high, and so on. Your demonstration of an inside deflection (talking about the shoulder controlling the strength again), which is really a shoulder jam, looks like it kinda scared you… as well it should… you would have been hit then, mainly as your partner was still tracking to the left, and only stopped when he realised that you'd gone the other direction. A panicked technique that comes across as fear. Your last demo was probably the best, as it had a lateral evasion coupled with the deflection, but it still suffered from many of the previous issues.
Hmm, I get what you're going for with the extended fist/wipe to a new scene… but it's a really bad punch, mechanically it's got no real structure or support, so it robs the movement of any real effect.
From there, you bring "everything together"… and here's where the problems all really show themselves. First off, the attack you deal with is a guy slowly extending an arm in a very unrealistic, out of range, powerless, unstructured "punch"… which represents nothing like what would be encountered in a modern street environment. You move to the outside, then come in with your compression block/cover position… and talk about it being an elbow strike. No, it isn't… you're too far away, and can't reach any target whatsoever, let alone there being much of a viable target for you. You then remind us of your idea of how the elbow works (changing direction), and push down on your partners elbow with yours, which just drives them down a little bit. Against an actual punch, it's already been recoiled as you were stepping in, so that's not really going to be there any more for you to try such an action… but even if it were, the direction you're taking it is where it's strongest, and is easiest for the opponent to resist. It's braced by the lats, the pecs, and most of the back, all supporting the tricep and shoulder. Furthermore, even if you did manage to push it down, all you're doing is bringing their other arm back into play, giving them an open target (your head), and essentially offering a free shot at your face. You finish by taking your left hand, putting it over their shoulder, pushing down, and using your right elbow to apply a strike… all of which took out any distance needed to generate some genuine force or impact, twisted your body, took too long, has your tricep (a weak muscle when unsupported) attempting to overpower the entire upper body and back muscles, and is really going to result, in a best case scenario, in a glancing blow that's just going to annoy the other guy. This entire sequence starts out with no relevance to self defence, and gets worse from there. Note how when you do it "in a faster motion", you can't reach your targets, and your twisting your back so much you almost stumble at the end. It really is a terrible technique.
Finally, you answer a question from a viewer… on how to defend against a knife. You say you have two steps… and give all three of them (hmm…
. First, be aware… look around… are there open places? Look, awareness is key to self defence across the board, but when we're dealing with knife defence, that's not the awareness you should be focusing on… as that time it takes to look around is the time it'll take for your attacker to stab you. Probably a few times. Second, make sure you have a good pair of shoes on. Right… I see where you're going… but the problem is that you can't simply tell an attacker "hang on, I have better shoes for this, can you wait a bit? I'll be right back, promise!" (yes, I get the use of humour, but at the same time, it's not a particularly helpful bit of advice). Third… run! Hmm. Escape is definitely the best option, but to simply say "run!", and leave it at that, is just going to get people killed or seriously injured. Do you know about the Tueller Drill? Do you know how far you have to be from a knifeman before you're starting to get "safe" enough to actually simply run away? Do you know how to get that distance between yourself and a guy with a knife? To be completely frank, the direction and method you chose to "run away" in would have you caught and stabbed very quickly and very easily. You started too close, wasted time turning before running, slowed yourself to go over an obstacle rather than around it, and you slowed to pick an obvious hiding spot, rather than continue to get the distance that would actually help you.The advice of "run" is simple enough… but there are a hell of a lot of nuances that have to go along with that… otherwise it's like offering the advice of "brake" when asked what to do in a car emergency… it's simply not always the best option… and there are a range of other factors that need to be considered.
Okay, Matt Thornton… Look, a lot of what Matt says is largely true… but the way he delivers it is also fairly ignorant of other training and testing methods. Bluntly, he doesn't get a lot of what he's criticising. Additionally, it's not the only way to tell if something is effective or not… and the idea of "effective not withstanding the effectiveness of the technique itself" makes little to no sense… the whole point is to find out what is considered "functionally effective"… the techniques have to be effective in isolation first… if they're not, there's no point testing their effectiveness in that form of application. Of course, Matts "Aliveness" concept ignores a lot of the contextual application of self defence… and honestly isn't that applicable to self defence training itself in a number of aspects (at it's heart, yes, but at it's heart it's not missing from anything Matt seems to think it is).
Your "elbow up" technique, what I've been referring to as a compression block, or cover, isn't a terrible idea in and of itself… but you overuse it, and perform it in a rather flawed way. Systems such as Crazy Monkey Boxing have used it as a basis for a few decades now, for the record.
Okay, onto this video.
You've got a slick intro now… a banner again displaying the name as "Sherman Self Defence"… very much your own creation, your own name, your own system… so all the onus is going to fall to you. Beneath that is some sepia toned footage of you sparring or running some drills… and honestly, it's pretty terrible. You constantly have your back arched, your head pulled back (a fear-influenced body language), and so on, but we won't dwell too much on that. You seem to have chosen to do this one in a gym… but the echo makes your voice hard to hear… especially when you cover up later in the video, and are essentially talking into your arms.
The theme here is on distance management, and you begin by identifying three ranges… well, kinda. You name three ranges, but don't really identify what they are in anything other than a vague manner (long, middle, short), and suggesting some tactical movements from each (long, you can run away, and the attacker can't attack… is that actually an attacking range then? Why do you need to run if the opponent can't attack?… Middle, and you have the opportunity to back up, or go in and attack… okay… but does that mean that you're now in range of an attack? What form? A kicker can attack from further away than a grappler, for instance… have you taken the different unarmed ranges into account?… Short, and you have no choice but to commit to a powerful offence… while a pre-emptive strike can be a good move tactically, I would hardly say that the range dictates you have to… how do you know that there's an attack imminent first? Or are you just hitting everyone in that range, just in case?)
The biggest problem here is that the ranges are ill-defined… sure, breaking it into three dominant ranges is good… common, even (I'm teaching our version of this exact concept as we speak, actually)… but the thing is that each different context will have it's own way of defining the distances… so you do need to be clear on what you mean. When you do show what you mean by the different ranges, there's almost no variation between the "long" and the "middle" (having your partner come forth with an extended zombie arm as a punch wasn't the greatest look either… it's pretty clear he's no puncher)… in fact, it looks like the difference is that you're already hit in "middle" range, and missed by a couple of inches in long… which, the way that your partner was doing things, meant that you're hit there as well, so you know. The example of looking around, turning, and running, like with the knife defence advice you gave, was just bad. You were nowhere near far enough away for that to have worked… you were caught and beat. And, honestly, your demonstration of "short range" was just confusing… you didn't seem like you knew where you were wanting to be, or what you could do once you were there, so opted for lacklustre and fairly useless elbows again.
You then do some demos of changing the distance… and, again, your structure is terrible, your attacker is throwing punches that are missing you by a foot, your deflections are little more than slaps with no effect, your entering lacks confidence and commitment… it really was just quite bad performance coupled with some fairly questionable technique (those elbows really wouldn't have done much).
At 2:30 you start to offer some tips… a defence against a "strangle hold". Leaving off for the minute that a straight front two-handed choke is incredibly rare, let's look at what you suggest… drop your chin (okay, but it needs to be coupled with a range of other things in order to be really useful), lower your hips (good), and push up beneath the elbow to lift one of the attackers arms up and off your throat. Hmm… no. If someone is genuinely attacking you with this choke, it's likely to be an overly emotional attack… they will most commonly be over the top of you, and pushing down, with their arms bent (in order to angle the hands in). That raises the shoulders, and means that again, you're using the weaker muscles (triceps) against the larger, stronger muscles of your attacker, directly in opposition to the force being applied. There's a reason that no system I'm aware of teaches that… they teach to go 90 degrees to the structure… your technique would have you struggling, then passing out as you failed to remove their hand, and didn't do anything to lessen the choke. But let's say that, for whatever reason, you do get their arm up and off your throat… your next action was to catch the wrist, and bend their elbow, turning them to the side. Again, so much no on that technique… it offered no threat to the opponent, so you've just annoyed them, it pushed them out of your control range, and it's a very poor option as you have almost no contact, and therefore control over what happens next.
The end of the video is a range of shots of you getting out of a number of grabbing attacks (the first one against a tackle would have you on your back in half a second, bluntly, there was no counter to the incoming force, just a poorly applied and off target elbow, the second against a bear hug, where you tried using those weak triceps [again] against strong muscle groups of the attacker, then turned to practically miss with another elbow), followed by kicking evasions… nothing really there to speak of.
Just to clarify, move out of the line of attack first before entering the short distance of attack. In a street fight, this might not be possible if the opponent is moving in fast with his full body weight . If so, move the opponent's elbow to redirect his line of attack when he gets to the middle distance. An opponent cannot punch you once you have control of his elbow because you can change his line of attack easily. If you are still worried about the punch, protect your head with the Elbow Up technique using your other hand while simultaneously launching a followup attack if you miss your opponent's elbow with your first hand. It is also more than likely that your opponent has entered the short range by then so you can target his shoulder. Of course, this is dependent on the situation. For self defense purposes, I have kept it simple.
And just… no.
Firstly, some information. Most fights start at what is sometimes called "interview distance"… it's about a foot or so away, maybe a little more depending on social contexts… so you're already in your "short" range… they're not moving from middle, they're starting in short before it gets physical. Thinking that it's going to be a big swing from distance is to be ignorant of the realities of how violence actually happens… it might move out to there, but in the vast majority of cases, it'll start (and finish… a typical fight is about 3-10 seconds) in the "short" range. You simply won't get the time to affect the elbow the way you're thinking, unless you've done some actual distance management (not what you showed in the last video) before hand… which would require quite a few other things to be considered first. Next, the idea of "if you're worried, use this… if they do this, you do that…" is, bluntly, unrealistic as well. You're trying to intellectualise the idea of social and asocial violence… it just doesn't work that way. In addition, you're ignoring the basic psychology of the people you think you're targeting your videos at… moving in is highly confronting (which is why you keep showing a fear response whenever you do it… it is scary, and takes a lot of training/experience to do consistently)… so giving these ideas to people who don't train in martial arts (your stated audience) is pretty useless. You might as well give someone who doesn't want to drive a car lessons in formula 1 racing… it's completely ignoring who you're dealing with. So, no, you haven't kept it simple… or realistic… you've presented something that they wouldn't do, and presented it badly.
But "target the shoulder"? Where exactly on the shoulder would you target? And with what? And what do you think the effect would be?
None taken, Transk53.
As for controlling the opponent's elbow, it can be done with one hand if the purpose is to shift the opponent's line of attack away from you, thus controlling both of the opponent's hands from striking you. Will probably show this in another video since this has been brought up a couple of times now.
Yeah.. the elbow would have done nothing. And even less if targeting the eyes (or nose, the way you were doing it).
As far as controlling the elbow, that's good and solid… but again, the way you show it (in the next video) is highly flawed to the point of being fatal. If you want to see how controlling the elbow should be done (even one handed), check out some of the FMA systems… and people like Michael Janich.
More intro logos… a very cheesy staged combat with actions that would look bad and unrealistic in an early 80's Jackie Chan movie… and we're upping the ownership of the whole thing by adding "Starring Sherman Chin"… yeah, I keep coming back to that, it'll be important later on.
Okay, this time we're in a squash court… another bad choice for audio, as there's a lot of echo, and it makes it hard for the camera's microphone to know what to focus on, particularly if it's a multidirectional mic. This means that it tries to pick up everything around, all the background noise, all the echo, so the vocals get lost in the mix. But let's see what we have here.
"Okay! Today we're going to learn how to defend ourselves against a long sword, and the short knife". Okay, right off the bat, with my background, this is throwing up some red flags… I know these topics pretty well, and know the major issues with both… but, more importantly, why would a video series that's supposed to be about self defence, particularly for those who don't train in a martial art, be wanting to include sword defence? Is it coming back into vogue again? Is armour going to be worn on the streets as well? No matter… it seems we're starting with sword defence.
And, of course, the attacker has no clue of sword. The grip is awful (a hammer grip, too tight, no movement, robbing him of range, reach, power, speed, and versatility), he's far too close, and just how slow could he possibly strike down (there's no way I'm calling that hatchet job a "cut")?!? You, Sherman, move to the side (well before the attack was committed… if you moved that early against me, I'd just change direction and cut you anyway… ask my guys…
, and we get a close up of you catching down on top of both wrists. If you'd stopped there, it might have been okay… you're a little stuck for what to do next, but at least it's somewhat controlling… but no, instead, you decide to bring your elbow behind their forearm… and, in so doing, actually lose your grip with your left hand (you move into the exact position we take someone's hand to remove their grip in te hodoki)… which was controlling their right hand. The dominant hand in swordsmanship. Bad, bad idea. You pressure into a point on the inner wrist (which would have little to no effect in a fight, for the record, simply due to the effects of adrenaline… works okay in a safe training environment, but useless the way you're presenting it here), and catch the tsuka (handle) to pull the sword up, cutting between the opponent's legs… except that wouldn't have really cut, you bring the sword out of range, have no strength in your grip, and wouldn't be able to effect much at all. All in all, it was too close, lacking in power and strength on both sides, and relied on things that wouldn't work at all. The same thing against a thrust was no better… nor were the "fast" ones (that really wasn't fast, fluid, or anything that would have worked… on either side).The first knife defence… your partner is just waving the knife around in front, and you move to the left… your suggestion is to catch the wrist and the elbow… which isn't bad… but you catch the wrist with your left hand, and the elbow with your right, which only serves to entangle you, and rob both arms of any real controlling strength or position. To make matters worse, you immediately give-up the elbow control (so you didn't really need to have it there) in order to push his arm down, then apply a wrist lock… which you fail to do correctly, as there's no locking of the opponent's arm or body, not much structural compromise, and you release with them still holding the knife! Seriously, if the rest was decent, the fact that you left them holding the knife ruins the lot!
Against a low thrust, you suggest bringing both hands down on top of the forearm… which could have your hand ending up with a knife through the palm… and, at the very least, doesn't hold them in position, allowing them to pull the weapon back, and continue to thrust repeatedly. From there, you move to the side, and attempt the same as before. You do show a more rapid, multiple thrust attack (well… not really an attack, as it's little more than lifting the arm in succession, they weren't thrusts, and lacked the real impetus of them) so you can show that this will work against that… except you change what you do, this time moving to the side, and catching rather than pushing down. You apply a different lock this time, but have very little control over the knife, and completely fail to take into account the natural response the knifeman will give… in other words, what you're showing simply wouldn't work unless the attacker stopped, and let you apply it. Additionally, it's a rather complex motion, requiring a bit of fine-motor skill… not something I'd ever rely on. And for self defence, I'm really, really, really not fond of the way you keep stabbing your now disarmed and controlled (at least, theoretically) opponent… that's pretty much jail time, you know.
Of course you can do that. Although I was controlling my opponent's elbow with my own elbow, it was with the weight of my whole body behind it (hence the need to mirror the opponent with my body just like in Aikido). However, it is the principles that are important and not the technique. In a real life self defense situation, everything constantly changes. The key takeaway principle point here is knowing what the treats you need to really focus on. Knowing the elbow changes the direction of the strike will help you do that. Also know what your opponent's shoulder controls and what your position exposes. This will allow you to be flexible and constantly know how to adapt according to the situation.
Yeah… lots of misunderstanding in this… for one thing, a "skilled weapons fighter" that you might face probably won't be trained to counter a disarm… it just won't have come up… in fact, they'll likely never been "trained" in anything…
Yup, picking the nearest furniture and throwing it works. Going to rethink and cover that in future video clips as I feel that the series is a bit too martial arts in style now, which wasn't my intention. However, there were certain key principles that I thought was necessary and covered except for posture and stances (again very martial arts like but I still think is important), which I haven't touched on yet.
If someone were to break into your house, the best place to head to defend yourself is the kitchen where you can find lots of things to throw at your opponent. Then comes the knives.
No, picking up the furniture doesn't often "work"… as you're not likely to have the distance required for such things.
Your friend is either possibly the luckiest person ever to face a blade, or lying. If that's an example of what he showed you, either you're presenting it rather incorrectly, or it was pure luck that it was pulled off. Do not rely on it, and do not present it as effective.
No, the principles of sword defence are not necessarily commensurate with the principles of knife defence, so keeping sword in as "it was just a wooden sword" denies any real reason at all.
And I'm going to ask here… are you saying that everything you're showing is based on what this friend is showing you? Not the years of other martial arts you claim to have?
Oh, but for the record, we're pretty aware of the differences between mindsets… quite probably a fair bit more than you are, honestly.
So this is actually not "Sherman Self Defence", it's "Sherman's Friends' Self Defence, But He Doesn't Want To Be On Camera, So I'm Doing It"… yeah?
And don't use them. If he's happy with the way you're doing them, learn from someone who knows what they're doing. If what you're doing is the same as him, learn from someone who knows what they're doing. Getting into fights is very different from being in a position to teach self defence, and from everything so far, neither you nor your friend are anywhere near that.
To be blunt, I have seen no indication of anything close to Matt Thornton's Aliveness in anything you've shown… in fact, I've seen a lot of indications of it's lack.
Oh, and your friend answering our critiques doesn't really mean anything to us… presently, he's a completely unknown, anonymous nobody with no credibility, history, or anything. For all we know, he doesn't even exist...
Yeah… that's all also completely wrong, you know…
To begin with, having your friend come in with "correct body structure" (haven't seen anything close to that in these videos… how are you recognising it?), with a "centreline attack, elbows tucked in", and you not being able to do some of these things against that, really doesn't mean anything in the context of what you're claiming to be showing… the type of stylised attack you're describing isn't seen in "self defence" situations… and all that talk about "you could probably do it if you're a trained martial artist" is fairly bunkum as well. Your idea of what your audience (non-trained persons) should, or even would do, is a bit out… yes, freezing is a possibility, not so much if they're focused on deflecting an incoming fist though, but what they won't do is move off-line… not without a fair bit of training first… and even then, not as a first response, no matter what you think is best. You really need to know your audience first…
Oh, and I think you're overselling it when you say that "it might just save your life"…
You're presenting it as "Sherman Self Defence". That automatically implies some form of expertise… at least to the point where you think that you have some value to offer. I mean, you didn't call it "Sherman's Possibly Maybe This Could Kinda Work If You're Lucky Hopefully Fighting Thingies". As a result, yeah, you're saying it's expert advice… even if you don't mean to. I would also add that nowhere, other than here, have you mentioned that you are teaching someone else's experiences and ideas… it's all presented as coming from you, your experience, your understanding, your expertise. Hell, your "What Is Sherman Self Defence (SSD)?" video mentions a "Grandmaster Chris Chung (Chan? If it's Chan, then the only one I can come across is a Wing Chun student of Ip Man… but you don't claim any Wing Chun… )", but no mention of him being a street fighter, that it's his methods, or anything else… it's really all about you, what you've learnt…
So, either you're being disingenuous in the way you're presenting it there, or you're making someone up to shift the ownership of the criticism to someone else.
Oh, and I gotta say… "I've read about SSD online.."? Really?
Hmm…
Yeah… I have no idea what you mean by "he came from a family who learned that"… learned what? Specifically? And honestly, this entire story sounds to be, at least partially, fabricated… he beat all the Shaolin Monks, but not the masters, because he has respect for them? Huh? Full respect for tradition? What does that mean? The entire thing smacks of vagary… and personally, I don't believe a word of it.
Yeah… move on to the fantasy stuff… much more your thing.
Thanks for the welcome!
Perhaps the videos I've made are too martial arts oriented so if I do make future ones, it will be more self defense oriented and practical. The mindset is completely different. It is a matter of survival. There are just too many variables in a real fight. The correct mindset for self defense is to run and act (cry, plead for your life, pretend to be dying, scream, etc.) if you can't run. Acting and distraction will save your life. Throw your shoes if you have to. It will cause your opponent to blink and give you enough time to run. When you run, don't run straight without thinking unless you are super fast runner. Run towards objects that you can use to throw or protect yourself with. Run circles around a car if you have to. Run towards a chair to protect yourself against knives. Take the chair and run around a table or head towards a doorway where only one attacker can reach you at a time and fend him off with the chair. Run to a place with CCTV cameras and people. Not many gangsters want to get caught on camera. Attackers who just lost their temper might calm down while chasing you. Shout for help. Some people might help you or at least call the police. Only if all else fails, use self defense to fight. Always use objects that you can find, use terrain to help you - push your opponent into a drain if you have to, use your teeth to bite, nails to claw off skin and eyes, palm to strike his ears, Elbow Up to his face (see episode 1 of my video series) - keep attacking the same spot multiple times if you are afraid you will miss. Pay attention to your opponent's elbows and knees. Your opponent can a super skilled martial artist with a super strong punch but if you know how to move around (watch the distance management video above), he's not going to be able to land that punch or if he does, it would not be at its full intensity. Run and start throwing sharp items at him and even Bruce Lee has to think twice about attacking you. Break off a car mirror and use it to protect yourself against your opponent. If he is dumb enough to punch it, let the glass cut him. That's the creative mindset you need to have in a self defense situation. Jump around like a monkey and see if a black belt martial artist can even catch you to execute his move. Run and suddenly turn around and pepper spray him in the face. That's the self defense mindset no matter how skilled you think you are because you never know when your opponent's friend are preparing to kick your head, stab you or shoot you when you execute your move - don't forget that the adrenaline rush gives you a narrow field of focus. Throw your ego out the window in a street fight (and by street fight, I mean fighting in real life city situations without rules where your only priority is survival).
Martial arts is great to improve your self confidence but in a real life situation, there are too many variables no matter how good you think you are. Also, bad people are unlikely to attack you one-on-one. If they are stupid enough to do so, they are probably not very skilled themselves. Their friends are waiting to whack you in the head. So never engage your opponent in a self defense situation unless you really have no other choice. Most of the time, you have some other choice.
Just discovered the self defence forum… hmm…
This entire middle paragraph should be stricken from your understanding… it's almost entirely wrong. It's as if you've come across a small part of a single tactic, and decided that that's the way it all is… it's not. And the last part, on martial arts, is just as bad.
I highly doubt it would help anyone. I'd personally remove them, not just stop making them.
Fun fact. I am trained as an actor. Done a number of small productions. It's kinda one of my other outlets.
You're not the actor here. If anything, you'd be classed as the spokesperson, the public face… but it's your name on everything. It's your product, whether you like it or not. And any criticism comes down on you, your poor performance, your lack of understanding, your bad body structure and biomechanics… it's all on you. It really doesn't matter if your friend is feeding you the moves, this is you on camera, with your name on everything. This is you.
No, it's not the same in the slightest.
I'll give you an example. I have trained in five different sword systems, all Japanese… I have experience with another three… and a good, working knowledge of perhaps a dozen or two more. All of them, broadly, use the same configuration weapon… and none of them do things the same way. They have different concepts of grip, posture, cutting mechanics, tactical ideals, contexts, applications, and more. And none of them will say that another is doing it wrong… just differently. But, by the same token, none of them advise to do things that go against the realities of their usage… none would suggest that holding the sharp bit so you could hit someone on the head with the handle is a good idea… none would suggest that throwing the sword up in the air so you can punch someone before catching it again is smart… that's what we're seeing (the equivalent of) in your videos.
So no, it's not the same thing. At all.
The rest of that paragraph just shows a complete lack of understanding of martial arts, training, and self defence, bluntly.
What in your Aikido training allowed that? Did you learn verbal and physical de-escalation tactics and techniques? Body language? Tonality?
And was that inherent in Aikido?
Yeah… you've missed what's been said. There's been no bullying… there has been frank, and blunt, criticism of some material that is frankly begging to be criticised.
Lovely story. Completely irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
