It's impossible to teach someone "Self Defense"

[Blindside]

Animals "spar" to learn more about pack dynamics then how to actually fight - its about pecking order and mating nothing more.

You realize that is what drives most human violence as well right? Is two guys going at it in a bar to prove hierarchy and impress chicks with their alphaness "sparring" or "fighting?" It is fighting IMO. Most species have ways of ritualizing that fighting so it isn't fatal, dominance can be proven without killing the other member of their own species. Fatal intra-species is unusual, usually associated with wiping out offspring of deposed dominant members of the pack, but chimps have certainly been shown to do it to other groups.

But the "play fighting" that most mammals do does serve a true fighting function as well, ever watch a puppy try to hamstring another? That isn't for another dog that is for prey. Watch a kitten stalk another and pounce on it? That isn't a social dominance training, that is training to be a predator. Sparring leading to functional fighting skills, even if the practice doesn't mimic reality (other puppy is not an elk).

 

[geezer]

My point, though, is this. What if I don't? Most people who train in something billed as self defense never do. QUOTE]

Apologies in advance if I'm repeating what's already been said, but I think that you can learn and teach a lot of useful strategies for self defense without having to deliberately get into dangerous situations to test yourself. You can seek out top individuals with expertise in the psychology of dealing with these situations, experts in the legal ramifications of self defense, and people who have actually had to physically defend themselves from a violent attack.

I put psychology first because awareness and avoidance first, and then de-escalation are the best self defense skills. They are also skills we probably will use to a greater or lesser degree in our daily lives. The fact that a person living in a diverse, urban environment can live to a ripe old age without having to resort to physically defending himself or herself is often due to precisely these skills.

The second part, understanding legal issues involved in defending yourself, is also very important, ... that is if you dont want to end up incarcerated in an institution where you may have an overabundance of opportunities to test your self-defense skills.

Last of all comes learning the physical skills to defend yourself. Last because the whole point of learning physical self defense skills is rendered moot if you are successful at avoiding conflict to begin with. Having to actually use self defense techniques presumes that you have already failed avoidance and de-escalation. And yes, now the typical non-violent person, not a LEO or security professional, will have to learn to swim by jumping into the water. Still being fit, and trained can't hurt your chances. Realistically trained that is... seeking advice from people who have actually had such experience. Finally, you can seek out programs that simulate the conditions you may have to face. Is it the real thing? No. But it's the closest you can get without enduring a "life changing experience." And that's OK with me. I like my life just fine the way it is.

 

[WCman1976]

There have already been so many replies to this thread, but I wanted to reply too because it is an interesting topic. I can understand what you are saying when you question whether or not all our training is a waste of time or not. After all, if I don't really hit my classmates, then how do I know my punch would hurt an assailant on the street? Striking arts can't be proven in class because you can't come home with a black eye or fewer teeth every night. In fact, I read somewhere that Bruce Lee praised judo and grappling/throwing arts because you actually EXECUTE those techniques in class. (If a guy charges at you and then he is suddenly on the ground...well, your throw worked!!!) You can't prepare for every situation. Someone might come at me when I am getting out of my car or walking down a flight of stairs. In class we practice on even ground, and we both have our balance. Our job is to commit our techniques to muscle memory so we can ADAPT to different environments, different positions we may be in when an attack begins, whether we may be tired from a long day at work, etc.This preparation comes only from years and years of training. Sometimes at my job they will advertise a one-hour self-defense class, and it gets right under my skin because I know the people who attend it are coming out of there with a false sense of security. Train me in how to handle an attacker once today, and I will NOT remember it if I get attacked six months down the road.Long story short: the way we train for self-defense may not be perfect, but it gives us an edge over those who don't train at all.

 

[Chris Parker]

Not true. There are people who are in positions to develop expertise in self defense, albeit each with different emphasis. Bouncers, LEOs, people who are in situations where they are required to defend themselves. In other words, not most of us here.

I'd actually argue with this as well, though. Bouncers, LEO's, security etc are not concerned with "self defence" when it comes down to it, really, they're concerned with skills applicable to the performance of their job. And while that can and does involve handling resistant and violent people, it's not the same as self defence. The legalities are different, the restrictions on what you can do is different, the end result that is aimed for is different, and the environment (social circumstance) is different. They are not concerned with "defending themselves", they are concerned with doing their job.

I teach self defence (separate to martial arts). I don't teach law enforcement. I don't teach security. I don't teach bouncing. If I was to teach such things, I would not teach it the way I teach self defence, as the simple needs and requirements are different.

A Law Enforcement Officer will be more concerned with arresting, which will lead to an approach involving moving in, not fleeing, taking the suspect to the ground, control, and use of group tactics (where you have other officers there as back-up, rather than just being on your own), amongst other things. There are legal restrictions on what can (or at least, should) be done when arresting a suspect, and strict procedure that needs to be followed.

Self defence is not concerned with "arresting", it's concerned with safety to self, which means that fleeing, or escape, is a dominant tactic, moving in is present, but it is done not to control, but to minimise effective attacks (tactically quite different), taking someone to ground and staying there is ill-advised at best, you often don't have others to help you (in fact, you're far more likely to be outnumbered, whereas the officers are likely to outnumber the suspect), while there are restrictions, it's far more "open", based on the exact situation and perceived threat level at the time, and there is no strict procedure.

A bouncer is concerned with limiting disruption to the venue/location where they are employed. They do not have the option of "avoiding the fight", or leaving the area, they are again often in teams of two or more, usually with other teams available as extra back-up, the concern isn't "arresting", but removal of the disruption. This leads to secure holds without taking someone to the ground so they can be lead out of the establishment. Different locations will have different constrictions on what can be done (no kicking, no fists, open hands only etc), and there will be an application of tactics designed to enter and restrain. Yes, they'll have people kick off, and launch attacks at them, but the response will be a security/bouncer one, not a self defence one.

Self defence will not have you restricted to the location, again giving the option of escape or fleeing the site, again you will typically be solo, and more often outnumbered. You will not be concerned with just taking someone outside as a primary aim, and you won't have the same constriction over what you can or can't do.

Having a job where you deal with violence doesn't mean that you're more geared up for self defence, it means you have a job which involves an aspect of dealing with violence in a certain defined way. But let's see if I can demonstrate how someone can teach, or be taught self defence.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is what the definition of self defence actually refers to, as simply "handling violence" is only a part of it, in the end, and physically handling it is an even smaller part. The common mantra at our schools is that the aim of self defence is three simple words: Get Home Safe.

That's it. Self defence is training geared towards the aim of Get Home Safe.

Now that sounds simple enough, but it means that there needs to be a congruent focus towards this aim in everything done under the title of self defence, as anything that doesn't fit that, or compromises it, takes away from the aim of self defence in the first place. Every drill has to have the aim of "Get Home Safe". Every topic has to have the underlying theme of "Get Home Safe". Every physical skill set has to have the underlying aim of "Get Home Safe". Every training method has to have the application of "Get Home Safe". And believe it or not, that actually rules out a lot of things done in many martial art schools, most especially things like sparring and rolling (in a BJJ sense).

So once this is understood, the self defence instructor needs to understand how to structure things so that this aim is present at all times. That means creating a program around skills that are based on the strategy, and a method of instruction and drilling to ensure that the skills are ingrained in the students. We'll take my teaching as an example.

The skills I teach as part of self defence include:
- De-escalation (verbal, physical, passive, and aggressive)
- Recognition of potential dangerous situations/persons (awareness, common approaches used by street predators etc. This is in conjunction with the De-escalation typically, as De-escalation is practiced against all the common approach methods)
- Pre-emptive striking (recognising pre-fight triggers, creating an opportunity to escape)
- Group defence (primarily Pre-emptive striking taking into account the hierarchy of danger based on the location of each member of the group)
- Knife defence
- Impact weapon defence (such as baseball bats)
- Close quarter brawling (teaching to handle barrage attacks)
- Ground defence (escape from the ground, not keeping someone down)
- Management of range (limiting the attacks of an opponent so you can escape)
- Legal realities (how to talk to the police, what to expect if/when you are arrested, and so on)
- Psychological traits of street predators
- Body language
- Anti-surveilance (not being a "mark")
- Protective driving (as opposed to "defensive driving")
and more.

The way these are typically approached is that there are a series of scripted drills designed to teach the lessons which are trained up to full speed/power, with the attacker guided to be as realistic as possible (which doesn't necessarily mean "resistant", as that isn't actually realistic), and under adrenaline. Once a sufficient number of drills have been put together, the "attacks" (which could be an approach, a threat, or a physical assault) are done randomly, with the student needing to deal with each in turn. This can be taken all the way to completely random attacks at random points, or random "tests" done by senior students or the instructor, with drills such as the "Bogey Man Drill", or simply by instilling in the students a sense of what is or isn't safe, and getting them to keep that mentality at all times.

Self defence training and martial art training are different. They have different aims, different environments, and different requirements. But just because you've only ever had a martial art experience doesn't mean that teaching self defence is impossible. Again, Steve, I'd say that you simply have never experienced it.

 

[oftheherd1]

We dont become amnesiacs to our Skills in Fighting. Tis a Misconception. The Problem is how most 'Self Defense' is taught, is flawed, in that it expects You to do something specific.
When in Reality, Youre going to React. Youre not going to do some predefined action in the heat of the moment. You are going to do AN Action. The buffer is that what You do is probably going to be something Youve practiced. It just shouldnt be "Someone does this with this hand from here so you do this".
THAT is whats flawed. Not the idea of teaching Self Defense.
Im going to make a Blog Post to talk about Self Defense teaching in general. But this above is relevant to Your Specification.

One of the reasons I am not totally sold on SD that teaches only a few techniques over and over again. Granted, depending on time, that is a good way to teach, and you can get very good at those techniques. But I personally believe that you can never have too many tools, and an art would be remiss in not teaching as many as possible. But also, as you point out, teaching unthinking reaction, not just if a fist comes towards your face, do this and this only because you like it or it seems easy, or I don't want to teach you too many. That wasn't specifically taught in the Hapkido I learned, but it certain was implied. You need to react, and even react to a technique not working as you expect, or at all. It is all part of learning an MA.

Just my thoughts, no one else is obligated to agree.

 

[Chris Parker]

The reason self defence systems only use a few techniques is because, fairly simply, that's what works. Having a larger range of techniques is actually counter productive. In an art, lot's of techniques and variation is fine, good even, but in self defence you want high return, low risk, gross motor, dependable techniques that have been drilled as much as possible. That means a few techniques that are as applicable to as many situations as possible.

 

[Cyriacus]

The reason self defence systems only use a few techniques is because, fairly simply, that's what works. Having a larger range of techniques is actually counter productive. In an art, lot's of techniques and variation is fine, good even, but in self defence you want high return, low risk, gross motor, dependable techniques that have been drilled as much as possible. That means a few techniques that are as applicable to as many situations as possible.

That pretty much answers it for Me.

One of the reasons I am not totally sold on SD that teaches only a few techniques over and over again. Granted, depending on time, that is a good way to teach, and you can get very good at those techniques. But I personally believe that you can never have too many tools, and an art would be remiss in not teaching as many as possible. But also, as you point out, teaching unthinking reaction, not just if a fist comes towards your face, do this and this only because you like it or it seems easy, or I don't want to teach you too many. That wasn't specifically taught in the Hapkido I learned, but it certain was implied. You need to react, and even react to a technique not working as you expect, or at all. It is all part of learning an MA.

Just my thoughts, no one else is obligated to agree.

I respect Your opinion, even though I disagree with the first part of it. The problem with having many options, is that in Self Defense, Youre not going to figure out which is best for all the exact angles and exact positions. Tis better to have one that will work for all of them. And the less precise it is, the better.

 

[Buka]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick's_law

 

[chinto]

I get what your saying Steve. And I agree that a lot of it comes down to the type of training that is involved. But Flying Crane makes a very valid point. It's in you or it's not. In Law Enforcement we train for muscle memory. Whether it involves drawing a weapon, blocking a blow, or take down technique. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Even so it always comes down to the moment of truth. When its go time some times you have to improvise. Either their going to go all out and excel under stress or they fold or freeze. I've seen both. I firmly agree with you on the training. I've worked for agencies that train full out, you get hit so its not a surprise when you get hit. Believe it or not there are officers who come in who have never been in a fight. When I train women in self defense I tell them that if they think going over a few techniques is going to turn them into Buffy the vampire slayer their wrong. You have to practice, you have to train and it will be rough if its worth a spit. And when all else fails, commonsense wins every time, its not self defense its survival. That's why they make running shoes.

the traditional arts such as Karate, Aikido, Jujitsu, Kali, and other systems do the same thing. they do kata or forms again and again to teach muscle memory. when it hits the fan, and you are attacked, you will revert normally to what you have trained to do.
An example is that most law enforcement agency's train to always use a weapons sights when in a shooting situation. this is not wrong if your say 40' or more away. but at very close range it does not take tunneling into account. that tunneling is why there are stories or officers firing 20 and more rounds at say 5 ft and missing with every one. does this mean they can not shoot? no, just they have not been taught to 'point shoot' at very close ranges.
the same with self defense systems. a good teacher will teach that muscle memory and also put the student under some stress to help them function when they need it. and I also agree that when its not in the dojo, but on the street and you are attacked, you better forget about rules and start worrying about staying alive! because as some one said, " If you fight, you may DIE! " but they also said, "if you are attacked, and you do not fight, you will most likely surly die!" so when i help teach self defense classes I point out that evading and avoiding being in that situation is the best way, and if you are attacked, leave your scruples our of it and do a lot of damage till you can run safely... " Niki jitsu is your friend, but if you can not run, you better get mad dog mean and survive.