MMA fighter in court over one punch death.

[drop bear]

Just have a minute. I always enjoy reading your posts, but want to respond just to this part for now.

Just as a really quick example, I can tell a new supervisor how to deliver effective feedback to an employee in just a few minutes. In 30 minutes, I can cover a process or formula for delivering effective feedback, including information about how to avoid judgemental feedback and all kinds of practical tips and considerations. But, teaching or coaching someone to deliver effective feedback takes much longer. in the same way, I can tell you how to do a sprawl in 30 seconds.

And the larger issue here... the disconnect, remains. If we're spending most of our time on the thing that is the least likely to be used, there's an issue. It's like trying to teach someone to read, but spending 99% of your time together showing them the intricacies of the Dewey Decimal system, just in case they ever need it in order to find a book.

The most obvious answer is you are training the worst case scenario most. Which is why there is more whole sale whoop *** than sharing our feelings and hugging it out.

But considering you are training to achieve an emotional reaction with someone who is not having one. It all becomes a bit fanciful.

Again like that kung fu vs boxer style defence. Without getting an actual boxer ro play the role.

 

[K-man]

Yeah but you don't fight because you can beat someone. You fight because there is something important you are willing to fight for.

And then you roll the dice and take your chances.

I think this is a really interesting comment. You see, when we are discussing self defence I would suggest that the guy threatening you has already decided that he can beat you. Even if he has a muddled brain from alcohol or drugs, his decision may be less rational, but he has picked you as his victim. I have walked up the line of my students telling them if I was going to pick someone to fight, who it would be and why. Part of SD training is to teach people how not to look like a victim.

Fighting game back or defending yourself is a totally different situation. Here you don't have a choice beyond trying to escape or trying to de-escalate. When that fails you are fighting because, as you rightly pointed out, you have something worth fighting for and you may lose the fight or be seriously hurt.

 

[K-man]

See, this is a disconnect. Have you guys ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It's not scientific... more of a philosophy that speaks to general truths. Your post reminds me of it, and that's not necessarily a good thing. If most of your training is spent learning the thing that you are really expecting to do the least, then IMO, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Particularly when the stakes are as high as personal safety and self defense.

I think the 80/20 rule has many applications and is readily evident in just about all areas of MA training, including self defence. However, at the end of the day, when all else has failed, you need to rely on those physical skills maybe to survive. To me, those physical skills are the hardest to nail and even when you reckon you have them nailed you still have to practise them to keep on top of your game unless you are a physical monster with natural ability.

In the pillars of self defense thread, many people, including you, point to a lot of things that are unrelated to fighting. And even the fighting skills are of dubious use, because as I learned reading Andrastea's excellent post on women's safety, the fighting aspects of ALL training rely upon presumptions about the context. So, it may be you're spending a lot of time learning the WRONG kind of fighting. We see this articulated around here all the time when it comes to competition vs self defense discussions. But, having read the matter of fact, common sense that Andrasea posted, it's clear that even programs sincerely intended to deliver quality self defense training may be teaching the wrong kind of fighting.

Well of course that depends on the school. Most schools don't claim to teach self defence and of those who do claim to teach it, most don't. Applying the 80/20 rule approximately four schools out of 100 teach self defence and I think that number would be generous.

But most (and I believe all, but didn't re-read the entire thread) acknolwedge that fighting is the last resort, and that so much more goes in to self defense. Soft skills like deescalation, communication, situational awareness. Other things like making good choices, having a wing man. A lot of non-fighting related things go into avoiding self defense situations in the first place. I think you even said that fighting is what happens when your self defense skills have all failed. Something like that.

Why do we need a 'wing man'? What sort of society do you live in? What sort of a society do you want to live in? I want to be able to go out with my wife, kids or grandkids safely without having to have someone to look out for me. I haven't had to do that anywhere in the world I have visited so far.

It would seem to me that if you're really, seriously about training for self defense, most of the time you spend in training should be on the things that you will really need day to day. And a small amount of time should be spent on the things you are likely never to need. Or said plainly, if you do everything else well, you will likely never need to fight.

Exactly! And that is why 99% of my friends and relatives don't train in a martial art. They don't need to. If they understand the concept of self defence they should never need to fight. In all my time in training I have only had one person come to me to learn to fight. That is the subject for a separate thread. Suffice to say, four years later, he is still with me, now with no desire to fight anyone, but the increase in his self esteem is remarkable.

Now, this odesn't mean you shouldn't learn to fight if you want to, or that it has no value. Rather, it puts it into context, where it belongs relative to the REALLY important self defense skills that actually matter, according to you guys as stated in the thread on the pillars of self defense.

If you want to learn to fight you wouldn't be training with me. If you wanted to learn to fight on the street I would tell you to piss off. If you wanted to learn to fight in the ring I would refer you to friends who are great at training fighters. If you want to learn a martial art, I will do everything I can to facilitate that.

So, really, there is a disconnect. 80% of self defense training focuses on something that is only useful 20% of the time. That's what the 80/20 rule would say. But, really, that's being very generous. Particularly in a country that is as safe as you allege, where you are enacting severe punishments based upon an average of 6 unintentional (if avoidable) deaths per year, nationally.

No, the 80/20 rule goes much further. Of the twenty in the first instance we can apply the 80/20 again which brings us down to four. Applying it again we come down to less than one.

So let's say we are going out for dinner or whatever other activity you care to name. Unless we are going to places known to sometimes be violent I would say there is less than 0.1% chance of encountering a violent situation. In at least 80% of those situations you can walk away without any engagement at all. Of these, and we are now talking two in ten thousand times we go out, we will probably find we can de-escalate the situation. Applying 80/20 again we would be physically fighting four times in one hundred years assuming we go out three times a day. I would suggest that if you are training a martial art purely to save your a**e in a street fight, you are wasting your time and your money.

Of course, I am talking Australia here, but I have travelled to around twenty other countries without encountering violence.

Most people here will go their entire lives without having to fight anyone, at least in the street, in what aedrasteia termed 'stranger assault'. Domestic violence is a separate topic.

 

[K-man]

What do you find funny Steve? I certainly didn't intend it that way.

 

[Steve]

Hey Steve, I see where you are going and believe it or not there are a few Reality Based Self Defense instructors out there who predominantly only deal with non-physical skill sets. In general what teach is okay but..... because they do not have balance in their training and what they teach they overall do a poor job for their students if things go violent. I would advise anyone seeking effective personal protection skill sets to find someone who is teaching and has balance in their approach. I agree with the point that you can tell someone to do a sprawl or any physical technique quickly but..... they probably won't be able to do it in real time and with resistance and also with an adrenaline dump. Then we also have to get into individual types of people that are training for self defense which is much broader than say a competitive martial system. It could be a soccer mom, computer programer, elderly lady, disabled person, etc. I would also say if you look at your BJJ training in many ways it is self selecting for people picking up physical techniques at an acceptable level in class. Because if they do not they probably either never showed up for training or left quickly. Though of course their will always be someone who does stick around who struggles but they are an exception on average. In other words your dealing with a population that in general is pretty athletic. Certainly this is my experience in BJJ and many martial systems. So they may pick up things very fast and also be able to use it. Just like an executive learning intellectual skill sets may pick them up even quicker. Not everyone who falls into a prey category will be athletic and they may already suffer from an extreme disadvantage to a predator. (size, strength, ambush, etc.) I personally specialize in small group classes or one on one training which allows me to tailor what I do to the individual. Sure I have the occasional large group class of a seminar or intensive but mostly if someone wants to work with me it will be one on one or a couple of people. This allows me to tailor things to the individual whether they are new to training or have been training for twenty plus years!

I will agree with you though that some people are disconnected from reality of what they are trying to accomplish in regards to personal protection. I am just not sure if the 80/20 is necessarily the right approach based on how difficult physical skill sets can be to develop for some people. I would also argue that the amount of mental training in comparison to physical training will vary on each individual!

Brian, I think you're right in that we will need to agree to disagree. As I continue to read the discussions specifically related to self defense training, the rhetoric just doesn't connect directly to the training curriculums.

Having read the really interesting and informative posts by you, k-man, brian king and others, the conclusion for me is that the physical training is an adjunct to effective self defense training. Everything you guys say ABOUT self defense training points to it being either a very small component or even, in some cases, unrelated to self defense training. My opinion based upon these conversations is that fighting training is going to be of limited use to most people who don't have a specific reason to train. Whether that fighting training is BJJ, Krav Maga, boxing, wing chun or whatever else. Most people just aren't going to need those skills. This is particularly true if those people are emotionally intelligent, and don't engage in risky behavior. My chances of needing to fight are extremely small. It's just not likely to happen. And most people are in the same boat. This isn't to say that there aren't other great reasons to train in a martial art and improve one's fighting ability. Rather, in a roundabout way, it validates all of the martial arts that are not focused specifically on self defense, but instead focus on other aspects of self improvement, whether that's sport/competitiveness, health/fitness, historical preservation, or just because it's interesting and fun. And the chances that this training will affect one's self defense skills is pretty darned small, for most people.

So, when we talk about self defense training, there is no one size fits all. There is no one curriculum that makes sense for everyone. For a woman, there are different needs. For a woman who has been a victim of sexual assualt, there may even be additional needs on top of that. For a cop, for a bouncer, for a white collar business person, there are different needs.

But one things that seems to be consistent is that most of these needs are related to communication, awareness, not being a jerk, identifying (and ideally avoiding) risky behaviors.

So, ultimately, learning fighting skills is fun and in a worst case scenario, may be helpful. But for most people, the training that is of actual, practical, day to day value is pretty much everything other than what most people associate with self defense training.

I want to be clear, any discussions about the length of time needed to learn soft skills or martial skills is to the side. But, people ascribe importance to things based upon the weight it carries. While you may know and be clear that the soft skills are more important and useful for self defense, simply by virtue of the amount of time spent on fightin skills, you are applying weight and implying important to these skills that skew the training curriculum.

 

[Steve]

What do you find funny Steve? I certainly didn't intend it that way.

I'm sorry. I thought you were being tongue in cheek. It seemed that way to me. The intentionally bad math and the way you appeared to be intentionally messing up the 80/20 rule. Just seemed like you were making a joke.

For what it's worth, I appreciate your comments about how unlikely violence is for most people. I agree. I'd even take it further, and suggest that if you were out to eat, the chances of running into any trouble statistically is nil, again, presuming you are avoiding any risky behaviors like eating in a place that's known to be violent. It's theoretically possible, but so statistically unlikely as to not even be a reasonable consideration.

Edit: I'm also glad that there is so much common ground to be found in your post. A lot of what you're saying seems to be consistent with what I'm saying.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Steve, where we agree to disagree is the 80/20 rule applied to soft skills/physical skills. I personally do not think that this works for every person practicing for self-defense. It is way to hard and fast a rule and might work for some and not for others. I would also like you to think on this that you may or may not ever need the physical skills that you have acquired through Brazilian Jiujitsu and yet, if you ever need.them. While in general if you have common sense you may not need those physical skill sets. Yet, if you need them you really need them. You, I and many on this thread may not need them right now as we are not necessarily in a "preyed" upon group. (ie. children, women, elderly) Yet, as we age we may move into that group and physical skill sets along with soft skills will be even more important at that stage. Like you I train because I enjoy it (used to need it for work) and if I ever need the skills they will be there for me. Otherwise we totally agree that people who are interested in self defense and personal protection skill sets need verbal de-escalation skills, etc. and that the vast majority of people claiming to teach self-defense just give it lip service.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Here is some cctv footage of violence from around the world on my blog:

CCTV Footage Of Assaults From Around The World The Instinctive Edge

Violence does happen and while it is remote that it may happen to you if you are trained properly
it could be a great benefit in a moment of violent action.

 

[Steve]

Hey Steve, where we agree to disagree is the 80/20 rule applied to soft skills/physical skills. I personally do not think that this works for every person practicing for self-defense. It is way to hard and fast a rule and might work for some and not for others. I would also like you to think on this that you may or may not ever need the physical skills that you have acquired through Brazilian Jiujitsu and yet, if you ever need.them. While in general if you have common sense you may not need those physical skill sets. Yet, if you need them you really need them. You, I and many on this thread may not need them right now as we are not necessarily in a "preyed" upon group. (ie. children, women, elderly) Yet, as we age we may move into that group and physical skill sets along with soft skills will be even more important at that stage. Like you I train because I enjoy it (used to need it for work) and if I ever need the skills they will be there for me. Otherwise we totally agree that people who are interested in self defense and personal protection skill sets need verbal de-escalation skills, etc. and that the vast majority of people claiming to teach self-defense just give it lip service.

I appreciate the note, Brian and agree with you. if you ever need them, it's nice to have them. Kind of like insurance. Or that flashlight you threw in the glove box without giving it too much thought. When you need it, you sure do appreciate it.

Here in the Seattle area, we're on the ring of fire, and have earthquakes. Not all that often, and usually not all that strong. But once about every 20 years or so, we have a doozy. Strong and destructive. It's a good idea to have an emergency kit prepared and to maintain it. Fresh water, flashlights, batteries, some non-perishable food items, first aid kit. Basic stuff. You can make your own or buy them pre-made for a bit more. Now, here in Seattle, we're not very likely to ever need that kit, but it's possible. I have one just in case. But I invest an appropriate amount of time in this preparation. I have the kit, and I maintain the kit over time. Because the situation is so unlikely, I don't spend a disproportionate amount of time addressing it.

But what if I lived down there in Vegas? How useful is an earthquake kit going to be in a place that never has earthquakes? That's how martial skills are to most people. And, spending many hours per week training in martial skills is disproportionate to the potential gain. I really think that if the only reason one trains in martial arts is for self defense, then it's out of proportion to the need. But, there are a lot of other, great reasons to train in a martial art that are of immediate and frequent benefit.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Interesting thoughts on the self-defense vs martial arts dichotomy all around.

If you were to ask, I'd say that I teach a martial art with a focus on the aspects that art which intersect with a self-defense context. That is very different from saying that I teach self-defense.

The biggest component of self-defense is lifestyle - living a life that which minimizes your chance of any sort of violent encounter. I live my life that way myself. I could probably tell someone, in a few sentences, how to live that kind of life. That doesn't mean I could teach someone who is immersed in a more dangerous lifestyle to change their course. If someone is regularly getting into fights, what are the odds that I'm going to tell them anything they haven't heard before from family members, friends, or authority figures?

De-escalation is another important skill. I'm reasonably good at it, for a non-professional, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to teach anything beyond the most rudimentary beginnings of the skill. (I do try to teach a very calm, centered application of jiu-jitsu, which I think has potential spillover into the mindset required for effective de-escalation skills, but it's an indirect benefit.)

Sexual violence towards women is a huge area of self-defense to address that includes soft skills of awareness and avoidance and resistance to psychological manipulation and intimidation as well as physical skills. Unfortunately, I don't know how to construct scenario training for that context that wouldn't be creepy at best and traumatizing at worst. I'm not talking about the standard scenario of being accosted by a stranger on the sidewalk. That's relatively easy. I'm talking about scenarios where the woman is alone with a trusted minister/boss/co-worker/friend/acquaintance/date/spouse/etc who initiates sexual contact and ignores resistance/ accuses the woman of leading him on/ makes implicit threats (physical or otherwise)/ makes explicit threats (physical or otherwise) / pretends protests are part of a game/ acts as if everything is normal/ acts violently/ etc, etc. I can teach a woman the physical skills to deal with that sort of situation, but I don't think I'm going to get good results trying to run classes on the rest of it.

I teach jiu-jitsu. This encompasses certain fighting skills and certain mental and physical attributes. I try to help the students understand these skills and attributes in a larger self-defense context so that they aren't locked into a "dueling" mentality and they aren't so fixated on "winning" a fight or "beating" an opponent that they get themselves in trouble in a real situation.

 

[K-man]

I'm sorry. I thought you were being tongue in cheek. It seemed that way to me. The intentionally bad math and the way you appeared to be intentionally messing up the 80/20 rule. Just seemed like you were making a joke.

Let me explain the math.

I am suggesting that for the average person the chances of leaving home and encountering a violent situation is 0.1% or less. That is a made up figure that conveniently gives us 100 in 100,000. Of that 100 we can walk away from 80 leaving 20. Of the 20 we de-escalate 16 leaving 4.

Now 100,000 divided by 3 (no of times per day we go out) is approx. 33,000. Divide that by 365 (days in year) equals approx. 90.

So assuming we don't have many life threatening situations before age 10 and we live to 100 that equals four unavoidable fights in a life time. But I did say less than 0.1% and we don't see many older people in altercations. In the end it comes down to three fifths of five eighths of bugger all, as the chances of getting into a fight, let alone a life threatening one.

QED.

 

[Steve]

Let me explain the math.

I am suggesting that for the average person the chances of leaving home and encountering a violent situation is 0.1% or less. That is a made up figure that conveniently gives us 100 in 100,000. Of that 100 we can walk away from 80 leaving 20. Of the 20 we de-escalate 16 leaving 4.

Now 100,000 divided by 3 (no of times per day we go out) is approx. 33,000. Divide that by 365 (days in year) equals approx. 90.

So assuming we don't have many life threatening situations before age 10 and we live to 100 that equals four unavoidable fights in a life time. But I did say less than 0.1% and we don't see many older people in altercations. In the end it comes down to three fifths of five eighths of bugger all, as the chances of getting into a fight, let alone a life threatening one.

QED.

LOL. I'll take your word for it! I need to get my daughter to explain this to me. She's the math whiz.

But I think I get the gist of it. If you're saying that the chances of being in an unavoidable, life threatening situation are very slim, I agre.

 

[Flying Crane]

Interesting thoughts on the self-defense vs martial arts dichotomy all around.

If you were to ask, I'd say that I teach a martial art with a focus on the aspects that art which intersect with a self-defense context. That is very different from saying that I teach self-defense.

The biggest component of self-defense is lifestyle - living a life that which minimizes your chance of any sort of violent encounter. I live my life that way myself. I could probably tell someone, in a few sentences, how to live that kind of life. That doesn't mean I could teach someone who is immersed in a more dangerous lifestyle to change their course. If someone is regularly getting into fights, what are the odds that I'm going to tell them anything they haven't heard before from family members, friends, or authority figures?

De-escalation is another important skill. I'm reasonably good at it, for a non-professional, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to teach anything beyond the most rudimentary beginnings of the skill. (I do try to teach a very calm, centered application of jiu-jitsu, which I think has potential spillover into the mindset required for effective de-escalation skills, but it's an indirect benefit.)

Sexual violence towards women is a huge area of self-defense to address that includes soft skills of awareness and avoidance and resistance to psychological manipulation and intimidation as well as physical skills. Unfortunately, I don't know how to construct scenario training for that context that wouldn't be creepy at best and traumatizing at worst. I'm not talking about the standard scenario of being accosted by a stranger on the sidewalk. That's relatively easy. I'm talking about scenarios where the woman is alone with a trusted minister/boss/co-worker/friend/acquaintance/date/spouse/etc who initiates sexual contact and ignores resistance/ accuses the woman of leading him on/ makes implicit threats (physical or otherwise)/ makes explicit threats (physical or otherwise) / pretends protests are part of a game/ acts as if everything is normal/ acts violently/ etc, etc. I can teach a woman the physical skills to deal with that sort of situation, but I don't think I'm going to get good results trying to run classes on the rest of it.

I teach jiu-jitsu. This encompasses certain fighting skills and certain mental and physical attributes. I try to help the students understand these skills and attributes in a larger self-defense context so that they aren't locked into a "dueling" mentality and they aren't so fixated on "winning" a fight or "beating" an opponent that they get themselves in trouble in a real situation.

Excellent post, tony. I think you've really hit some issues square in the head. I'd say very few people are truly qualified to teach the kind of soft skills people are referring to. For much of it, I'm not terribly convinced that it even CAN be taught. It can be discussed and people can think about it, but teaching some of that stuff in a classroom? I just don't see it as terribly possible. But thats my point of view.

Recognizing where your expertise is, and is not, is extremely important. Teaching and practicing a martial method can be useful in self defense. That is true whether the focus of the training is on sport or exercise or personal betterment, or whatever. If the quality of the training is good, then it also can carry over to self defense. But I believe that transition is largely up to the individual.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Here in the Seattle area, we're on the ring of fire, and have earthquakes. Not all that often, and usually not all that strong. But once about every 20 years or so, we have a doozy. Strong and destructive. It's a good idea to have an emergency kit prepared and to maintain it. Fresh water, flashlights, batteries, some non-perishable food items, first aid kit. Basic stuff. You can make your own or buy them pre-made for a bit more. Now, here in Seattle, we're not very likely to ever need that kit, but it's possible. I have one just in case. But I invest an appropriate amount of time in this preparation. I have the kit, and I maintain the kit over time. Because the situation is so unlikely, I don't spend a disproportionate amount of time addressing it.

But what if I lived down there in Vegas? How useful is an earthquake kit going to be in a place that never has earthquakes? That's how martial skills are to most people. And, spending many hours per week training in martial skills is disproportionate to the potential gain. I really think that if the only reason one trains in martial arts is for self defense, then it's out of proportion to the need. But, there are a lot of other, great reasons to train in a martial art that are of immediate and frequent benefit.

Interestingly enough we had an earthquake about a week or so ago. Strange for us here. While I did not feel it a whole bunch of people did. Fortunately though, if we did have a far ranging emergency in Vegas I would be prepared with food, medical first aid equipment, etc. It is a long shot that some thing would happen but I have taken precautions just in case.