Ok. My view on how training can be unethical.

[drop bear]

Another fine example of PPCT.

So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.

And it it trained and sold in a manner that dishonestly represents a working technique.

Now this will trap you in two ways.

Either you try this and get flogged. And the instructor still takes his pay check and goes home to his family.

Or you do something that works like punch him in the face back and get screwed in court because you didn't do the scissor arm block take down.

Normally with some statement on how you were trained to competency on defensive tactic and so were able to safely restrain the guy but just chose not to.

Now the really fun part of this is because you are not the qualified self defense instructor. You are not in a position to know that move doesn't work. Only the instructor is and everyone will just take his word on it.

(Sorry there is a third. You eat the punch and legally short the guy. And everyone but dead guy is happy.)

Of course training evidence based and with accountability would clean this up. One set of boxing gloves and a zero success rate would force people to reevaluate the harm they are causing.

But there are too many excuses for this to happen.

 

[dvcochran]

I don't disagree with most of what you say. However, there would be no marital arts, MMA, boxing, or wrestling communities if everyone trained the way you describe. Very few people would/could do it.
It just makes no sense.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Another fine example of PPCT.

So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.

And it it trained and sold in a manner that dishonestly represents a working technique.

Now this will trap you in two ways.

Either you try this and get flogged. And the instructor still takes his pay check and goes home to his family.

Or you do something that works like punch him in the face back and get screwed in court because you didn't do the scissor arm block take down.

Normally with some statement on how you were trained to competency on defensive tactic and so were able to safely restrain the guy but just chose not to.

Now the really fun part of this is because you are not the qualified self defense instructor. You are not in a position to know that move doesn't work. Only the instructor is and everyone will just take his word on it.

(Sorry there is a third. You eat the punch and legally short the guy. And everyone but dead guy is happy.)

Of course training evidence based and with accountability would clean this up. One set of boxing gloves and a zero success rate would force people to reevaluate the harm they are causing.

But there are too many excuses for this to happen.

If you somehow did manage to use that scissor arm block as they state-you might be in more trouble since (according to the dude in the video), you just broke the guys arm. Versus a much simpler, easier and more effective parry that does not involve unnecessarily breaking an arm.

Edit: I find the break more amusing, since I feel like breaking the arm might render the arm bar ineffective.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I agree that this "arm bar" take down will not work in an actual situation. First of all, it's hard to intercept a punch with the correct timing to catch the elbow at just the right moment to hyper-extend for pain compliance. These women are not being taught how to use their bodies for torque in powering the take down. They are NOT being shown the foot work, pivot, weight drop and hip action necessary to execute this move. These techniques are just as important as the scissoring action with the arms for this thing to work.

This is an example of trying to teach a martial art technique to someone who does not know martial arts. It's the MA foundation that allows the body to fully come into play, especially against a stronger opponent. These women are being deluded into thinking they have learned something useful.

 

[Buka]

I was hired by law enforcement to design and teach a DT program. Which was a good thing. What wasn’t such a good thing - according to their charter I had to go through all the necessary steps, including taking the DT course from the guy I was replacing.

He taught reading....from...a....manual....in....
broken....speech...like...this. And that was one of his stronger points.

My God, I thought I had died and gone to fighter’s hell.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

it's hard to intercept a punch with the correct timing to catch the elbow at just the right moment to hyper-extend for pain compliance.

Agree with you 100% there. This is why I don't like the self-defense approach. All your moves are waiting for your opponent to punch you.

Why don't you start your standing arm bar when you move in while your opponent is still in on guard position?

against a stronger opponent.

To make your technique to work on a strong opponent, you will need to borrow his force.

When you try to arm bar your opponent (straight his arm), when he resists (he tries to bend his arm), his resistance can help you to bend his arm with little effort.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Agree with you 100% there. This is why I don't like the self-defense approach. All your moves are waiting for your opponent to punch you.

Why don't you start your standing arm bar when you move in while your opponent is still in on guard position?


To make your technique to work on a strong opponent, you will need to borrow his force.

When you try to arm bar your opponent (straight his arm), when he resists (he tries to bend his arm), his resistance can help you to bend his arm with little effort.

You bring up an interesting, even philosophical point - Does self defense start only after you wait until the attack is launched, or does it start when the opponent first displays his intention to hit you? (This may deserve its own thread)
Does self defense need to be reactive, or can it be proactive?

There is a story of the old, street fighting, karate master, Motobu Choki. About 100 years ago, Motobu was sitting in a bar with some friends when a guy walked in with a knife to challenge him, announcing he intended to kill him. Motobu suggested they go outside to settle things so as not to damage his favorite drinking place. Agreeing, the knife wielder turned to exit the bar. As he did so, Motobu attacked with a flying side kick to the guy's back, seriously injuring him.

While there is a famous saying, "There is no first attack in karate," Motobu was of the mind that by drawing the knife and announcing his intention, the knife wielder essentially attacked first, so Motobu was justified in employing his proactive self defense.

Re: your second point, I previously stated that a good martial artist should certainly not only know a technique, but also how to handle resistance and probable reaction to that technique, as your video clip illustrates. This entails a particular mental state in not getting too wrapped up in a particular technique.

In your clip, the defender was not intent on the goal of an arm bar, but rather on the goal of subduing and taking down the attacker. By having this broader strategic goal, he was able to easily switch tactics to handle the resistance and still accomplish his main goal. This is an illustration of one of the "Eight Precepts of Quan Fa" (Appearing in the historical text, Bubishi) regarding changing direction. Isshinryu founder, Shimabuku Tatsuo, incorporated this concept in his Isshinryu Code: "The body should be able to change direction at any time." This idea has both physical and spiritual application.

 

[drop bear]

If you somehow did manage to use that scissor arm block as they state-you might be in more trouble since (according to the dude in the video), you just broke the guys arm. Versus a much simpler, easier and more effective parry that does not involve unnecessarily breaking an arm.

Edit: I find the break more amusing, since I feel like breaking the arm might render the arm bar ineffective.

It does make the arm really hard to control when it breaks.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Does self defense need to be reactive, or can it be proactive?

My strategy is if someone attacks me, I'll jump back. I then jump back in and attack him. I don't like to deal with someone's attack. I prefer to let him to deal with my attack.

 

[Tez3]

While there is a famous saying, "There is no first attack in karate," Motobu was of the mind that by drawing the knife and announcing his intention, the knife wielder essentially attacked first, so Motobu was justified in employing his proactive self defense.

In British law you are allowed to strike first if you are in fear of your life or fear for the safety of others. Iain Abernethy disagrees with the 'there is no first attack' meaning one doesn't strike first he uses the same Motobu story to show this, plus in Wado we have a stance that indicates one does strike first if necessary, the last two words being the qualifier.

 

[drop bear]

I worked for a company that stated on it's employment package that I couldn't hit people ever. This was because I was sufficiently trained to stop an attack without having to.

It was assumed that because security guards have received training they had the advantage in a confrontation.

 

[_Simon_]

I dunno. To me it's only unethical if it makes a "promise" or a "guarantee". No school I've ever trained at has ever done that.

To me it's a matter of percentages or likelihood of things working. And even so, sometimes the variables involved outweigh even any objective criteria of it being more "likely" of being effective.

Some people say tornado kicks aren't good in the slightest for self defense. I've seen a vid of it being used effectively, knocking people out cold (if that was the aim, and what we deem as "effective"). And chances are there are many situations in which it didn't work. Things can work in some situations (some admittedly rarely). Things won't work in some situations, no matter how much you force them.

I don't think there's ever a guarantee that a system/technique will always work. That's being dishonest (or perhaps deludingly convinced) and not grounded in reality.

I see little point in getting into a tirade against all martial arts that have various degrees of "effectiveness". Not really as black and white as that, and it's not as simple as to say that a system is nonsense because it doesn't undergo the rigorous method testing that some would say is needed.

I know you like to be very scientific, and objective about things, which can serve things really well. A great skill to have. But there becomes a point where you simply can't rely on that for everything. There are probabilities that even the scientific method can't account for.

But then, I don't train martial arts for self defence purposes, so what would I know [emoji14]

 

[_Simon_]

In British law you are allowed to strike first if you are in fear of your life or fear for the safety of others. Iain Abernethy disagrees with the 'there is no first attack' meaning one doesn't strike first he uses the same Motobu story to show this, plus in Wado we have a stance that indicates one does strike first if necessary, the last two words being the qualifier.

Yep, I've always interpreted the phrase to mean "you don't initiate violence". Then of course it becomes very subjective as to what point you preemptively attack, as you can sense from body language when attack from someone may very well be imminent. A perceptive thing I guess.

 

[wab25]

Another fine example of PPCT.

So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.

And it it trained and sold in a manner that dishonestly represents a working technique.

Now this will trap you in two ways.

Either you try this and get flogged. And the instructor still takes his pay check and goes home to his family.

Or you do something that works like punch him in the face back and get screwed in court because you didn't do the scissor arm block take down.

Normally with some statement on how you were trained to competency on defensive tactic and so were able to safely restrain the guy but just chose not to.

Now the really fun part of this is because you are not the qualified self defense instructor. You are not in a position to know that move doesn't work. Only the instructor is and everyone will just take his word on it.

(Sorry there is a third. You eat the punch and legally short the guy. And everyone but dead guy is happy.)

Of course training evidence based and with accountability would clean this up. One set of boxing gloves and a zero success rate would force people to reevaluate the harm they are causing.

But there are too many excuses for this to happen.

I agree this is unethical training... but I see it unethical in a little different way.

First, the instructor is only able to successfully demonstrate the take down, on his chosen uke, and only when the chosen uke, knows how he is supposed to react. The instructor fails to successfully demonstrate the take down or any sort of control, whenever he tries the other students or even his chosen uke, when uke is not ready. Some of these students, he out weighs by 50 pounds or more... not only does he fail to take them down all the way, but he fails to control them. If you are unable to demonstrate a technique successfully, with willing ukes, who are your students, you need to fix your technique before trying to pass it on. (he fully demonstrates his lack of understanding about what he is doing, even with helpful uke...)

The second thing that is unethical, is that he is teaching take downs and throws to people who he has not taught to fall correctly. He is also teaching joint destructions to people who have no control and asking them to go harder and faster. The one gal clearly had her elbow hurt, because she didn't know how to go with and fall, and the guy applying it had zero control and the instructor was having them go faster and harder. I am all for going hard and fast... but you need to work people up to that, so they spend most of their time training and less of their time healing.

 

[dvcochran]

I worked for a company that stated on it's employment package that I couldn't hit people ever. This was because I was sufficiently trained to stop an attack without having to.

It was assumed that because security guards have received training they had the advantage in a confrontation.

That is a dangerous narrative to promote IMHO.

 

[dvcochran]

You bring up an interesting, even philosophical point - Does self defense start only after you wait until the attack is launched, or does it start when the opponent first displays his intention to hit you? (This may deserve its own thread)
Does self defense need to be reactive, or can it be proactive?

There is a story of the old, street fighting, karate master, Motobu Choki. About 100 years ago, Motobu was sitting in a bar with some friends when a guy walked in with a knife to challenge him, announcing he intended to kill him. Motobu suggested they go outside to settle things so as not to damage his favorite drinking place. Agreeing, the knife wielder turned to exit the bar. As he did so, Motobu attacked with a flying side kick to the guy's back, seriously injuring him.

While there is a famous saying, "There is no first attack in karate," Motobu was of the mind that by drawing the knife and announcing his intention, the knife wielder essentially attacked first, so Motobu was justified in employing his proactive self defense.

Re: your second point, I previously stated that a good martial artist should certainly not only know a technique, but also how to handle resistance and probable reaction to that technique, as your video clip illustrates. This entails a particular mental state in not getting too wrapped up in a particular technique.

In your clip, the defender was not intent on the goal of an arm bar, but rather on the goal of subduing and taking down the attacker. By having this broader strategic goal, he was able to easily switch tactics to handle the resistance and still accomplish his main goal. This is an illustration of one of the "Eight Precepts of Quan Fa" (Appearing in the historical text, Bubishi) regarding changing direction. Isshinryu founder, Shimabuku Tatsuo, incorporated this concept in his Isshinryu Code: "The body should be able to change direction at any time." This idea has both physical and spiritual application.

Your post brings up an often discussed fact of martial arts over time. They have been talked about, broken down, dissected, and resected over and over. In this process, Situational Awareness was parsed out and developed as it own, valid offshoot. It is usually Not presented this way as it typically stands alone as it own thing.
Your story gives a very good example of SA. Motobu immediately surmised that he was in an unfavorable situation and modified the outcome to his advantage. The 'Wholeness' of his training and ability were fully leveraged in the situation.
I like to think most of us long time MA folks see this kind of thinking as a product of our training. No additional SA courses required. When too much emphasis is put on any one element (competition for example) this can happen.

I think much the same happens when teaching only self defense. To many of the component parts that make it work at a high(er) percentage get stripped away resulting in an ineffective method.

Spiritual application gets a bad rap in today's society and I agree it does sound a little cheesy to say it out loud. None the less it is a real, tangible component of an effective training model. Of course, in todays society the term has been substituted with phrases like scientific method or such.

Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse.

 

[Buka]

Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse.

And it probably pisses off the horse.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In your clip, the defender was not intent on the goal of an arm bar, but rather on the goal of subduing and taking down the attacker.

When you make a move, your opponent can respond in 2 different ways:

- against you,
- yield into you.

When your opponent fight against you, you can borrow his resistance force, and take him down in the opposite direction.

Here is another example:

 

[Danny T]

I was hired by law enforcement to design and teach a DT program. Which was a good thing. What wasn’t such a good thing - according to their charter I had to go through all the necessary steps, including taking the DT course from the guy I was replacing.

He taught reading....from...a....manual....in....
broken....speech...like...this. And that was one of his stronger points.

My God, I thought I had died and gone to fighter’s hell.

Oh Man!!! Could it be there are 2 instructors the same. When I first went through Monadnock instructor training my instructor did exactly the same. He...read...the...manual...verbatim...word...for...word...and...spoke...in...the...same...manner...as...he...de-mon-strat-ed...each...and...every....movement...and...position...!!!!!

 

[jobo]

Another fine example of PPCT.

So this is an example of a standing arm bar set up that won't work taught to people that are going to go out and have to fight people.

And it it trained and sold in a manner that dishonestly represents a working technique.

Now this will trap you in two ways.

Either you try this and get flogged. And the instructor still takes his pay check and goes home to his family.

Or you do something that works like punch him in the face back and get screwed in court because you didn't do the scissor arm block take down.

Normally with some statement on how you were trained to competency on defensive tactic and so were able to safely restrain the guy but just chose not to.

Now the really fun part of this is because you are not the qualified self defense instructor. You are not in a position to know that move doesn't work. Only the instructor is and everyone will just take his word on it.

(Sorry there is a third. You eat the punch and legally short the guy. And everyone but dead guy is happy.)

Of course training evidence based and with accountability would clean this up. One set of boxing gloves and a zero success rate would force people to reevaluate the harm they are causing.

But there are too many excuses for this to happen.

but the arm bar works, catching punches is tricky, but if i get good purchase on an arm, il put the guy down, if he doesn't weigh considerably more than me or just out strengths me

which is then the problem here, there are no techniques that can be taught two uncoordinated , 5 foot tall, 100lb females ( or males for that matter) , in a few hours that will help


if the security industry in an effort to be inclusive, is employing people with out the necessary attributes, then the problem lies with them. the same technique employed by some one weighing 250lbs with a home weight set has a much greater chance of success and if not, they can just snot them