Ok. My view on how training can be unethical.

[Buka]

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:

I've used that backwards, circular step a lot, just with a narrower stance so my feet don't tangle. I've had great success with it. I've also used it in the scenario you show in post #6 as well.

 

[dvcochran]

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

This is exactly to my earlier point that there is a difference between teaching self defense and situational awareness. The latter can be taught to the profile people you mentioned in a couple of hours. But as with any kind of learning, retention is based on repetition.
Quality self defense training takes much longer than SA.

The acronym for SA; common sense.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

circular step a lot, ...

That's my favor footwork.

- Move my back foot 1 feet.
- Move my front foot 3 inch.
- Both of my feet will line up with my opponent.

This way I can force my opponent to turn with me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

This is a blanket generalization, and not accurate in my experience. I know of no SD-oriented system or instructor who doesn’t teach offense. Even Aikido has options for offense. Most SD-oriented drills simply assume a worst-case scenario, where you’ve missed the opportunity to take the first shot, either because of surprise, or an abundance of caution.

 

[Tez3]

This is a blanket generalization, and not accurate in my experience. I know of no SD-oriented system or instructor who doesn’t teach offense. Even Aikido has options for offense. Most SD-oriented drills simply assume a worst-case scenario, where you’ve missed the opportunity to take the first shot, either because of surprise, or an abundance of caution.

I've known a few offensive instructors in martial arts and other things.....

 

[punisher73]

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.

First, I would point out that what he is teaching is NOT PPCT.

PPCT is a specific name brand and approach (recently rebranded to HFRG-Human Factor Research Group). I point this out because if you are actually using the PPCT model, you would not be doing what he is showing. In PPCT, if taught PROPERLY, the response to someone wanting to strike is intermediate weapons. So, in the scenario he is showing, your first option would be taser/OC/Baton. The next option would be responding with punches/kicks/elbows/knees/forearm strikes. The "straight armbar takedown" as it is shown and taught in PPCT is for LOWER LEVELS of resistance. For example, the person has NOT shown that they want to fight and you are escorting them. That is specifically what the technique is designed for. You are escorting a person and are in the escort position with wrist/arm control already established. The person starts to tighten up and resist the escort (important distinction that plays into the psychology of the situation--they are attempting to defeat your attempt at control, but are not trying to actively hurt you or fight you). You knee them to distract and soften them up before doing the takedown. IF taught properly, when it gets to that point, you are also taught that you still have two options when they START to resist. Engage or Disengage with that person. In PPCT, you are taught to ALWAYS use a level of force higher than what the other person is using to establish and maintain control of the situation.

I point that out because I agree with the rest of your premise. DT should be taught properly and by someone who can do what they have said. In my career, I have successfully used each of the joint locks taught in PPCT. Why? Because I understood what they were for and used them as designed. If a person was actively resisting me, I used other techniques appropriate for the situation. As a side note, that was one of my biggest pet peeves as a PPPCT instructor for our department (even taught in a couple academies). People complaining that PPCT didn't work and then talking to them about the situation and finding out that they weren't actually using the system as designed. In most cases, the person was actively fighting with them and they were trying to grab on to them and apply a pressure point. Again, if that is what they were taught, they were taught WRONG because those are designed for lower levels of force.

An instructor should be able to apply their techniques that they are teaching AND they should be very clear on when that type of technique should be used. Especially in DT for LEO/Corrections when those individuals are NOT going to be spending tons of time perfecting more complex approaches that a more experienced person could apply. I also think that is one thing many TMA's lose focus of in their training. They don't spend hours honing their basics (kihon) on a resisting person and then want to apply the more difficult applications without a proper foundation.

 

[dvcochran]

This is a blanket generalization, and not accurate in my experience. I know of no SD-oriented system or instructor who doesn’t teach offense. Even Aikido has options for offense. Most SD-oriented drills simply assume a worst-case scenario, where you’ve missed the opportunity to take the first shot, either because of surprise, or an abundance of caution.

Agree. One of the things I stress the strongest in a SD class is if all other options have been exhausted and things escalate to where you have to strike, then you strike, strike, strike, strike, etc...

 

[Buka]

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...!!!!!

I laughed when I read that. I was trying to picture them teaching together.

But what isn't so humorous, I can't say the guy I described was the worst DT guy I ever met.

 

[oftheherd1]

I laughed when I read that. I was trying to picture them teaching together.

But what isn't so humorous, I can't say the guy I described was the worst DT guy I ever met.

Students wouldn't be looking their watches but rather their calendars.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I worked for a company that stated on it's employment package that I couldn't hit people ever.

You can get over being fired for breaking company rules, you can't get over being dead for not.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

This was something I grappled with when I was first hired to teach self defense at my local YMCA. On the one hand, I've had lots of varied training, both from the military and various traditional and modern systems. Additionally, I did successfully defend myself and another from a pretty dangerous opponent once. On the other hand, though my one no-**** fight may be more than some martial artists will ever have, it did not test the majority of the techniques I know, which means much of what I teach is untested by me in-vivo. As such, while I'd like to believe that training in so many different venues for the better part of a decade has helped me figure out what's useful and what's not, there is the possibility that something I teach may not work as advertised in real life. I do my best to mitigate this possibility by representing my training and experience (or lack thereof in the latter case) to my students, and to encourage them to practice on their own and see what works and what doesn't.

 

[Gweilo]

You have used this video before, to try to reinforce your arguement as to why a standing arm bar does not work, and the points you make for your side of the argument have merit, so I say again, as will others, it depends on your opinion, of what an arm bar is, and whether those that may use it, would apply it in your understanding of an armbar, the song circles in the sand comes to mind