One-time SD seminars/short courses. A bit of a rant.

[MikeBielat]

From experience (non TKD)...
I have taken a couple self defense seminars in the past and have retained most of what they have shown me. I even took an arnis seminar and still retain most of that knowledge. The difference here is that, I already was 4-5+ years involved in karate. The basics were there, the soften ups, the defense, the finishing moves, etc... My mind and body were already used to a bunch of these things. What I was able to take from this was some cool and unique moves to put into my proverbial toolbox.

Someone off the street can't kick correctly let alone be able to all of a sudden defend themselves unless they are some kind of prodigy.

If there is an instructor traveling across the country giving some self defense classes to other marital artists that are already involved then that is one thing. A one hour rape prevention SD class or similar just won't do the trick. Even if one at least learned the fundamentals such as soften ups, break aways, loud yells and sweet spots to hit then I would still be scared that they would just freeze up in a panic if something bad ever did happen. This stuff needs to be muscle memory and confidence through repetition.

It is my assumption that these 1 hour self defense classes are used simply to increase foot traffic into the school and get some of these people to actually sign up for classes.

 

[jks9199]

But what about someone like, say, a teenage girl who doesn't exercise much and who's never been in a fight? I wonder if the kind of classes you describe would be enough to teach someone like that to defend herself. I feel like someone like that is going to need more long-term training just to get/stay in shape and learn about how to fight and how to deal with being in a stressful, close-quarters situation.

Law enforcement DT instruction is targeted at taking someone, and in relatively few hours, giving them functional skills sufficient to defend themselves and safely restrain and arrest someone assaulting them. In a typical academy class today, you may have anything from a military special forces vet who has been in more actual fights for his life than Bob has eaten pizzas to a sorority girl (or frat boy) who's closest thing to a fight has been a pillow fight, and can't even remember when someone spoke harshly to them. And -- by and large -- the academies succeed. So -- the answer is yes, though it's a qualified yes.

But they would certainly benefit more from a longer, more consistent pattern of exercise and training. (Yeah, so would cops. It's kind of funny; we have to qualify at least annually with our guns, and most of us won't actually shoot someone. But many agencies do no mandatory in-service DT training other than a desk-top policy review periodically... though we go hands on much more frequently.)

 

[aedrasteia]

In regards to the teenage girl, I'd say that a LOT has to do with her mindset. But the mindset is ultimately the most important thing for her or anybody. Is she going to curl up into a fetal position if a guy calls her the 'C' word? Or will she adopt a command presence posture and show she won't be intimidated? .....the perp may not be expecting resistance of the type that a woman can bring to bear and a well placed (and unexpected) chin jab/cow catcher/elbow spike, vital area strike will go a long way to ruining their plans.

and WaterGal said : "Going to second this. When I was a teenager, even when I was very obviously underage (and I've always looked young for my age), probably 90% of the sexual harassment I got was from grown men."

KSD, where, exactly, do you think girls get this "mindset" ? Somehow,
a 13 yr old somehow flips a switch, drops all the family training she's absorbed over 13 years and somehow knows that the friendly, helpful Adult man is a definite threat (teacher, neighbor, friend's father. _her_ grandfather, school bus driver, older brother's buddy).
Mind-set? Even if she has any 'gut feelings' or icky feeling, you can be 100% certain that the majority (95-99%) of
the people inside her circle will let her know in lots of ways that she is too silly, suspicious, paranoid, imagining things,
stuck-up, and much much more

who, exactly, do you think this "perp" is ? It has been so long since i dealt with any teenage girl who faced molestation/rape/sexual assault (all kinds) by a stranger - I can count them on the fingers of 1 hand this year. And I've dealt with 37 victims (teens) since january not to include girls who start talking to me (privately) and who never, ever
called any LEO or told anybody except maybe a BFF.

In every class/workshop/discussion/lunch-and-learn I do there is one question that runs through:

How do I know, for sure, that I'm really in trouble here - I've got that "uh-oh" feeling, but he's my....
(fill in the blank) and he says he's "just kidding, don't be so sensitive, I'm acting like a scared little girl"

Mind-set?
Ad. does face-palm because she is very very very tired. We had 8 hospital CSC calls this week
(no, not one stranger).

no disrespect intended. glad to read your POV

 

[jks9199]

In every class/workshop/discussion/lunch-and-learn I do there is one question that runs through:

How do I know, for sure, that I'm really in trouble here - I've got that "uh-oh" feeling, but he's my....
(fill in the blank) and he says he's "just kidding, don't be so sensitive, I'm acting like a scared little girl"

Mind-set?
Ad. does face-palm because she is very very very tired. We had 8 hospital CSC calls this week
(no, not one stranger).

That's actually the biggest problem with a lot of self defense training -- especially that aimed at kids. We teach them "Stranger-Danger" and we teach them to be afraid of some nebulous "bad guy." But the people most likely to hurt them aren't "strangers" and they aren't "bad guys." They're people who know how to move in close, and lull their suspicions.

But I don't think that's the mindset that Kong Soo Do was referring to. I think he was talking about the simply survival mindset, the will to fight on. How you teach and cultivate that is another question.

 

[WaterGal]

You're very welcome and you pose some good questions. First, yes our agency has a physical fitness standard both for hiring and for annual testing. The standard(s) will vary widely though from agency to agency. Some are in line with the military and others...well, not so much. Personally I don't think they are tough enough overall, nor do they take a persons age into consideration. If you watch those reality cop shows on TV you'll see the wide range of standards. Some cops look like they just stepped out of the Marines and others look like they've stepped out of Dunkin Donuts.

Hahaha. Yeah, okay. I know that where I'm at they have to do some PT. Or at least, the firefighters do, because I live down from the firehouse and they're always out running or doing P90x with the firehouse doors open. (Okay, so I think the latter one is at least as much about showing off for the ladies as it is for getting a workout ).

In regards to the teenage girl, I'd say that a LOT has to do with her mindset. Yes, exercise would be a substantial benefit. Not just for defense but for overall health. Additionally, a physically fit person will be able to manage the stress of an altercation or a sustained injury far better than an unfit person. But the mindset is ultimately the most important thing for her or anybody. Is she going to curl up into a fetal position if a guy calls her the 'C' word? Or will she adopt a command presence posture and show she won't be intimidated? A girl or woman (or anyone) can be taught a plethora of SD techniques (both physical as well as verbal, mindset, situational awareness etc.) in a short amount of time that can be extremely useful in avoiding a situation, escaping a situation or making it through a situation if necessary. In some ways, a woman may have a momentary edge with the advantage of surprise. In otherwords, the perp may not be expecting resistance of the type that a woman can bring to bear and a well placed (and unexpected) chin jab/cow catcher/elbow spike, vital area strike will go a long way to ruining their plans. It is a matter of receiving some simple training and then actually putting it into use (at least as far as the non-physical stuff which can keep her out of harms way to a great extent). The bottom line is that some regular exercise and/or physical SD training can go a long way for her. But a well designed, gross motor skill SD program based on real world situations can go a long way as well if that is the only thing she does for herself. I've seen many smaller framed women put much larger men on their butts because they learned some simple, gross motor skilled techniques and weren't afraid to use them.

That's very fair. I think doing frequent fighting/sparring practice can help to develop that mindset and confidence. I've definitely seen a lot of inexperienced people, even teens and adults, get panicked or emotionally overwhelmed during sparring, maybe cry or start to hyperventilate. I've been there before. And it's not because they were injured, but because they get stressed and scared, or they don't know how to control their breathing and conserve their energy yet. Especially when it involves grappling. I probably don't need to be telling you this, actually - I'm sure you've seen it yourself.

 

[Koshiki]

I guess the consensus is we're talking about the physical grabby-smacky side of self-defense, yes?

Teach them a few basic striking techniques (such as punch, backfist, front kick, palm strike etc) that they can remember easily, some basic blocks, nothing too fancy or complicated.

I feel that teaching someone to punch is likely helpful, assuming it's more of a boxing cross than anything else, something powerful and relatively intuitive, but still, I would speculate that they're probably more likely to mess up their wrist, open their knuckles, get shocked by the pain, and piss the guy off than knock him out or stop him dead.
I'd skip the backfist too, I can't see someone learning a backfist, learning to derive any sort of power from it, and managing to burn it into their brian so they remember to do it in time.
I'd replace a front kick with an heel stomp type kick to the knee/instep. Simpler, easier to learn, more intuitive, not going to land you on your butt, and something that is a heck of a lot easier to generate power with.
Palm strikes to the face, definitely. Assuming you can somehow get them to remember to do it.
As far as teaching blocking, yeah it would be nice, but I've seen a lot of students, and I don't think I've ever seen ONE who could execute a block against a committed attack after 8 hours of training. Maybe against the gigantic hay-making blows that you supposedly get attacked with on the street (the phrase should really be, "in your living room"), but I can't say I've ever seen a hay-maker like that outside of martial-arts self-defense and Hollywood Western Saloon Fights.

Just to be clear, RTDK, I'm definitely NOT saying your approach is ineffective. I can't come up with anything different, except for swapping out techniques for ones that *I* happen to like more. I'm not doubting you or your theory, I'm doubting the ability of the average uncoordinated person with a heavy flinch reaction to actually suck it up and USE what advice and skills you would have given them. Again, I'm not trying saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you'd probably do about the best that could be done, but that the best that can be done in 8 hours is pretty negligible.

I teach/study under/play with martial artists, primarily. But, with friends/family, I have on occasion been talked into showing them "some moves they can do for self-defense." Sure, show them that palm strike, show them that wrist-grip escape. Practice it with them in a controlled way. Teach them whatever you want. Then say, "ok, now I'm going to swing at you with this hand, like this, and then grab you in a bear hug. Use what I've showed you to defend yourself." Swing slow, and grab gently, but make sure it looks like it has intent, make sure you're really driving in close, and I can almost guarantee that the result will be a combination of patty-cake flailing and flinching away, and/or stumbling backwards. The problem in slef-defense teaching is not (mainly) the material, but someone's ability to perform the material.

We can probably all know some technique or other which WE OURSELVES can pull off, that most martial artists around us can't, whether it's a hick kick with power that is fast and controlled enough that you never get thrown with it, whether is a complex wrist lock that you can actually pull off in sparring, or some wire-fu-esque flying kick from a prone position that actually seems to function. We've all got our own tricks that most people can't pull off. However, there's a huge array of things that everyone we train with can all do; low kicks, various punches and hand strikes, basic grappling, rudimentary ground fighting; most martial artists have a basic knowledge of most of these things. We practice them for hours, every week, every month, for years. But, if we remember when we started, we remember than getting off a decent punch under duress was once as difficult and seemingly unachievable in practice as your buddy's flying scissor kick now seems. To someone walking into a self-defense course, that punch at an attacker is STILL just as difficult.

I've definitely seen a lot of inexperienced people, even teens and adults, get panicked or emotionally overwhelmed during sparring, maybe cry or start to hyperventilate... I'm sure you've seen it yourself.

Exactly. Everyone's seen it, and it's the other side of what makes teaching self defense so tricky.

I'm going to agree here. Mindset.

It's easy to teach a well-trained martial artist self-defense responses/technique/systems/theories/whatever it is. They've had years to get used to being hit. They've had years to get used to people being in their face, being on top of them on the ground, grabbing them. They've had years to ditch the turn-your-head-and-flinch-away response, so when someone crashes into them, their reaction is not curl up and cover the head, but something more proactive. They probably, deserving or no, think they're pretty lethal, and they've had years to form that belief. They've had years to learn to move, to react, and how to do so. They've had years to realize that anything they learn needs to be drilled and experimented with and perfected and tested.

So yes, you can take them for 8 hours and show them a couple concepts, and have them walk away safer. Heck, you can take a well-trained Martial-Artist for 30 minutes and probably give them something useful.

As far as the untrained... They haven't had years to get used to the idea and feel of an aggressor, and they aren't going to go home and train what they learn in those 8 hours. I'm not saying it's not possible, but whatever it is certainly isn't going to be a serious of wrist-grab break-aways, takedowns, punches and eye-pokes. Maybe some of that can be part of it, but I'll just say that most of the "self-defense" I've learned or seen is stuff that probably works great for someone who practices it diligently and has a background to build from.

I've never taught a self-defense course, and I doubt I ever will. I can train people in martial arts. That's something I understand, something I know how to do, but in Martial Arts, you can spend 8 hours teaching someone the basics of a classical reverse punch. I can teach someone a super-simple system of barraging alternating palms to the face, rakes, and elbow strikes, coupled with intermittent knees and low kicks. Teach that to a martial artist, and they'll probably do a decent job of banging-up any angry boyfriend that tries to hurt them. Teach it to your girlfriend and make her practice frequently, and she'll probably do a pretty good job beating YOU up! Teach it to someone off the street who's natural response it to curl up in terror and then never see them again? I don't see that working too well.

I'm not saying that short self-defense courses can't work, just that I've never seen one which seemed very viable. Back to mindset. Sure, with the right mindset, you probably don't NEED a self-defense course. Having played around with a variety of martial artists and completely untrained friends and friends of friends, and inebriated friends of friends who just like to pummel, I'm willing to bet that the most valuable self-defense technique is an inborn sense of aggression. So yeah, those with an aggressive and violent reaction to being grabbed, struck, etc. will probably do just fine, with or without the self-defense. Those without, those with a more subdued mindset, will not do well either way.

Take a bunch of people resigned to dealing with violence, who see violence somewhat regularly, who have a job which constantly reminds them of violence, and who may very likely take it upon themselves to practice dealing with it occasionally, train them for 16-40 hours and give them a refresher every year or so, and I have no doubt that they will be able to do better than they would otherwise. Grab that 16 year old with a nervous personality who spends their days at school, hanging out and chatting, and staring through a computer screen, give them the same run-through and expect it to help them out 3 years later when their roommate's boyfriend tries something unpleasant and I doubt that the course will do much, no matter how intuitive or effective the material.

But, if we're touting a self-defense course, it should work for pretty much ANYONE, yes? If I could teach anything as self-defense, it would be a natural aggressive response to violence. But I don't know how to teach that.

---------------------------------------------

Finally, the last part of why I am NOT a fan of many self-defense courses. Many are built to fight martial artists in a controlled situation. For example, the guy who starts in a stance, throws an unbelievably huge, slow, flailing punch to the head from three feet away, and then stands still, punching arm extended, as you block (yeah right) and execute whatever eye-gouge or knee strike is prescribed. Or slightly more realistically, a defense system which relies on someone who attacks like a sport-fighter, from a distance, in a fighting stance, with clear strikes and attacks. Perhaps useful for the guy who encircles you with his biker gang and says, "put-em up," but...

In my experience, the people who are abusive or physically aggressive are NOT the people who train to fight. My best guess is that anyone with the self-control to really learn a fighting style, probably has the self-control, and hopefully the respect and human decency not to smack their girlfriend off the fridge. Thus training to fight trained fighters is NOT the best use of an 8 hour course. What is the best use, I do not know.

 

[aedrasteia]

That's actually the biggest problem with a lot of self defense training -- especially that aimed at kids. We teach them "Stranger-Danger" and we teach them to be afraid of some nebulous "bad guy." But the people most likely to hurt them aren't "strangers" and they aren't "bad guys." They're people who know how to move in close, and lull their suspicions."

Thanks for your reply. sorry to be so long in responding.

"We"? Do you do this? I don't. ever.
So why do the folks you refer to as "we" do that?
No, seriously, why? Do you? If so, why? If not, why not? and what do you do instead?
These are honest questions, no snark.

My experience is that my women and girl students already know that familiar/close people
are the ones who hurt them. The students already know. They've either had it happen to themselves
or they've seen/heard it. They also know about the responses they've gotten when they
call it by its right name. It requires skill, trust and time for me to encourage them to open up
honestly. But I don't have to persuade them - they already know, most
through ugly real experience.

What they need from the instructor (and from other people)
is recognition of that 500 lb red elephant in the room and an open verbal/psych space
to face it and talk about it - and then learn and invent all manner of things to help themselves
get and stay safe. Most of my women/girl students have dealt w/violence and intimidation directed
at them from people inside their lives (mostly men and not always). They also know how dumped-on they will get when/if they describe what happened and how they coped from their POV and not the POV
of men/male fighters.

They have figured out/improvised ways to escape, evade, cope, resist, avoid, de-escalate, often since
they were young. It frequently works for their benefit but they never call it success or smart
because it doesn't look like 'fighting back' to (usually male MA or LE or RBSD).

Those folks, (even if well-meaning), do an excellent job of dismissing/ignoring those successful things women/girls do to handle dangerous, even violent situations. Their responses don't really count - and those instructors/LE/military/MAs are the arbiters of what counts and what doesn't 'count' as successful or valuable. And what women do in real life doesn't count for very much with those groups, in my
experience.

please add more of your perspective. I do value your perspective and comments.
with respect

 

[aedrasteia]

I guess the consensus is we're talking about the physical grabby-smacky side of self-defense, yes?

No, not for me. That's the point.

"the physical grabby-smacky side" is where most SD4W begins and ends.
I have some thoughts about why that is, but I'd like to hear your view.
with respect,

 

[Koshiki]

No, not for me. That's the point.

"the physical grabby-smacky side" is where most SD4W begins and ends.
I have some thoughts about why that is, but I'd like to hear your view.
with respect,

I have two views. One, is that trying to teach the grabby-smacky side in a couple classes or a seminar is probably foolish but well-meaning at best, and immoral at worst, but that 8 hours of time is plenty of time to get people thinking about more practical self defense, the kind that doesn't involve any physical contact.

My second view is that I'm fairly certain the OP was asking about the grabby-smacky, and I think the *why* of teaching the combative, less effective side of self-defense merits it's own thread, so as not to murky the waters here.

My best guess as to why though, briefly, is that most SD classes are taught by Martial Artists, and most Martial Artists have spent thousands of hours training to fight, and have likely given hardly a thought to how to avoid physical danger altogether. To use myself as an example; I think I could give a somewhat decent SD grabby-smacky lecture/class off the cuff with little or no planning. Not saying it would be effective, just that the material would likely have the potential to be. If you asked me to give a class on the second side, I'd be way out of my depth, the best I could do off-the-cuff would be to relate ways that I, personally, have defused or avoided situations, which, as a young male, has generally been fairly simple, something along the lines of, "yeah, I'm pretty sure you could beat me up," and walk away looking cowed, or making use of being a fast sprinter, neither of which is probably going to be very ubiquitously useful! We can all slip a punch and kick a groin, but a lot of us are just pretty dumb when it comes to dealing with people, rather than opponents. It's not our forte, so we don't teach it, and we teach what we know instead, ignoring the fact that what we know is not helpful.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I feel that teaching someone to punch is likely helpful, assuming it's more of a boxing cross than anything else, something powerful and relatively intuitive, but still, I would speculate that they're probably more likely to mess up their wrist, open their knuckles, get shocked by the pain, and piss the guy off than knock him out or stop him dead.
I'd skip the backfist too, I can't see someone learning a backfist, learning to derive any sort of power from it, and managing to burn it into their brian so they remember to do it in time.
I'd replace a front kick with an heel stomp type kick to the knee/instep. Simpler, easier to learn, more intuitive, not going to land you on your butt, and something that is a heck of a lot easier to generate power with.
Palm strikes to the face, definitely. Assuming you can somehow get them to remember to do it.
As far as teaching blocking, yeah it would be nice, but I've seen a lot of students, and I don't think I've ever seen ONE who could execute a block against a committed attack after 8 hours of training. Maybe against the gigantic hay-making blows that you supposedly get attacked with on the street (the phrase should really be, "in your living room"), but I can't say I've ever seen a hay-maker like that outside of martial-arts self-defense and Hollywood Western Saloon Fights.

Just to be clear, RTDK, I'm definitely NOT saying your approach is ineffective. I can't come up with anything different, except for swapping out techniques for ones that *I* happen to like more. I'm not doubting you or your theory, I'm doubting the ability of the average uncoordinated person with a heavy flinch reaction to actually suck it up and USE what advice and skills you would have given them. Again, I'm not trying saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you'd probably do about the best that could be done, but that the best that can be done in 8 hours is pretty negligible.

Well as I said, a self defence course is only an introduction to self defence, which I am always upfront with them about it, one objective is to get them interested in continuing their education after the course. An course that is 8 hours in total is spread out over 8 weeks, this gives them a little time between each class to absorb what they have learned. After each class the student is encouraged to practice what they have learned in that class. As for the techniques you mentioned, I also teach them the kick to the knee, the front kick is quite easy to learn, I have seen students with no previous martial arts training learn the backfist and get a pretty descent amount of power out of it in 5 minutes.

We practice them for hours, every week, every month, for years. But, if we remember when we started, we remember than getting off a decent punch under duress was once as difficult and seemingly unachievable in practice as your buddy's flying scissor kick now seems. To someone walking into a self-defense course, that punch at an attacker is STILL just as difficult.

When I first started in the martial arts I joined a class and did not do a self defence course so it is really not much of a comparison. Self defence courses are designed to teach some basic techniques much more quickly but in less depth whilst a class is more the other way around.

 

[Koshiki]

Well as I said, a self defence course is only an introduction to self defence, which I am always upfront with them about it, one objective is to get them interested in continuing their education after the course. An course that is 8 hours in total is spread out over 8 weeks, this gives them a little time between each class to absorb what they have learned. After each class the student is encouraged to practice what they have learned in that class.

I realize it's only an introduction to self-defense. And, to be honest, most of the self-defense classes I've seen have been reasonably good advice, and I'm sure that yours are as well. Several friends and acquaintances of mine teach self-defense seminars and courses. My closest MA buddy, now the head of her own school, teaches one, which, similarly to yours, is 6 hour and a half classes spread over 6 weeks. What she teaches is fairly simple, fairly standard stuff; a couple wrist-grab escapes, dealing with a couple body-grabs, and some palm strikes, eye gouges, elbows and knees. As with what I would guess your classes are like, I think she does probably about the best she can do, BUT the women in her class go home, maybe practice for 20 minutes, and then run through everything last minute before the next class (it seems like). I'm fairly certain that, two weeks after the last session, they've already forgotten 25% of the stuff, aren't practicing the rest, and two years later, when they have to use it, they likely won't have time to think, "wait, what was i supposed to do, swing my elbow like this?"

So, yes, some basic body-mechanics and strikes is a good intro and base for self-defense, IF the student is actually going to practice it. BUT, I think it's fairly apparent that most people taking SD courses DON'T, so, while the material may be good, I doubt it's going to end up being utilized.

As for the techniques you mentioned, I also teach them the kick to the knee, the front kick is quite easy to learn, I have seen students with no previous martial arts training learn the backfist and get a pretty descent amount of power out of it in 5 minutes.

Oh Good! I assumed you meant front kicks to the knee! Anyone teaching a self-defense intro course with stomach level or higher kicks needs to STOP. I can't say I've ever actually seen that, except in stuff meant for trained martial artists. But, same problem (for me) as before, are they actually going to train it? Plus, as I'm sure you know, it's harder than people expect to actually HIT a knee with a solid front kick, when things are moving around and someone is grabbing a hold of you and yanking. If you teach a backfist, what is the target? We're assuming, here, that this is last ditch self-defense, the physical kind, with an aggressor that is intent on harming you and can't be pacified or avoided. Personally, I don't think I can throw a backfist to anything other than someone's nose that is going to have much more effect than 'ow.' In a situation where someone is intent on harming you, you don't have time to waste on several glancing knee strikes and a bruise on the guy's jaw. Pretty much all the physical violence *I* have been party to or witnessed has been between adult males, but even on that supposedly more equal playing field, I can't say I've seen something last more than, MAYBE 20 seconds? I've managed to personally avoid any sort of "fight" since high-school, and I plan to keep it that way, but I can tell you right now, that if somebody decides to smash me up tonight as I'm biking home from class, a backfist is not going to be my go to technique.

Long story short, I don't know WHAT really is going to be very effective when shown to someone who likely won't train it, but it needs to be the most fail-proof, simplest, intuitive stuff that is going to serious cripple the aggressor in a matter of seconds. I'm in favor of constant face raking, wildly swinging elbows, and repetitive instep stomps, and nothing more complex, but even then I doubt that someone is REALLY going to latch onto the material and remember it years later.

Front kicks, backfists, palms, and whatever else you listed is probably just as good, but I think we both fail in the same place: they're not going to practice to the point where it's effective, and they're going to forget it.

When I first started in the martial arts I joined a class and did not do a self defence course so it is really not much of a comparison. Self defence courses are designed to teach some basic techniques much more quickly but in less depth whilst a class is more the other way around.

And my point is that a martial arts school (depending on the focus, obviously not sport schools or preserve-the-tradition-for-traditions-sake schools) should BE a self defense course, and that you find that students need a LOT of training to be really become effective, especially under pressure.

I am, through and through, a Traditional Martial Artist. I'm not really a fan of MMA. BUT, I know that most of the traditional martial arts students and teachers that I know, if they go head to head with a somewhat decent MMA student in a no rules survival fight in someone's driveway, are going to get absolutely injured and put down on the pavement fast. Why? Because MMA students practice hard to deal with attacks under real pressure, the kind that hurts and drives you backwards and winds you and splits your lip and dazes your brain. Most traditional martial artists (that I know) really don't train to be effective under real pressure, and when that first punch swings in and really HURTS, all the training goes out the window and the martial artist staggers backwards flailing, and the fight is over. Teaching someone some techniques, having them practice them in a controlled, comfortable situation with an approachable, likable instructor, and expecting that instruction to remain solid under the duress and overwhelming panic of a physical encounter? I just don't see it happening.

Again, if I'm coming off of completely dismissive of teaching physical self-defense, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be. I think many of the courses and seminars are solid material, and that the failing is with the students, who aren't going to practice, therefore develop and retain the skills learned, and who are going to completely forget them under panic.

Then again, I've never taught a self defense course.

 

[RTKDCMB]

So, yes, some basic body-mechanics and strikes is a good intro and base for self-defense, IF the student is actually going to practice it. BUT, I think it's fairly apparent that most people taking SD courses DON'T, so, while the material may be good, I doubt it's going to end up being utilized.

Usually what I do (it's been about 10 years since I taught one) is at the start of each session is to review some of the basics techniques that were taught the previous session, you soon figure out who's been practicing and who has not. Of course for such a short course there are limits to what you can accomplish.

Oh Good! I assumed you meant front kicks to the knee! Anyone teaching a self-defense intro course with stomach level or higher kicks needs to STOP. I can't say I've ever actually seen that, except in stuff meant for trained martial artists. But, same problem (for me) as before, are they actually going to train it? Plus, as I'm sure you know, it's harder than people expect to actually HIT a knee with a solid front kick, when things are moving around and someone is grabbing a hold of you and yanking.

Head high kicks are a no no of course and anything above the waist is risky, striking the kidneys and floating ribs are not much more risky than kicking the groin. The solar plexus is an acceptable target because it has such a high payoff, a good solid hit to the solar plexus will put most people down. The cross kick has a better chance of hitting the knee than the front kick which can more easily hit the knee or shin when you use it when the opponent is stationary.

If you teach a backfist, what is the target?

It was hard to find the non-rhetorical question amongst all that. The targets are: jaw (especially on the joint underneath the ear), temple, nose, groin, ribs, solar plexus, kidneys, bridge of the nose (for downward back fist), cheekbone etc, the choice of which depends on the physical characteristics of the person who would be using it.

Most traditional martial artists (that I know) really don't train to be effective under real pressure, and when that first punch swings in and really HURTS, all the training goes out the window and the martial artist staggers backwards flailing, and the fight is over. Teaching someone some techniques, having them practice them in a controlled, comfortable situation with an approachable, likable instructor, and expecting that instruction to remain solid under the duress and overwhelming panic of a physical encounter? I just don't see it happening.

Free sparring against someone of approximate experience puts you under plenty of pressure, even non-contact sparring, for example, if you drop your guard at the wrong time you will cop one, I've seen it happen many times and very rarely does it affect them in the way you describe. I've had my nose broken once in a fight and did not even notice until someone pointed it out to me. One of the instructors I know came out of his 1st Dan grading with a swollen eye (wasn't by me) and a broken nose (OK that one was) and did not slow down one bit. I have given 3 separate people exactly 5 stitches in the exact same spot with 3 different techniques spread out over about 2 years and they were still able to function straight away (at this point I would like to point out that these incidents are rare). I have never heard of anyone from the school I am apart of whose training has fallen apart when they were in a real situation even with the controlled, comfortable situations with approachable, likable instructors.

 

[Koshiki]

Head high kicks are a no no of course and anything above the waist is risky, striking the kidneys and floating ribs are not much more risky than kicking the groin. The solar plexus is an acceptable target because it has such a high payoff, a good solid hit to the solar plexus will put most people down. The cross kick has a better chance of hitting the knee than the front kick which can more easily hit the knee or shin when you use it when the opponent is stationary.

It was hard to find the non-rhetorical question amongst all that. The targets are: jaw (especially on the joint underneath the ear), temple, nose, groin, ribs, solar plexus, kidneys, bridge of the nose (for downward back fist), cheekbone etc, the choice of which depends on the physical characteristics of the person who would be using it.

I'm a little confused on the first bit. Are you advocating kicks to the kidneys and floating ribs as a viable technique for a SD class for untrained people? I think you're probably saying something else that I am misunderstanding.

I also am not sure here, are you advocating a cross kick as good beginner, instantly applicable self-defense without training? Seems a bit more trained-sparring oriented to me.

And the question wasn't rhetorical at all. Jaw, Nose, Groin, Bridge of the Nose, sure, those are effective targets for damage with a backfist, although the jaw is a bit circumstantial. But I don't believe for a second that the average SD course student is going to be able to pull those off accurately enough with someone crashing into them. Honestly, the chances of a skilled martial artist accurately hitting the temple with a backfist in a rough spar are, *** I'm sure you know, still a bit low.

As far as a backfist to the kidneys, solar plexus... I just tested it with my girlfriend. She's physically active, does yoga, goes to the gym for a couple hours a few times a week, and has taken martial arts twice, briefly, for a several months each time. I gave her a refresher on the backfist, we practiced a bit, and she tried to do some damage. I was standing still, not resisting. My kidneys are fine. My solar plexus is fine, and to be honest, she missed most of the solar plexus shots. She just can't generate enough power. To be clear, I'm not a big buff guy, either. I'm 5'9", 145 pounds, and skinny. We didn't try the nose, because I like my nose. It's been cracked twice, and I'd rather not risk my beautiful profile again. As far as the other head shots, she's pretty reluctant to hit hard, one because she likes me, two because the first shot hurt her hand. Teaching a backfist in a women's self defense course doesn't seem all that realistic to me. We'll likely have to agree to differ.

Out of curiosity, when you teach this, do you let the students really wail on a person, to see if they can do the technique effectively?

Free sparring against someone of approximate experience puts you under plenty of pressure, even non-contact sparring, for example, if you drop your guard at the wrong time you will cop one, I've seen it happen many times and very rarely does it affect them in the way you describe. I've had my nose broken once in a fight and did not even notice until someone pointed it out to me. One of the instructors I know came out of his 1st Dan grading with a swollen eye (wasn't by me) and a broken nose (OK that one was) and did not slow down one bit. I have given 3 separate people exactly 5 stitches in the exact same spot with 3 different techniques spread out over about 2 years and they were still able to function straight away (at this point I would like to point out that these incidents are rare). I have never heard of anyone from the school I am apart of whose training has fallen apart when they were in a real situation even with the controlled, comfortable situations with approachable, likable instructors.

We may be talking about different kinds of pressure. To me, a geared up sport-sparring match with padding is not comparable to someone barreling into you without gloves, ready to throw you, grab you, take you to the ground and sit on you. And yes, everyone get's hurt during padded up sparring. I've had my nose slightly re-shaped twice (My mum thinks it actually looks better each time!) I have several chipped teeth, I've had neck injuries from getting locked up in a half nelson, I have a broken wrist, I've had a snapped tendon in the same wrist, and a variety of bumps, bruises, and boo-boos. I used to spar with this boney kid who managed to break three limbs in under two years. And this is all in a school that spars light contact. We'll, some of mine have been outside the school, but still. The fact that you get hurt doesn't necessarily equal pressure, to me. Gymnasts, dancers, and field hockey players all get hurt, too.

If your opponent is hanging out in sparring range, 2 to 4+ feet away, and lunging in with attacks, even forceful ones, and getting back out, that's not what I would call pressure. Pressure is the guy who runs in wildly, smashes a fist at your face and tackles you, sits on your chest, and pummels. Pressure is the guy sitting next to you on the couch who wraps his hands around your throat.

If your school trains well-enough to hold up under either kind of pressure with clean technique and self-control, than you have an excellent school, and it sounds like you do! Lucky you! I'm sure you've spent enough time playing with other schools to know that not all schools train as effectively as yours seems to. We're both speaking from personal experience; mine seems to be different from yours. From what I have seen, *many* (not all) schools do not train to be used to real attacks.

Either way, I was using the example as an illustration.

The real question is not, can someone with 4-8 years training (at a guess) hold up under pressure at their Black Belt test. Yeah, I should bloody well hope so!

The question is also not, can I take a blow from a fist padded with an inch of foam to my head, similarly padded. I think most of us can. The question is, when you are terrified and hurt and being crushed under 175 pounds of angry human, are you going to be able to execute that wonderful backfist you learned last year at the self defense classes, and hit that angry human right in the temple and cause enough bleeding/trauma to end the encounter right there, or are you going to miss, crack a metacarpal against his thick skull, and piss him off. One thing I do know, getting hit in the head is a sure way to shut down a scared person and rev up an angry one.

And yes, I'm sure the training that many of us go through is good, and prepares us for self-defense, but it takes us years of classes every week and training at home to get there. I'm not sure how you're supposed to pare that down to something that is going to be practiced over two months, one class a week, maybe an hour or two outside of class, and then likely dropped, and expect that person to fall back on it under duress.

Again, I apologize if I'm coming on strong. I've had too many people close to me have too many nasty things happen in their past to NOT get passionate about it.

 

[ustkdf]

Hi. This is my first post so I apologize if I make some sort of mistake. In regards to the thread topic, I personally believe that short SD seminars are quite useful. Obviously the longer the course or one that has multiple classes are more beneficial than just a one or two hour course. I believe that ANY kind of knowledge is better than none at all, especially for teenage or collage age girls. Most of the SD seminars that I have personally helped with, in this fashion, teach more escapes and basic kicks and strikes. The objective is, if the student is attacked or grabbed to just be able to get away. So something along the lines of a wrist escape with a front snap kick or low turning kick and run. Again I believe that these classes are not designed to teach mastery skills or create black belts and I believe to give that sort of false sense of security is wrong of the instructor, but I do believe that something is better than nothing. Even if the attacker keeps coming at the student, and they can just give a front kick or low turning kick (not saying this would work just kinda thinking out loud) to keep the opponent away long enough for someone to come along to help, then wouldn't it be worth the time spent at a 4-8 hour class. I think that awareness as another poster had previously stated is a great thing to add. Knowledge is the key in my opinion.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'm a little confused on the first bit. Are you advocating kicks to the kidneys and floating ribs as a viable technique for a SD class for untrained people? I think you're probably saying something else that I am misunderstanding.

Completely untrained people can kick to these areas with not too much trouble with a basic football style kick, someone with a little bit of training can do it better. The usual targets for self defence courses are the legs and groin.

I also am not sure here, are you advocating a cross kick as good beginner, instantly applicable self-defense without training? Seems a bit more trained-sparring oriented to me.

Try this - lift your leg up, turn your foot to the outside, thrust forward and down on the knee, not that hard to do. This is used mainly against a grab like a lapel grab for example, not when both parties are moving around rapidly.

And the question wasn't rhetorical at all.

I said "non-rhetorical".

As far as a backfist to the kidneys, solar plexus... I just tested it with my girlfriend. She's physically active, does yoga, goes to the gym for a couple hours a few times a week, and has taken martial arts twice, briefly, for a several months each time. I gave her a refresher on the backfist, we practiced a bit, and she tried to do some damage. I was standing still, not resisting. My kidneys are fine. My solar plexus is fine, and to be honest, she missed most of the solar plexus shots. She just can't generate enough power. To be clear, I'm not a big buff guy, either. I'm 5'9", 145 pounds, and skinny. We didn't try the nose, because I like my nose. It's been cracked twice, and I'd rather not risk my beautiful profile again. As far as the other head shots, she's pretty reluctant to hit hard, one because she likes me, two because the first shot hurt her hand. Teaching a backfist in a women's self defense course doesn't seem all that realistic to me. We'll likely have to agree to differ.

Perhaps you missed the "depends on the physical characteristics of the person who would be using it" bit. If you doubt the effectiveness of the technique then why were you concerned about your nose?

Out of curiosity, when you teach this, do you let the students really wail on a person, to see if they can do the technique effectively?

It would be a bit irresponsible to let them hurt each other and many potential students would not even try a self defence course if they knew they were going to get hit.

We may be talking about different kinds of pressure. To me, a geared up sport-sparring match with padding is not comparable to someone barreling into you without gloves, ready to throw you, grab you, take you to the ground and sit on you. And yes, everyone get's hurt during padded up sparring. I've had my nose slightly re-shaped twice (My mum thinks it actually looks better each time!) I have several chipped teeth, I've had neck injuries from getting locked up in a half nelson, I have a broken wrist, I've had a snapped tendon in the same wrist, and a variety of bumps, bruises, and boo-boos. I used to spar with this boney kid who managed to break three limbs in under two years. And this is all in a school that spars light contact. We'll, some of mine have been outside the school, but still. The fact that you get hurt doesn't necessarily equal pressure, to me. Gymnasts, dancers, and field hockey players all get hurt, too.

If your opponent is hanging out in sparring range, 2 to 4+ feet away, and lunging in with attacks, even forceful ones, and getting back out, that's not what I would call pressure. Pressure is the guy who runs in wildly, smashes a fist at your face and tackles you, sits on your chest, and pummels. Pressure is the guy sitting next to you on the couch who wraps his hands around your throat.

If your school trains well-enough to hold up under either kind of pressure with clean technique and self-control, than you have an excellent school, and it sounds like you do! Lucky you! I'm sure you've spent enough time playing with other schools to know that not all schools train as effectively as yours seems to. We're both speaking from personal experience; mine seems to be different from yours. From what I have seen, *many* (not all) schools do not train to be used to real attacks.

We do not use any kind of padding in our training and we train on wooden floors so there is not a lot of throwing in our sparring and to be honest if I was sparring another black belt and going full on I would not want to try to grab them, unless its an arm or a leg at a distance, accidents will happen.

The real question is not, can someone with 4-8 years training (at a guess) hold up under pressure at their Black Belt test. Yeah, I should bloody well hope so!

The question is also not, can I take a blow from a fist padded with an inch of foam to my head, similarly padded. I think most of us can. The question is, when you are terrified and hurt and being crushed under 175 pounds of angry human, are you going to be able to execute that wonderful backfist you learned last year at the self defense classes, and hit that angry human right in the temple and cause enough bleeding/trauma to end the encounter right there, or are you going to miss, crack a metacarpal against his thick skull, and piss him off. One thing I do know, getting hit in the head is a sure way to shut down a scared person and rev up an angry one.

And yes, I'm sure the training that many of us go through is good, and prepares us for self-defense, but it takes us years of classes every week and training at home to get there. I'm not sure how you're supposed to pare that down to something that is going to be practiced over two months, one class a week, maybe an hour or two outside of class, and then likely dropped, and expect that person to fall back on it under duress.

Again, I apologize if I'm coming on strong. I've had too many people close to me have too many nasty things happen in their past to NOT get passionate about it.

Like I said, a self defence course is just an introduction and the students are not going to be invincible, be able to take on highly skilled opponents or large mobs of angry people, they are made aware of this from the start. It's designed just to get the students to start to think about what they are doing, a lot of people don't know how to get out of a simple hold and there are some very simple things you can teach someone that do not require much physical strength that wouldn't even occur to them until you show them. The students are always encouraged to come along and try a regular class after the course and see if they want to learn more. The only real way to learn self defence is through regular instruction and practice all I can do is teach the students and encourage them to practice what they have learned, I can't practice it for them. Basically if someone comes out of a self defence course better able to defend themselves then then the course has done it's job.

 

[Koshiki]

Completely untrained people can kick to these areas with not too much trouble with a basic football style kick, someone with a little bit of training can do it better. The usual targets for self defence courses are the legs and groin.

I guess we'll just have to say that you have a more physically adept group of completely untrained people around you than I do. You probably do; Maine is not renowned for the healthy, vigorous fitness of it's populace, especially in the less affluent sections, where I have mostly trained. I've seen 13 years worth of new students begin martial arts, (granted, that's not a very long time, but still, that's a good deal of new students.) I know very few that could get a good, effective kick in to torso-area targets without a significant amount of practice.

You mention that the "usual targets" are legs and groin for SD, I agree, and I think that there is a reason. Again, if the general populace in your area can easily pop-off a fight stopping kick to the ribs, than more power to them. The general populace in the Kennebec River Valley area of Maine does to seem to have this ability. Even if they can, I wouldn't opt to teach a kick that is so likely to find an arm in the way, and that can only be used from a sparring range. As far as I know, most dangerous, threatening situations don't take place from a sparring distance where you can generally pop off a good kick. But again, that's my personal experience, which may be different from your own.

Also, on a cultural note, do you mean Football (Soccer in USA), or American Football. I'm assuming NOT American football, since as far as I know, their only kick is a punt, suitable for the groin, not the ribs, really. Can you explain what you mean by a Football kick that can attack the torso? I know NOTHING of sports, so I'm a bit out of my depth here.

Try this - lift your leg up, turn your foot to the outside, thrust forward and down on the knee, not that hard to do. This is used mainly against a grab like a lapel grab for example, not when both parties are moving around rapidly.

I take your point about it's use from a grab, but I think we have different meanings for "cross kick." My "cross kick" is a roundhouse kick which chambers high and then swings down at the outside of the leg, either with the ball of the foot or the shin. Yours sounds like what I call a "Chinese stomp kick." Are you talking about that low, thrusting kick the Win Chun guys seem to love so much? If so, I would say that that is a good kick to teach. Thrusting power is much easier for students than whipping power. For the record, with the low, dropping round kick "cross kick," my girlfriend couldn't enough power to be useful. With a stomping "cross kick," there's no question should could really injure my knee.

If you mean by cross kick, what I mean by stomp kick, we are completely in a agreement here. If physical self-defense is to be taught, that's probably the second best leg technique to include. Some might say that a blade-edge side kick to the knee is easier for the average newbie, but that's a more preference-based conversation. For several reasons, I am with you, and prefer the stompy-cross kick thing.

I said "non-rhetorical".

I know! I wasn't trying to be rhetorical, I was straight up asking!

Perhaps you missed the "depends on the physical characteristics of the person who would be using it" bit. If you doubt the effectiveness of the technique then why were you concerned about your nose?

Let me be more clear. If self-defense is going to be taught, and taught briefly as an introduction that many students will not follow up on, I believe it should be the simplest, most effective, most fool-proof techniques ONLY. It should not contain techniques that one needs a good deal of strength to do, (back fist to torso targets), or that one needs to practice to gain precision with, (back fist to temple, jaw hinge, solar plexus).

I am well aware that a five year old can do serious damage to my nose with a committed back fist, with minimal instruction. I am also well aware that a poorly done backfist can result in hand and wrist injuries quite easily, and that a backfist thrown at the nose by a scared person with no training is very likely he to be poorly done, inaccurate and possibly more damaging to the person using it. In the chaos of an actual struggle, a backfist also requires you to be, more or less at sparring range. Yes, you and can throw them reasonably effectively, powerfully and accurately from a close range, even from within a loose clinch or grapple, but I have 13 years of back-fist practice, and you, I think have even more. A backfist thrown at the nose to hit the brow ridge or forehead, two of the hardest, most durable areas of the human body. As I say to get younger students to stop forehead fist-striking. "Hand bones are like little twigs, right? Your skull is like a big rock, right? What happens when you smash a bunch of little twigs into a big rock?"

So yes, a backfist to the nose is a great way to really hurt someone, but again I'm not so sure it's the safest thing to get a bunch of people to try to do to rescue themselves. Same pattern here, of, I don't doubt that your techniques are effective, I doubt that most people are going to be able to just pick them up and do them.

It would be a bit irresponsible to let them hurt each other and many potential students would not even try a self defence course if they knew they were going to get hit.

Oh, I never make new students hit each OTHER. I agree, completely irresponsible, possibly sadistic, and definitely not a good draw to get them in the door, either! I meant, do you let them hit YOU? If they can't double you over in a controlled situation with a backfist to the solar-plexus, I posit that they may have a great deal of difficulty in any situation a bit more intimidating and therfore important.

We do not use any kind of padding in our training and we train on wooden floors so there is not a lot of throwing in our sparring and to be honest if I was sparring another black belt and going full on I would not want to try to grab them, unless its an arm or a leg at a distance, accidents will happen.

Again, this bit I introduced as a brief metaphor. It wasn't very relevant when I first brought it up, and is less so now. That said, you don't grapple with your black belt friends because (among other reasons) you know that they are your equal, and that they can very likely hurt you. That's why you stay at a safe sparring range, where you are disconnected and relatively in control of your own movement.

Can we safely agree that the average aggressor does NOT feel intimidated and or cautious of his (or her) prey? The defender is likely to be smaller, weaker, and more scared. The attacker is not going to dance around on the outside like a skilled sparrer, waiting for an opening, he's going to plunge in, do damage fast, and likely be a good deal closer than two black belts sparring in a gym, cautious of the hard wood floors.

Like I said, a self defence course is just an introduction and the students are not going to be invincible, be able to take on highly skilled opponents or large mobs of angry people, they are made aware of this from the start. It's designed just to get the students to start to think about what they are doing, a lot of people don't know how to get out of a simple hold and there are some very simple things you can teach someone that do not require much physical strength that wouldn't even occur to them until you show them. The students are always encouraged to come along and try a regular class after the course and see if they want to learn more. The only real way to learn self defence is through regular instruction and practice all I can do is teach the students and encourage them to practice what they have learned, I can't practice it for them. Basically if someone comes out of a self defence course better able to defend themselves then then the course has done it's job.

I agree almost entirely with this last paragraph. I think our sentiments are the same. Where we differ, is that you think people can pick up technique faster than I think they can, you think people have better self-control and innate precision under stress than I do, and most importantly, you think people are going to go home, practice, and continue to do so until they are effective, and I do not think they will do this. You also think that light or touch contact sparring provides a realistic level of stress and aggression for training and that people can smoothly transfer their control to a more intense situation, and I do not think that's the case. You seem to place a far lower value on the effectiveness of pure aggression than I do, in terms of determining the output of a fight. In a few other places, I have thought that you, in general, hold a higher opinion of what people can and will do without a LOT of practice, than that which I hold.

This entire debate may boil down to that you have generally worked in an area which, for whatever reason, affluence, culture, who knows, is more likely to produce more a more physically fit, vigorous, and diligent populace in general. Who knows.

 

[Koshiki]

Hi. This is my first post so I apologize if I make some sort of mistake. In regards to the thread topic, I personally believe that short SD seminars are quite useful. Obviously the longer the course or one that has multiple classes are more beneficial than just a one or two hour course. I believe that ANY kind of knowledge is better than none at all, especially for teenage or collage age girls. Most of the SD seminars that I have personally helped with, in this fashion, teach more escapes and basic kicks and strikes. The objective is, if the student is attacked or grabbed to just be able to get away. So something along the lines of a wrist escape with a front snap kick or low turning kick and run. Again I believe that these classes are not designed to teach mastery skills or create black belts and I believe to give that sort of false sense of security is wrong of the instructor, but I do believe that something is better than nothing. Even if the attacker keeps coming at the student, and they can just give a front kick or low turning kick (not saying this would work just kinda thinking out loud) to keep the opponent away long enough for someone to come along to help, then wouldn't it be worth the time spent at a 4-8 hour class. I think that awareness as another poster had previously stated is a great thing to add. Knowledge is the key in my opinion.

Hi, and welcome! I agree with your sentiments.

The problem is largely with the mindset that says that you only need to be able to break free and keep an attacker at bay until someone comes along. In *some* cases this is true, for example, an attempted mugging just off a busy street. Sure. Although you might have a hard time travelling too far if you have to keep an attacker at bay with kicks...

But. BUT. There's always a but.

Most self-defense is NOT some strange guy attacking you for your wallet in a dark alley. Most situations where someone needs to physically defend themselves occur in living rooms, in bedrooms, in kitchens, in hallways. You don't get attacked by a man in a dark alley (why are you in a dark alley, for crying out loud???), you get attacked by an angry husband in your den. You don't have a skulker in a hoodie trail down six deserted streets and finally drag you into a run-off drainage pipe, they guys doesn't have to follow you six streets, because you invited him over. You get assaulted by people you know, and it happens in places where you are otherwise comfortable.

Awareness is not a good add-on. If someone is taking a self-defense course, what they need is not how to beat up their boyfriend, its how to recognize that they need to not be near their boyfriend, it's knowing what resources are available to help if you're worried your boyfriend/teacher/parent is dangerous, it's the knowledge that you're not crazy, that something *isn't* right, and that you are justified in trying to get out of any sort of social connection which you feel puts you in danger. And yes, it's stuff like, don't hang out in dark alleys in sketchy parts of town wearing skimpy clothing and blowing kisses at passers by, but really, I think most people know that.

My strong opposition to physical self-defense classes is for those reasons. People take self-defense because they, for whatever reason, feel they should be safer. Being safer is not learning to fight someone with a 40 pound weight advantage, a 4 inch height advantage, who can outrun and overpower you, it's learning that you should be near anyone who might TRY to overpower you, and that that person might be someone you care about. BUT, most self-defense courses, at least around here, are taught by martial artists, and while we may be very good fighters, and very good at defending ourselves from physical attack we know nothing about what is going to be most effective against an attacker.

Thus, people take our classes, learn some strikes, and keep on living in dangerous conditions. It's not even about the potential of false confidence. It's that, people say, "hey, I need to learn self-defense." So they take a class. If they take one that teaches punching and kicking, and not how to tell if Uncle Joe is a creep, then they took the WRONG course. It doesn't matter if they go home feeling safe, or if they go home realizing that it was a waste of time. The point is, they didn't get the RIGHT self-defense course, because so many martial art based self-defense courses are out there.

I know many women, and at least two men who have been in situations where they certainly were needing to defend themselves. And, with the exception of one of the men, who is a couch potato, but extremely physically adept, striking and punching would not have helped, they needed the kind of self-defense that say, "get OUT of there, you're NOT crazy, and HERE'S how to do it and where to go."

I'm a good fighter. I'm a good teacher. I love helping people. I would love to help people defend themselves, but I believe that I AM NOT QUALIFIED.

 

[ustkdf]

BUT, most self-defense courses, at least around here, are taught by martial artists, and while we may be very good fighters, and very good at defending ourselves from physical attack we know nothing about what is going to be most effective against an attacker.

I guess I am a little confused by this statement. As Martial Artists, are we not supposed to know what would be an effective technique against an attacker? Im not trying to start an argument but if you could explain this statement I would be grateful. Taekwondo is the art of unarmed self defense. So shouldn't we as Taekwondo martial artists know what would work in different situations. I understand that there is a belt ranking, and as that rank increases knowledge and experience also increases, so I would understand that say a blue belt (not saying blue belts don't have ant skill or knowledge) should probably not teach such a course but a higher ranking black belt, in my opinion should have the knowledge and know how to defend against an aggressor.

 

[Koshiki]

I guess I am a little confused by this statement. As Martial Artists, are we not supposed to know what would be an effective technique against an attacker? Im not trying to start an argument but if you could explain this statement I would be grateful. Taekwondo is the art of unarmed self defense. So shouldn't we as Taekwondo martial artists know what would work in different situations. I understand that there is a belt ranking, and as that rank increases knowledge and experience also increases, so I would understand that say a blue belt (not saying blue belts don't have ant skill or knowledge) should probably not teach such a course but a higher ranking black belt, in my opinion should have the knowledge and know how to defend against an aggressor.

I explained poorly. (But let's leave the specifics of Taekwondo out of it!) Yes, I would say the average well-trained martial artist can probably do a fairly good job defending themselves, physically. I flatter myself that I can outfight most untrained people I know, and further, that I can show someone else to do the same, given a decent amount of time. (How's THAT for ego?? Rawr.) What I tried to describe is really a four level problem.

1. Danger is at Home. Most assault/aggression/situations that require you to physically defend yourself happen with people that you see again and again, for example, your live-in boyfriend. The only really effective way to defend yourself against that boyfriend, is to get away from him permanently, which is easily said, and can be next to impossible for many people. Breaking his nose and escaping temporarily is going to help when you have to come home to him, and he's going to hit you again two weeks later.

2. Classes can teach you to recognize/avoid/leave dangerous relationships. This is very difficult. It's easy to say, "So just leave him," but in reality, it can be extremely difficult. Emotional issues, self-doubt, social pressure, social disbelief, lack of a support system, and even financial issues can make staying away from some people VERY difficult. This is something which can be taught, as well as warning signs, etc. This kind of self-defense course is extremely valuable, and could have saved several people I know personally from weeks or even years of torment.

3. Martial Arts teaches Survival, not Avoidance. While we may advocate avoidance, our self-defense classes, let's face it, are based around grabs and smacks. We martial artists teach people, not how to avoid these terrible situations, but how to survive them at their worst. I don't want people to be able to survive abuse several times a year/month, I want them to never be in a situation where they have to.

4. Martial Self-Defense classes outnumber the Avoidance Self-Defense Classes. So, when a woman goes to a self-defense course, she probably learns to kick, stomp, strike, and block, and probably doesn't learn them very well. She may be satisfied with the result, or dismayed, but it's pretty unlikely that she is going to keep on taking more and more self-defense classes. Therefore, she ends up taking the one which is far less helpful, and NOT the one that can save her years of misery.

So, to reiterate what I keep trying to communicate over the course of this thread. In my opinion, decent Martial Artists can defend themselves from physical attack. They can teach others to do so as well, but it takes time. Whether they can, in a few weeks, teach a frightened smaller person to defeat a larger person with the advantages of size, aggression, and likely the first swing, is doubtful, not because of the martial artist's ability, but because the student will probably not put in the required time training.

 

[ustkdf]

I see now what you are saying. I agree with it. I think that someone should seek out help for what their need is. There should be more classes out there to this specific kind of help that you are talking about. I don't think that means there shouldn't be SD classes out there though. For the person that is not in that situation and is looking for basic SD lessons that could help them in a situation such as someone trying to grab them on their way home from work or classes and what not. If someone is in a domestic assault situation or another like it, I want to reiterate that I agree with what you are saying about them taking a class more oriented to that situation. Maybe I haven't read all of your posts as closely as I should but I still think there is a great number of people out there that would benefit from a SD class. I still think that regular classes is the best way to go. Climbing in rank, skill and knowledge is by far better than to just go to a self defense class. All I am saying is that there are people that don't have time to work that into their schedule and still want some knowledge. As I stated before if a 4-8 hour course can teach someone to get out of a wrist grab and give them a swift kick in the you know where, then wouldn't it be a good use of your time to teach that. Even if they kind of already know how to do that, for someone else to tell them that this can work would help encourage them to use it when necessary and not just panic. Im not at all saying that if a one time SD class will get someone out of every encounter big or small that could or would arise. All Im saying is that I am for any kind of training that could be given, big or small.