Realistic Self Defense Training

[KenpoTex]

2. It is better to subdue someone then it is to risk injurying that person. Sweeping that person to the ground and putting them in a kota gaeishe could be a better idea then, say, smashing there ribs with a side kick.

I'm gonna call BS on this one. Unless you are a LEO, SO, or in some other job where you are required to control/restrain people, it's NOT a good idea. One reason for this is that controlling someone who is being combative is not easy...In my experience, striking is much easier and more intuitive than manipulation. Another reason is that you're "tying yourself down." Say you get the guy on the ground and are holding him there, what then? What happens when his buddy decides to jump in? Now you're fighting two people when you could have just dropped the first guy and left the area. Yes, I will concede that there might occassionally be a situation where controlling force is warranted (i.e. drunk uncle bob at the family reunion), but we're talking about serious self-defense, not dealing with someone who's just being beligerant.

6. Now what? Just gonna stand there and look pretty? No! You're gonna cut his guts out if he makes a move you don't like!

Okay...how do you reconcile this statement with the one I quoted above?

9. If someone just wants your wallet, give it to 'em. It isn't worth killing someone for. But, if they want your life, kill 'em. You now have no real choice.

How do you know the guy's intent? He may be saying "just give me your wallet," but if he's got a knife or is pointing a gun at me while he says it he's threatening me with deadly force. In this situation, I'm justified in responding in kind. I'm not going to wait to see if he really just wanted my wallet. (before I get a slew of people throwing a hissy fit about this comment, I'm not saying that this is a "hard and fast" rule. There are always variables...this is just a general principle.)

 

[CuongNhuka]

No quarrel there at all. But `the material they have been taught' is just what combat principles and application techs they've learned in studying the particular marital art they study. So then it looks to me like a contradiction when you say, just before the passage I quoted,

It sounds like you're saying, how good you are in a fight depends on how well you use the skill sets of the MA you've studied (`the material they have been taught') but remember that you don't use those skill sets (`when you fight, you're not using your martial arts.') I don't get it...

Allow me to explain alittle further. But first of all congrats. I make contradictions in my posts all the time. People just don't seem to realise it. So for truelly reading my post, I thank you and congrats.

First, I notice that about 95% of martial arts teach concepts, philosophys, and doctrines. The physical material is meant to further ingrian set concpets. The ulitmate goal of martial arts is to master the concepts. It is the application of the doctirnes in a fight that matters. The physical material is what you wont use. Does that help?

How well you are in fight depends on how well you can apply the concepts, but the physical skills aren't likely to truelly be used.

Perhaps an examplke will help? Some one who does (say...) Aikido is walking down the street and see's some guys (note the use of the plural 'guys'). The Aikido guy decides to try to break it up before the guy on the ground dies. He decides it would be a good idea to call the cops first (every one these days seems to have a cell phone). Next he tells the guys to skram cause the cops on there way (not a good idea most of the time). The guys decide instead to attack the Aikido guy. One of them swings.
The Aikido guy responds with a arm block to the inside of the guys arm, and cracks him one in the face. Then sweeps him and backs away. Far from being an Aikido technique, but it does follow many of the concepts behind Aikido. Use minum energy to do a technique. Don't start it, but do finish it. It doesn't follow all of the philosphys behind Aikido (don't hit for starters), but it does work. The next swings a knive. Mr. Aikido replies with a kota gaeshi. An aikido technique. Alot of the time you'll pull off what is either a technique you've been taught, or somehting similar. But more often then not it will be similar, but not the acctule technique.

Does that help? I'll give reputation if you can find any contradictions! (lol)

 

[exile]

Allow me to explain alittle further. But first of all congrats. I make contradictions in my posts all the time. People just don't seem to realise it. So for truelly reading my post, I thank you and congrats.

First, I notice that about 95% of martial arts teach concepts, philosophys, and doctrines. The physical material is meant to further ingrian set concpets. The ulitmate goal of martial arts is to master the concepts. It is the application of the doctirnes in a fight that matters. The physical material is what you wont use. Does that help?

I think so. It sounds to me as though you're saying what a lot of people in what I think of as the `progressive kata-based combat movement', in particular Iain Abernethy, are saying: train the kata to exact standards, understand the bunkai and train the oyo in the most realistic way possible (and the training method he and his crowd use are frighteningly realistic), but get used to the idea that in an actual fight, it won't look much like you train in the dojo/dojang—real fights are too chaotic. If you understand the fighting principles and tactical applications latent in the kata, though, and train that understanding in real time, you will instinctively and effectively apply that knowledge in combat... something along those lines?

How well you are in fight depends on how well you can apply the concepts, but the physical skills aren't likely to truelly be used.

Perhaps an examplke will help? Some one who does (say...) Aikido is walking down the street and see's some guys (note the use of the plural 'guys'). The Aikido guy decides to try to break it up before the guy on the ground dies. He decides it would be a good idea to call the cops first (every one these days seems to have a cell phone). Next he tells the guys to skram cause the cops on there way (not a good idea most of the time). The guys decide instead to attack the Aikido guy. One of them swings.
The Aikido guy responds with a arm block to the inside of the guys arm, and cracks him one in the face. Then sweeps him and backs away. Far from being an Aikido technique, but it does follow many of the concepts behind Aikido. Use minum energy to do a technique. Don't start it, but do finish it. It doesn't follow all of the philosphys behind Aikido (don't hit for starters), but it does work. The next swings a knive. Mr. Aikido replies with a kota gaeshi. An aikido technique. Alot of the time you'll pull off what is either a technique you've been taught, or somehting similar. But more often then not it will be similar, but not the acctule technique.

Does that help? I'll give reputation if you can find any contradictions! (lol)

Yep, I gotcha. You're talking about training which ingrains the principles in a very structured way, on the one hand, and the spontaneous application of the principle in a real fight—your reward for hard training in the dojo, but something which doesn't look very much like what you do in the structured school training environment, it sounds like. Am I close?

 

[CuongNhuka]

I'm gonna call BS on this one. Unless you are a LEO, SO, or in some other job where you are required to control/restrain people, it's NOT a good idea. One reason for this is that controlling someone who is being combative is not easy...In my experience, striking is much easier and more intuitive than manipulation. Another reason is that you're "tying yourself down." Say you get the guy on the ground and are holding him there, what then? What happens when his buddy decides to jump in? Now you're fighting two people when you could have just dropped the first guy and left the area. Yes, I will concede that there might occassionally be a situation where controlling force is warranted (i.e. drunk uncle bob at the family reunion), but we're talking about serious self-defense, not dealing with someone who's just being beligerant.

Okay...how do you reconcile this statement with the one I quoted above?

How do you know the guy's intent? He may be saying "just give me your wallet," but if he's got a knife or is pointing a gun at me while he says it he's threatening me with deadly force. In this situation, I'm justified in responding in kind. I'm not going to wait to see if he really just wanted my wallet. (before I get a slew of people throwing a hissy fit about this comment, I'm not saying that this is a "hard and fast" rule. There are always variables...this is just a general principle.)

B.S? Ohh, thats not nice!

Allow me to explain. I said "sometimes" it is better to restrain someone. Your drunk uncle Bob (or my drunk uncle Mike) would be a situation. When you can do a "come along" is anouther. And when his buddy decides to jump in, you snap the arm of the guy you have. Or you break his wrist, or what ever else you have. Also, if I'm fighting (say...) three people, I don't intend on boxing all of them. I intend on getting one in a "come along", then tell his buddys I'll break his neck. If they want to play anywho, I'll break his neck. Then, they know i'm being serious, and will kill them if they give me no choice. But like I said, "sometimes". If it is just some crapp hole being an idiot, it is the time to restrain. Grappling is also those nice come alongs (which are great if you're in security or a police officer), and breaking/dislocating joints. Making sense?

Simple. If I just took a knive from Mr. Strung out knuckle head, and he goes for something from the back of pants, then I'm giong to slice his guts out. He could be going for a cell phone, more pot, his wallet, or a gun. That last one is the one I want to avoid.

Lastly. If someone has a gun and is saying "your wallet or your life'' I'm going to give him my wallet. Yes (legally) I could fight back and kill him. But that gun is a could insentive for me to NOT to. Allow me to explain why. Expired Bellevue Library Card I've been meaning to renew, Omaha library card I hardly ever use, a card that has a list of abuse/neglect phone numbers (for what ever reason), a family picture, an army recruiter's card, a game shop buisness card, a list of few numbers to call if I'm found dead somewere (house, moms work, family freind/neighbor), a school I.D, a learners permit, and $12. What do these things have in common? They're what is in my wallet. If someone were to demand my wallet, that is what I'm risking my life for. $12 and some cards I can replace in a minute.
It is legal, but not smart to fight agianst a gun. It takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger. It takes anouther fraction of second that bullet to hit you. And then you're either dead, deing, or EXTREMLY luckly. It isn't worth it. Now, if someone were to walk up to me, shot the guy next to me and say "your money or your next", then I'm going to throw my wallet past him, and go for his gun. He'll probably shot me next, so I might as well. If it doesn't seem like he's going to kill me, I'll throw my wallet past him, and run in the opposite direction. Discretion is the better of valor.

Any thing else?

 

[Iron Leopard]

There is always a situation where you need to restrain or implement a non violent technique on someone. I do agree that striking should be the first choice.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I think so. It sounds to me as though you're saying what a lot of people in what I think of as the `progressive kata-based combat movement', in particular Iain Abernethy, are saying: train the kata to exact standards, understand the bunkai and train the oyo in the most realistic way possible (and the training method he and his crowd use are frighteningly realistic), but get used to the idea that in an actual fight, it won't look much like you train in the dojo/dojang—real fights are too chaotic. If you understand the fighting principles and tactical applications latent in the kata, though, and train that understanding in real time, you will instinctively and effectively apply that knowledge in combat... something along those lines?

Yep, I gotcha. You're talking about training which ingrains the principles in a very structured way, on the one hand, and the spontaneous application of the principle in a real fight—your reward for hard training in the dojo, but something which doesn't look very much like what you do in the structured school training environment, it sounds like. Am I close?

Bingo. Though, personnaly I don't like bunkai. They tend to create a sense of "This is what it is meant for. There is no other application." I think the applications should be based on what you can do your self. Because there is also a problem with body type, personnal prefrences, and way of thinking. Though getting an outside oppion is also a good idea. But I'm rabbling and getting off topic.
But yah, you got me.

 

[CuongNhuka]

There is always a situation where you need to restrain or implement a non violent technique on someone. I do agree that striking should be the first choice.

So do I. If you have to fight, strike. But I notice that a grappling technique is the best way to finish it. One way or anouther.

 

[pstarr]

Our martial arts forefathers made it a point to train extensively with the weapons of their time. It would be unwise for us to deviate from that method.