Self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be ethical.

[Tez3]

When I was a LEO I saw over time that there were some officers who got into more physical altercations than others. Some officers had a resisting arrest charge with nearly every DUI or domestic dispute call.
I started studying this and learned that much of it had do to with the officers (demeanor/actions) not the perp. A few of the officers were cocky, loved the 'unfair' fight and would egg the perp on until they did something stupid. Some officers carried themselves poorly and were seen as more of an easy target. Not good for a LEO. I preferred to keep things as short as possible. Once assessment was made, I tried to get the cuffs on before the perp really had a change to process what was going on.

That's my experience too, less so with who I worked with but absolutely spot on for the military police, I found them a total nightmare fot his reason, most soldiers will go quietly for civvie and MOD police but hated the 'monkeys' as the RMPs are called.

 

[wab25]

In self defense results theoretically should matter more than happiness, comfort and feelings.

I agree with this. I have seen and taken a few self defense seminars, where the instructors are trying to teach folks weapon disarms, either gun or knife. In my opinion, the only reason to do this, is the effect on the feelings... of the instructor. You get a bunch of people with no experience at all, and you teach them to disarm a gun... all these people now look up to you like you are some kind of deity. It's very good for the feelings of the instructor. But, very dangerous for the students. You cannot teach people to do a weapon disarm in a couple of hours. Especially if they have no experience at all. What you can do though, is play act, and give them the confidence so that they think they can disarm a gun. The worst case here, is one of these students trying to disarm a real gun, instead of handing over their wallet. (they probably have only about $40 in their wallet... the co-pay alone to plug the holes, will be more than that)

If you are teaching a "self defense" seminar, you need to teach things that a beginner can do successfully, against a real bad guy, on the way back to his car, after the seminar. A lot of the physical things we teach in Martial Arts, will not be successful, after two hours total of training. We all understand that tornado kicks and fancy guard passes are out. So we teach "awareness." But, a lot of the "awareness" stuff also takes a lot more than a 2 hour seminar to get.

That makes it very tough to come up with a good seminar for "self defense." My question would be, instead of tearing down other self defense seminars and videos... what should be included in one?

 

[skribs]

One of the things that revolutionised my training was the idea that I can't see punches coming at speed.

And so this theory that I would see a punch and then do....... quite simply no longer worked.

And so I then had to find way around fighting that didn't rely on me seeing punches.

I mean, I've seen in the UFC where someone defends a punch and then throws their opponent down. It's not something outside of the realm of reason.

You show me your training and I will point out those bits.

So you're the arbiter of what everyone else's success is? Get over yourself.

 

[skribs]

I agree with this. I have seen and taken a few self defense seminars, where the instructors are trying to teach folks weapon disarms, either gun or knife. In my opinion, the only reason to do this, is the effect on the feelings... of the instructor. You get a bunch of people with no experience at all, and you teach them to disarm a gun... all these people now look up to you like you are some kind of deity. It's very good for the feelings of the instructor. But, very dangerous for the students. You cannot teach people to do a weapon disarm in a couple of hours. Especially if they have no experience at all. What you can do though, is play act, and give them the confidence so that they think they can disarm a gun. The worst case here, is one of these students trying to disarm a real gun, instead of handing over their wallet. (they probably have only about $40 in their wallet... the co-pay alone to plug the holes, will be more than that)

If you are teaching a "self defense" seminar, you need to teach things that a beginner can do successfully, against a real bad guy, on the way back to his car, after the seminar. A lot of the physical things we teach in Martial Arts, will not be successful, after two hours total of training. We all understand that tornado kicks and fancy guard passes are out. So we teach "awareness." But, a lot of the "awareness" stuff also takes a lot more than a 2 hour seminar to get.

That makes it very tough to come up with a good seminar for "self defense." My question would be, instead of tearing down other self defense seminars and videos... what should be included in one?

I am going to agree with a caveat. If I teach a self defense seminar at a school, a workplace, or a church, then I need to teach things that would be easily applicable. Awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, and simple techniques. Kick the groin, palm strike to the chin. It's much easier to teach someone how to break a grip and run away than it is to teach someone the finer details of wristlocks and counters.

However, if I'm going to teach a self-defense seminar to active martial artists, then I think it's okay to do these things. If it's something they want to get good at, they'll be able to practice it with their partners. Or it's how they practice self-defense (learn the concept and file it away) then you're not really doing any worse.

 

[wab25]

If I teach a self defense seminar at a school, a workplace, or a church, then I need to teach things that would be easily applicable. Awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, and simple techniques.

This was part of my point. Much of "Awareness, avoidance and de-escalation" are in fact, not simple techniques. Read the self defense threads here on this forum, and you will find that much of what is talked about for awareness alone, is not a skill you can learn in a two hour seminar. So what then do you teach in a two hour seminar about awareness, to beginners?

Kick the groin, palm strike to the chin. It's much easier to teach someone how to break a grip and run away

Have you met someone where you actually had to teach them to kick the groin? Palm strike to the chin... sure, its very effective. But could you teach a true beginner to achieve devastating power, on target in a real street attack situation, in two hours? Sure, you can get them to do the drill right and hit hard... does two hours of drills equate to being effective in the chaos of a real encounter? I completely agree with the run away part... but how do you teach a grip break in two hours, that will work when the other guy uses his other hand, counters your grip break and is determined to control you? These are honest questions. How do you get past the drill work, and get to something really useful, in two hours of training? The other question: Is there a physical technique that you can teach a beginner to make functional in a real scenario, in two hours? If we are going to talk about ethical self defense training... lets spend some time talking about what that would include... instead of just pointing out what it doesn't.

 

[Tez3]

I don't think I want self defence to be 'ethical', that would mean I'd have to try not to hurt the person that was trying to hurt me and mine and I'm afraid I'd want very much to hurt a person who as doing that.

Ethical means morally good or morally correct and that's not what self defence is about, we can all be morally good/correct and teach rubbish self defence or we could be horribly sinful people and teach good effective self defence, morals don't come into it in the slightest.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This was part of my point. Much of "Awareness, avoidance and de-escalation" are in fact, not simple techniques. Read the self defense threads here on this forum, and you will find that much of what is talked about for awareness alone, is not a skill you can learn in a two hour seminar. So what then do you teach in a two hour seminar about awareness, to beginners?

Have you met someone where you actually had to teach them to kick the groin? Palm strike to the chin... sure, its very effective. But could you teach a true beginner to achieve devastating power, on target in a real street attack situation, in two hours? Sure, you can get them to do the drill right and hit hard... does two hours of drills equate to being effective in the chaos of a real encounter? I completely agree with the run away part... but how do you teach a grip break in two hours, that will work when the other guy uses his other hand, counters your grip break and is determined to control you? These are honest questions. How do you get past the drill work, and get to something really useful, in two hours of training? The other question: Is there a physical technique that you can teach a beginner to make functional in a real scenario, in two hours? If we are going to talk about ethical self defense training... lets spend some time talking about what that would include... instead of just pointing out what it doesn't.

I think it starts with a disclosure at the beginning of the seminar that what's being covered is just a beginning. I can teach a wrist break principle that some folks can make usable immediately. Not everyone can - it depends on their coordination, ability to handle the chaos, etc. Nothing in a short (2-8 hour) course will likely change their ability to handle that chaos. But I can help them get started. I can help them see how hard some things are, and what some of the possibilities are. And I can get them started on some simple techniques (elbow and knee strikes, a basic cover to protect against strikes, grip release, etc.). And remind them at the end they don't yet know this stuff - and won't unless they get a lot of practice. I think that's about all we can do with a short SD seminar to beginners. I much prefer to do seminars for folks already in training, for that reason.

I do talk about awareness and avoidance. Note that I specifically didn't use the word "teach" here. I'm giving them some basic information, but not teaching them how. I'm not sure I have ever taught "how" on those topics, because I'm not really sure there's a good way to teach that without a lot of real confrontations and threatening situations as feedback.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think I want self defence to be 'ethical', that would mean I'd have to try not to hurt the person that was trying to hurt me and mine and I'm afraid I'd want very much to hurt a person who as doing that.

Ethical means morally good or morally correct and that's not what self defence is about, we can all be morally good/correct and teach rubbish self defence or we could be horribly sinful people and teach good effective self defence, morals don't come into it in the slightest.

I think he's talking about ethical marketing, essentially. If you call it "self defense", you should be offering something that actually has a chance of helping in a self-defense situation. I agree with that premise, entirely.

 

[Tez3]

I think he's talking about ethical marketing, essentially. If you call it "self defense", you should be offering something that actually has a chance of helping in a self-defense situation. I agree with that premise, entirely.

That doesn't make it 'ethical' though as the instructors could in all good faith teach rubbish self defence believing it to be effective. That is the problem, not whether the advertising is truthful. It's also a bigger problem that the actual techniques taught.

 

[skribs]

Have you met someone where you actually had to teach them to kick the groin? Palm strike to the chin... sure, its very effective. But could you teach a true beginner to achieve devastating power, on target in a real street attack situation, in two hours? Sure, you can get them to do the drill right and hit hard... does two hours of drills equate to being effective in the chaos of a real encounter? I completely agree with the run away part... but how do you teach a grip break in two hours, that will work when the other guy uses his other hand, counters your grip break and is determined to control you? These are honest questions. How do you get past the drill work, and get to something really useful, in two hours of training? The other question: Is there a physical technique that you can teach a beginner to make functional in a real scenario, in two hours? If we are going to talk about ethical self defense training... lets spend some time talking about what that would include... instead of just pointing out what it doesn't.

Every technique has a counter. You can't teach for all possible reactions to your technique in 2 hours.

In a manner of about 5 minutes, I can teach anyone how to get out of a wrist grab with decent results. In my experience, it takes months to learn how to effectively counter a wrist grab by using your own wrist lock.

If someone holds your hand with both, that's where you fall back to "kick in the groin" or palm strike to the face. You may not need to teach someone to kick the groin, but how to do so with power is something you might need to teach. The reason I say palm strike is because it's much safer for your hand than a punch is. I think a beginner will have more power with a palm strike than a punch. Devastating power? Maybe not. But outside of using a weapon, what beginner is going to have devastating power with any of their techniques?

 

[wab25]

I don't think I want self defence to be 'ethical', that would mean I'd have to try not to hurt the person that was trying to hurt me and mine and I'm afraid I'd want very much to hurt a person who as doing that.

Ethical means morally good or morally correct and that's not what self defence is about, we can all be morally good/correct and teach rubbish self defence or we could be horribly sinful people and teach good effective self defence, morals don't come into it in the slightest.

Gerry got what I meant. I was trying to use the word ethical in the sense that the OP was.

Teaching a beginner to respond to a gun being pulled them, by shouting "BANG!!!" while putting their finger in the barrel is not ethical. Though I do believe it could be taught in such a way as to make people believe that it would work. Some would actually try it, given the opportunity.

That doesn't make it 'ethical' though as the instructors could in all good faith teach rubbish self defence believing it to be effective. That is the problem, not whether the advertising is truthful.

Correct. So if an instructor were to teach a self defense seminar, what are the ethical steps that need to be taken, to insure that you are not teaching rubbish self defense? Is teaching what your instructor taught enough? Even if your instructor taught you to stick your finger in the barrel? A lot of the things that are currently taught in various self defense classes work about as well as trying to startle the guy pointing the gun at you. As an instructor, how do I verify that what I am teaching is actually good self defense? Only things seen in MMA? Only things seen on servalence cameras? Things that work against squirt guns? nerf guns? airsoft guns? simunition guns? Only things the people who have really disarmed a gun say work? How much pressure testing should you do and how should you do it? As soon as you pressure test it with a student or peer, you completely change the situation.... you still both expect to go home after... this is a big difference.

 

[wab25]

In a manner of about 5 minutes, I can teach anyone how to get out of a wrist grab with decent results.

I agree. Except that in a self defense situation, you are not getting out of a "wrist grab." You are trying to get away from someone determined to control you, who happens to have grabbed your wrist first. Yes, the drill you teach will work, for most people if most other people grab their wrist. But, if you then change the situation, and ask the guy grabbing to keep the person there, start by grabbing the wrist... you get $50 if you can keep the other guy right here for 3 minutes, by any means... then things change. Then they start responding by grabbing the other hand, grabbing the waist, tackling... anything except for "let me hold your wrist while you try to get out." Best counter for someone breaking a wrist grab... immediately grab them again.

what beginner is going to have devastating power with any of their techniques?

Correct. So, what is ethical to teach a beginner for self defense? Upon leaving your class, your student gets assaulted in the parking lot. Should they be trying the palm heel to the chin, that they just learned? Should you as the instructor be making them believe that shot has power, when you know that a beginner does not have power? Note that this goes for any technique, as you point out. There is not a technique that you can teach a beginner in a short seminar, to use for real when his life depends on it.

 

[drop bear]

So, you start by making a claim about my training (one of several you've made), then you want to see the training you've already made claims of? You do realize you've just actually said you're going to be using full-on confirmation bias, looking for bits that support claims, rather than making claims based on evidence, right?

Pretty unabashedly biased. And pretty shameful. You're better than that most of the time.

Nah just trying to force some honesty out of you.

Vague isn't a defense.

 

[drop bear]

I mean, I've seen in the UFC where someone defends a punch and then throws their opponent down. It's not something outside of the realm of reason.

Completely different system. As soon as they walk in the room they are setting up conditions to be able to control the other fighter.

There is so much more back of house that went in to that defend a punch and throw than people understand.

It is also why a lot of stuff doesn't work in MMA and why a lot of systems tend not to do well in MMA even though technically you may be doing the same thing.

And why some self defense systems just don't provide the protection they claim to.

 

[drop bear]

Correct. So, what is ethical to teach a beginner for self defense? Upon leaving your class, your student gets assaulted in the parking lot. Should they be trying the palm heel to the chin, that they just learned? Should you as the instructor be making them believe that shot has power, when you know that a beginner does not have power? Note that this goes for any technique, as you point out. There is not a technique that you can teach a beginner in a short seminar, to use for real when his life depends on it.

If for example you could just teach head movement and positioning. You would massively raise the survivability of a person in a fight regardless of their striking style.

So in a seminar you could just teach this well.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Nah just trying to force some honesty out of you.

Vague isn't a defense.

Yes, but you stated you would go into watching the video with the plan to point out the flaws in the training. Not go into watching the video with the plan to evaluate it and determine if it's effective/good training.

 

[dvcochran]

I agree with this. I have seen and taken a few self defense seminars, where the instructors are trying to teach folks weapon disarms, either gun or knife. In my opinion, the only reason to do this, is the effect on the feelings... of the instructor. You get a bunch of people with no experience at all, and you teach them to disarm a gun... all these people now look up to you like you are some kind of deity. It's very good for the feelings of the instructor. But, very dangerous for the students. You cannot teach people to do a weapon disarm in a couple of hours. Especially if they have no experience at all. What you can do though, is play act, and give them the confidence so that they think they can disarm a gun. The worst case here, is one of these students trying to disarm a real gun, instead of handing over their wallet. (they probably have only about $40 in their wallet... the co-pay alone to plug the holes, will be more than that)

If you are teaching a "self defense" seminar, you need to teach things that a beginner can do successfully, against a real bad guy, on the way back to his car, after the seminar. A lot of the physical things we teach in Martial Arts, will not be successful, after two hours total of training. We all understand that tornado kicks and fancy guard passes are out. So we teach "awareness." But, a lot of the "awareness" stuff also takes a lot more than a 2 hour seminar to get.

That makes it very tough to come up with a good seminar for "self defense." My question would be, instead of tearing down other self defense seminars and videos... what should be included in one?

However, if I'm going to teach a self-defense seminar to active martial artists, then I think it's okay to do these things. If it's something they want to get good at, they'll be able to practice it with their partners. Or it's how they practice self-defense (learn the concept and file it away) then you're not really doing any worse.

I get that wab25 clearly mentions seminars and short programs. In this vein, I fully agree with the thinking.
That does Not mean certain disarm skills are Always crap. It has everything to do with how the teaching is prefaced. For example, I will Not teach one steps or disarm skills to white belts and not very many yellow belts. Period. There is too much attrition and risk for someone training for a short time and thinking they really learned a skill.
Too often, schools think sparring is physical enough to make the mental transitions to understand technique in the carnal nature of effective SD/disarm skills. I disagree. No, we cannot go full-on hard/fast every class working on disarms and such and Yes, there is value in slowing down to help understand technique but a person has to feel and process what it feels like to get really hit/kicked/taken down/choked/etc... It is a Martial thing we to after all.
The stage has to be set to effectively to teach self defense/disarm skills. Learning is all about the repetition, IF and only IF it is done correctly; both physically and mentally.

 

[skribs]

Completely different system. As soon as they walk in the room they are setting up conditions to be able to control the other fighter.

There is so much more back of house that went in to that defend a punch and throw than people understand.

It is also why a lot of stuff doesn't work in MMA and why a lot of systems tend not to do well in MMA even though technically you may be doing the same thing.

And why some self defense systems just don't provide the protection they claim to.

This is it. This is the post where I decide you're not worth investing any more time into.

You're saying techniques that are taught in TMAs that also work in MMA don't work in the TMA because it's not MMA. You're so far down that road you can't have any rational discussion about anything, unless it has to do with MMA.

 

[dvcochran]

If for example you could just teach head movement and positioning. You would massively raise the survivability of a person in a fight regardless of their striking style.

So in a seminar you could just teach this well.

I agree with what you say in application. But I have Never been asked to do a self defense seminar like that.

 

[dvcochran]

In a manner of about 5 minutes, I can teach anyone how to get out of a wrist grab with decent results. In my experience, it takes months to learn how to effectively counter a wrist grab by using your own wrist lock.

This is exactly the instructor mentality wab25 is talking about. Yes, in the moment and environment of a classroom workout you can teach the mechanics of the skill. That in no way means the skill is imprinted well enough to be used effectively in a real world self defense situation.
Time and repetition. It takes tons of time and repetition.