Self-Defense???

[Mephisto]

Claiming to teach SD and actually teaching it are two entirely different things. One is marketing, the other is practical/tactical and experience. Self defense begins long before the fight begins and seeks to avoid the fight in the first place or at least mitigate the consequences. As mentioned earlier, there is the legal aspect. How many schools teach the legal aspect? How many schools teach the aftermath of an attack i.e. contact with police, medical self aid or aid to others? How many teach avoidance, escape, evasion or verbal de-esculation? How about weapons and improvised weapons?

I always go back to the philosophical conversation between Earl and Vale on top of the boulder while the huge mutant underground worm circles waiting to eat them;

Earl: We need a plan.

Vale: I say we just make a run for it.

Earl: Run!?! Running's not a plan...running is what you do when the plan fails!

Same with self defense i.e. fighting isn't the plan...fighting is what you do when the plan fails. The plan (self defense) begins before you leave the house. So no, most schools don't know what self defense is or what it takes to achieve it, much less teach it.

I think you make some good points. But I also think what we view as self defense is an evolving term. So something that doesn't fit your definition isn't necessarily wrong, it could just be more complete. It seems like years ago self defense was pretty much any martial art. All the popular arts had "self defense" written on their store fronts, and it's still common today. I doubt many of these schools are teaching highly specific, scenario training, de escalation, legal ramifications, and other "soft techniques." What the common self defense class will teach is straight up standard curriculum, and maybe some specific escapes. There's nothing wrong with this approach but there is more to the equation.

 

[jks9199]

Last week in Krav class we were talking SD and not looking like a victim. I walked down the line, "Yeah, I wouldn't pick you. You have tats so you must be tough." "Mmm, you look like a fit young bugger, I won't pick, you", etc. etc. until I got to a big guy possibly 6'3" or 6'4". "Bloody hell! I wouldn't pick you. You're too big." We discussed the idea that anyone challenging you had already decided they could beat you and so on. At the end of the discussion the big guy, ex MMA out of interest, said to me, "You know, guys try to pick me all the time". Let me say, he certainly isn't the type of guy I would be choosing to fight but just goes to show, size doesn't always protect you from violence and anyone who reckons they don't need SD skills is a fool.

Do they "pick him" as a target for predation like robbery, or do they pick him for social violence, to try to prove themselves against him? Different situations, different target selection principle. In some ways -- almost opposite. Through a predator's eyes, I want the weak and vulnerable who have what I need. But if I'm trying to raise my social status, and I target the weakest and least capable -- it's not going to help my social standing at all.

Also -- in a social situation, is he sending a signal that's triggering people to challenge him?

 

[Hanzou]

If self defense is so low on your list what exactly are you teaching your wife and daughters.

The same stuff I've learned. For example, the chances of a man trying to sexually assault me is pretty low, but the chances of that happening to a female member of my family is substantially higher. Learning the Guard, and chokes, sweeps, and breaks from that position is critical.

Sorry if I presumed that you had not walked the streets I did or that you had not walked similar ones but if you had you would have know that in many cities the gangs are at war and outsiders are targets

Yeah, I grew up in Gary Indiana, right outside of Chicago in the late 80s, early 90s. Wasn't exactly the Wonder Years.

 

[Danny T]

Danny while I understand the point you are making I wonder why you think fighting has little to do with SD? If you mean to define fighting as trading blow for blow then at some time in defence of myself or others is it not possible that (when other more preferable options are absent) I may be forced to do just this very trading blow for blow? This is the real world we are talking surely and not the sterility of a forum discussion? What do you think? Jx

Certainly Jenna; I also stated, “…though fighting when justified can be a form of self-defense.”

If one were aware and vigilant the situation may never get to the point of having to physically defend. Self defense is a mindset and for some of us a life style. It is what one does prior to getting to the point of fighting as well. Fighting, the physical confrontation, should always be the last resort of self defense. Though there may be a time when all one has the time for is to physically defend themselves. However, when reviewing the time lines of violent actions there are usually several ques given or things the attack did or did not do that could have prevented the action.

 

[Shajikfer]

There numerous threads concerning self-defense with most all on fighting, fighting back, and/or about one system being better vs some other system.
But what is self-defense? Is it fighting or is it much more? Most all MA schools, gyms...etc claim to teach self-defense; do they?
What is self-defense???

I consider it any means of protecting oneself when under combat. Self-defense in martial arts is using techniques to defend oneself. But 'self-defense' by itself does not necessitate using martial arts. For example, say I have done TKD for twenty years and someone attacks me and I have a gun. If I have a gun and stop the attack, I have self-defended myself (bad english?) but did so without using martial arts.

A lot of martial artists when attacked do not use what they practice. Many do of course, but in a fight or flight situation sometimes one's instincts can take over. That is what happened to me as a kid; I'd done the arts for 10 years and got into a schoolyard scrap and lost badly. I switched schools, and when someone pulled a knife on me, with better training and more maturity I was able to utilize those techniques I had learned from both styles and get the knife away.

 

[Argus]

I consider it any means of protecting oneself when under combat. Self-defense in martial arts is using techniques to defend oneself. But 'self-defense' by itself does not necessitate using martial arts. For example, say I have done TKD for twenty years and someone attacks me and I have a gun. If I have a gun and stop the attack, I have self-defended myself (bad english?) but did so without using martial arts.

A lot of martial artists when attacked do not use what they practice. Many do of course, but in a fight or flight situation sometimes one's instincts can take over. That is what happened to me as a kid; I'd done the arts for 10 years and got into a schoolyard scrap and lost badly. I switched schools, and when someone pulled a knife on me, with better training and more maturity I was able to utilize those techniques I had learned from both styles and get the knife away.

If you practice operating your firearm, I consider that "martial arts." Learning defensive pistol is no less a martial art than learning to use a sword, stick, or spear, but because it is martial training in a modern sense, people tend to disassociate the two for some reason. You might argue that it is less formalized, ritualistic, or more directly focused on self-defense or combat, but even some "martial arts" meet a number of those criteria in their modern form; to say nothing of their original form.

 

[Shajikfer]

If you practice operating your firearm, I consider that "martial arts." Learning defensive pistol is no less a martial art than learning to use a sword, stick, or spear, but because it is martial training in a modern sense, people tend to disassociate the two for some reason. You might argue that it is less formalized, ritualistic, or more directly focused on self-defense or combat, but even some "martial arts" meet a number of those criteria in their modern form; to say nothing of their original form.

That's certainly true, but in the sense of what I wrote I meant it moreso as someone who had no training with their own firearm, and barely more practice.

I suppose I could have put my example as... you've been training in WTF TKD and when mugged take a rock and bludgeon them with it. You utilized something you haven't been trained in to survive, rather than the arts you have been practicing.

 

[Argus]

That's certainly true, but in the sense of what I wrote I meant it moreso as someone who had no training with their own firearm, and barely more practice.

I suppose I could have put my example as... you've been training in WTF TKD and when mugged take a rock and bludgeon them with it. You utilized something you haven't been trained in to survive, rather than the arts you have been practicing.

Well, every art has its context and "subject matter." But reality dictates that sometimes real world situations step outside of the context that you might have trained for. In that case, there's no sense in trying to apply your art to do something it wasn't designed for. In that case, you just do your best. Your martial training may help you in more general ways, or it may not, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Shajikfer]

Of course it should, I merely delineated because I consider self-defense to not necessarily entail utilizing martial arts.

 

[Argus]

Of course it should, I merely delineated because I consider self-defense to not necessarily entail utilizing martial arts.

Ah, I understand. My point though is that martial arts are a broad subject, and therefore I think it's a good idea to get a wide array of training. Some people view every encounter through the lense of one particular art, and I think that's dangerous. It can become a case of trying to make the tool fit the job, rather than using the right tool for the job. That's why in addition to my empty hands training, I am seeking out firearms training and instruction in filipino martial arts. I may not ever need to use any of it, nor may I ever even become particularly competent in all of those areas, but at least I will be familiar with the subject matter should I ever be confronted with it.

Plus, you know, it's all fun to train

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you are interested in SD, you should train the grappling art. The reason is simple, when you choke your opponent and make your arms tighter and tighter, you can ask him, "Can we have peace?" If he says yes, you can let go your arms, help him to get back up from the ground, shake his hand, have a beer, and become best friend. You just can't do that when your fist meets your opponent's face, break his nose, and blood start to come out of his nose.

 

[Argus]

If you are interested in SD, you should train the grappling art. The reason is simple, when you choke your opponent and make your arms tighter and tighter, you can ask him, "Can we have peace?" If he says yes, you can let go your arms, help him to get back up from the ground, shake his hand, have a beer, and become best friend. You just can't do that when your fist meets your opponent's face, break his nose, and blood start to come out of his nose.

Nothing wrong with grappling, but you're just demonstrating my point here.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Argus]

Of course it should, I merely delineated because I consider self-defense to not necessarily entail utilizing martial arts.

Ah, one point I forgot to make, Shajikfer!

If say, you do pick up a rock to defend yourself with, as per your example -- even though it is something you've never trained specifically to use, do you think you would have a better idea of how to wield it than if you'd had no training at all? How about your attacker? Are you not able to better recognize and counter his actions thanks to your training?

Even if you don't deal with the specifics, there's a lot of value in the broader intuitive understanding that you gain from any art, I feel.

 

[Shajikfer]

Ah, one point I forgot to make, Shajikfer:

If say, you do pick up a rock to defend yourself with, as per your example -- even though it is something you've never trained specifically to use, do you think you would have a better idea of how to wield it than if you'd had no training at all? How about your attacker? Are you not able to better recognize and counter his actions thanks to your training?

Even if you don't deal with the specifics, there's a lot of value in the broader intuitive understanding that you gain from any art, I feel.

From my understanding that is what Arnis emphasizes; utilizing weapons you will come across practically.

I agree there is a lot you can understand and develop; better reflex time, combat strategies etc.

So yes, with training one could utilize a weapon more efficiently than if you hadn't had training. It's why I enjoyed those classes one eccentric teacher I had where we'd roll up magazines and practice baton techniques, and one particularly memorable occasion where he gave us a bunch of coins and told us to figure out how to defend ourselves with them. You'd be surprised what you can come up with on your own, especially with direction.

 

[marques]

But what is self-defense? Is it fighting or is it much more? Most all MA schools, gyms...etc claim to teach self-defense; do they?
What is self-defense???

That's a good question. Sadly self-defense is, usually, just a label to sell better. So anything is self-defense nowadays.
But this is a really complex question. An an even more complex answer.
First we should know what is violence? Too many faces of it out there...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Do they "pick him" as a target for predation like robbery, or do they pick him for social violence, to try to prove themselves against him? Different situations, different target selection principle. In some ways -- almost opposite. Through a predator's eyes, I want the weak and vulnerable who have what I need. But if I'm trying to raise my social status, and I target the weakest and least capable -- it's not going to help my social standing at all.

Also -- in a social situation, is he sending a signal that's triggering people to challenge him?

This is very important to figure out for your own personal protection strategy. Why would someone pick you for violence, robbery, etc. Then, how to avoid being picked out is your goal!

 

[wingchunguy]

Self defense is anything and everything you do to protect yourself. Anything from washing your hands or wearing your seat belt to situational awareness, conflict avoidance, learning defensive tactics and techniques...

Very interesting way to put it, Dirty Dog! In a way, you are right! EVERYTHING we do to protect ourselves from all the bad things out there, which includes diseases, accidents and attacks is considered, in my opinion, self defense.

 

[wingchunguy]

That's a good question. Sadly self-defense is, usually, just a label to sell better. So anything is self-defense nowadays.
But this is a really complex question. An an even more complex answer.
First we should know what is violence? Too many faces of it out there...

No! MMA gyms teach SPORT, not SELF DEFENSE! Though you can use it on the streets against inexperienced fighters, drunk and thugs, against REAL opponents, it is USELESS! This is because the sports applications have been watered down to exclude moves that might save your life one day. All the nasty moves that could cause serious damage to your opponent is left out. You also have to take into account the fact that they fight with gloves, timers, referees and doctors on call. Sports applications fall short in reality.

 

[Tez3]

No! MMA gyms teach SPORT, not SELF DEFENSE! Though you can use it on the streets against inexperienced fighters, drunk and thugs, against REAL opponents, it is USELESS! This is because the sports applications have been watered down to exclude moves that might save your life one day. All the nasty moves that could cause serious damage to your opponent is left out. You also have to take into account the fact that they fight with gloves, timers, referees and doctors on call. Sports applications fall short in reality.

Do you imagine then that MMA people can't fight without rules or referees? They can I assure you, it's quite easy to do techniques in self defence that are illegal in sport, it takes no more effort to do these illegal moves than it does the legal ones. Your blindness where MMA is concerned is causing you to under estimate MMA people.
The techniques haven't been watered down at all, in the rules certain techniques have been omitted. They can be put in for self defence purposes. You also fail to understand that many MMA people also train self defence and TMAs.
Not all TMA instruction is good for self defence either, it's pointless making sweeping generalisations about training.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

No! MMA gyms teach SPORT, not SELF DEFENSE! Though you can use it on the streets against inexperienced fighters, drunk and thugs, against REAL opponents, it is USELESS!

Are you saying that a "sport" technique like this has no self-defense value "against REAL opponents"?