Some Advice from a 7 Year Old

no martial art can beat a bullet or are you faster? :D
I don't need to. I just need to be able to hit him faster than he can draw, aim, and fire. Assuming that I've evaluated the situation and decided that fighting is the best option.
 
He said his stance was for defence after the guy said a second time to give him the chains.
I don't really think that makes his choices any better. He adopted a 'defensive' stance, and then did nothing while he got shot?
A good defensive stance doesn't actually look like a defensive stance. Assuming a stance that LOOKS like a fighting stance just contributes to the monkey dance.
 
I have never seen any class that teacher would ask students to do their homework during the class time. Why should a MA instructor ask his students to do push up during the MA class time?

When I was young, I joined in a YMCA Karate class once. The Karate instructor wanted us to do push up, sit up, running around the room. One day I asked that Karate instructor, "I come here to learn. I can do all of those at home by myself." He then told me that not everybody would do those at home.

Even today, I still think he was wrong, and I was right. I strongly believe one should go to school to learn and come home to train. But some people may believe that they should go to school to learn/train and come home to rest.
We always used push ups and some other calisthenics for warm-up. Classes had no gaps between, so there wasn’t a good opportunity for students to warm up in advance.

When I taught, I considered the exercises part of the curriculum. I never assumed students would come in with the necessary knowledge of the exercises they need (including proper form, etc.). And O definitely didn’t expect them to already know how to adjust those exercises for an injury or such. With just a few students, mostly over 35, small injuries (mostly from outside class) were a common thing, so there was often an opportunity for students to learn how to work with them.

I considered there was much more to be learned than just fighting skill, and that other material would likely have a much greater impact on their quality of life.
 
He adopted a 'defensive' stance, and then did nothing while he got shot?
A good defensive stance doesn't actually look like a defensive stance. Assuming a stance that LOOKS like a fighting stance just contributes to the monkey dance.
Hi, I was trying to keep the story short. I guess I should have gone with the longer version (below). High-lighted parts are sort of new.

The victim was walking in a reasonable part of Toronto close to a mall, in the afternoon.

He was approached by a guy who asked for his chains. The victim said no.

The perpetrator told him again to give his chains. The victim said no again and confident in his fighting abilities adopted his fighting stance, but didn't throw anything.

The perpetrator pulled out a gun and quickly went to shoot the victim, but missed.

The victim ran away but got shot in the leg when the perpetrator fired a second time.
The perpetrator then fled.

The victim bled profusely while everyone was recording it....and not calling 911 nor trying to stop the bleeding.

The victim lived, but has a bad leg now.

The victim told me, "If he would have just told me he had a gun, or produced it, I would have given the chains".
 
Does anyone have that training video where LEO tested how far they have to be from someone with a knife to be able to draw and shoot before getting stabbed? I believe it was 21 feet.
 
Does anyone have that training video where LEO tested how far they have to be from someone with a knife to be able to draw and shoot before getting stabbed? I believe it was 21 feet.
21 feet was the outcome from that testing. I think it was later revised further out. Within that range, they were unable to reliably deploy the gun to stop the threat before the "attacker" could contact with the knife. I seem to recall there being some issues raised about the methodology of the test, but none that would entirely invalidate the result (likely just make it less stark).
 
21 feet was the outcome from that testing. I think it was later revised further out. Within that range, they were unable to reliably deploy the gun to stop the threat before the "attacker" could contact with the knife. I seem to recall there being some issues raised about the methodology of the test, but none that would entirely invalidate the result (likely just make it less stark).
I want to see this video too. I want to know what those with the gun were asked to do, and what else they could or could not do as the attacker moved in. Were the LEOs allowed to move back in order to maintain or slow down the closing of the distance as they drew their gun or anything like that?
 
I want to see this video too. I want to know what those with the gun were asked to do, and what else they could or could not do as the attacker moved in. Were the LEOs allowed to move back in order to maintain or slow down the closing of the distance as they drew their gun or anything like that?
Here's a training video of it, keep in mind dan inosanto is the perp, which kinda stacks the deck in my mind, though I'd hope that he wasn't the attacker in the testing phase.
There was more testing beyond the video, and this is going from memory...to answer the question, it was a handgun, whatever was standard at the time. They had space to move around, and had no rules preventing them to do so, but the officers had no knowledge that the person was going to attack them. Which is kind of the point; if you don't know you've got to fumble around to draw, while avoiding the knife and backing up to maintain distance, which makes it tougher to draw (and backing up is much slower than running forwards, obviously).
 
Reading through this entire thread, it really seems like some of you just don't like kids. Nothing wrong with this at all, as long as you aren't involved with any programs for kids. 😅
I can’t stand them. As Jean Luc Picard, “They’re demanding, distracting and interfere with duty and pleasure alike” 🖖🏽
 
I'm starting to wonder if those who don't like to teach kids come from places that ran martial arts like an after-school program.
 
I'm starting to wonder if those who don't like to teach kids come from places that ran martial arts like an after-school program.
Martial arts training has a large proportion of repetition and attention to detail. In their initial stages, they are quite boring. Children simply aren't neurally developed enough to cope with this, they get bored, their minds are wander, they stand there with their legs straight in a ‘V’ shape, on arm extended, one down by their side, regardless of how many times you tell them. Yes, we can try and make the training more interesting by developing little games, dodging or blocking thrown bean bags etc but why not use these games in adult classes if they’re good training methods?

Let’s face it, most parents use martial arts classes as cheap babysitting for a couple of hours. I think children should be in the scouts or playing football/rugby/basketball etc and the minimum age for commencing MA training should be around 13 yrs.
 
Does anyone have that training video where LEO tested how far they have to be from someone with a knife to be able to draw and shoot before getting stabbed? I believe it was 21 feet.
Mythbusters did it as well I believe it is available on you tube. Actually you may be able to draw and shoot but the bullet will not stop the person on time. It is the "Tueller Drill". On of the more famous demonstrations is in a video called defending edged weapons - 21 Foot rule dan Inosanto - Google Search
 
Back
Top