Techniques you learn in your MA that are probably not a good idea for Self Defense

[JowGaWolf]

But back on track.

I just thought of a bunch of things that I probably wouldn't use in self-defense and most of that can be found in knife defense and martial arts gun disarms

 

[Hanzou]

Context. Like I said very early on in this thread. In your example the very real fight had rules that included not using deadly force unless it is to resist deadly force. In that case the head stomp is morally, ethically, and legally prohibited.

In other "real fight" contexts that do not necessarily include modern civilized self-defense in the united states, a head stomp might be not only justified, but encouraged. Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, from which most RBSD systems today seem to derive, include techniques such as "stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight."

Both are "real fights," per se but different contexts.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.

In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as laws. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You believing that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.

However, if there are witnesses, well that changes things a bit. If people see you stomp a grounded assailant to death, well there's a very good chance you're going to jail when the cops arrive.

Now, if a gang of ninjas burst into your home and attempt to kill you and your family, feel free to stab them in the back when they're not looking, or stomping their brains in with your combat boots. But in all seriousness, the chances of that happening are not very high, even in America.

 

[Hanzou]

That's impossible. Stomping wasn't invented until MMA. No way TMA would have thought of doing such a thing. lol. And he's stomping a down opponent who is trying to defend themselves.

I don't understand why there is so much debate on stomping on someone

Well the initial debate was about curb stomping someone.

Curb stomp - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Steve]

I've seen kata which include stomping. Ask three different instructors what the stomp is supposed to mean and you'll likely get four different answers. But at least one of them will be stomping on an opponent that has been downed for some reason.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

I’ve seen that as well. What I’m talking about is self defense against stomping. Or is the idea that you would just, I don’t know, never allow that to happen? Personally, if I’m paranoid enough to believe I need to train to kill bad guys with a good stomp to the temple, it seems inconsistent NOT to train how to avoid bad guys stomping on my head.

 

[Steve]

I try to train people to do horrible things. What is defined as horrible varies from person to person. In terms of self-defense I train them to put emotions aside because they may need to do horrible things in order to get out of that situation. It's not good when your emotions are unchecked and you care more about the attacker than your own safety.

When I spar, one of the things I try to teach students is to clear there mind and emotion and focus on the task at hand which is to attack me without being attacked. During the sparring I would ask them. What are they thinking about. If they answer with what they are thinking then I give them a lecture and we start sparring again. The only answer I want to hear is. "I'm watching, I'm moving you..., I'm setting you ups... I'm targeting..." I don't want hear about "I'm trying to figure out what you are doing next."

Based on my experience the only way people can do horrible things is to clear their mind of emotions and thought and focus on the task at hand.

Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me. I like the idea of teaching them to perform under pressure and mindfulness is a good thing. But that will come with application, and is hard to do without application.

 

[dvcochran]

Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me. I like the idea of teaching them to perform under pressure and mindfulness is a good thing. But that will come with application, and is hard to do without application.

Semantics. You are both saying the same thing, just saying it differently.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.

In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as laws. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You believing that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.

However, if there are witnesses, well that changes things a bit. If people see you stomp a grounded assailant to death, well there's a very good chance you're going to jail when the cops arrive.

Now, if a gang of ninjas burst into your home and attempt to kill you and your family, feel free to stab them in the back when they're not looking, or stomping their brains in with your combat boots. But in all seriousness, the chances of that happening are not very high, even in America.

I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.

 

[Steve]

Semantics. You are both saying the same thing, just saying it differently.

Given your recent track record of not understanding what is being discussed, I really think you need to do more reading and less writing for a while.

 

[Hanzou]

I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.

Quite a few of these responses sound like a fantasy. Curb stomping people, preemptively stabbing someone n the back because they look "scary", it's all like a bad 80s action movie.

Curb stomping is especially some very brutal and heinous stuff, and I would highly question one's sanity if they decide to use it against another human being.

 

[lklawson]

Yeah, but this isn't WW2 and we're not soldiers fighting a total war. In addition, if you stab someone in the back before a fight begins, you're going to jail for a very long time. This is what I mean when I say that I seriously question what MAs are teaching people.

Like I said, context. Both are real fights but in very different contexts

In the majority of self defense encounters you're likely going to deal with in "the real world", there are "rules" in place. Those rules are otherwise known as laws. Laws effect you just as much as the person who is possibly going to assail you. If someone is on the ground and you're standing, that person is no longer considered a threat, period. You believing that that person is a continued threat is open to interpretation, and if it's just you and that other person, your personal ethics is all that matters. If your moral compass allows you to stomp someone to death, so be it.

But... But... I keep reading that "there are no rules in a real fight."

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[lklawson]

Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me. I like the idea of teaching them to perform under pressure and mindfulness is a good thing. But that will come with application, and is hard to do without application.

By the same token, those people never need to learn any martial arts at all. People study different types of martial arts, designed for different contexts, for their own personal reasons. Not necessarily because they expect to have to put it into use attacking or protecting from a horde of Nazis or feudal samurai.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[lklawson]

I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy.

I don't. I know a great number of people who carry the firearm. None of them fantasize in this way. Are you sure you actually know real people?

I'm not trying to insult, but this is a thing that I hear a lot. And it's just not true the majority of the time. It's something that people say who are afraid of the gun. I don't think that's you but it concerns me that you are willing to repeat that silliness.

 

[lklawson]

Quite a few of these responses sound like a fantasy. [...] preemptively stabbing someone n the back because they look "scary", it's all like a bad 80s action movie.

Straw man. I never wrote that and I don't think you believe that I did. I wrote that it is a legitimate technique for a "real fight" within its own context, which may be different from other context such as, as I specifically wrote, modern self-defense in the United States.

This has been my point all along. There is no one thing that qualifies as a "real fight" and it is silly to try to throw out certain techniques because it doesn't seem to fit into some narrow definition of what a "real fight" is.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Personally, I don’t think most people need to learn how to do horrible things. Given how unlikely it is that they will ever need to actually defend themselves, that seems like a bad idea to me.

For me the problem that no one expects to be in a horrible situation.

1. People think their risk of drowning is very low so they don't take swimming lessons and then one day they drown

2. People think their risk of experiencing a home invasion is low so they don't prepare in ways that will make that low risk a reality. Like locking doors or making a what if plans.

3. People think that the risk of their house being on fire is low so they don't buy a smoke detector. Then one day their house burns and sometimes they die in that fire.

Most people who prepare to do horrible things do so in the hopes that they never will have to do such things. They understand that it's better to have that ability if that rare chance occurs, than to not have it.

Sort of like seat beats. I went almost 50 years without being in a car accident. Based on your logic, there is no need for me to wear a seat belt because it's rare that I would be in a car accident. Then one day I was in a bad car accident where the car almost flipped over. I wore a seat belt. Not because I was likely that I would be in a car accident, but I wore it in case of that rare even occurred and it did.

Most people who are attacked violently never thought it would happen to them. And when it did it was too late to learn anything.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't. I know a great number of people who carry the firearm. None of them fantasize in this way. Are you sure you actually know real people?

I'm not trying to insult, but this is a thing that I hear a lot. And it's just not true the majority of the time. It's something that people say who are afraid of the gun. I don't think that's you but it concerns me that you are willing to repeat that silliness.

Same here. With the exception of 2 or 3 people I've known in my life. Those gun owners knew they could shoot someone, but hoped they never would have to. That includes Police officers and family who served in the military.

No on the other hand, we could probably look at those who do fantasize about shooting people, and I'm willing to bet that those people didn't shoot someone out of self-defense.

 

[Hanzou]

Straw man. I never wrote that and I don't think you believe that I did. I wrote that it is a legitimate technique for a "real fight" within its own context, which may be different from other context such as, as I specifically wrote, modern self-defense in the United States.

Where's the strawman? That's exactly what you said;

Many of the world war II era hand-to-hand combat systems, from which most RBSD systems today seem to derive, include techniques such as "stab your opponent in the back before he knows there's a fight."

This has been my point all along. There is no one thing that qualifies as a "real fight" and it is silly to try to throw out certain techniques because it doesn't seem to fit into some narrow definition of what a "real fight" is.

I never said there was. However, I think it would be wise to throw out certain techniques because they can land us in prison, even if we were defending ourselves. Curb Stomping and "Stabbing someone in the back before they even know there's a fight" would qualify as two such examples.

 

[drop bear]

I’ve seen that as well. What I’m talking about is self defense against stomping. Or is the idea that you would just, I don’t know, never allow that to happen? Personally, if I’m paranoid enough to believe I need to train to kill bad guys with a good stomp to the temple, it seems inconsistent NOT to train how to avoid bad guys stomping on my head.

Ankle picks or low singles basically.

 

[Steve]

By the same token, those people never need to learn any martial arts at all. People study different types of martial arts, designed for different contexts, for their own personal reasons. Not necessarily because they expect to have to put it into use attacking or protecting from a horde of Nazis or feudal samurai.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

That’s true. So why are instructors trying to normalize killing folks?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

it seems inconsistent NOT to train how to avoid bad guys stomping on my head.

This is how you may try not to let your opponent to stomp on you when you are on the ground.

If a stand up person would never attack a person who was on the ground, I assume this technique would never be invented.

 

[Steve]

For me the problem that no one expects to be in a horrible situation.

1. People think their risk of drowning is very low so they don't take swimming lessons and then one day they drown

2. People think their risk of experiencing a home invasion is low so they don't prepare in ways that will make that low risk a reality. Like locking doors or making a what if plans.

3. People think that the risk of their house being on fire is low so they don't buy a smoke detector. Then one day their house burns and sometimes they die in that fire.

Most people who prepare to do horrible things do so in the hopes that they never will have to do such things. They understand that it's better to have that ability if that rare chance occurs, than to not have it.

Sort of like seat beats. I went almost 50 years without being in a car accident. Based on your logic, there is no need for me to wear a seat belt because it's rare that I would be in a car accident. Then one day I was in a bad car accident where the car almost flipped over. I wore a seat belt. Not because I was likely that I would be in a car accident, but I wore it in case of that rare even occurred and it did.

Most people who are attacked violently never thought it would happen to them. And when it did it was too late to learn anything.

a seat belt is literally called a passive restraint. It doesn’t involve killing someone or normalizing violence. Swimming is a wonderful sport and learning to swim is great exercise, though neither learning to swim or not learning to swim involves normalizing the act of taking another person’s life.

locking doors, installing smoke detectors. I don’t think they involve normalizing violence either.