The rather boring reality of self defence (for some)

[drop bear]

exactly. Not all old people have crippled wrinkled bodies that can barely walk.

I understand.
The best plan is always try to walk away from conflict or avoid the conflict no matter the age. But if walking away is your only plan then you are missing half of what is needed for self-defense. Running or walking away does not guarantee an escape from the conflict. If plan A fails then things are going to get Physical and at this point. Sometimes running away is only possible after fighting off an attacker. There is no rule to being assaulted saying that the attacker has to give you the opportunity to run away or the time to talk your way out of the attack. In a real self-defense situation there's no guarantee that things will happen in a particular order or that one action of self defense is a solve all. Some self-defense tactics could be to talk if not for the purpose of delaying an attack long enough for you to put yourself in a better position to defend. Sometimes the opportunity isn't there to do that.

As for what applications will be done in the heat of the moment, there's just no way to determine that because it all depends on the environment, the moment of attack, and the level of awareness that the victim had before and during the attack. There's no instant solution of "Hey do this, then do that." There is only fight or flight. You will either fight back or not fight back.

The only thing that I can really see about self-defense is that those who are trained in self-defense (both the physical and non physical aspects) do a much better job with handling violent situations than those who have been trained in physical self-defense.

I guess I look at it like everything else we do in life. Those who are trained to play tennis do better at tennis than those who aren't trained to play tennis. Those who are trained to fight do better than those who don't train to fight. Those who are trained to remain calm during chaos do better than those who are aren't trained to deal with Chaos. I don't see why those who are trained in self-defense would do worse than someone who wasn't trained in self-defense.

Depends how they are trained. I could learn to fight fires at mma school. But that would put me about on par with someone who didn't bother to learn anything.

And a person who did scuba would be a step ahead of me because at least he could use ba gear

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends how they are trained. I could learn to fight fires at mma school. But that would put me about on par with someone who didn't bother to learn anything.

And a person who did scuba would be a step ahead of me because at least he could use ba gear

I think the issue is whether they are trained for self-defense, or simply trained in something called "self-defense". Delusion doesn't count as training.

 

[drop bear]

I think the issue is whether they are trained for self-defense, or simply trained in something called "self-defense". Delusion doesn't count as training.

Then your self defence training would have to have some sort of quantifiable result. Or the person teaching the system woud nred to be some sort of expert.

I would learn to fight fires off a fireman.

The boring reality of self defence is self defence instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Depends how they are trained. I could learn to fight fires at mma school. But that would put me about on par with someone who didn't bother to learn anything.

And a person who did scuba would be a step ahead of me because at least he could use ba gear

Since you are headed in this direction of 2 things that don't mix. If the fire department sent a qualified firefighter trainer to teach and train fire safety at then it wouldn't matter how they were trained. Sometimes having information is all the training that you need for example, what to do when the room is full of smoke and how to put out a fire from a pot that has oil in it. No one is going to get simulation or live training in these situations. But the knowledge that they have can still be used in application.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Then your self defence training would have to have some sort of quantifiable result. Or the person teaching the system woud nred to be some sort of expert.

I would learn to fight fires off a fireman.

The boring reality of self defence is self defence instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.

I wouldn't say that self-defense instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it. It's just like everything else with finding a good instructor for fighting, there's no central organization that monitors "what makes good self-defense" The police departments in the U.S. are often times the ones providing a community service by teaching self-defense. They speak based off their experiences and their training. But there are some people who teach self-defense without concept of what it really means, just like some martial teachers teach martial arts and have no clue to what they teaching.

Like with martial arts, very few people actually research what self-defense is all about and that's where they get into trouble. You say that most of the people who teach self-defense aren't qualified, but I find it interesting that many of us who train in martial arts have no problem in identifying the horrible self-defense programs with only the knowledge that we have of our own fighting system and in some cases personal experiences.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The boring reality of self defence is self defence instructors are generally the least qualified to teach it.

Based on what?

 

[GiYu - Todd]

A good example of having deadly capability, but lack of awareness was two weeks ago. There was a gentleman who decided to open-carry his handgun. He woke up with a sore head, missing his gun and wallet after being blind-sided by an attacker. He never had the chance to employ his weapon. It's likely his $500+ gun looked valuable enough to encourage his attacker to choose him, despite the risk the weapon might present if employed. His attacker took a calculated risk that he could get close and knock out the open-carrier, before the weapon could be drawn.
Most of us on MT train in some form, and would hopefully have enough skill to fight an attacker if we are aware enough to know the fight has started (and we weren't able to escape). But if you lack awareness, those skills are moot.
Like the earlier example with the lions, maintaining awareness does two things: it gives you a chance to either avoid or prepare for the encounter; and it lets the attacker know you're aware, and thus not as easy of a target for them. Most predators prefer targets they know they can beat.

 

[drop bear]

Based on what?

Based on the lack of any standards. And the lack of any controlled testing.

Very few self defence programs require a person to be qualified in the fields they teach.

So if someone teaches awareness what qualification do they have?Compared to say home hardening where I could get advice from a qualified builder.

And no real judgement on whether the methods even work. It is basically witch doctoring.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Very few self defence programs require a person to be qualified in the fields they teach.

And this is where the problem lies and why we often see people create self-defense videos that make no sense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Based on the lack of any standards. And the lack of any controlled testing.

Very few self defence programs require a person to be qualified in the fields they teach.

So if someone teaches awareness what qualification do they have?Compared to say home hardening where I could get advice from a qualified builder.

And no real judgement on whether the methods even work. It is basically witch doctoring.

You are equating lack of verifiable standards with lack of qualification. That is like saying someone who doesn't have a Computer Science degree can't possibly be qualified to do any programming.

Due to the low incidence of SD incidents, it would be impossible to verify the effectiveness of any but the larger programs and then only if we have a controlled population (like the program mentioned by Steve in another thread). Avoided incidents are the best result, and the hardest to verify. Physical successes are easier to see, but then we have to figure out whether the success is due to the training or some other factor - too many variables to be controlled with the relatively small numbers available.

 

[drop bear]

You are equating lack of verifiable standards with lack of qualification. That is like saying someone who doesn't have a Computer Science degree can't possibly be qualified to do any programming.

Due to the low incidence of SD incidents, it would be impossible to verify the effectiveness of any but the larger programs and then only if we have a controlled population (like the program mentioned by Steve in another thread). Avoided incidents are the best result, and the hardest to verify. Physical successes are easier to see, but then we have to figure out whether the success is due to the training or some other factor - too many variables to be controlled with the relatively small numbers available.

Well it is still like saying witch doctoring. It might work. It might not. But basically people are making it up as they go along.

At least with a computer you have an end result. It is either fixed or broken.

At the end of self defence training you have no measurable difference. Except in one program that actually did a study on the difference. And even that was limited because there was no control group.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is still not the same as saying someone is unqualified. Unverified is not the same thing.

 

[drop bear]

That is still not the same as saying someone is unqualified. Unverified is not the same thing.

How is it not both?

 

[Steve]

Well it is still like saying witch doctoring. It might work. It might not. But basically people are making it up as they go along.

At least with a computer you have an end result. It is either fixed or broken.

At the end of self defence training you have no measurable difference. Except in one program that actually did a study on the difference. And even that was limited because there was no control group.

If you're referring to the 12 hour course in Canada, there was a control group.

 

[drop bear]

If you're referring to the 12 hour course in Canada, there was a control group.

Ok. Fair enough.

 

[Steve]

Ok. Fair enough.

Sorry I was on a phone yesterday and couldn't elaborate more. The quote below is the summary of the methods used, emphasis is mine.

Methods
We randomly assigned first-year female students at three universities in Canada to the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act Sexual Assault Resistance program (resistance group) or to a session providing access to brochures on sexual assault, as was common university practice (control group). The resistance program consists of four 3-hour units in which information is provided and skills are taught and practiced, with the goal of being able to assess risk from acquaintances, overcome emotional barriers in acknowledging danger, and engage in effective verbal and physical self-defense. The primary outcome was completed rape, as measured by the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization, during 1 year of follow-up.

The control and resistance groups were roughly the same size:

A total of 442 women were assigned to the control group and attended 1 of the 45 control sessions that were held during the course of the study (mean number of women per session, 9.8; range, 3 to 21).

A total of 451 women were assigned to the resistance group and attended 1 of the 48 four-unit resistance sessions that were held during the course of the study (mean number of women per session, 9.4; range, 3 to 23).

The program is well documented on the New England Journal of Medicine: Efficacy of A Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women

If we did studies like this more often, I believe self defense training would look a lot different.

 

[aedrasteia]

Sorry I was on a phone yesterday and couldn't elaborate more. The quote below is the summary of the methods used, emphasis is mine.

The control and resistance groups were roughly the same size:

The program is well documented on the New England Journal of Medicine: Efficacy of A Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women

If we did studies like this more often, I believe self defense training would look a lot different.

Thanks Steve, especially for the link. The tested SD4W program is described in the report. It looks _nothing_ like the majority of SD offered by the MA community that I have joined, observed or had described to me from multiple states, schools etc.

The elements that are most significant are not a part of any program/series of classes from a MA orientation (regardless of style etc) other than those developed by MAs who are part of the NWMAF (National Women's Martial Arts Federation).
If anyone wishes to learn more about that see: National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Self-Defense
and National Women's Martial Arts Federation - Self-Defense Instructors' Conference.

There are a substantial number of MA instructors (women) offering a SD4W program/series that have multiple common elements matching those in the program described in the New England Journal article. I'm certainly willing to discuss those elements if anyone is interested. My personal experience over 20+ years, confirms that the most frequently offered MA based classes (generally by men in MA) _no matter which_ style , include almost none of these elements. Likely because of lack of interest, lack of familiarilty (or acceptance of) with actual experience of girls and women, And most disturbing, a profound, visible absence of any interest in making the sizable committment to acquiring that knowledge and developing the skills and competency to successfully work with 'average', girls and women not training in their particular MA.

I don't post much but my past posts here are available for anyone to see how I think about this.

The NEJOM report made the rounds among many people (mostly women) working in this area. Thanks again for putting it in front of folks.
w/respect A

 

[JowGaWolf]

My personal experience over 20+ years, confirms that the most frequently offered MA based classes (generally by men in MA) _no matter which_ style , include almost none of these elements. Likely because of lack of interest, lack of familiarilty (or acceptance of) with actual experience of girls and women, And most disturbing, a profound, visible absence of any interest in making the sizable committment to acquiring that knowledge and developing the skills and competency to successfully work with 'average', girls and women not training in their particular MA.

More women should take martial arts and become instructors and this would change. The thing that I notice from many women when I was in my 20's and in college is the mindset of "It won't happen to me." There are also some women who thinks it makes them less of a woman to be able to fight or defend herself.

Much of this probably culturally taught where women have to act a certain way and that men should come to a woman's rescue. I think once that image goes away, more women will begin to have an interest in taking martial arts, learning how to fight, and how to take a martial art system that focuses on self-defense. The biggest mistake that most people make is not thinking that they need to learn self-defense.

 

[Steve]

More women should take martial arts and become instructors and this would change. The thing that I notice from many women when I was in my 20's and in college is the mindset of "It won't happen to me." There are also some women who thinks it makes them less of a woman to be able to fight or defend herself.

Much of this probably culturally taught where women have to act a certain way and that men should come to a woman's rescue. I think once that image goes away, more women will begin to have an interest in taking martial arts, learning how to fight, and how to take a martial art system that focuses on self-defense. The biggest mistake that most people make is not thinking that they need to learn self-defense.

What if you were being molested by a beloved aunt? Or a creep woman who won't leave you alone in a bar? Would you kick her ***? Cause that's a little closer to,the kind of self defense most women find themselves facing.

The boring reality of self defense for women is that they are most st risk from people they trust or are in positions of authority or influence.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What if you were being molested by a beloved aunt? Or a creep woman who won't leave you alone in a bar? Would you kick her ***? Cause that's a little closer to,the kind of self defense most women find themselves facing.

The boring reality of self defense for women is that they are most st risk from people they trust or are in positions of authority or influence.

from what women have told me, some of them did hit the creepy guy in the bar or the uncle that tried to molest her, or the boyfriend that tried to tape her on the car. And to answer your question if hitting them was the only way to stop the assault, then yes, I would hit them.