The rather boring reality of self defence (for some)

[Buka]

So, the physical element of SD is important too..

So you are the 60ish year old, you check behind you just in time to spot the punch.
What aspect/technique from your chosen art do you employ to defend against it?

Then, facing four larger opponents each around a quarter of your age and an eighth of your morals, what do you do next?

First aspect - I move as I turn, angling and drawing blade. I'd use a number six strike on the draw, slashing upwards from right to left (hardest to see, hardest to evade) I'm still moving using what we call "landscaping" to take advantage of position within their numbers.

Let's give the four guys the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they're well trained, even their combined training years isn't equal to mine. And I was trained by better people (or I would know these four). If they're not trained, let's call them hard core city boys. They're time on the streets doesn't add up to mine. Neither does their familiarity with violence. Either this is their first time attacking one individual, in which case they are seriously screwed, but more than likely they've done it before and had success. If so, they're not used to adapting to a situation that's gone haywire. (they hardly ever are). By this point you don't have to beat all four, as one will be running because in the time it took to type this two more have been cut repeatedly.

As for morals, I gave up morals in street fighting before any of these four morons were born.

The second thing I'm going to do is invoke my right to remain silent and wait for my attorney.

 

[drop bear]

I actually disagree, proof can only be peovided when people can agree on terms and definitions. The only ones you can prove anything to is A. Yourself and B. Those that want to believe you.

There of course exceptions such as discussing terms where all parameters can be experienced by each individual such as that humans have five toes on each foot. And still that is not anything than an incorrectly defined statement which is proven false already.

Truth be told you should not care about whether or not someone makes an attempt to prove themselves. Simply have a discussion and allow people to clarify themselves and argue with you.

Celestial teapot is missing one aspect, most things in life is neither True nor False. Both alive and dead until you actually look on it for real. Therefore proof is not the term here, sane is. Is it sane. Logic can be argued and is based on the person you talk to.

As for this discussion, You dont need any proof and you know that.. You only need to understand, try or visualize and then make up your own mind. If you wish you can then argue that your truth must be same for all but the statement that your truth is the truth for all would be a celestial teapot. It would be impossible to prove AND True or not would change nothing for anyone.

But we are not arguing my truth against yours. This is not two conflicting dogmas.

We are arguing dogma against evidence as a way of determining if the self defence program is the martial arts equivalent of astrology.

The reason for this is at some point you may want to actually use the self defence system for self defence.

So yes I do need proof.

Celestial teapot is missing one aspect, most things in life is neither True nor False. Both alive and dead until you actually look on it for real. Therefore proof is not the term here, sane is. Is it sane. Logic can be argued and is based on the person you talk to.


"Until you actually look at it for real" is proof. And is the point of the celestial tea cup. Anything can be argued that it exists. Just not everything does.

Otherwise you don't have to agree on terms and definitions. People try that mess and it is a cheap means of controlling the conversation. Like this thread. Let's define self defence as exactly the scenario I want. And so therefore I am right.

You just explain your own definition when you are using it. Happens all the time.

 

[Phobius]

Self defense is already defined legally. Nothing you or I can do to redefine it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is this concept called the celestial tea cup.
Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

It is not up to me to disprove the claims or ability of any given self defence guru. It is up to them to prove it.

So if they are unqualified and unverified. I am a lot safer assuming they are crap than I am assuming they are good but I just haven't seen the results yet.

Yes, except for the part where you again mis-apply the term "unqualified". And the same holds true for ANYONE claiming their teaching is effective for self-defense - including MMA folks, BJJ folks, cops, Marines, Krav Maga, etc. Unless their students are regularly attacked on the streets and able to defend themselves, there is no valid testing. Testing in competition is not a valid measure of self-defense. You and I both know it's a reasonable assessment of skill, and maybe the best testing we can reasonably get, but it's still not actually a valid test for self-defense. (And, here, I'm using the term "valid" as it is used in scientific references - does the test actually test for what it claims.)

All we can really do is evaluate it for ourselves. We should all go in assuming the training is NOT valid, and then judge for ourselves. Still, for all that, "unverified" does not equal "unqualified". They are entirely different things.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, except for the part where you again mis-apply the term "unqualified". And the same holds true for ANYONE claiming their teaching is effective for self-defense - including MMA folks, BJJ folks, cops, Marines, Krav Maga, etc. Unless their students are regularly attacked on the streets and able to defend themselves, there is no valid testing. Testing in competition is not a valid measure of self-defense. You and I both know it's a reasonable assessment of skill, and maybe the best testing we can reasonably get, but it's still not actually a valid test for self-defense. (And, here, I'm using the term "valid" as it is used in scientific references - does the test actually test for what it claims.)

All we can really do is evaluate it for ourselves. We should all go in assuming the training is NOT valid, and then judge for ourselves. Still, for all that, "unverified" does not equal "unqualified". They are entirely different things.

I can make my home safer by seeking advice from a qualified builder. Self defence from a qualified instructor.

I can seek advice from a qualified fighter. Self defence from a qualified instructor.

I could learn to run from a qualified instructor. I could verify that by competing in running races.

I can go on lonley planet and use their verified saftey tips.

I could go to a self defence school and learn from an instructor that is unqualified and use a method that is unverified. And be expected to evaluate for my self.

What we can't do is evaluate for ourselves because as humans we are basically terrible at that. Hence things like astrology.

 

[Steve]

Self defense is already defined legally. Nothing you or I can do to redefine it.

even self defense experts around here use the term in different ways. The legal meaning is only one of the many different ways the term is used.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can make my home safer by seeking advice from a qualified builder. Self defence from a qualified instructor.

I can seek advice from a qualified fighter. Self defence from a qualified instructor.

I could learn to run from a qualified instructor. I could verify that by competing in running races.

I can go on lonley planet and use their verified saftey tips.

I could go to a self defence school and learn from an instructor that is unqualified and use a method that is unverified. And be expected to evaluate for my self.

What we can't do is evaluate for ourselves because as humans we are basically terrible at that. Hence things like astrology.

I don't disagree with any of those statements, though I find the "unqualified and unverified" statement a continuing combining of dissimilar concepts. In that sentence, you've restated the same thing we've discussed over the last few exchanges, but I'm not sure I'm any clearer on where our disagreement is.

Okay, so we're back to a question I should have asked earlier: how do you define "qualified" in regards to a self-defense instructor (before you have a chance to evaluate it yourself)?

 

[MaxRob]

I live in a part ofthe world where you can be mugged even killed for 10 $, where at night you are at high risk on the street, certain parts one avoids, as you cannot beat them all.further there are terrorism risks.
As a result I train and have trained specifically for self defense and for situational issues, all forms of martial arts interest me.
In this field I need to thank the teachings of Adriano Emperado, in Kajukembo and his philosophy "that if someone was afraid of pain they would be defeated the first time in conflict, the main teacher was pain " "make pain your friend" whereas this is not for everyone, for those of us with a high to v high genetic pain threshold, Adriano Directo Emperado's teachings in self defense are tantamount, it gives us that edge in self defense , we can use received painful blows, providing they are not knock out head or neck strikes , to our advantage , your opponent expects you do scream or go down in pain, you can scream but hit the person with an ace in your sleeve they don't see it coming. Ok the big bully knees you a low one, with the intention to knife you,next that person has no eyes, sorry for the horror but self defense is keeping alive against all odds, rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I agree self defense is not MMA fights in the ring,but a way to getting quickly to safety ,if necessary run, in fact running is an excellent practice,
Last thing is conflict, but it may be necessary to get away.
Self defense is highly situational, use and make use of all weapons around you, and be prepared to cause maximum damage, don't trust the classic painful spots as people can have high pain thresholds or be filled with narcotics, speed is of maximum essence once you decide to strike it is war, the laws of the ring do not apply, if one is hit but not knocked out despite all pain resist, soil in the eyes etc all situational wepons around use,repeated strikes till the opponent is out cold, in the case of multiple attackers, best to run for it, or hit who you feel is the ring leader, find a weapon use it, shout out lowd, disable who you can
Fight tooth and nail, bite, gouge and run for it.
An important part I find in this training is how to improvise available weapons and use them.
Then there is armed attack, again very situational,attacks can ome from behind, making defense tricky, a game of words may help gain time, but it may not, if they are after valuables or money and are multiple and one has judged ones chances, best give them the required, if there is no firearm one can try to strike and run. Disabling a person with a firearm at close range, if it is the only firearm can be possible with great skill,but is v tricky and one could die.

Calm mind ,Awareness and avoidance are main self defense pillars, and these require an insight, eyes , ears , voice tone, and maybe a sense to feel danger. Some have got away by mimicking an epileptic fit, but it would not be my choice.

I would rather be bored than be like a spring reay to recoil.

 

[drop bear]

I don't disagree with any of those statements, though I find the "unqualified and unverified" statement a continuing combining of dissimilar concepts. In that sentence, you've restated the same thing we've discussed over the last few exchanges, but I'm not sure I'm any clearer on where our disagreement is.

Okay, so we're back to a question I should have asked earlier: how do you define "qualified" in regards to a self-defense instructor (before you have a chance to evaluate it yourself)?

There isn't a qualification in self defence. There may be qualifications in some of the components. Like asking for a qualified witch doctor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There isn't a qualification in self defence. There may be qualifications in some of the components. Like asking for a qualified witch doctor.

That makes sense. So, what qualifications would you look for before going to check it out, and in what components? For me, I really only have "red flags", so anti-qualifications, and those are all judgement calls - things like language in the website, listing too many qualifications (ironically), etc.

 

[Paul_D]

Apologies for my unplanned absence soon after posting the OP, I had issues in the real world that took priority. I have not been ignoring you all on purpose, honest ;-) The replies, as always, make interesting reading, and it is good to see things thought other peoples eyes, and get a different perspective on things.

 

[drop bear]

That makes sense. So, what qualifications would you look for before going to check it out, and in what components? For me, I really only have "red flags", so anti-qualifications, and those are all judgement calls - things like language in the website, listing too many qualifications (ironically), etc.

I judge by my own experience. But i have experience in self defence.

Honestly they do have to be able to understand fighting. Not because it is the be all but because it gives me something solid i can take a guage off.

Red flags for me is dogma and hypotheticals.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I judge by my own experience. But i have experience in self defence.

Honestly they do have to be able to understand fighting. Not because it is the be all but because it gives me something solid i can take a guage off.

Red flags for me is dogma and hypotheticals.

Like you, I only have my own judgement to go on. I wish there was a good way to create qualifications, but I don't think we could find an objective standard that fits all styles fairly. I've seen YouTube videos saying things like, "If they don't have a full Redman suit, they don't teach effective self-defense." Which means they don't think you can practice ANYTHING useful without that suit. A suit which, by the way, greatly restricts the attacker's mobility and ability to feel strikes, and also renders them difficult to throw with many standard techniques.

I don't mind hypotheticals (to me, that's just someone saying, "If this happens..."). I'm not going to wait around for someone in the dojo to actually give an attack I want to train against - I'll teach someone to give the attack so we can practice on it. I do want the hypothetical situation to then be tested in multiple ways (full speed if safe, full resistance unless that would just lead to a different defense, etc.).

Like your reading their ability from fighting, I read it in the students' attacks. I can watch a few students give attacks (not new ones - someone who's been around a year or more), and I can tell if there's much realism going on. I know some fantastic technicians - even one who has put this stuff to the test in some messy encounters, so you know he can - whose students give lousy attacks, so don't learn as much as they might.

 

[drop bear]

Like you, I only have my own judgement to go on. I wish there was a good way to create qualifications, but I don't think we could find an objective standard that fits all styles fairly. I've seen YouTube videos saying things like, "If they don't have a full Redman suit, they don't teach effective self-defense." Which means they don't think you can practice ANYTHING useful without that suit. A suit which, by the way, greatly restricts the attacker's mobility and ability to feel strikes, and also renders them difficult to throw with many standard techniques.

I don't mind hypotheticals (to me, that's just someone saying, "If this happens..."). I'm not going to wait around for someone in the dojo to actually give an attack I want to train against - I'll teach someone to give the attack so we can practice on it. I do want the hypothetical situation to then be tested in multiple ways (full speed if safe, full resistance unless that would just lead to a different defense, etc.).

Like your reading their ability from fighting, I read it in the students' attacks. I can watch a few students give attacks (not new ones - someone who's been around a year or more), and I can tell if there's much realism going on. I know some fantastic technicians - even one who has put this stuff to the test in some messy encounters, so you know he can - whose students give lousy attacks, so don't learn as much as they might.

The hypotheticals are these stories like "a fight is always at close range. So we have to constantly fight in the pocket" silliness

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The hypotheticals are these stories like "a fight is always at close range. So we have to constantly fight in the pocket" silliness

Ah, to me those aren't hypotheticals - they're bad assumptions (that's just semantics, though - we essentially agree on the problem). They're okay for a given study (what if we have to fight in the pocket), but lousy as an overall basis for training (we always have to fight in the pocket).