Toning Down The Techniques

[SL4Drew]

I don't know I have read the thread and I have a few observations. I don't really understand the logic.

Training to main or kill is bad because in the moment you'll forget to close your fist and hit the cheek bone instead of poking into the eyes.

But training to hit the check bone with your fist all the time and then trying to break the habit and open your hand when the time comes is ok.

This isn't what I said. You are re-characterizing what I said over several posts to turn it all into a weak argument and something of a straw man. First, the main point is it is not appropriate (ethically or legally, I say) to gouge someone's eyes out for pushing you. So, I think one should question such responses in formalized self-defense techniques. Second, and more to the training issue, if it is inappropriate to use an eye gouge but that is what you hard-wire yourself to do through training, chances are that is how you'll react. Why train yourself to respond inappropriately and excessively?

Yet closing the fist is a much more instinctive reaction than palming, poking etc.

It depends on what stimulus you are talking about. And punching is a learned behavior. Kids can hammer fist right out of the gates, but they have a hard time punching. So, categorically suggesting closing the hand is more instinctive than other things is wrong.

And now that we are on the subject if more often than not we would like to use as little force as possible then why don't we all practice aikido and sometimes practice moderately forceful techniques and rarely practice killing tech.

Wouldn't that be considered even more advanced training.

Besides being sarcastic this is another mis-characterization. As I stated, I was suggesting that we train and use appropriate force, which is not the same as the least amount. Appropriate may include breaking an arm. Statistically speaking, we are going to be 'attacked' by someone we know. If you can't modulate the level of force you can deploy, then you are going to seriously maim drunk Uncle Bob, which probably won't go over well at future family dinners.

So following that train of thought then we should have a gun but prefer to carry a stun gun and we should practice using our stun guns more than our handguns.

You say that jokingly, but there are already people suggesting that your 2nd Amendment rights can be vindicated by allowing you to carry a Taser. I am not one of them. If you are using a firearm in self-defense you must be in threat for your life or serious physical harm. In most places you can't even brandish it or threaten to use it, unless you are facing a lethal self-defense situation.

So, if you wanted to use a firearms metaphor, the better one would be if you shot someone for pushing you or grabbing your wrist. In that situation, you would not privileged to act the way you did. You are required to use a less-lethal option. Again, it is the appropriateness of your actions that are at issue. So, if you had a Taser, you should have used it. Similarly, if you commit mayhem or cause serious physical harm on another for a push, then you have more than likely reacted excessively. So, I don't think anyone was saying that it was never appropriate to be lethal. I was saying, I think there is a general 'intellectual misapprehension' as to the lethality of a given situation when framing a self-defense scenario.

Personally if someone wants to teach a toned down system because they feel that it is superior let them. I will train myself to maim, tame. kill and everything in between. When it comes time for me to defend my life I will do what needs to be done.

It is really about having more options, and I would say more appropriate and regularly usable options. And really, if it came to defending your life, I don't think anyone here would say you shouldn't use gouges, throat strikes, testicle strikes, etc.

 

[SL4Drew]

Thank you for the reply. While it may have been missed in translation, I think we're on the same page. Then again, our interpretation of whats unnecessary and disproportionate may vary.

I think that having a good instructor and good training will help sort out a lot of what is unnecessary or disproportionate. And that is why I am suggesting that some instructors may not be doing a good job on many levels.

It baffles me how people can spend 20 years in the martial arts and still be scared of being accosted by the average thug throwing a punch.

 

[tigdra]

This isn't what I said. You are re-characterizing what I said over several posts to turn it all into a weak argument and something of a straw man. First, the main point is it is not appropriate (ethically or legally, I say) to gouge someone's eyes out for pushing you. So, I think one should question such responses in formalized self-defense techniques. Second, and more to the training issue, if it is inappropriate to use an eye gouge but that is what you hard-wire yourself to do through training, chances are that is how you'll react. Why train yourself to respond inappropriately and excessively?

Because I am able to respond in the correct manner because the mind is quicker than the body

It depends on what stimulus you are talking about. And punching is a learned behavior. Kids can hammer fist right out of the gates, but they have a hard time punching. So, categorically suggesting closing the hand is more instinctive than other things is wrong.

That's exactly what I mean kids hammer fist instinctively (closing the fist), Let me reword it clenching your fist during a confrontation is a natural reaction for both the trained and untrained

To further support my point I'll tell you a little story not more than a month ago I got into a fight 6 against 3, I was inside the 3 group (my father, step mother and myself) against 6 individuals with sticks. My Father one punched a guy in the face and threw another one on the floor I disarmed 3 guy and threw them to the floor and my step mom took out a lady. No lethal blows were thrown yet I mainly train death blows.

Besides being sarcastic this is another mis-characterization. As I stated, I was suggesting that we train and use appropriate force, which is not the same as the least amount. Appropriate may include breaking an arm. Statistically speaking, we are going to be 'attacked' by someone we know. If you can't modulate the level of force you can deploy, then you are going to seriously maim drunk Uncle Bob, which probably won't go over well at future family dinners.

So what your saying that I should do what I learned in aikido to uncle bob or should I do some hard core kenpo

You say that jokingly, but there are already people suggesting that your 2nd Amendment rights can be vindicated by allowing you to carry a Taser. I am not one of them. If you are using a firearm in self-defense you must be in threat for your life or serious physical harm. In most places you can't even brandish it or threaten to use it, unless you are facing a lethal self-defense situation.

This applies for your martial arts, if you have to respond physically to someone that pushes you as you stated then you shouldn't be practicing martial arts. I don't think a mere push deserves a physical response. Your martial arts training should be used in a life and death situation if a guy that is equal or less than your same stature and strength attacks you the last thing that should come out is your martial arts training. Like I was saying above the 6 against 3 and all with sticks no extreme response why because my life wasn't in danger.

So, if you wanted to use a firearms metaphor, the better one would be if you shot someone for pushing you or grabbing your wrist. In that situation, you would not privileged to act the way you did. You are required to use a less-lethal option. Again, it is the appropriateness of your actions that are at issue. So, if you had a Taser, you should have used it. Similarly, if you commit mayhem or cause serious physical harm on another for a push, then you have more than likely reacted excessively. So, I don't think anyone was saying that it was never appropriate to be lethal. I was saying, I think there is a general 'intellectual misapprehension' as to the lethality of a given situation when framing a self-defense scenario.

A push or wrist grab doesn't catch you off guard enough to initiate a reaction it is annoying and may catch you off guard but you won't suddenly start throwing punches instinctively and aside from the the initial response may be blamed on training but ever subsequent stick is thought out. So If I had a gun, stun or what ever I would know that I don't even have pull my weapon out because the situation doesn't merit it.