What MUST be taught in a Self-Defense Course?

[Gerry Seymour]

Groundfighting and chokes should be taught in any viable self defense course (especially for women). Those aspects of MA can swing a confrontation into your favor.

Not in a 2-hour seminar, they shouldn't.

 

[Justin Chang]

Groundfighting and chokes should be taught in any viable self defense course (especially for women). Those aspects of MA can swing a confrontation into your favor.

In a standard course I would agree with you, but I don't think in 2 hours it would be a skill I could teach that would be retained, I think I will stress the importance of not going to the ground in the first place and if you do to fight like hell to get off the ground ASAP. Rather than teach a choke I would prefer to teach them to punch, chop, strike the throat and run away as fast as they can.

 

[drop bear]

Does this question add anything to the discussion? Or are you just trying to be argumentative?

Yes.

If we are talking actual physics. say like this study done on whether the human hand is desighned for hitting.
Human Hands Evolved for Fighting, Study Suggests
Then juanny has a valid point.

If we are discussing martial arts physics like this.
AMOUNTS OF FORCE NEEDED TO DO DAMAGE TO HUMANS

Then. No training and physics wont really help you much.


It is important to understand the difference. Because there is a big difference in the two methods.

Now i am pretty sure Juanny subscribes to martial arts physics as we have had the F=M×A discussion before.

And all the evidence in the world did not change his opinion on that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes.

If we are talking actual physics. say like this study done on whether the human hand is desighned for hitting.
Human Hands Evolved for Fighting, Study Suggests
Then juanny has a valid point.

If we are discussing martial arts physics like this.
AMOUNTS OF FORCE NEEDED TO DO DAMAGE TO HUMANS

Then. No training and physics wont really help you much.


It is important to understand the difference. Because there is a big difference in the two methods.

Now i am pretty sure Juanny subscribes to martial arts physics as we have had the F=M×A discussion before.

And all the evidence in the world did not change his opinion on that.

Nothing Juany stated even remotely implied that he was using false physics. He was referring to what you can know from training (not what you heard somewhere). For instance, I've never used an arm bar to break an arm, but I've taken it to the pain points often enough to know where that break would happen and how variable that zone is among individuals. That's understanding the physics of it, and has nothing to do with the argumentative question you posted.

 

[Hanzou]

In a standard course I would agree with you, but I don't think in 2 hours it would be a skill I could teach that would be retained, I think I will stress the importance of not going to the ground in the first place and if you do to fight like hell to get off the ground ASAP. Rather than teach a choke I would prefer to teach them to punch, chop, strike the throat and run away as fast as they can.

You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.

In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.

 

[Justin Chang]

You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.

In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.

I'm not sure I could teach them simple and effective escapes in 2 hours along with other material that they would retain other than hit and kick and scream. Any "technique" that could be taught is not usually something that will be retained unless practiced throughout life which I highly doubt people would do.

 

[drop bear]

Nothing Juany stated even remotely implied that he was using false physics. He was referring to what you can know from training (not what you heard somewhere). For instance, I've never used an arm bar to break an arm, but I've taken it to the pain points often enough to know where that break would happen and how variable that zone is among individuals. That's understanding the physics of it, and has nothing to do with the argumentative question you posted.

Yes it does.

Asking a question isnt argumentative.

Using the word physics if you are not trained in physics is false physics.

 

[Steve]

Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break. Here you really did devolve to a defense based largely in minutia/semantics and not the substance.

I think there needs to be sufficient, credible evidence that the technique does work. Speculation isn't that. And then it's just a question of whether you can do it or not, and are training in a way that will lead to being able to execute the technique.

But knowing how to execute an armbar doesn't make a person an expert in law enforcement, self defense or real world violence.

 

[MI_martialist]

Not in a 2-hour seminar, they shouldn't.

I you put a small weapon in their hand, and empower them to hit, hit, hit, it does not matter what orientation they are in, they can still hit, hit, hit... Teaching specific techniques for specific orientations, etc., will not work.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are 2 things that you must learn. Those are:

1. Against striker - Protect your head from punches.
2. Against grappler - Control your opponent's shoulders so his hands won't reach to your leg or waist.

 

[drop bear]

You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.

In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.

In two hours you think that will give the highest percentage results?

personally in two hours you could teach crappling. Which defeats the pourpose.

 

[drop bear]

Hey guys we are using science.

 

[Hanzou]

In two hours you think that will give the highest percentage results?

Sure! There's a couple of high percentage mount escapes that can be learned very quickly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can teach the importance of not ending up on the ground, but that doesn't protect you from having to deal with the possible scenario of ending up on your back with someone on top of you. We just had a thread in this very same forum where a female asked what to do if someone was on top of her. So that scenario is very real, and should be covered in a self defense seminar.

In the span of a 2-hour course you can at the very least teach simple escapes from someone on top of you.

I agree that this is good material for self-defense - especially for women. I just don't think it's possible to teach anything that new to someone in that amount of time, in a way that would be repeatable for them under stress.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes it does.

Asking a question isnt argumentative.

Using the word physics if you are not trained in physics is false physics.

One need not be a physicist to understand physics, much less to be able to use the word in a meaningful way.

 

[drop bear]

One need not be a physicist to understand physics, much less to be able to use the word in a meaningful way.

You kind of do. Ever talked to a climate change sceptic?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey guys we are using science.

And what has that video to do with anyone's comment here? Using it as an example of anything said in this thread is a strawman.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You kind of do. Ever talked to a climate change sceptic?

I'm not a physicist, but I can discuss basic physics. I can even do the math for some fairly advanced physics (though not as much as my wife, who has a degree in Engineering, and is ALSO not a physicist). My background is psychology. That doesn't make me unable to grasp the science of physics.

 

[Steve]

after reading this thread, I believe I am convinced it is unethical to sell a 2 hour self defense class. It's snake oil, much like a miracle diet or a risk free money making seminar.

 

[drop bear]

And what has that video to do with anyone's comment here? Using it as an example of anything said in this thread is a strawman.

Relates back to this.

"Then let me rephrase, you don't need to have broken something to know that a technique and physics dictates that something will break."

He knows through training and physics ( well some sort of science) That all of these things will occur.

That is martial arts physics. And seriously that was just a tragic interpretation of the defined method..

Now when i asked the question insetead of defining what sort of physics he was talking about. (which is the use of physice without any proper grounding in physics? interested to see where this one goes by the way)

You evaded the question and made it about me.

So is that technique and physics as you are defining it. Or are you using a different method of technique and physics?