How much do you really need?

[drop bear]

You use the word "shouldn't" several times. I don't really like that word. It is extremely subjective and not very helpful to discussion.

But in short statistics are entirely important because it informs the degree of effort that is reasonable. Insurance sales people might believe that everyone needs $500k life policies. That doesn't make it a wise expense for everyone.

If you are a drug addicted transient, you are at high risk of assault. If you are a 20 year old, female, college student, you are at realistic risk of sexual assault. If you are cop or work in a social security office or in a homeless shelter. And in these cases, training might help. What training would actually help will vary and in most cases, physical training is going to be of limited use.

I have a lot going on today so this may not make a lot of sense. I will try to clarify later if needed.

the crockwise rap approach.

As opposed to carrying a gun or something.

 

[Hanzou]

A combination of striking and grappling. That's what you need.

If I could do it over again, I would only practice Gracie Jiujitsu and Boxing.

Being able to train at Greg Jackson's gym would be pretty sweet as well.

 

[JowGaWolf]

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)... but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways. I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter. Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%. And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary. A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed. A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out. A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but the amount of self-defense that is actually needed isn't a static one size fits all solution. Things such as the environment that someone lives in, the type of people they hang around with, the job that they do and some other elements will help determine "how much is enough."

As a teenager I was at a higher risk for being in a fight and as an adult I'm at more risk for being in a really bad fight, but the possibility of that happening is much lower than me being in a fight as a teen.

Based on the fact that kids are being exposed to formal training these days. A teen today probably needs more skill to fight than I needed as a kid. When I was a kid, kids looked like kids, and there there weren't 6 feet mini-adults at the age of 12. I also think that kids today are also more brutal as well. Very few fights that I saw as a teenager were at the intensity level of some of these fights that I see on youtube and read in the news. Back then a Win was determined when one person gives up. Now a Win is determined by when the Winner gets tired of stomping your head into the concrete.

As for the simplicity of self-defense. I think it's only simple in the beginning when a person is learning. It's like driving. When we first learn how to drive, the skill sets we use are simple, but after 10 years of driving the skill sets actually gets very complex. Self-defense is like this for me. It might have started out simple, but as an adult and many years of honing my skills (non-physical skills) my self-defense strategy is not only complex it changes in real time. I may have one plan going into a bad area of time, but once I'm in that area, that plan shifts and changes as the danger cues change. To be fair it actually changes more when I'm not in a bad area, because I could be in an almost care free mode one second, and stranger danger mode in the next second, all because some crazy looking guy with a shifty walk steps into my immediate environment.

I look at Self-defense like a tool box. Do you only carry a screw driver and pliers in the tool box because you don't think you need a hammer and some nails? I rarely use a hammer around my house but when I need one, I can't ever find one or it takes me 2 days to find it. Someone may say that I should be better organized with my hammer, and I'll just say, why? I rarely use it (less than 2 times every 5 years). Why bother? Self-defense works just like this. No one thinks they need it, until they do.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, but the amount of self-defense that is actually needed isn't a static one size fits all solution. Things such as the environment that someone lives in, the type of people they hang around with, the job that they do and some other elements will help determine "how much is enough."

As a teenager I was at a higher risk for being in a fight and as an adult I'm at more risk for being in a really bad fight, but the possibility of that happening is much lower than me being in a fight as a teen.

Based on the fact that kids are being exposed to formal training these days. A teen today probably needs more skill to fight than I needed as a kid. When I was a kid, kids looked like kids, and there there weren't 6 feet mini-adults at the age of 12. I also think that kids today are also more brutal as well. Very few fights that I saw as a teenager were at the intensity level of some of these fights that I see on youtube and read in the news. Back then a Win was determined when one person gives up. Now a Win is determined by when the Winner gets tired of stomping your head into the concrete.

As for the simplicity of self-defense. I think it's only simple in the beginning when a person is learning. It's like driving. When we first learn how to drive, the skill sets we use are simple, but after 10 years of driving the skill sets actually gets very complex. Self-defense is like this for me. It might have started out simple, but as an adult and many years of honing my skills (non-physical skills) my self-defense strategy is not only complex it changes in real time. I may have one plan going into a bad area of time, but once I'm in that area, that plan shifts and changes as the danger cues change. To be fair it actually changes more when I'm not in a bad area, because I could be in an almost care free mode one second, and stranger danger mode in the next second, all because some crazy looking guy with a shifty walk steps into my immediate environment.

I look at Self-defense like a tool box. Do you only carry a screw driver and pliers in the tool box because you don't think you need a hammer and some nails? I rarely use a hammer around my house but when I need one, I can't ever find one or it takes me 2 days to find it. Someone may say that I should be better organized with my hammer, and I'll just say, why? I rarely use it (less than 2 times every 5 years). Why bother? Self-defense works just like this. No one thinks they need it, until they do.

Sure, but you probably don't need eight hammers. And if assembling a set of shelves from IKEA is the extent of your home repairs, neither do you need an arc welder.

If you like those things, you can get them and learn to use them. Nothing wrong with that. But you may have very little true need for them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sure, but you probably don't need eight hammers.

If I had eight hammers then I'm pretty sure I would be able to find one when I need one. Let's put this on a more practical level. My dad always had 3 or 4 hammers around the house so there's no difficulty in finding one at his place.

How many pens do you have in your home? You only need one. In my home I know I can find a pen in almost any room. If I needed a pen I know I can find one without really looking for it. If the pen I pick up doesn't work then I'm sure the pen next to it will. Fighting techniques are like the pens. I have more than one way to stop a Bjj person from shooting in on me. I don't have a one size fits all solution. If my first technique fails, then I'm pretty sure the second one will produce better results.

I have one Jab, yet I have numerous combinations that utilize the jab either in the beginning of the combination, in the middle, or in the end. If I throw a Jab one way, then it becomes easy to counter, so I create multiple techniques, and multiple uses of the jab (vertical, downward, horizontal, twisting, upward, short jab, hard jab, set up jab, range finder, etc).

In martial arts, having only one technique to use is a no win. If a person tries to fight me with only 2 or 3 basic techniques, then I'm going to open a super sized can of whoop butt on them. I don't how good that person may be with those 2 or 3 basic techniques are, that's not enough "tools in the box" to fix me.

Let's take a look at boxing. Excellent punching skills, the professional boxers are awesome at it. Now put those same fighters against someone who kicks, or someone who wrestles. Now that "tool box" isn't so great. Not only does their defensive ability lack the skill sets to defend against kicking and wrestling, they also don't have the offensive skill set that would have allowed boxing to take advantage of kicking and wrestling attacks.

In a self-defense context assuming that only 3 or 4 technique will save you (basic jab, yelling stop, basic kicking, or only having preventive measures) is dangerous.

And if assembling a set of shelves from IKEA is the extent of your home repairs, neither do you need an arc welder.

An arc welder is environmental and job based. You will need one if your are in the environment where one becomes of use or where one meets a need. Seems like the guy who made this hulk got a lot of mileage out of his welding equipment. This goes back to what I was a saying that the amount of self-defense that is needed depends on the person and that there's no way to give a "one size fits all" amount of self-defense that's needed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Length of the training and timing between refresher courses really depends upon context.

To clarify what I think of when I envision a well thought out, well documented, effective, self defense training course, this is what I have in mind:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=abstract

There is a specific group of people who are at high risk for assault:



There is an assessment of what has been done in the past, what has worked and what has not:



There is a measurable outcome:



If you take a look at the entire article, the program was eight hours long, broken up into four sections, with only one of those sessions teaching physical, martial arts type self defense. The article also explains how they established a control group. In the end, the program was successful. Women were safer having taken the training, and ultimately, for every 22 women who attended the training, 1 rape was prevented, and the incidence of attempted rape was just over 3% for the group who attended the training vs over 9% in the control group. I consider this significant and very successful.

If every self-defense program were as scientific and grounded in statistics as this, I would be very, very happy (and probably have a very different opinion of "self defense" training).

I'm assuming this is the same study you and I discussed in the past, so I didn't read it. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll look back at it.

I agree with all of that. My only assertion is that adding physical training has specific benefits. I wouldn't recommend removing the education used in the study - I've actually been building more of that into my starter curriculum. The myriad benefits (ability to resist, development of self-esteem, etc.) from the physical training couple nicely with the educational components. I think the best personal protection approach involves both. If I had a very short time to teach nd had to choose one or the other, I'd prefer to teach the educational components. Give me some more time, and I'll add physical training. Make it long-term, and I'll add a lot of physical training and occasional revisits to the educational components.

 

[Steve]

I'm assuming this is the same study you and I discussed in the past, so I didn't read it. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll look back at it.

I agree with all of that. My only assertion is that adding physical training has specific benefits. I wouldn't recommend removing the education used in the study - I've actually been building more of that into my starter curriculum. The myriad benefits (ability to resist, development of self-esteem, etc.) from the physical training couple nicely with the educational components. I think the best personal protection approach involves both. If I had a very short time to teach nd had to choose one or the other, I'd prefer to teach the educational components. Give me some more time, and I'll add physical training. Make it long-term, and I'll add a lot of physical training and occasional revisits to the educational components.

It is the same self defense program I've referenced before. I wish I could find other examples of programs so well grounded in relevant statistics that identify an "at risk" group, and objective, measurable results. To me, every self defense program should go through a similar exercise.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is the same self defense program I've referenced before. I wish I could find other examples of programs so well grounded in relevant statistics that identify an "at risk" group, and objective, measurable results. To me, every self defense program should go through a similar exercise.

I wish there were more measurements to work with, too. Unfortunately, most of us have too small a population to be able to draw any statistics, so we have to depend upon those few studies that exist.

 

[Paul_D]

That's valid, though it assumes your initial attack is entirely successful. If they manage to counter you, your choice to attack doesn't negate the need to defend.

Criminal are not (for the most part) highly trained martial artists. If they have time to notice your pre-emptive strike/sucker punch, identify it, defend it, and succesfully select and perform the appropriate coutner, then you must be telegaphing it horribly.

Work on that, and you probably aren't going to have to worry too much about being countered. Never say never of course, you are always going to need some defensive skills yes, but the suggestion was that we need a "wide defensive arsenal", but if you are doing self protection properly you aren't going to be doing much defending.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Criminal are not (for the most part) highly trained martial artists. If they have time to notice your pre-emptive strike/sucker punch, identify it, defend it, and succesfully select and perform the appropriate coutner, then you must be telegaphing it horribly.

Work on that, and you probably aren't going to have to worry too much about being countered. Never say never of course, you are always going to need some defensive skills yes, but the suggestion was that we need a "wide defensive arsenal", but if you are doing self protection properly you aren't going to be doing much defending.

I suppose it depends more on how we define "wide defensive arsenal". My interpretation was having the ability to defend against and counter a broad range of attacks (punch, tackle, grab & punch, and so forth).

 

[Flying Crane]

I suppose it depends more on how we define "wide defensive arsenal". My interpretation was having the ability to defend against and counter a broad range of attacks (punch, tackle, grab & punch, and so forth).

I agree, and the idea behind the thread is, you ought to be able to defend against most of these things and fight back, using a pretty limited number of solid techniques. That's how I see it, anyways.

 

[Buka]

If all you learned how to do was punch straight you would bash most streetfighters.

Amen.

 

[Buka]

A combination of striking and grappling. That's what you need.

If I could do it over again, I would only practice Gracie Jiujitsu and Boxing.

Being able to train at Greg Jackson's gym would be pretty sweet as well.

If I could do it all over again I'm not sure I would.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If I could do it all over again I'm not sure I would.

I would at least skip the days where I dislocated fingers and toes.

 

[Flying Crane]

If I could do it all over again I'm not sure I would.

The thing is, most of us need to take that long journey before we can understand that the journey doesn't need to be so long.

If I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, I would do it differently. But if I did it differently, I wouldn't know what I know now. There has got to be a time-traveler's paradox in there.

 

[Buka]

The thing is, most of us need to take that long journey before we can understand that the journey doesn't need to be so long.

If I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, I would do it differently. But if I did it differently, I wouldn't know what I know now. There has got to be a time-traveler's paradox in there.

Quoted it because I just wanted to read it again. That should be in a book or something. I'm going to write that down and take it to work tonight.

 

[Buka]

I would at least skip the days where I dislocated fingers and toes.

Gotta' figure the number of fingers and toes injured by everyone on this forum over the years could overflow a witch's cauldron.

 

[Kickboxer101]

People here talking about what they'd do if they could do it all again you know what I'd do? Exactly the same thing as I've done now? Why? Nothing to do with self defence or me learning the best moves ever maybe I haven't and maybe I could've learnt more at other gyms or in other styles but you know why I wouldn't change it? Because I enjoy what I do plain and simple. I think some people get caught up In martial arts like its a job or something you have to do. Martial arts do train you in that stuff but if you're not enjoying it then what's the point I could be learning all these amazing perfect unbeatable self defence moves but if I hate it and am miserable because of it then what's the point. I train kenpo and kickboxing and that's all I'll ever train no matter what anyone says or whatever new styles come out. There's only one reason I'd quit what I'm doing and change it. That's if I wasn't having fun anymore.

I think people takes things to serious and get so uptight and defensive about their martial arts that's what causs arguments. People should just relax and have fun with what they do.

 

[Buka]

I don't really know of anyone who didn't enjoy their Martial Art experience. Nobody of any length of time anyway. I think a long run, toll on the body gives a perspective that a younger man might not understand.

Perhaps statements about doing it all over again are rhetorical. Perhaps the ones about too serious, uptight and defensive are reflective.

 

[punisher73]

I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?

If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.

It sounds like a faulty study based on the infamous "Hick's Law" that is always thrown out by RBSD folks. That was based on binary computers making choices and the difference in milliseconds was not a significant difference. It also did not take into play unconscious reaction that can be trained into a person.

On it's surface it sounds good, and for someone who doesn't train probably holds true.