MMA fighter in court over one punch death.

[drop bear]

We don't at this stage know if he trains in anything by the way. Self confessed mma fighters are as abundant as self confessed lawyers in the night club world.

The guy does not have a fight record.

 

[drop bear]

Oh yes, choking. I introduced that purely to note that choking is not a good option in a street fight in Australia as it can attract an attempted murder charge and a long period of incarceration. Better not to choke or punch at all in most cases.

We get hit up with the no choking no punching thing a bit. The funny thing is that there is no mention of the dangerous nature of being choked or punched.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

There is no disconnect. The smallest part of self defence requires the most training to become proficient. The most important part of SD training is what you posted earlier, common sense.

To me, we need to keep drilling the simple aspects of SD while we are training our martial art.

Absolutely drilling it over and over again. Every class talk about details and like this case talk about a court case that already happened and created a precedent for future legal considerations. Using your common sense, being aware, avoiding potentially dangerous situations, etc. You cannot talk enough about personal protection and what we can and cannot do that would be justifiable under our countries laws. Unfortunately it is glossed over by some but you, I, Chris, jks9199, Elder999 and more keep the light lit and spread the word!

 

[K-man]

Do you do background checks on potential students? We do not. And it could be argued that some of those most in need of the self control and self discipline we at least try to teach are those who would fail a background check.

I don't do background checks but I do interview and I have knocked people back. I can say categorically that this guy would not have ever become a student of mine whether he needed that sort of training or not.

What is taught, what is absorbed, what is retained, and what is applied in a crisis are four different things. Most schools are primarily about teaching people to defend themselves in a fight. This is self-evident. I don't think I've ever known anyone promoted for their mastery of Run-Fu, although it's certainly something we encourage.

Agreed.

Do you test and promote based on avoidance techniques, or on combat techniques?

I didn't grade anyone for their self defence skills because I don't run formal self defence classes unless by request. These guys might though as they are all wearing coloured belts ...

Not that they are demonstrating self defence.

This was not a consensual fight. This was a bystander who was assaulted.

I didn't suggest it was. I said the post was for the benefit of those who condone consensual fights.

This is one of those "well DUH" statements. A significant portion of those who are out for a good time include drugs as part of that good time. Alcohol, it should be remembered, is a drug.

No it's not. It was 9pm at night in one of Australia's most popular night spots. There is nothing to suggest that the victim, or anyone other than the perpetrator, had been drinking. The big problem here, and in many other places, is 'ice'. The kids offering drugs were probably selling some form of amphetamine.

This is a sad case, and I admit that from my point of view, the correct charge would be manslaughter (since I really doubt Mr MMA intended to kill anyone), but that's a matter of local law. Not my opinion.

What Mr MMA intended is a mute point now. He has pleaded not guilty to murder and guilty of manslaughter.

People on drugs do stupid things.
Innocent people can be hurt by those stupid things.
Laws are not intended to protect those innocent bystanders, nor are they capable of doing so. They're only intended to punish the person who did the stupid thing.

That's pretty much all I can get from this scenario.

I think this guys record and his posts on Facebook prove he is stupid, full stop.

Interesting comment on what the laws are intended to do. I might have argued that a law designed to prosecute someone for hurting or killing another may well be in place to protect people. Having a law that fines you $300 for going through a red light won't stop you running a red light but is sure as hell makes you think about not doing it.

 

[drop bear]

I don't do background checks but I do interview and I have knocked people back. I can say categorically that this guy would not have ever become a student of mine whether he needed that sort of training or not.

What do you think would have been the red flags that prevented him from training with you?

 

[drop bear]

Forgive me I was not aware there was a straight KO (I can not have access to most links from here and was going by what I read of others)..

Agree with you my point is not valid. Though anecdotally I have seen KO blow concluded with soft back breakfall I do not know how this happen and but I do recall an elbow strike -accidental- where uke was KO but some how or other deployed the old mat slap.. Interestingly for me this was a colleague who -like me- had long prior stopped mat slapping because we were told in no uncertain terms of its unnecessary inefficiency.. so what happen was either old muscle memory, pure coincidence or maybe I am just day dreaming ? Jx

Learning to fall is only going to help. And is good advice. I mean we can find all sorts of references to occasions where trained falling would have made no difference.

And on that topic circumstances where trained awareness and de-escalation makes no difference.

And some times where the difference does hinge on your ability to fight.

These real life discussions can be difficult because we can pick apart what the victim could have done differently. But then the aggressor may have done something different in response.

The guy who died hardly deserves a Darwin award. He just got caught. And if you engage in enough risk then getting caught can happen.

I mean we are still looking at this risk as something more extreme than a car accident. And yet we engage in that risk without concern.

 

[drop bear]

By the way. All this punching and no exploding hands?

I wonder why that was?

 

[K-man]

What do you think would have been the red flags that prevented him from training with you?

For me, the tats. Nah, just kidding.

I think in this case would be the demeanour and attitude. If you read his Facebook page he really is a piece of work. I don't think most of that sort of stuff could be concealed in conversation. I think enough bells would be ringing to ask if he had ever been in trouble with the law and what for. Not totally PC but I can live with that.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I didn't grade anyone for their self defence skills because I don't run formal self defence classes unless by request. These guys might though as they are all wearing coloured belts ...



Not that they are demonstrating self defence.

Self defense championship - a bit of an oxymoron.

 

[Jenna]

Learning to fall is only going to help. And is good advice. I mean we can find all sorts of references to occasions where trained falling would have made no difference.

And on that topic circumstances where trained awareness and de-escalation makes no difference.

And some times where the difference does hinge on your ability to fight.

My question of you DB would be if there are situations like you say where trained falling / trained awareness and de-escalation make no difference then 1. presumably the same potential situation exists also that negates your ability to fight - there will ALWAYS be some one bigger and badder than you? and 2. what is the point in training any of this when there are circumstances out there that negate it all? Are all of us just playing odds and stats games? Interested in your thoughts Jx

 

[drop bear]

My question of you DB would be if there are situations like you say where trained falling / trained awareness and de-escalation make no difference then 1. presumably the same potential situation exists also that negates your ability to fight - there will ALWAYS be some one bigger and badder than you? and 2. what is the point in training any of this when there are circumstances out there that negate it all? Are all of us just playing odds and stats games? Interested in your thoughts Jx

Yeah but you don't fight because you can beat someone. You fight because there is something important you are willing to fight for.

And then you roll the dice and take your chances.

 

[Steve]

There is no disconnect. The smallest part of self defence requires the most training to become proficient. The most important part of SD training is what you posted earlier, common sense.

To me, we need to keep drilling the simple aspects of SD while we are training our martial art.

See, this is a disconnect. Have you guys ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It's not scientific... more of a philosophy that speaks to general truths. Your post reminds me of it, and that's not necessarily a good thing. If most of your training is spent learning the thing that you are really expecting to do the least, then IMO, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Particularly when the stakes are as high as personal safety and self defense.

In the pillars of self defense thread, many people, including you, point to a lot of things that are unrelated to fighting. And even the fighting skills are of dubious use, because as I learned reading Andrastea's excellent post on women's safety, the fighting aspects of ALL training rely upon presumptions about the context. So, it may be you're spending a lot of time learning the WRONG kind of fighting. We see this articulated around here all the time when it comes to competition vs self defense discussions. But, having read the matter of fact, common sense that Andrasea posted, it's clear that even programs sincerely intended to deliver quality self defense training may be teaching the wrong kind of fighting.

But most (and I believe all, but didn't re-read the entire thread) acknolwedge that fighting is the last resort, and that so much more goes in to self defense. Soft skills like deescalation, communication, situational awareness. Other things like making good choices, having a wing man. A lot of non-fighting related things go into avoiding self defense situations in the first place. I think you even said that fighting is what happens when your self defense skills have all failed. Something like that.

It would seem to me that if you're really, seriously about training for self defense, most of the time you spend in training should be on the things that you will really need day to day. And a small amount of time should be spent on the things you are likely never to need. Or said plainly, if you do everything else well, you will likely never need to fight.

Now, this odesn't mean you shouldn't learn to fight if you want to, or that it has no value. Rather, it puts it into context, where it belongs relative to the REALLY important self defense skills that actually matter, according to you guys as stated in the thread on the pillars of self defense.

So, really, there is a disconnect. 80% of self defense training focuses on something that is only useful 20% of the time. That's what the 80/20 rule would say. But, really, that's being very generous. Particularly in a country that is as safe as you allege, where you are enacting severe punishments based upon an average of 6 unintentional (if avoidable) deaths per year, nationally.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Steve, not quite sure on that. I think you also have to account what people can learn intellectually whether from a written or verbal presentation in a period of time. In comparison to what someone can also learn physically and use in a period of time. It is actually and this is from experience easy to build on general common sense and cover basic legal considerations regarding personal protection than it is to impart a physical skill set. In my basic Scenario Based Training Intensives I spend a good 45 minutes to an hour going through Awareness, Avoidance, self defense legal implications, etc. People tend to pick this up quickly and leave with handouts and rough knowledge that will serve them well. They pick up things so quickly that they can apply them in "real time" and adrenalized during the scenarios. (verbal de-escalation, avoidance, etc.) Then I spend roughly two hours imparting generally gross motor movements in the air and then on thai pads like the jab, cross, hook, elbows, knees, ground work like the sprawl, scissor sweep with strikes and getting up, bump and roll when mounted to getting up, etc. All of the above are taught with the idea of getting out of there immediately when possible. You will not see kicks there because I personally feel it is a much harder skill set to develop and cannot be done quickly. Then an hour working with the Predator Armour where the trainees can apply what they have learned against an aggressive or crazy, or dating friend, etc. in a Scenario Based Training simulation where we work to get their adrenaline going. Which could require them to use awareness, avoidance, verbal skills, de-escalation techniques, physical action, etc. The key thing in regards to your observation is that in order to just do simple gross motor movements someone has to invest a serious amount of time and effort into learning them and of course continued training in order to maintain those skill sets. On the intellectual side it is easy to teach, train and maintain awareness, avoidance skills and build on common sense. Once you have a base it is more about looking at what new legal issues might arise from a new court case, new law, etc. Yet, the intellectual side, common sense, etc. I feel is easier to maintain and a lot easier to learn. ( for most people )

 

[Buka]

I think "Soft skills like deescalation, communication, situational awareness. Other things like making good choices, having a wing man" etc are all part of self defense training. The actual "fight itself" that may or may not ever happen, however, can have more of a down side than most other parts of the equation. That's always been why I've trained it as much as I have. Just choice I guess. And far more fascinating (fun, even) than everything else.

 

[Steve]

Hey Steve, not quite sure on that. I think you also have to account what people can learn intellectually whether from a written or verbal presentation in a period of time. In comparison to what someone can also learn physically and use in a period of time. It is actually and this is from experience easy to build on general common sense and cover basic legal considerations regarding personal protection than it is to impart a physical skill set. In my basic Scenario Based Training Intensives I spend a good 45 minutes to an hour going through Awareness, Avoidance, self defense legal implications, etc. People tend to pick this up quickly and leave with handouts and rough knowledge that will serve them well. They pick up things so quickly that they can apply them in "real time" and adrenalized during the scenarios. (verbal de-escalation, avoidance, etc.) Then I spend roughly two hours imparting generally gross motor movements in the air and then on thai pads like the jab, cross, hook, elbows, knees, ground work like the sprawl, scissor sweep with strikes and getting up, bump and roll when mounted to getting up, etc. All of the above are taught with the idea of getting out of there immediately when possible. You will not see kicks there because I personally feel it is a much harder skill set to develop and cannot be done quickly. Then an hour working with the Predator Armour where the trainees can apply what they have learned against an aggressive or crazy, or dating friend, etc. in a Scenario Based Training simulation where we work to get their adrenaline going. Which could require them to use awareness, avoidance, verbal skills, de-escalation techniques, physical action, etc. The key thing in regards to your observation is that in order to just do simple gross motor movements someone has to invest a serious amount of time and effort into learning them and of course continued training in order to maintain those skill sets. On the intellectual side it is easy to teach, train and maintain awareness, avoidance skills and build on common sense. Once you have a base it is more about looking at what new legal issues might arise from a new court case, new law, etc. Yet, the intellectual side, common sense, etc. I feel is easier to maintain and a lot easier to learn. ( for most people )

Brian, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments. I think we might disagree on a few important points here, which are relevant to how we're approaching the issue. I believe that most people think they have more common sense than they actually have. I believe that soft skills, including written and verbal skills, are practical skills and not intellectual ones. Learning how to assess a situation, read body language, and influence people is not an abstract. It is concrete, if subtle. Further, the subtleties of soft skills require far more considered, deliberate, and thoughtful practice than a sprawl, a scissor sweep or a strike.

Honestly, my conclusion based strictly on what you guys are saying, combined with my experience training and mentoring new supervisors and leaders, is that truly the physical component of self defense should be viewed as optional. If, truly, fightin is a symptom that your self defense skills have failed you, as has been suggested by k-man more than once, than fighting isn't self defense. Fighting is the consequence. And so, time spent learning, developing, cultivating communications skills, avoiding (or at least identifying) destructive or risky personal behaviors. These are the things that are going to be of most use to most people. This is particularly true where violence is rare.

Edit: This isn't to say that building fighting skills isn't valuable, or anything like that. I just wonder if we place an elevated level of importance on fighting skills because it's so overt.

 

[drop bear]

See, this is a disconnect. Have you guys ever heard of the 80/20 rule? It's not scientific... more of a philosophy that speaks to general truths. Your post reminds me of it, and that's not necessarily a good thing. If most of your training is spent learning the thing that you are really expecting to do the least, then IMO, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Particularly when the stakes are as high as personal safety and self defense.

In the pillars of self defense thread, many people, including you, point to a lot of things that are unrelated to fighting. And even the fighting skills are of dubious use, because as I learned reading Andrastea's excellent post on women's safety, the fighting aspects of ALL training rely upon presumptions about the context. So, it may be you're spending a lot of time learning the WRONG kind of fighting. We see this articulated around here all the time when it comes to competition vs self defense discussions. But, having read the matter of fact, common sense that Andrasea posted, it's clear that even programs sincerely intended to deliver quality self defense training may be teaching the wrong kind of fighting.

But most (and I believe all, but didn't re-read the entire thread) acknolwedge that fighting is the last resort, and that so much more goes in to self defense. Soft skills like deescalation, communication, situational awareness. Other things like making good choices, having a wing man. A lot of non-fighting related things go into avoiding self defense situations in the first place. I think you even said that fighting is what happens when your self defense skills have all failed. Something like that.

It would seem to me that if you're really, seriously about training for self defense, most of the time you spend in training should be on the things that you will really need day to day. And a small amount of time should be spent on the things you are likely never to need. Or said plainly, if you do everything else well, you will likely never need to fight.

Now, this odesn't mean you shouldn't learn to fight if you want to, or that it has no value. Rather, it puts it into context, where it belongs relative to the REALLY important self defense skills that actually matter, according to you guys as stated in the thread on the pillars of self defense.

So, really, there is a disconnect. 80% of self defense training focuses on something that is only useful 20% of the time. That's what the 80/20 rule would say. But, really, that's being very generous. Particularly in a country that is as safe as you allege, where you are enacting severe punishments based upon an average of 6 unintentional (if avoidable) deaths per year, nationally.

The other comparison I make is comparing soft skills to soft skills. And in general if we look at a dedicated soft skill like sales training. It is a comprehensive system trained very much like fighting in martial arts.

You have ploys and counters and counters to the counters and so on.

And I don't see that level of complexity in SD.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think we would have to agree to disagree here or we are talking around each other. I have also like you managed and trained hundreds of people work related including entry and supervisory level. Intellectual based skills whether written, verbal de-escalation, common sense, etc. are in general easier to teach, quicker to retain and do not require the number of hours upon hours upon hours of training to maintain. Case in point when I was teaching a companies force continuum on arrests and legally what a citizen could do we covered it quickly and they retained the knowledge for a lengthy period of time before a refresher was necessary. Body language is easy to pick up with some minor training but of course it will need to be reinforced in training. Hence continuous training and reminding is necessary as well but not to the degree that physical training is necessary. Whereas physical skills are readily depreciable and if you do not consistently train them watch how fast they disappear. Example case in point at one time I was a very good basketball player. Five years after not having played my skills were atrocious by my standards and probably any basketball players standards. If you tell someone for personal safety to not go out on a first date by themselves with someone but instead to double date with a friend. They can remember that forever from one five minute conversation. Teach them a sprawl or any other physical skill set and they will not only have to practice it then but also practice to maintain it. Not to mention the physical dynamic of utilizing it against another person in the appropriate space and time and under an adrenaline dump.

What we can agree on is that both require training and work on them. Good programs on personal protection spend quite a bit of time on both allotting the amount that is needed. K-man does this, I do this, Chris Parker by all accounts does this as well, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of programs purporting to teach self-defense do not necessarily cover any of the mental, verbal skills needed.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

One of our great members here Tgace made this short video showing unconscious threat indicators that are easily picked up and identified. Of course they have to be practiced but not as much as a physical skill set.

 

[Steve]

I think we would have to agree to disagree here or we are talking around each other. I have also like you managed and trained hundreds of people work related including entry and supervisory level. Intellectual based skills whether written, verbal de-escalation, common sense, etc. are in general easier to teach, quicker to retain and do not require the number of hours upon hours upon hours of training to maintain.

Just have a minute. I always enjoy reading your posts, but want to respond just to this part for now.

Just as a really quick example, I can tell a new supervisor how to deliver effective feedback to an employee in just a few minutes. In 30 minutes, I can cover a process or formula for delivering effective feedback, including information about how to avoid judgemental feedback and all kinds of practical tips and considerations. But, teaching or coaching someone to deliver effective feedback takes much longer. in the same way, I can tell you how to do a sprawl in 30 seconds.

And the larger issue here... the disconnect, remains. If we're spending most of our time on the thing that is the least likely to be used, there's an issue. It's like trying to teach someone to read, but spending 99% of your time together showing them the intricacies of the Dewey Decimal system, just in case they ever need it in order to find a book.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Steve, I see where you are going and believe it or not there are a few Reality Based Self Defense instructors out there who predominantly only deal with non-physical skill sets. In general what teach is okay but..... because they do not have balance in their training and what they teach they overall do a poor job for their students if things go violent. I would advise anyone seeking effective personal protection skill sets to find someone who is teaching and has balance in their approach. I agree with the point that you can tell someone to do a sprawl or any physical technique quickly but..... they probably won't be able to do it in real time and with resistance and also with an adrenaline dump. Then we also have to get into individual types of people that are training for self defense which is much broader than say a competitive martial system. It could be a soccer mom, computer programer, elderly lady, disabled person, etc. I would also say if you look at your BJJ training in many ways it is self selecting for people picking up physical techniques at an acceptable level in class. Because if they do not they probably either never showed up for training or left quickly. Though of course their will always be someone who does stick around who struggles but they are an exception on average. In other words your dealing with a population that in general is pretty athletic. Certainly this is my experience in BJJ and many martial systems. So they may pick up things very fast and also be able to use it. Just like an executive learning intellectual skill sets may pick them up even quicker. Not everyone who falls into a prey category will be athletic and they may already suffer from an extreme disadvantage to a predator. (size, strength, ambush, etc.) I personally specialize in small group classes or one on one training which allows me to tailor what I do to the individual. Sure I have the occasional large group class of a seminar or intensive but mostly if someone wants to work with me it will be one on one or a couple of people. This allows me to tailor things to the individual whether they are new to training or have been training for twenty plus years!

I will agree with you though that some people are disconnected from reality of what they are trying to accomplish in regards to personal protection. I am just not sure if the 80/20 is necessarily the right approach based on how difficult physical skill sets can be to develop for some people. I would also argue that the amount of mental training in comparison to physical training will vary on each individual!