Why Krav Maga when nothing is enough?
- Thread starter marques
- Start date
What does krav maga have to do with the link? I'm not seeing the relation
Her and the man with the chair were lucky the gunman was a wimp that didn't want to shoot. A lot of guys wouldn't hesitate to put a few rounds in them.
Still don't see the relation to martial arts in general. As far as I know, neither person practiced a martial art. One guy couldnt/didnt pull the trigger, the lady called the bluff. What about krav/martial arts is not enough?
lklawson
Grandmaster
What point are you trying to make?
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
OP
marques
Master Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #10
My point was:
Gun disarming may have application in real world (en plus, where I lived), contradicting my belief that it is 'impossible' and this situation 'never' happens. And the woman in fact had the opportunity to disarm the guy... Also, it was fun.
You can make your points.
lklawson
Grandmaster
I was trying to figure out yours, not make one of my own.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Ah, I understand now, I misunderstood what you were originally saying.
Training may not have been necessary in this encounter, but there are plenty of other times when a lack of training would have been very risky/result in the person being killed/hurt/raped/etc. There are times when it won't help, but your chances are better if you have training
Training may not have been necessary in this encounter, but there are plenty of other times when a lack of training would have been very risky/result in the person being killed/hurt/raped/etc. There are times when it won't help, but your chances are better if you have training
Feel free to disagree.
Moi?
Mothers and she is one you can tell by the way she's holding the child, are prepared for anything and will take on anyone, mothers are fierce.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
The specter of confirmation bias in self defense rears its ugly head again. She is lucky she survived, if untrained, or proof her particular style of MA works if she is trained. Of course, if she had not survived, she would be either unlucky or she should have taken some classes in {insert whatever art you teach}.
Are you contending that physical defensive training is not effective? Not useful? There's no confirmation bias in the statement that she was lucky. I (and most martial artists I know) would say the same thing for anyone who survives a gun attack, regardless of their training.
And, if she had training, and if the training showed in a response (using techniques and principles from her training) then it would, in fact, be some reasonable evidence of effectiveness (in that specific situation) for that training.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I think there's no incentive for martial arts instructors to explore other possibilities.
I contend that there is a self serving bias when reviewing any scenario like this. There are only four possibilities ever entertained, often without or in some cases contrary to statistical evidence.
1: the person is trained in a style (any style) and survives. This is evidence that the style is effective.
2: this same person does not survive. Bad luck and certainly not evidence that the style is ineffective.
3: The person is untrained and survives. He/she is lucky.
4: This untrained person does not survive. Should have trained.
This is pretty much how these discussions go. This is a 3 but could be a1, as tez suggests.
As I said, the martial artists I know would be more likely to say, "Good thing that person had training - got lucky and survived that one!" They see the training as contributing, but the situation is low-percentage, so training is a help but not an assurance.
You say there's no incentive for martial artists to look for other explanations, but I'd argue that. For skeptical martial artists (those who are not simply taking everything at face value - including one of my favorite students), and for the open-minded martial artists (those who love to learn from every source they can find - including me), there is much incentive to look for what worked. I haven't looked at the video yet, but when I do, I'll be looking for what worked, what seemed to not have an effect, and what seemed to create a more dangerous situation in the moment, and what could have been different in the situation to change any of those three classifications. I do that regardless of whether the clip is of a martial artist or of an untrained person. I think I'm not alone in that.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Okay. My experience is that it always comes back to one of these four explanations, which is well documented in several years of reading these threads. I look forward to your non-self serving analysis, where you don't start discussing all of the things you teach that would actually have helped her survive better, or the things that she did wrong that still worked, but you teach your students never to do.
I contend that this confrontation is a 3 on your list of 4. If it was considered a 1, as Tez contends, then you have to consider the shooters lack of nerve, or lack of skill, for her surviving.
And let's not discount the guy with the chair. For we all know that a chair will always stop a flurry of bullets
