This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.
The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.
That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.
The biggest problem you have is the vast majority of MA are male, and their only experience of violence is consensual fighting, either in the ring, in the dojo or in the street. To many of them therefore, the only situation they can understand is men fighting each other, to them that, and only that, is SD.
If you can't even get them to accept that sending your Gran to the nearest MMA club is not what she needs to learn to stop a thief stealing her handbag, how can you hope to have people accept what can and cannot work for SD.
MA will often not make the effort to understand how muggers chose their victims, and therefore learn what to do, and what not to do to avoid being selected as a victim. Instead they will wait until they have been selected as a victim, and then talk about how they would "fight" a mugger if they turned around after taking money out of cash machines and found someone standing heir holding a knife.
How many times to we see people posting videos of SD techniques, which consist entirely of people defending punches, grabs, weapons etc, and totally ignoring everything that has happened that has lead up to the point where a punch was thrown. Why, because they don't have the SD skills to deal with that, they on,y have fighting skills, so that is all they can understand.
The other problem you have is that with training, or sporting contests, people can see what works, either in their own training or on TV. They therefore think that what works for a consensual fight works for SD. You cannot therefore explain to them that a triangle choke is not ideal for SD. They know it works, they done it in training, and they've seen it on TV. It's only when they take a mugger to the ground and his accomplice, who they didn't notice was stood nearby (because they have no Threat Awareness and Evaluation skills) stomps their head flat, that they realise it is not a good technique for SD. And if you do tell them, they don't hear, "a triangle choke is great for the ring, but not idea for SD" that isn't what they hear. What they hear is - triangle chokes don't work under any circumstances, and your chosen martial art is ****. They then react on that basis, completely missing the point.
Even when you do have video evidence of consensual fighting skills failing for SD (Miquelon Falcoa & Kaue Mena as the most famous example) people who only have consensual fighting skills, will dismiss it it as evidence that consensual fighting skills are not the best fit for SD, because they are unable or unwilling to understand how and why others skills are more appropriate. So if you can't get them to accept other skills may be more appropriate, how can you hope to get them to agree on what does and does not work?
On others points, take Aikido for example, it is constantly put forward that Aikido does not work for SD. Yet if you ask people if they honestly and truly believe that no one ever has been able to use aikido to defend themselves in the entire history of the art, they will admit that yes probably some people may have been able to do it in certain circumstances, but will then continue us to insist that it does not work for SD based purely on the fact it does not work for scoring pointless in a consensual fight/ sporting contest, and conveniently ignoring the fact that it is not designed for scoring points in a sporting contest. Because to them if it's not a fight, it's not SD.
So, the issue you have, in short, is that because most male MA only have fighting skills, and their only experience of violence is consensual sport fighting or consensual pub brawls, they will only ever accept the view point that if it doesn't not work for a counsel or sport fight, then it doesn not work for SD. And no amount of real (let alone anecdotal) evidence will ever change their mind.
