Bill Wallace Article in Black Belt Mag

[Disco]

In the September issue of BBM, Bill (Superfoot) Wallace has written an article on "Dirty Fighting".

The position of his article is dealing with the notion of reasonable force. He says - "Some people say that you should use only the amount of force needed to end an altercation and that anything more is overkill. But I don't think there is such a thing as overkill. If someone threatens you, how do you know that they don't have a weapon? You have to be prepared for anything. When somebody confronts you on the street and says; I want your money. You don't know if he's alone or there are other's hiding. You don't know if there's a weapon. All you know is that someone wants to do you harm. If you see a target - whether it's the knees, throat, groin or eyes - you should hit it because you might never have that chance again. If you don't take advantage of your opponents mistakes, you could wind up DEAD".

He is basing this opinion on the way our society has changed. So many people with so many weapons and no reservations about using them.

What's your viewpoints on this? :asian:

 

[liangzhicheng]

Interesting question, Disco. I think that the answer to this relies on several variables. How skilled are you (not referring to Disco)? What is the current environment like? If you're highly skilled, and you can put him out of commission without seriously injuring your aggressor, then anything else might be excessive. If it's night out, and for all you know, there could be ten other guys hiding, seriously injuring the dude might give them second thoughts...or it might make them want to hurt you more since you just hurt their comrade. At lower levels, taking the vulnerable targets might be best since you might not ever get another chance. Then again, taking advantage of your opponent's mistakes does not imply seriously injuring them. On a sidenote, doesn't the body have built in defense mechanisms when the groin and eyes/head area are attacked? Another possible consideration is what the law will think of your response. What if he had no weapons and you jabbed his eye out? Bottom line for me is that it depends on the situation.

May we all be wise enough to avoid such confrontations, and strong enough to deal with them when they do occur.

 

[MJS]

Good queston and good points that were already brought up! I feel that while you may not know what you are facing, IE- weapons, number of attacker, etc, that it is still important to use as much force as whats being used against you. The same thing would go for a cop. If someone is resisting and started punching him, I really dont think that pulling his gun is the best response, especially when he has a baton, pepperspray, etc. But we are talking about a civilian, not a LEO.

Liang had a good point. Considering you dont know what you are facing, is poking the guys eyes out the correct thing to do if he is unarmed? Dont forget that the court system is really messed up and it always seems like even though you were trying to defend yourself, they will find you just as much at fault as the other guy.

IMO, if it is a life and death situation, and you have exhausted every option you have, then do what you have to do to get out of that situation. And if its taking his eye, then so be it. It's just something that you'll have to deal with later.

Mike

 

[sercuerdasfigther]

the thing about force is you can always pull back on the amount of force your using, but can't really raise it. what i mean is you counter attack hard and if he offers little resist then you low you level of force enough to just stop him,but if you start out to tenative you may not have the chance to raise your force (e.g you maybe dead).

 

[MJS]

Interesting thing that happened in one of the larger cities in CT. A guy was walking down the street talking on his cell. He was approached from behind by a guy, how I guess he thought was someone that knew him. When he realized that there were a group of kids behind him, who he didnt know, he continued to walk. They were attempting to take his cell phone. He refused to give up the phone. Well, long story short, he got hit on the back of the head with the butt end of a gun, and was then kicked and punched while he was on the ground. They eventually ran off. This guy received some bumps and bruises, as well as a knee injury.

Now, should he have just given up the phone? Many people say yes, due to the fact that a phone, money, car, etc. can be replaced. But, how do you know that by giving those things up, that you will not get hurt? Maybe after you hand over your money and car, the guy shoots you! This city that this happened in, is troubled a great deal with crime. I think, especially after 9/11, that people are tired of taking s***, and they decide to fight back. Now, this guy could have been killed over the phone, but lucky for him he wasnt.

Mike

 

[twinkletoes]

I don't think it's really because society has changed. I think this should always be the policy, period.

In the MA's we have this great idea that we can train ourselves to some skill level in which we can end a fight peacefully, by restraining or disarming an attacker in some flourish, like a slight-of-hand magician. It ain't gonna happen.

Violence is ugly. The sanitized view of a fight is gone. Fights are not clean exchanges. They are different all over the world. A fight in NYC is not the same as in Wichita, Kansas, or Rio de Janeiro, or Milan, Italy. In some places, the fight is not over until next week his friends run your girlfriend's car off the road. In some places, it's not over until they go to your workplace the next month and burn it down. And in the fight itself, nobody is going to "tap out" or say "wow, you are good. I yield to your supoerior skill." On the street it's about inflicting enough pain and damage that your attacker has no desire to come after you again.

I don't care if he's unarmed, and by himself. I can't prove that, and I don't want to wait until I'm proven wrong. I can defend that in a court of law, too. "I was in an unfamiliar environment, confronted by violence that I tried to avoid, and he forced a conflict on me. When I hit him, I tried to incapacitate him as quickly as possible, so that I could escape. I didn't know if he was armed, or if he had friends that were going to jump in, so my goal was to get out of there."

~TT

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by sercuerdasfigther
the thing about force is you can always pull back on the amount of force your using, but can't really raise it. what i mean is you counter attack hard and if he offers little resist then you low you level of force enough to just stop him,but if you start out to tenative you may not have the chance to raise your force (e.g you maybe dead).

Balintawak Concepts? or . . . ?
:asian:

 

[KennethKu]

IMHO, Learn how to incapicitate attackers without killing them. There is no need to crush someone's windpipe or poke out an eye the first chance you get.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by KennethKu
IMHO, Learn how to incapicitate attackers without killing them. There is no need to crush someone's windpipe or poke out an eye the first chance you get.

True! However, when all else fails and you have tried everything else, and your life or the life of a loved one is at stake, then you are left with no other option!

Mike

 

[sercuerdasfigther]

your not going to just subdue an aggressive attacker with a flip of the wrist while smoking a cigarette and smiling. if you want to stop an attacker then you assert yourself and stop him. t.v. and movies have to many people beliving that if you train you can stop a person without hurting them. if someone aggressivly attacks you get aggressive back, it's not your fault your better at it them him.

 

[twinkletoes]

Incapacitation is a MUCH harder method than people give it credit.

It's not like "Oh, I could learn to box, or I could learn Aikido, and they both have an equal chance of working, but I *like* to box, so I'll learn that." Throat crushing and eye poking did not come about because people said "Ya know, I like to immobilize people, but I WISH I could do it in a meaner way."

Combat is messy and chaotic. It is not training. It is not the comfort of the classroom or dojo. And things do not work. You'd better have a honkload of backup plans, and they'd better be hard enough to drop someone.

I'm ALL for immobilization techniques when you can use them. That's why I do BJJ (that and for the escapes). However, they are VERY VERY difficult to use "for real," and we all know how much people get up in arms about the idea of groundfighting on the streets.

I think it's great to study that stuff. However, I think people often take a stance that we "ought to be working on X because it is more humane" without really going out and trying it against a large enough variety of resisting opponents. Often, it turns out that it doesn't work, or that it doesn't work without a different delivery system. (I've been hit with aikido's sankyo, but from side mount, and by someone who really knew how to use it there!).

~TT

 

[MJS]

Another thing to keep in mind- How many of us practice the eye pokes, groin kicks, etc. while doing a tech., but the real question is, can we actually bring ourselves to do it in actual combat? The thought of sticking your fingers in someones eyes, and I"m not talking about a quick flick, I'm talking about actually gouging the eyes, might not be easy for some. The thought of it might make some sick. You see it many times with cops. Yeah, they do their target shooting, but there are many times, when they freeze when they are really in a life/death situation. The thought of taking another human life is something to seriously consider.

Mike

 

[arnisador]

My JKD instructor emphasizes the eye techniques.

As an aside, I was always a big Bill Wallace fan!

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by arnisador
My JKD instructor emphasizes the eye techniques.

As an aside, I was always a big Bill Wallace fan!

Don't get me wrong. I"m not saying I'm against eye tech. I was referring to actually bringing yourself to actually doing them. For example, we all practice knife disarms, but if you needed to defend your self with a knife, would you actually be able to bring yoruself to thrust that knife into someone?

Again, I'm not disputing the effectiveness of them, just saying that there might be some people that might get grossed out at the thought of thrusting their fingers into someones eyes.

Mike

 

[arnisador]

Training my young son (then 12 years), he got so grossed out by the eye-attacks discussion that I had to stop.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by arnisador
Training my young son (then 12 years), he got so grossed out by the eye-attacks discussion that I had to stop.

And this is the question that I was asking. In the article Wallace talks about dirty fighting. IMO, that referrs to eye gouging, biting, etc. While we often "simulate" these moves in SD tech. would we, in a life and death situation, actually be able to do them? While the thought of biting someone, esp. with the chance of getting blood in your mouth or a disease, is it worth doing something as drastic as this? I know its easy for us to sit here and say, yeah, I'd do this or that. Sure, its easy cuz we are not in that situation, we are relaxed. How are we going to act if our lives depend on it?

Mike