Can we train EVERY defensive scenario?
- Thread starter Jenna
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hi,
The idea of physically training against every possible attack is in and of itself a dangerous concept. Typically, it comes from either a place of fear (if I don't train against every attack, I will be attacked by the one I haven't trained) or a place of over-thinking. Both of these can be very dangerous in a real situation. Obviously, fear will shape your interpretation and responses to an attack, as will any emotional extreme (hence phrases such as "frozen with fear", "blind with rage" etc), which is where the Japanese concept of Mushin (no mind/no thought - something I personally interpret as a lack of prejudgement and expectation, allowing you to naturally respond to the reality in front of yourself) comes into it. Over-thinking can be as bad, in that if you are thinking about what to do, or what is happening, instead of responding in the moment, then you are trapped inside your own head, and will be unaware of the events outside (such as the fist travelling towards your face).
So how do we counter this situation? As others have said, the training has to be based on things other than "techniques". A few terms have been used already, and I will re-use them here, but I would like to add a little. People have already mentioned the use of tactics, so I thought I might expand on exactly what a tactic is, as opposed to a strategy or a technique. Essentially, a strategy is plan of action (ie - get home safe, my personal strategy in the majority of situations), a tactic is the method used to execute the strategy (evasive actions, blocking, counter-striking, attacks, fakes etc), and the techniques are the specific movements or actions utilised (low shin kick, outside wrist lock, cross-step etc).
So, to get the most out of your training, you should always look at anything you are shown in the context above. A particular training experience (drill, technique, pattern, routine, etc) is just one possible expression of a strategy and tactic, utilising particular techinques (the essential difference between any two martial arts is more found in their strategies and tactics than their techniques, by the way. The techniques are merely dictated by the tactics). For example, a technique/drill against a stepping right hook punch to the head may have the strategy of "respond so as to stop the attackers ability to continue", with the tactic of "evade and grapple", and the techniques of "ducking evasion", "turning throw", and "stomp to ribs". Another art may, against the same attack, have the strategy of "evade and escape safely", with the tactic of "evasive angling", and the techniques of "evasive sliding step", "palm deflection" etc, and so on.
This is the essence of all training.
As others have mentioned, this is often refered to as training principles rather than techniques, but I feel that as instructors, it is our duty to guide students to be able to see these aspects themselves. Each and every technique/drill should be an example of the principles of the art, but these are simply another name for the application of the strategies and tactics.
So can we train against all types of attacks? In the end, yes. But not by physically going up against all the different types of attack, instead, by instilling in the training the strategies, tactics, and principles expressed through the various techniques of a particular art so that there is always a response which has been trained. And that comes from truly understanding your art, as well as the type of attack you may face. As I'm sure we all remember, from The Art of War (Sun Tzu), if you know yourself and you know your enemy, you will be victorious in 1000 battles...
The idea of physically training against every possible attack is in and of itself a dangerous concept. Typically, it comes from either a place of fear (if I don't train against every attack, I will be attacked by the one I haven't trained) or a place of over-thinking. Both of these can be very dangerous in a real situation. Obviously, fear will shape your interpretation and responses to an attack, as will any emotional extreme (hence phrases such as "frozen with fear", "blind with rage" etc), which is where the Japanese concept of Mushin (no mind/no thought - something I personally interpret as a lack of prejudgement and expectation, allowing you to naturally respond to the reality in front of yourself) comes into it. Over-thinking can be as bad, in that if you are thinking about what to do, or what is happening, instead of responding in the moment, then you are trapped inside your own head, and will be unaware of the events outside (such as the fist travelling towards your face).
So how do we counter this situation? As others have said, the training has to be based on things other than "techniques". A few terms have been used already, and I will re-use them here, but I would like to add a little. People have already mentioned the use of tactics, so I thought I might expand on exactly what a tactic is, as opposed to a strategy or a technique. Essentially, a strategy is plan of action (ie - get home safe, my personal strategy in the majority of situations), a tactic is the method used to execute the strategy (evasive actions, blocking, counter-striking, attacks, fakes etc), and the techniques are the specific movements or actions utilised (low shin kick, outside wrist lock, cross-step etc).
So, to get the most out of your training, you should always look at anything you are shown in the context above. A particular training experience (drill, technique, pattern, routine, etc) is just one possible expression of a strategy and tactic, utilising particular techinques (the essential difference between any two martial arts is more found in their strategies and tactics than their techniques, by the way. The techniques are merely dictated by the tactics). For example, a technique/drill against a stepping right hook punch to the head may have the strategy of "respond so as to stop the attackers ability to continue", with the tactic of "evade and grapple", and the techniques of "ducking evasion", "turning throw", and "stomp to ribs". Another art may, against the same attack, have the strategy of "evade and escape safely", with the tactic of "evasive angling", and the techniques of "evasive sliding step", "palm deflection" etc, and so on.
This is the essence of all training.
As others have mentioned, this is often refered to as training principles rather than techniques, but I feel that as instructors, it is our duty to guide students to be able to see these aspects themselves. Each and every technique/drill should be an example of the principles of the art, but these are simply another name for the application of the strategies and tactics.
So can we train against all types of attacks? In the end, yes. But not by physically going up against all the different types of attack, instead, by instilling in the training the strategies, tactics, and principles expressed through the various techniques of a particular art so that there is always a response which has been trained. And that comes from truly understanding your art, as well as the type of attack you may face. As I'm sure we all remember, from The Art of War (Sun Tzu), if you know yourself and you know your enemy, you will be victorious in 1000 battles...
Oh I like that very much!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #24
Thank you all for taking the time to read and to reply. I am very grateful 
I appreciate what Chris Parker says about the dangers of over-thinking, certainly and but I would argue that were it an impossible task to cover EVERY scenario then I would not give it any thought. And but I believe that it is within the bounds of possibility to discern a viable solution to this for each of us as individuals.
Seasoned, Sukerkin & Archangel M, have suggested an idea which I very much like about the utilisation of fewer technical options multi-purpose tools. And but I would see what you are suggesting as a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down if you excuse the design jargon. Bear with me if you can... Adaptation and extension of our technical martial tools is necessary for this approach, absolutely, no argument (K-Man suggests training "instinctive" responses and leveraging those. MJS has mirrored my own ideas and suggested positioning, stacking the attackers - I love that line and using multiple opponent interference). And but I think if we do not FIRST consider where their need is mandated, ie. which situations we are likely to face and which modes of attack we are likely to face therein, then how can we be certain that we have adapted those tools correctly for the task that we eventually need them? Goodness, does that make sense? It has rolled around in my head and found the hole to drop in
As tshadowchaser has said, we can never have enough time to go over every scenario and but is it not the case that we will never NEED to. See I just worry that if we do NOT consider these infinite possibilities (by whittling them into what we can handle and training for what we cannot yet handle), then we risk leaving ourselves short. I just think it is too easy to say that handling every situation is impossible and leave it in the hands of statistics. I do not know. Stickarts has said that this necessatitates something 'beyond the defined curriculum' or something more akin to a 'defined thought process'. MJS suggests gearing the training to the individual, and I could not agree more. To be considering something of this scope (to defend ourselves against EVERY scenario) is outside the remit of standardised class. I appreciate that most of us have certain class etiquette and formatting and but I do not think this question should be disregarded by each of us because of that.
What I am suggesting is that we take time to evaluate the likely or potential situations that we may find ourselves in - that will eliminate many unnecessary scenarios (as Deaf Smith has said, bomb alert situations are perhaps unlikely - though of course that depends upon the individual again!) I think once we are at that stage, we can consider the methods of attack for those situations that we may well encounter. And from that we can derive a set of viable techniques (based upon simple standards and extensions of those standard techs) that will cover EVERY situation for each of us as individuals. And I know that set will be unique to each of us. I am not sure if that makes sense? I ask because I do not believe that this is an impossible task in itself. I think we it is possible to plane off all the complex branches and leave us with a usable set.
I am not suggesting that use of extending and adapting simple techs (punch from block, takedown opp#1 to obstruct opp#2 etc.) is easily acquired knowledge. And but I do think that by considering what initially appears to be a tall order we can come closer to realising the reality of defending every scenario. Moreover, I think it is a comforting feeling to have considered our defense so thoroughly.
On the tactics and techniques that Archangel M & Andy Moynihan & Chris Parker have mentioned - oh yes I would be in complete agreement insofar as tactical elements can overarch (and but not supplant) the technical. I think I like your points because using the top-down approach to the question, tactical concerns would be top. And but I am still wondering though, a level down, is is not possible (with the question of EVERY scenario still in mind) to split those infinite situational possibilities into 'likely' and 'unlikely', and further split the likely modes of attack into simpler, handleable defensive techniques (as K-Man points out, "The first six most common assaults" are generally predictable)? This then continues with the top-down approach and leaves us with a set of workable skills to handle EVERY scenario that we are likely to find ourselves in as individuals. Excuse me if I am not being very clear, I do not know if that makes sense again.
I apologise if I am indeed overcooking this when I am only trying to make a simple gulyas And but thank you all again for taking the time to post up your thoughts. I do like these conversations with you all Thank you again
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
I appreciate what Chris Parker says about the dangers of over-thinking, certainly and but I would argue that were it an impossible task to cover EVERY scenario then I would not give it any thought. And but I believe that it is within the bounds of possibility to discern a viable solution to this for each of us as individuals.
Seasoned, Sukerkin & Archangel M, have suggested an idea which I very much like about the utilisation of fewer technical options multi-purpose tools. And but I would see what you are suggesting as a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down if you excuse the design jargon. Bear with me if you can... Adaptation and extension of our technical martial tools is necessary for this approach, absolutely, no argument (K-Man suggests training "instinctive" responses and leveraging those. MJS has mirrored my own ideas and suggested positioning, stacking the attackers - I love that line
and using multiple opponent interference). And but I think if we do not FIRST consider where their need is mandated, ie. which situations we are likely to face and which modes of attack we are likely to face therein, then how can we be certain that we have adapted those tools correctly for the task that we eventually need them? Goodness, does that make sense? It has rolled around in my head and found the hole to drop in As tshadowchaser has said, we can never have enough time to go over every scenario and but is it not the case that we will never NEED to. See I just worry that if we do NOT consider these infinite possibilities (by whittling them into what we can handle and training for what we cannot yet handle), then we risk leaving ourselves short. I just think it is too easy to say that handling every situation is impossible and leave it in the hands of statistics. I do not know. Stickarts has said that this necessatitates something 'beyond the defined curriculum' or something more akin to a 'defined thought process'. MJS suggests gearing the training to the individual, and I could not agree more. To be considering something of this scope (to defend ourselves against EVERY scenario) is outside the remit of standardised class. I appreciate that most of us have certain class etiquette and formatting and but I do not think this question should be disregarded by each of us because of that.
What I am suggesting is that we take time to evaluate the likely or potential situations that we may find ourselves in - that will eliminate many unnecessary scenarios (as Deaf Smith has said, bomb alert situations are perhaps unlikely - though of course that depends upon the individual again!) I think once we are at that stage, we can consider the methods of attack for those situations that we may well encounter. And from that we can derive a set of viable techniques (based upon simple standards and extensions of those standard techs) that will cover EVERY situation for each of us as individuals. And I know that set will be unique to each of us. I am not sure if that makes sense? I ask because I do not believe that this is an impossible task in itself. I think we it is possible to plane off all the complex branches and leave us with a usable set.
I am not suggesting that use of extending and adapting simple techs (punch from block, takedown opp#1 to obstruct opp#2 etc.) is easily acquired knowledge. And but I do think that by considering what initially appears to be a tall order we can come closer to realising the reality of defending every scenario. Moreover, I think it is a comforting feeling to have considered our defense so thoroughly.
On the tactics and techniques that Archangel M & Andy Moynihan & Chris Parker have mentioned - oh yes I would be in complete agreement insofar as tactical elements can overarch (and but not supplant) the technical. I think I like your points because using the top-down approach to the question, tactical concerns would be top. And but I am still wondering though, a level down, is is not possible (with the question of EVERY scenario still in mind) to split those infinite situational possibilities into 'likely' and 'unlikely', and further split the likely modes of attack into simpler, handleable defensive techniques (as K-Man points out, "The first six most common assaults" are generally predictable)? This then continues with the top-down approach and leaves us with a set of workable skills to handle EVERY scenario that we are likely to find ourselves in as individuals. Excuse me if I am not being very clear, I do not know if that makes sense again.
I apologise if I am indeed overcooking this when I am only trying to make a simple gulyas
And but thank you all again for taking the time to post up your thoughts. I do like these conversations with you all Thank you again Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
Thank you all for taking the time to read and to reply. I am very grateful
MJS has mirrored my own ideas and suggested positioning, stacking the attackers - I love that line
Hey Jenna,
Glad I could help.
I'd say alot of this just comes with practice....and lots of it.
If we were to look at 2 students, 1 who is a beginner and 1 who is advanced, we should see some obvious differences. If we threw a punch at the beginner, chances are until they have a foundation and understand the basics, they just may not know what to do. The advanced student, regardless of what is thrown, should already have a solid foundation and know the basics, so they should be able to use the principles, concepts, etc. and adapt to whatever the situation may be. I hope that made sense and answered your question. By all means, keep the questions coming. :ultracool
Mike
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hey Jenna,
I was maybe not entirely clear when describing the idea of over-thinking. The danger lies in thinking through the assault, not in over-thinking possible scenarios in training (although that can be a dangerous habit in and of itself...).
Here, if the concept of training against every possible attack is taken on board as a possible reality by the student, then when faced with an attack, the student may stop (internally) and start asking themselves questions, and try coming up with answers (such as "What kind of punch is this? Did we do this one yet? Do I know what to do here? Should I use defence xyz, or defence abc? Why does my nose hurt? Why am I bleeding?").
In terms of training a larger variety of possible attacks and defences, one thing to remember is that, as a general rule, the technical curriculuum of an art shrinks during wartime (when the art may be needed to be used immediately, the focus becomes more based on principles and explorations of strategies over fewer styles of attacks and defences), and then grows during peacetime (when the art is not in immediate use, there is more freedom to explore variations and different possibilities, giving rise to more complex techniques and different attacks and defences).
As a result, the basis of many battlefield arts have only a very few attacks (for sword defence, for example, almost all techniques are against straight cuts down, or thrusts. You can, of course, exercise the same concepts against different angle attacks, but the essence is there in just the very simple movements). This is the essence of defending against all possible attacks... take one, and keep going from there. But remember that this is a peacetime thing. For more serious and immediate use, you would actually be reducing the number of attacks and defences.
I was maybe not entirely clear when describing the idea of over-thinking. The danger lies in thinking through the assault, not in over-thinking possible scenarios in training (although that can be a dangerous habit in and of itself...).
Here, if the concept of training against every possible attack is taken on board as a possible reality by the student, then when faced with an attack, the student may stop (internally) and start asking themselves questions, and try coming up with answers (such as "What kind of punch is this? Did we do this one yet? Do I know what to do here? Should I use defence xyz, or defence abc? Why does my nose hurt? Why am I bleeding?").
In terms of training a larger variety of possible attacks and defences, one thing to remember is that, as a general rule, the technical curriculuum of an art shrinks during wartime (when the art may be needed to be used immediately, the focus becomes more based on principles and explorations of strategies over fewer styles of attacks and defences), and then grows during peacetime (when the art is not in immediate use, there is more freedom to explore variations and different possibilities, giving rise to more complex techniques and different attacks and defences).
As a result, the basis of many battlefield arts have only a very few attacks (for sword defence, for example, almost all techniques are against straight cuts down, or thrusts. You can, of course, exercise the same concepts against different angle attacks, but the essence is there in just the very simple movements). This is the essence of defending against all possible attacks... take one, and keep going from there. But remember that this is a peacetime thing. For more serious and immediate use, you would actually be reducing the number of attacks and defences.
I think the bottom line here is that we have a basic set of tools in our tool box.
I have the basic inward block in my arsenal, yet I also know that the inward can be applied as a strike to the temple. Still the same basic tool applied a different way. I use tools as an example because I work with them every day.
Let's take for instance that I'm tightening a bolt, the other side keeps turning I can use a pair of pliers to hold the nut from turning on the other side. I did not train for this but it works.
SD is kinda the same to me, we are given the basic tools and they can be used for a number of different things.
And what Chris said about overthinking I totally agree with. If you overthink any situation, you can end up dead. It should be second nature to act or react to any given situation with the basic "tools" we've been given.
When I go to fix an elevator, I take basic hand tools with me and adapt them for what I need to complete the job. It doesn't make sense to take a big tool box, roll aways and gang boxes with me.
One can never train for every situation out there as they're all gonna be different, but preparing with the basics give you a good start.
Hope I didn't go off on to wild of a tangent here, I know the point I'm trying to make, hopefully you do too.
I have the basic inward block in my arsenal, yet I also know that the inward can be applied as a strike to the temple. Still the same basic tool applied a different way. I use tools as an example because I work with them every day.
Let's take for instance that I'm tightening a bolt, the other side keeps turning I can use a pair of pliers to hold the nut from turning on the other side. I did not train for this but it works.
SD is kinda the same to me, we are given the basic tools and they can be used for a number of different things.
And what Chris said about overthinking I totally agree with. If you overthink any situation, you can end up dead. It should be second nature to act or react to any given situation with the basic "tools" we've been given.
When I go to fix an elevator, I take basic hand tools with me and adapt them for what I need to complete the job. It doesn't make sense to take a big tool box, roll aways and gang boxes with me.
One can never train for every situation out there as they're all gonna be different, but preparing with the basics give you a good start.
Hope I didn't go off on to wild of a tangent here, I know the point I'm trying to make, hopefully you do too.
GBlues
Purple Belt
Well, I am going to say that you absolutely can train for every scenario. In my mind there are only a few scenarios to train for. Personal Self-Defense against an unarmed attacker, an armed attacker, multiple unarmed attackers, and multiple armed attackers. Those are your scenarios. Now there are a 1000 methodologies,(ie, principles, concepts, and techniques), for dealing with those scenarios. Now, there really isn't much you can do to prepare yourself in the case of a bombing. Your either in the wrong place at the wrong time or you are not, or you are lucky or unlucky enough, ( dependent on point of view) to survive it, if your caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. That kind of a scenario really gets more into a survivalist type situation, you know, "What do I need in case of nuclear attack to survive", because the reality is there is nothing that you can do to stop it, so you would have to prepare for what happens afterwards if you live through it. So in my mind there is one scenario with 4 variations to train for. All of the other stuff, is wasted effort. It becomes to complex if you try to make each technique a scenario, because it is not. It's part of a self-defense scenario, which is one of a million things that could happen in a self-defense scenario. It's a methodology, a technique.
So you go to the Grand Pooba of Karate or whatever style, and you check out a class. You decide that your going to take his class because you like what he does. He is going to teach you his methodology for dealing with a self-defense scenario. Inside that methodology there maybe 200 individual techniques, with adaptations, to learn. That is going to take you 5 years to become proficient at his methodology for dealing with a self-defense scenario. My point being, that scenario based training is good for guys like, soldiers, police officers, who will actually deal with multiple scenarios. For a civilians, we only have a few, and they are all encompassed by one Scenario with a few offshoots, The Self-Defense Scenario. Protecting ourselves and our loved ones, is our Scenario.
Now if your talking about techniques, there are thousands, millions of techniques in the world. You would never learn them all, nor is it necassary. Human beings only have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 elbows, 2 knees, and one head. So you only have 9 appendages, and 5 if you lump each group together, to worry about. How many techniques do you really need to deal with in a self-defense scenario??? Probably you could do very well with about 10 techniques. If you were very good at them. Grappling is a different set of techniques, but the same thing applies, if your an expert, at a few you probably could do very well in a self-defense scenario. The reality is this, until humans have 4 arms, 4 legs, 4 elbows, 4 knees, and 2 heads, there really and truthfully is only one way to fight. Just a lot of different methodologies, but the Scenario never changes, it's always either somebody getting violence done to them, and somebody doing the violence.
So you go to the Grand Pooba of Karate or whatever style, and you check out a class. You decide that your going to take his class because you like what he does. He is going to teach you his methodology for dealing with a self-defense scenario. Inside that methodology there maybe 200 individual techniques, with adaptations, to learn. That is going to take you 5 years to become proficient at his methodology for dealing with a self-defense scenario. My point being, that scenario based training is good for guys like, soldiers, police officers, who will actually deal with multiple scenarios. For a civilians, we only have a few, and they are all encompassed by one Scenario with a few offshoots, The Self-Defense Scenario. Protecting ourselves and our loved ones, is our Scenario.
Now if your talking about techniques, there are thousands, millions of techniques in the world. You would never learn them all, nor is it necassary. Human beings only have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 elbows, 2 knees, and one head. So you only have 9 appendages, and 5 if you lump each group together, to worry about. How many techniques do you really need to deal with in a self-defense scenario??? Probably you could do very well with about 10 techniques. If you were very good at them. Grappling is a different set of techniques, but the same thing applies, if your an expert, at a few you probably could do very well in a self-defense scenario. The reality is this, until humans have 4 arms, 4 legs, 4 elbows, 4 knees, and 2 heads, there really and truthfully is only one way to fight. Just a lot of different methodologies, but the Scenario never changes, it's always either somebody getting violence done to them, and somebody doing the violence.
This sums up my opinion on the subject. No matter how many scenarios you can concoct, there will always be one that you have not thought of. The idea is not to have a table where you can go to scenario 642 and apply solutions x,r, and t, but to apply your principles and techniques to each scenario as appropriate. Apply descalation when appropriate. Block and parry when necessary and strike when necessary.
Each scenario can have permutations as well, so there is no one size fits all for each scenario. I do believe that there are some basic environments that we should be prepared for. Multiple opponents, close quarters, armed opponents, etc. While each scenario may be unique there is a limit to the environments one will find themselves in. One observation: we should all practice our techniques in street clothes when not at class. You know, the stuff you wear daily. If you wear a business suit everyday, you should practice being able to move in that suit. If you wear shoes, which most of us do, practice kicking with your shoes. It is different than being barefoot on the mat.
Daniel
rocksham
Orange Belt
defensive principles; absolutely, every single possible scenario individually? no way in hell. Anyone saying yes, imho, is full of it and themselves.
HKphooey
Senior Master
Chris,
Great words. I take it you have read "On Combat"?
Training is just like studying for any educational test. Some people study for hours, only to flunk when their brain goes blank. Some kids are not good studiers, but great problem solvers, and they pass. The key to one's success in combat, is the identification of their own weakness. Any great fighter will look for your weakness and capitalize on it. I have love the principles of the arts I study, but it is the freeform/freestyle training that teaches me the most.
Some great thoughts by all.
Thanks.
Great words. I take it you have read "On Combat"?
Training is just like studying for any educational test. Some people study for hours, only to flunk when their brain goes blank. Some kids are not good studiers, but great problem solvers, and they pass. The key to one's success in combat, is the identification of their own weakness. Any great fighter will look for your weakness and capitalize on it. I have love the principles of the arts I study, but it is the freeform/freestyle training that teaches me the most.
Some great thoughts by all.
Thanks.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
I had thought the answer to this was a plain no, simply because there are infinite possibilities. And but are there really?
Revisiting the idea, I do not believe that for any one of us, there are in fact *that* many unique and separate dangerous locations, combinations of attack, and permutations of those things that we would potentially encounter.
Why am I asking? Well, I do not like impossible tasks that I have no hope of ever getting to the end of (defending myself against infinite possibilities). And but yet, I do not like to feel overwhelmed by my defensive shortcomings. Dividing and conquering those infinite possibilities makes our comprehensive defense more of a reality I think, no?
We can split scenarios into likely and unlikely depending upon our daily activities and where we are likely to find ourselves. For example, I do not imbibe so the "pub fight" / glass-type attack can be ruled out, and but I live in an area with high racial tensions where physical harassment is not unheard of, so I focus specifically on push-shove avoid and de-escalate maybe, etc.
Further to that, we can split complex attack situations into combinations of simply-handled ones. For example, I do not train multiple SIMULTANEOUS attack, having noticed how difficult it is for two regular, front-attacking opponents to use a strike on me at *exactly* the same moment. At striking distance, their strikes and body positioning interfere with each other's. I do not think that is ill-advised because in this case, both reactionary speed (dealing with each separate attack expediently) and good positioning (locking and leveraging opponent as shield) mitigate the danger and turn it from multiple simultaneous attack into rapid repeated attack - as might well happen with a fast, single opponent. In other words, it is I think possible to train a complex defensive situation as just an extension of one or more simple ones.
Do you think this goal is unnecessary or just chasing semantics? Do you ever try to rise to the idea of equipping yourself to defend every potential scenario? Is it a goal with merit or just stupid? I wonder would anyone have input, those of you who are senior belts in your art and/or train seniors freely, using more rigorous and thorough methodologies?
Hope this is not too stream-of-consciousness confusing
Thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
You cannot train every possible scenario......you CAN train as many as possible. The more you train variables, the more prepared you are to deal with even scenarios you have not trained for as the odd's are they have elements of situations you have trained.
Ultimately, self-defense is about training a mind that can adapt to chaotic and changing situations fluidly. The mind is still the most powerful weapon.
I'm not quite sure why you quoted me there, rock ... other than my using the word "principles"
. Would you care to elaborate? For what I meant was the same as yourself i.e. you do not attempt to enumerate every possible permutation of movement and technique but prime yourself to be able to make use of the tools you have in the situation that arises.
BLACK LION
Black Belt
I do believe the "possibilites" or "variations" are endless in number as well as the related "techniques" ... however they are all based on the same underlying principles. There can be millions of techniques-possibilities-variations that all share the same single principle or principles....
The principles harbor the basic essence of all things related... this never changes and is timeless... If you ingrain the basic composition of what it is then the understanding of the possibilities becomes inherent... although not focused on.... becuase one doesnt need to focus on the different ways something can be when all you need to know is what it is made of... like water or the human body... the focus wouldnt be the infinite ways they can move or blend or travel or what have you... the focus would be its principle base and how to take that away... I dont care how many ways thier body can move or what configurations it could have... I only care how to take away what its made of so it no longer exists as an option...
subtract the principles take away the possibilities.... add them and they become infinite...
focus on them in your training and practice so they become muscle memory... subtract them from the threat or threats in battle... always retain yours and always take thiers...
basically...
another jumbled rant but thanks Jenna for provoking it
The principles harbor the basic essence of all things related... this never changes and is timeless... If you ingrain the basic composition of what it is then the understanding of the possibilities becomes inherent... although not focused on.... becuase one doesnt need to focus on the different ways something can be when all you need to know is what it is made of... like water or the human body... the focus wouldnt be the infinite ways they can move or blend or travel or what have you... the focus would be its principle base and how to take that away... I dont care how many ways thier body can move or what configurations it could have... I only care how to take away what its made of so it no longer exists as an option...
subtract the principles take away the possibilities.... add them and they become infinite...
focus on them in your training and practice so they become muscle memory... subtract them from the threat or threats in battle... always retain yours and always take thiers...
basically...
another jumbled rant but thanks Jenna for provoking it
Last edited:
rocksham
Orange Belt
I'm not quite sure why you quoted me there, rock ... other than my using the word "principles"
Would you care to elaborate? For what I meant was the same as yourself i.e. you do not attempt to enumerate every possible permutation of movement and technique but prime yourself to be able to make use of the tools you have in the situation that arises.
Principles is the word in your post that caught my eye. I think you can employ a pretty extensive array of defensive principles, but the notion of knowing just what to do in every single concievable case just isn't goona happen. Nothing more than that.
BLACK LION
Black Belt
Ill use an analogy here...
its like pregnancy in that one can practice a miriad of techniques(birth control-muscle control-contraceptives or whatever) to prevent getting pregnant while still conducting intercourse... or just practice the single principle that will prevent pregnancy or stds any and every time...which is abstinance or not having intercourse at all...
just thought I would add that
its like pregnancy in that one can practice a miriad of techniques(birth control-muscle control-contraceptives or whatever) to prevent getting pregnant while still conducting intercourse... or just practice the single principle that will prevent pregnancy or stds any and every time...which is abstinance or not having intercourse at all...
just thought I would add that
GBlues
Purple Belt
So how many scenarios do you train for? How many should the average joe train for? Should we train for things that will never happen? SHould I train for guerilla warfare tactics? SHould I train to fight in a gang war, though I'm not in a gang? Should I train for a swat style hostage rescue, though I'm not a police officer nor am I a swat officer. Should I train for underwater h2h? Though the odds of that happening aren't all that great but it could happen right? Should I train for, defending against a single or even multiple attackers while sitting on my motorcycle at a red light? How would you train for that? Should I train for 50 ninjas busting through my front door trying to kill me. Although that will never happen because I'm not in a movie. So when you say no one can ever train for every scenario, what do you have in mind? Do you think the previously mentioned are necassary for the average joe? Probably not, and guess what, all of the above are guess what? Self-defense scenarios against, a) unarmed attacker, or b) armed attacker, or c) unarmed multiple attackers, or d) armed multiple attackers. Bottom line for me, is this, if you have to train for every position that you may ever find yourself in, your wife is going to be pretty ticked off when you invite joe to your house to surprise attack you while your in the middle of making love to your wife. Because you could get caught in that scenario. It's stupid. Every scenario you will ever see is one of 4 things. You know, scenario based training, hmmm....it's more like technique based training. Again even at that, can you learn every technique? No, can you learn to defend against a technique you've never seen? Not until you've seen it, or maybe you can, since like all things human, the body can only move in certain ways. So why learn 40,000 different techniques to defend against 40,000 different ways somebody possibly could throw a jab. Since there are only so many ways the human body can throw a jab. Unless a man grows 8 tentacles besides his arms, then why worry about it. YOu already know what scenario that your training for, your techniques should cover any attack that your met with. It's still, block a punch, or parry a punch, block a kick or parry a kick, block an elbow or parry an elbow same with the knees. THen it's either your striking or trapping or grappling. THat's it. Don't make it more complicated than it has to be. Because it's not. It's really simple. Beyond that, things seldom happen the way you've trained for them, or the way that you imagine they will go down in your head. Often times it's a lot more brutal,and you do lots of things, differently than how you imagined, and your opponent does lots of things different than how you imagined. You prepare for what you can prepare for. Self-Defense or Self-Protection. Those are our scenarios, the other stuff, is b.s. Your either protecting yourself or your not. So am I full of it, and full of myself? I don't think so. I think if you want to talk scenarios talk scenarios, don't talk techniques. They are two different things. One is the situation and the other is what happens in that situation.
The difference bewteen 'technique' and 'scenario' is an important one to distinguish and understand, GB :tup:.
What I have been taught (and what I think everyone is trying to say in various ways) is that you do not learn to respond to a myriad different scenarios. As I said a while ago now, you train your mind to 'read' the scenario and find the windows of opportunity where the techniques you have can work to resolve the situation.
That is one of the important reasons for 'grinding' your techniques into muscle memory - when the moment comes to use the one you want, it is there, ready and waiting, just for that 'window' where it can be effective.
What I have been taught (and what I think everyone is trying to say in various ways) is that you do not learn to respond to a myriad different scenarios. As I said a while ago now, you train your mind to 'read' the scenario and find the windows of opportunity where the techniques you have can work to resolve the situation.
That is one of the important reasons for 'grinding' your techniques into muscle memory - when the moment comes to use the one you want, it is there, ready and waiting, just for that 'window' where it can be effective.
GBlues
Purple Belt
Yeah, I can see that. What I'm trying to say, is that you don't need to train for every scenario, because you already do. It's a simplified way of looking at, maybe over simplified, but that is the reality of combat for the average joe. I don't think people necassarily train for scenarios as much as they do for technique, and again in my opinion you only need so many techniques to work from. There are only so many ways that the human body can move, and outside of new appendages, a punch is still a punch, and the defense is the same. The counters maybe different, instead of block or parry and attack with some form of a punch, you block or parry and kick or elbow, but the defense is the same. So in both cases, once you've learned your chosen system you should know pretty much how to defend against a strike, now if your talking about grappling obviously you need some grappling or a system that has some, but it's all the same. There are only so many ways to do a submissions. The same with strikes, there are only so many ways to do strikes.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
You should be able to deal with multiple "scenarios" with the same set of "techniques".
