What type of quick grabs does your art teach you to control the opponet during an attack?
When we teach self defense we do not teach grabbing to control the opponent. There are some throws. There is some groundwork. There are a few joint destructions. Some of them involve grasping, but we don't try for pain compliance or brute force to immobilize someone. Pain compliance assumes they're reasonable enough to stop. If they were reasonable they wouldn't be attacking you. And if you can rely on superior strength you're lucky; most of us don't get assaulted by smaller, slower weaker people.
In Silat class there are various ways of getting control of a person. Sometimes you hold onto part of his body. Generally it's a bad idea. When you grab it gives him a handle on you as much as the other way around. It means you can't use your hand to hold onto something else like an exotic sharp pointed thing. And there's a monkey tendency to maintain the grab at all costs.
If you do this how realistic is it for the actual street?
What do you mean by that?
Would it not be better to hit get loose and get the hell out of there?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you leave
before it is safe to do so you can open yourself to a world of trouble like being dragged down from behind and having to do the fight all over again without the advantage of surprise. From the research I've seen and a good bit of anecdotal evidence a lot of people, women in particular, get in more trouble from stopping too soon than from stopping too late.
You come from a background that puts hitting above everything else. It's good in its way, but it's a very limited perspective. In the real world people will grab you and throw you onto the ground. Once you're on the ground they will follow you down or just stomp you to death. They will not stand at a polite kickboxing distance and trade strikes to big dots on the chest protector while the judges look for "trembling shock".
Hitting is a very useful tool, but it's only one tool. And playing knuckle-tag or footsie with someone who has you outweighed and outreached is a suicidally losing game. The old "Hit. Scream. Run away," is better than nothing. It is not a complete self defense strategy.
You have to be prepared to fight in very close or when someone has a hold of you. You have to be able to fall without losing your ability to fight. You have to be able to handle yourself when you are on the ground whether it means finishing the fight from there or getting back up. You need to be able to put
him on the ground in a way which puts you at the advantage. That means takedowns of one sort or another.
I was just talking to a local Police officer and he said they are in the propcess of teaching women you get batter how to to this for there safety and I dis-agree, my philosophy is get away and not try to control someone like that until help comes. Just looking for other people opinion here?
Police are not always the best sources for things like this. They are trained to close and arrest. Immobilization holds of various sorts and department-specific lawyer-vetted force progressions are appropriate for their job. It is not our job as regular people to take down dangerous criminals and disarm, restrain, handcuff, search and transport them. It's our job not to be killed, raped or wounded by them. A lot of police-sponsored self defense courses have trouble separating the two sets of concerns. They are also lawyer-driven. Anything the department teaches opens it up for financial liability. That's why they're light on things that can be used to disable or injure attackers and never,
ever include recommendations about (legal) weapons use.
The other thing you need to remember is that for women in particular the "hit and run away" strategy doesn't take the realities of their situations into account. Where do you run to if the husband or boyfriend who is hurting you lives in the same house? It's at least 90% odds that the rapist knows who you are and where you live. In fact, the victim's home is the most likely site for sexual assaults.