How much do you really need?

[Flying Crane]

Even fast punches fall apart when your opponent charges, head-down. Or if their entry to the conflict is a hard shove, or a kick. They are useful, but for SD should be paired with a few other controlling techniques. And even with that said, there are different punches, so we can't just call "fast, powerful punches" a single technique. They'd need at least a short-range, a long-range, and a filler (elbow, cross, and jab, perhaps). We're already at 3 techniques without getting to the other bits I mentioned.

I agree, my point was simply that some techs are arguable more universally applied than others. That doesn't mean 100%, without fail.

 

[marques]

I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations. That is not to say that MMA training doesn't work for self defense. I am not saying that at all. But I am saying that MMA is not the yardstick against which to measure all things related to martial arts or fighting or self defense.

Agree.
MMA is miles away from self-defence, but it is the closest combat sport, right? The advantage of the MMA as an example is there are statistics and footages of everything. We can know the fighter and their training. We can support objectively what we say. If we had so good information about self-defence, that thread (and others as well) would be shorter...

 

[Steve]

To answer the OP, I agree completely. Complex, long term programs designed to teach people "self defense" is a placebo. It's feeling safer as opposed to actually being safer.

I'm really glad to see some support for this perspective recently, as I have taken a lot of heat for suggesting it in years past.

I think there is a huge disconnect between what people see in their minds as potential attackers and what actually occurs, in real life, when people are attacked. I also think that there is often a huge disconnect between people who are fearful of being attacked and people who are at realistic risk of attack.

It's like a line from an SNL skit where one person asks, "How are we going to avoid being attacked by bears?" The response was an incredulous, "We just stay away from bears!"

There are people who are at high risk for assault, and there are some very practical things that can help. Being able to eye gouge or curb stomp isn't really among those things.

 

[Paul_D]

More moves are just more options. That's not really detrimental is any way, is it?

There was an experiment carried out (although I no longer have the link to it or can remember who performed it) with two groups. One was taught one strangle defence and the other was taught two strangle defences. Needless to say when pressure tested the gorup that only new one defence reacted quicker.

 

[Flying Crane]

Agree.
MMA is miles away from self-defence, but it is the closest combat sport, right? The advantage of the MMA as an example is there are statistics and footages of everything. We can know the fighter and their training. We can support objectively what we say. If we had so good information about self-defence, that thread (and others as well) would be shorter...

Sure, but th parameters of the encounter are vastly different

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To answer the OP, I agree completely. Complex, long term programs designed to teach people "self defense" is a placebo. It's feeling safer as opposed to actually being safer.

I'm really glad to see some support for this perspective recently, as I have taken a lot of heat for suggesting it in years past.

I think there is a huge disconnect between what people see in their minds as potential attackers and what actually occurs, in real life, when people are attacked. I also think that there is often a huge disconnect between people who are fearful of being attacked and people who are at realistic risk of attack.

It's like a line from an SNL skit where one person asks, "How are we going to avoid being attacked by bears?" The response was an incredulous, "We just stay away from bears!"

There are people who are at high risk for assault, and there are some very practical things that can help. Being able to eye gouge or curb stomp isn't really among those things.

That's all relevant and true, Steve, but we can't train based upon likelihood. Statistics don't provide insurance. I am probably far less than 10% likely to face another physical assault in my life. That doesn't mean I shouldn't train, though it probably does mean I shouldn't obsess about it. As for the value in long-term programs, I've already mentioned that. If someone practices something just long enough to be able to do it (some weeks or months), then stops practicing, the neural learning will be short-term. Practicing physical self-defense techniques long-term means they're always kept at the necessary "habitual" level. And studying those movements long-term, for most of us, means finding a way to keep it interesting even after we "get it." We all know the basics are the most valuable part, so we keep going back to those. But there's some value in the rest, and all that new learning and exploration is what keeps it interesting enough to keep visiting those basics to keep them working.

So, to me, a full MA system that is used for SD could be considered as having three parts: the emergency stuff (which should be taught first and requires very little coordination), the solid basics (most of what folks learn in the first year, and into the second), and the deep-dive stuff (gap fillers, learning to be more efficient, learning to not use strength so it continues to work as we age, some things that work really well but require better coordination and understanding, and the stuff that's mostly there to keep it interesting).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There was an experiment carried out (although I no longer have the link to it or can remember who performed it) with two groups. One was taught one strangle defence and the other was taught two strangle defences. Needless to say when pressure tested the gorup that only new one defence reacted quicker.

I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?

If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.

 

[Paul_D]

but we need a wide defensive arsenal.

You only need a wide defensive arsenal if you allow the other person to attack first, or you are caught in code white (see Coppers Colour Codes) and don’t even realise there is going to be an attack until it has already begun. If you are familiar with the rituals of non-consensual criminal violence, then once you have reached the point were leaving or verbal de-escalation are no longer options, you attack.

 

[Paul_D]

I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?

If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.

I can't remeber that much about it tbh, all that I can remeber is that as the group that only knew one defense didn't have to decide which defence to use, then they just were able to execauet the only one they did know faster.

 

[Steve]

That's all relevant and true, Steve, but we can't train based upon likelihood. Statistics don't provide insurance. I am probably far less than 10% likely to face another physical assault in my life. That doesn't mean I shouldn't train, though it probably does mean I shouldn't obsess about it. As for the value in long-term programs, I've already mentioned that. If someone practices something just long enough to be able to do it (some weeks or months), then stops practicing, the neural learning will be short-term. Practicing physical self-defense techniques long-term means they're always kept at the necessary "habitual" level. And studying those movements long-term, for most of us, means finding a way to keep it interesting even after we "get it." We all know the basics are the most valuable part, so we keep going back to those. But there's some value in the rest, and all that new learning and exploration is what keeps it interesting enough to keep visitine basics to keep them working.

So, to me, a full MA system that is used for SD could be considered as having three parts: the emergency stuff (which should be taught first and requires very little coordination), the solid basics (most of what folks learn in the first year, and into the second), and the deep-dive stuff (gap fillers, learning to be more efficient, learning to not use strength so it continues to work as we age, some things that work really well but require better coordination and understanding, and the stuff that's mostly there to keep it interesting).

You use the word "shouldn't" several times. I don't really like that word. It is extremely subjective and not very helpful to discussion.

But in short statistics are entirely important because it informs the degree of effort that is reasonable. Insurance sales people might believe that everyone needs $500k life policies. That doesn't make it a wise expense for everyone.

If you are a drug addicted transient, you are at high risk of assault. If you are a 20 year old, female, college student, you are at realistic risk of sexual assault. If you are cop or work in a social security office or in a homeless shelter. And in these cases, training might help. What training would actually help will vary and in most cases, physical training is going to be of limited use.

I have a lot going on today so this may not make a lot of sense. I will try to clarify later if needed.

 

[Buka]

I'd like to see that study. There are a lot of variables to be considered to determine how we can use those results. Was it a 1-hour training, or several hours over several weeks? Were the two defenses to the same exact attack? Were they given multiple different attacks to defend? How similar were the results?

If you can find that study or remember anything more about it, I'd love to dig deeper into how it was conducted and what the exact results were.

Might be referring to the Hicks Law (which should be called the Hicks-Hyman Law)

Hick's law - Wikipedia

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You use the word "shouldn't" several times. I don't really like that word. It is extremely subjective and not very helpful to discussion.

But in short statistics are entirely important because it informs the degree of effort that is reasonable. Insurance sales people might believe that everyone needs $500k life policies. That doesn't make it a wise expense for everyone.

If you are a drug addicted transient, you are at high risk of assault. If you are a 20 year old, female, college student, you are at realistic risk of sexual assault. If you are cop or work in a social security office or in a homeless shelter. And in these cases, training might help. What training would actually help will vary and in most cases, physical training is going to be of limited use.

I have a lot going on today so this may not make a lot of sense. I will try to clarify later if needed.

I used shouldn't in a negative point - making much the same point you are with it, so I think we're good on that one.

As for the level of effort based on statistics, that's an academic choice beyond a certain point. If I decide there's a low chance of having a physical attack, and only put in 10% of the training effort required to be very good, I likely wasted that 10%. That's my point about long-term training's benefit. I could quite easily teach an about-average person to defend against the most likely kinds of attacks in just a few weeks and have them be able to repeat those defenses under reasonable stress. A year later, however, they wouldn't be able to repeat those under the same stress - nor likely even under no stress at all. That's the nature of physical learning; it decays over time and will be reduced to near absence if it wasn't highly engrained. Now, if we're talking about the difference between choosing casual training (like my many years of mostly 2-5 classes a week) versus choosing a more intense regimen, I'm entirely with you on that being a selection based on likelihood of an attack.

And that same goes for the usefulness of physical training, at all. There are a lot of factors involved - too many for any level of certainty. Everyone I know who practices martial arts cites it as a major source of their personal confidence and feeling of control. Confidence is a determiner in how we act, and confident actions tend to lead away from victimization, both in target selection and in avoidance of circumstances. Add the locus of control, and the effects become intensified. So, now we've likely reduced the likelihood of being attacked, but of course not to zero, so the actual physical skills are to help with that remaining chance.

Of course, if the self-defense training is done right, it should also include some education on risk avoidance, threat awareness, etc. And those will have at least as great an effect on the chances of being a victim as the confidence gained will. I'm not aware of any study that has been done to try to measure that - nor am I confident a reliable study could be conducted - but I'd expect this last part to be the more effective part of the training, if we can measure a straight reduction in incidents.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that folks enjoy their training. That's obviously a large part of why most of us train, though it has no direct bearing on self-defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Might be referring to the Hicks Law (which should be called the Hicks-Hyman Law)

Hick's law - Wikipedia

That's certainly the same concept, though the experiment behind that is generally accepted as not fully valid for generalization. With defensive actions like the strangle defense, an experiment would need to account or control for length of training, types of attacks, decay time, etc. I'd expect a relatively new student to struggle with the choice (in fact, I perform that particular experiment nearly every class). Experience suggests that the effect is at least highly diminished with more training, and may be erased altogether when put in the context of choosing the appropriate response to variable attacks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You only need a wide defensive arsenal if you allow the other person to attack first, or you are caught in code white (see Coppers Colour Codes) and don’t even realise there is going to be an attack until it has already begun. If you are familiar with the rituals of non-consensual criminal violence, then once you have reached the point were leaving or verbal de-escalation are no longer options, you attack.

That's valid, though it assumes your initial attack is entirely successful. If they manage to counter you, your choice to attack doesn't negate the need to defend.

 

[Steve]

I used shouldn't in a negative point - making much the same point you are with it, so I think we're good on that one.

As for the level of effort based on statistics, that's an academic choice beyond a certain point. If I decide there's a low chance of having a physical attack, and only put in 10% of the training effort required to be very good, I likely wasted that 10%. That's my point about long-term training's benefit. I could quite easily teach an about-average person to defend against the most likely kinds of attacks in just a few weeks and have them be able to repeat those defenses under reasonable stress. A year later, however, they wouldn't be able to repeat those under the same stress - nor likely even under no stress at all. That's the nature of physical learning; it decays over time and will be reduced to near absence if it wasn't highly engrained. Now, if we're talking about the difference between choosing casual training (like my many years of mostly 2-5 classes a week) versus choosing a more intense regimen, I'm entirely with you on that being a selection based on likelihood of an attack.

And that same goes for the usefulness of physical training, at all. There are a lot of factors involved - too many for any level of certainty. Everyone I know who practices martial arts cites it as a major source of their personal confidence and feeling of control. Confidence is a determiner in how we act, and confident actions tend to lead away from victimization, both in target selection and in avoidance of circumstances. Add the locus of control, and the effects become intensified. So, now we've likely reduced the likelihood of being attacked, but of course not to zero, so the actual physical skills are to help with that remaining chance.

Of course, if the self-defense training is done right, it should also include some education on risk avoidance, threat awareness, etc. And those will have at least as great an effect on the chances of being a victim as the confidence gained will. I'm not aware of any study that has been done to try to measure that - nor am I confident a reliable study could be conducted - but I'd expect this last part to be the more effective part of the training, if we can measure a straight reduction in incidents.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that folks enjoy their training. That's obviously a large part of why most of us train, though it has no direct bearing on self-defense.

A two week course with annual refresher training doesn't sound unreasonable.

And re confidence, just caution you not to confuse thr end with the means. There are many ways to improve self confidence and esteem. Many don't involve martial arts and may even not be physical at all.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A two week course with annual refresher training doesn't sound unreasonable.

And re confidence, just caution you not to confuse thr end with the means. There are many ways to improve self confidence and esteem. Many don't involve martial arts and may even not be physical at all.

Agreed on that latter part. My point was just that the physical training includes that, which is probably the more important effect since it affects their chances of being attacked and impacts so much else in life.

As for the minimum schedule, the research I've seen would suggest a bit more frequency if I'm remembering correctly. I think a quarterly refresher, or just a couple of standard classes a month would work well with a short curriculum. That should keep muscle memory for a few simple techniques. It won't produce the same repeatability as consistent training, but there's a marginal return to training more often. So, if we're talking about just learning a few simple techniques to change the odds, something like that is probably meaningful. Could probably reduce the frequency in the long term if there was more frequency in the first year. That's sort of what I was aiming for with the other curriculum I've tinkered with: 8 classes, then a 2-4 a month for 6-12 months, then just visit one a month or so to stay in it. Of course, most anyone who comes back beyond that year probably wants to learn more and could transition to the full NGA curriculum.

 

[Buka]

That's certainly the same concept, though the experiment behind that is generally accepted as not fully valid for generalization. With defensive actions like the strangle defense, an experiment would need to account or control for length of training, types of attacks, decay time, etc. I'd expect a relatively new student to struggle with the choice (in fact, I perform that particular experiment nearly every class). Experience suggests that the effect is at least highly diminished with more training, and may be erased altogether when put in the context of choosing the appropriate response to variable attacks.

This could turn into a long conversation.

The strangle defense - first would be to properly determine what that defense(s) is/are, for I've seen some that might work in dojo, but I wouldn't put any stock in.

As for the Hicks/Hyman law itself, I think it's valid - but length of training certainly comes into play - if that training is good training. But I think, at first, the length of training (short) hinders the initial response time, then, eventually, quickens it.

Experience erases "choosing" altogether. It is reactive as opposed to choice, but that reactive includes proactive at the same time - which makes them react to you (because their initial attack failed), not you to them.

 

[Steve]

Agreed on that latter part. My point was just that the physical training includes that, which is probably the more important effect since it affects their chances of being attacked and impacts so much else in life.

As for the minimum schedule, the research I've seen would suggest a bit more frequency if I'm remembering correctly. I think a quarterly refresher, or just a couple of standard classes a month would work well with a short curriculum. That should keep muscle memory for a few simple techniques. It won't produce the same repeatability as consistent training, but there's a marginal return to training more often. So, if we're talking about just learning a few simple techniques to change the odds, something like that is probably meaningful. Could probably reduce the frequency in the long term if there was more frequency in the first year. That's sort of what I was aiming for with the other curriculum I've tinkered with: 8 classes, then a 2-4 a month for 6-12 months, then just visit one a month or so to stay in it. Of course, most anyone who comes back beyond that year probably wants to learn more and could transition to the full NGA curriculum.

Length of the training and timing between refresher courses really depends upon context.

To clarify what I think of when I envision a well thought out, well documented, effective, self defense training course, this is what I have in mind:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1411131#t=abstract

There is a specific group of people who are at high risk for assault:

Young women attending university1,2 face a substantial risk of being sexually assaulted. The incidence of sexual assault is estimated to be between 20% and 25% over a period of 4 years and to be highest during the first 2 years.3,4

There is an assessment of what has been done in the past, what has worked and what has not:

Workshops designed to help women resist sexual assault or reduce their risk have had inconsistent effects. Two studies showed short-term benefit, which in one study was limited to women who had had no previous victimization17,18; other studies showed no clear benefits at 2, 4, or 6 months, even with “booster” sessions (i.e., sessions that review or expand on content to maintain or improve effects).19-21 All but one study was conducted at a single site, two used group-level randomization,17,19 and the one with the longest follow-up had a high rate of attrition.21

There is a measurable outcome:

The aim of the current trial was to assess whether a new, four-unit, small-group sexual assault resistance program,22 as compared with access to brochures on sexual assault, could reduce the 1-year incidence of completed rape among first-year female students at three universities.

If you take a look at the entire article, the program was eight hours long, broken up into four sections, with only one of those sessions teaching physical, martial arts type self defense. The article also explains how they established a control group. In the end, the program was successful. Women were safer having taken the training, and ultimately, for every 22 women who attended the training, 1 rape was prevented, and the incidence of attempted rape was just over 3% for the group who attended the training vs over 9% in the control group. I consider this significant and very successful.

If every self-defense program were as scientific and grounded in statistics as this, I would be very, very happy (and probably have a very different opinion of "self defense" training).

 

[drop bear]

I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations.

If you make that statement you probably need to be specific.

So the mma rear naked choke with hooks in possibly doesnt translate into self defence as well as the standing or kneeling sleeper version. Yeah fair enough.

Some sort of generalized. I am not sure what MMA guys actually do but sport has rules so it cant work on the streetz gets pretty silly.

 

[drop bear]

Depends on the technique, some may be more universally useful than others. If you get really good at throwing fast, powerful punches, you can probably find that tremendously useful in a wide range of situations. That alone might handle that initial 85% that I referenced. Kicks by their very nature are less universally useful, even tho something like a front kick can have a lot of flexibility in when it is used.

You are right. And are also generally the same things that get people through their first few ring fights.

If all you learned how to do was punch straight you would bash most streetfighters.