Ideal Self-defense school?

Most of that falls under HBPRA. Both are forms of ambush. Managing Unknown Contacts, as far as I can tell, is based on Geoff Thompson’s “fence” concept. Both are listed accordingly.
" both are forms of ambush" Yes, but if I want to learn to bake a cake, I would want a pastry chef to teach me, not a line cook at McDonald's. Both are forms of cooking, but only one is relevant to my interests. MUC covers way more than the Fence. Again, if I'm not overly concerned on being abducted, how is learning how to escape from restraints relevant to avoiding street crimes?
 
Anyone I know who has trained with McCann has done gun or combatives. Would you be willing to write a review of the course you took?
I will send a message to the post G2 today and see if I can. I need to ask since we had to be “read in” at the time.
 
So....you're saying, this could be considered specialized, niche use information that is not particularly relevant to most people's requirements?
I guess it would depend on which group you fall into and the cost of the courses
 
No one argues that it’s “better” than the original source. But frankly, there is not one discipline (including TMA) that doesn’t have some reliance on lineage for knowledge transference. Furthermore, sometimes the source is incapable of effectively transferring the knowledge, and someone else has to codify it on their behalf.

How many people do you know, that have taken life with street and improvised weapons? Blown a hole in someone with a revolver, contact shot? Made a critical immediate decision, in terms of situationational awareness? Abducted someone?—and can completely, clearly, articulate the process? Are you comfortable being taught by such a person?

Was Dr. Martin Fackler clueless about terminal ballistics, because he didn’t shoot people?

@Gerry Seymour
 
No one argues that it’s “better” than the original source. But frankly, there is not one discipline (including TMA) that doesn’t have some reliance on lineage for knowledge transference. Furthermore, sometimes the source is incapable of effectively transferring the knowledge, and someone else has to codify it on their behalf.

How many people do you know, that have taken life with street and improvised weapons? Blown a hole in someone with a revolver, contact shot? Made a critical immediate decision, in terms of situationational awareness? Abducted someone?—and can completely, clearly, articulate the process? Are you comfortable being taught by such a person?

Was Dr. Martin Fackler clueless about terminal ballistics, because he didn’t shoot people?

@Gerry Seymour
Get a Ranger to teach the course. He is sure to make everyone uncomfortable at some point 😂
 
" both are forms of ambush" Yes, but if I want to learn to bake a cake, I would want a pastry chef to teach me, not a line cook at McDonald's. Both are forms of cooking, but only one is relevant to my interests. MUC covers way more than the Fence. Again, if I'm not overly concerned on being abducted, how is learning how to escape from restraints relevant to avoiding street crimes?
Using your analogy, a nurse is better suited to teach medicine, than a doctor. (nurses can be much better at performing certain procedures than doctors, but good doctors will better understand why the procedure is being performed).

My point was, that this isn’t ignorant of MUC.

It’s not about knowing how to cut restraints. It’s about learning to think of the environment, the same way criminals do, to use it against them.
 
And if I were teaching for competition, it should come almost immediately after the basic technique is grasped, because that technique is clearly a reasonable threat by others of the same skill level in competition.
Chinese wrestling encourage offense and lose than defense and win. Chinese wrestling wants people to attack, attack, and still attack. Chinese wrestling doesn't encourage people to play defense.

If A applies hip throw on B. B pushes A down. B may win that round. But A will have better chance to develop hip throw than B will. In other words, A will have better future in Chinese wrestling than B will have.

This is what I'm trying to point out. If you teach self-defense or teach sport competition, your teaching order can be different.
 
Last edited:
Using your analogy, a nurse is better suited to teach medicine, than a doctor. (nurses can be much better at performing certain procedures than doctors, but good doctors will better understand why the procedure is being performed).

My point was, that this isn’t ignorant of MUC.

It’s not about knowing how to cut restraints. It’s about learning to think of the environment, the same way criminals do, to use it against them.
So, again, the value of taking an anti abduction course is not to avoid being abducted, nor to learn how to escape restraints, but to learn how criminals think? Seems like an incredible waste of time and physical effort to learn something that is not the focus of the course. Unless you want to share your personal experience with this type of class and want to breakdown class time between escaping restraints and anti abduction techniques and delving into the psychology of the criminal mind. What's the ratio 80/ 20? 90/ 10? Even 50/50 means you're being inefficient with your time.
 
So, again, the value of taking an anti abduction course is not to avoid being abducted, nor to learn how to escape restraints, but to learn how criminals think? Seems like an incredible waste of time and physical effort to learn something that is not the focus of the course. Unless you want to share your personal experience with this type of class and want to breakdown class time between escaping restraints and anti abduction techniques and delving into the psychology of the criminal mind. What's the ratio 80/ 20? 90/ 10? Even 50/50 means you're being inefficient with your time.
The average American thinks “what self-defense tool can I buy to protect myself from this threat.” Criminals think “what tools are readily available to me, that will work for the job?” I fail to see how learning to mirror this process falls into psychology.
 
The average American thinks “what self-defense tool can I buy to protect myself from this threat.” Criminals think “what tools are readily available to me, that will work for the job?” I fail to see how learning to mirror this process falls into psychology.
You want to learn how certain people think, but fail to see how it's psychology? Nice the way you avoid the question, what is your personal experience with this type of course? What percentage is relevant to studying the mindset( as you don't like the term psychology) of criminals?
 
You want to learn how certain people think, but fail to see how it's psychology? Nice the way you avoid the question, what is your personal experience with this type of course? What percentage is relevant to studying the mindset( as you don't like the term psychology) of criminals?
Avoided the question? I don’t see how. Frankly, given your word choice, it seems you are emotionally invested in a given outcome here. It’s not my intention to offend you.
 
The average American thinks “what self-defense tool can I buy to protect myself from this threat.” Criminals think “what tools are readily available to me, that will work for the job?” I fail to see how learning to mirror this process falls into psychology.
I don't think the "average" on either side of the law thinks like this. I think the "average" doesn't really put any thought into self protection. And most crimes are opportunity. Criminals don't plan heists outside of movies.
And it falls into psychology because how and why people think the way they do is the very definition of psychology.
 
I don't think the "average" on either side of the law thinks like this. I think the "average" doesn't really put any thought into self protection. And most crimes are opportunity. Criminals don't plan heists outside of movies.
And it falls into psychology because how and why people think the way they do is the very definition of psychology.
Yes, psychology drives tool selection, but it’s not clear to me that the thought process behind the tool selection, still falls under psychology. Except for the social engineering component.
 
Avoided the question? I don’t see how. Frankly, given your word choice, it seems you are emotionally invested in a given outcome here. It’s not my intention to offend you.
If you didn't answer the question, it would seem like you avoided the question. I'm just having trouble with the logic here. You say the value of the anti abduction course is not the physical techniques or escape restraints, but the opportunity to delve into the criminal mindset( which may or may not be psycology). It doesn't seem like the most effective use of your time. As you believe this is a viable way to learn, I asked for your personal experience and what percentage of the class was focused on criminal mindset, not on physical techniques and actual restraints.
 
If you didn't answer the question, it would seem like you avoided the question. I'm just having trouble with the logic here. You say the value of the anti abduction course is not the physical techniques or escape restraints, but the opportunity to delve into the criminal mindset( which may or may not be psycology). It doesn't seem like the most effective use of your time. As you believe this is a viable way to learn, I asked for your personal experience and what percentage of the class was focused on criminal mindset, not on physical techniques and actual restraints.
Not answering point by point, doesn’t equate to not answering.

You’re not going to be an expert on restraints. That’s more for familiarity. The point is to understand the logic behind criminals choosing and applying given tools.

The only thing the course covered as far as psychology, was what a given criminal needs, why they need it, and their rules of engagement for getting it. The rest was thinking about tool selection and planning around accomplishing that objective.

What makes a good ambush point? What makes a good weapon? What makes a good hiding place for it? What makes a good restraint? That sort of thing.
 
No one argues that it’s “better” than the original source. But frankly, there is not one discipline (including TMA) that doesn’t have some reliance on lineage for knowledge transference. Furthermore, sometimes the source is incapable of effectively transferring the knowledge, and someone else has to codify it on their behalf.

How many people do you know, that have taken life with street and improvised weapons? Blown a hole in someone with a revolver, contact shot? Made a critical immediate decision, in terms of situationational awareness? Abducted someone?—and can completely, clearly, articulate the process? Are you comfortable being taught by such a person?

Was Dr. Martin Fackler clueless about terminal ballistics, because he didn’t shoot people?

@Gerry Seymour
Terminal balistics is a knowledge category. I'd expect Dr. Fackler to have far more knowledge about that than pretty much anyone who uses a gun in combat. I also wouldn't expect him to be much use in delivering situational skill training about how to handle a gun in combat unless he has done so repeatedly, or had some experience and worked with others with experience to develop a coherent model of how that chaos works.

Similarly, I can pass along some information about the psychology and neuropsychology of threat situations. I can even talk about things that are likely not to work (based on what we know from research). That's knowledge. My personal experience with threat situations is not sufficient, IMO, to realistically teach de-escalation. I've done it on rare occasions, and have no idea what part of what I did was important, because I have too little data to base it on. And since I have so little experience dealing with those situations, I absolutely would not be qualified to lead any kind of situational role-play about de-escalation, no matter how much I read and learn about the context.

This is what I was trying to get at about there being some topics I can teach about. I have a lot of knowledge, and I can even pass along some of the information I learned from others with experience in threat situations (I trained with several cops, bouncers, etc., and taught a few). But no matter how much I read and am trained by someone, I don't think it would be a good idea to have me teaching how to handle firearm combat, for instance, since I've never been in that situation. I could teach some techniques that could work in a retention situation, and I can teach gun safety and target shooting (have done, in fact), and could even teach a bit about SD law in respect to firearms. But not combat in that context.
 
Chinese wrestling encourage offense and lose than defense and win. Chinese wrestling wants people to attack, attack, and still attack. Chinese wrestling doesn't encourage people to play defense.

If A applies hip throw on B. B pushes A down. B may win that round. But A will have better chance to develop hip throw than B will. In other words, A will have better future in Chinese wrestling than B will have.

This is what I'm trying to point out. If you teach self-defense or teach sport competition, your teaching order can be different.
I'd disagree with the approach of not teaching defense with the offence, for competition. That only makes sense if your opponent is taught the same way. Since that appears to be the culture of Chinese wrestling, it's a fair approach there. But it would fail in a context where folks are being taught to focus on effective competition (being able to win, rather than only winning a certain way). Personally, it doesn't make sense to me, but that's not relevant to the folks in that sport.
 
Terminal balistics is a knowledge category. I'd expect Dr. Fackler to have far more knowledge about that than pretty much anyone who uses a gun in combat. I also wouldn't expect him to be much use in delivering situational skill training about how to handle a gun in combat unless he has done so repeatedly, or had some experience and worked with others with experience to develop a coherent model of how that chaos works.

Similarly, I can pass along some information about the psychology and neuropsychology of threat situations. I can even talk about things that are likely not to work (based on what we know from research). That's knowledge. My personal experience with threat situations is not sufficient, IMO, to realistically teach de-escalation. I've done it on rare occasions, and have no idea what part of what I did was important, because I have too little data to base it on. And since I have so little experience dealing with those situations, I absolutely would not be qualified to lead any kind of situational role-play about de-escalation, no matter how much I read and learn about the context.

This is what I was trying to get at about there being some topics I can teach about. I have a lot of knowledge, and I can even pass along some of the information I learned from others with experience in threat situations (I trained with several cops, bouncers, etc., and taught a few). But no matter how much I read and am trained by someone, I don't think it would be a good idea to have me teaching how to handle firearm combat, for instance, since I've never been in that situation. I could teach some techniques that could work in a retention situation, and I can teach gun safety and target shooting (have done, in fact), and could even teach a bit about SD law in respect to firearms. But not combat in that context.
So, by this line of logic, people who learned everything from a grandmaster, about a TMA developed during a war 1000 years ago, have no business opening a dojo for that TMA.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top