There has been quite a bit discussed here from self-defense to sport applications.
The thing to remember is that self-defense is different than martial arts. While martial arts in the typical sense offer numerous benefits, realistic self-defense isn't always one of them. Even when self-defense is emphasized within an art it generally requires months to years to effectively develop an appropriate skill level for use in real situations. Having said that, it's important to note that many times potentially violent situations can be dealt with in a non-physical manner. This includes mind-set, awareness, escape, and de-escalation among other things. These are things that are often neglected in traditional and semi-traditional martial arts. Another thing often neglected in martial arts, as mentioned by Paul_D, is the adrenal response. Regardless of what we think we will do or how we train, if it doesn't take the adrenal response into consideration there is often a low rate of success for many of these techniques, tactics, and strategies. An adrenal response is something that we all experience. While the degree of intensity may vary from person to person due to numerous factors (including proper training) it unfortunately is not something that we can eliminate or ignore in our training. And until those preferred techniques are actually trained through the adrenal state, the likelihood of them working as intended is pretty low.
The discussion of control holds, locks, and chokes is pretty interesting. However, the question to ask is whether or not these skills would actually be applicable in the majority of "self-defense" situations. Remember, I previously mentioned awareness, escape, and de-escalation. These are things that generally should be tried prior to resorting to physical skills, unless the level of threat demands an immediate physical response (cornered or trapped by the assailant or ambushed). That being the case, what kind of legitimate situation would require the use of locks or control holds? If the intended victim believes that the level of threat is not high enough to warrant a high level response then obviously he/she could use more appropriate options such as de-escalation. Also, while a choke hold can be an appropriate response for a high level threat, especially a lethal threat but it's obviously not something that should be used for threats that could be effectively dealt with in a non-physical manner. Anytime force is used on the neck and throat it can be considered use of lethal force. It's also not a technique I would teach haphazardly under the heading of "self-defense".
While I understand the reluctance by some to use the term "brutal" it does make sense from a mind-set perspective. That said, I have used the term "savagely" to assist students in understanding the appropriate mind-set for dealing with explosive violence. The term used is not as important as the mind-set it should convey.
Steve
...
