I know of a number of systems (and a few schools within some systems or organisations) that train in "street clothes", but I'd hardly say it's even "many". That said, the idea that the training "allows you to respond as you see fit" is a fair bit off. That implies the ability to consciously decide, and if you rely on that you've already been hit. A few times. There will be aspects of personality that will influence what a person (individually) responds with, but that's really a different thing altogether.
^^To be fair, i phrased my comment terribly. I said many, but not the majority - My intention was, that to not be the majority, it needs to be <50%. Therefore, its well under half. Which is still a fair few, but at the same time, not a great number. And when i say respond as you see fit, im referring more to whether or not you make use of force, or flight, or diplomacy. Your initial reaction in a confrontation is subjective to how you respond.
As for Personality, i strongly agree.
Ooh, I feel a range of other arts may well (and very legitimately) argue with you on that....
(Not much to comment on here)
Logic really has no place in this discussion, I must say. What has a place are congruent and established methods based on the concepts of the system itself, and that can actaully go directly against "logic", especially when it comes to the ideas of self defence.
Perhaps logic wasnt the right word. "Basis", "Platform of Reasoning", or even "Defined Approach" would be better words. I was referring to the Train of Thought previously mentioned, not applying Logic to SD as a whole.
Right. But before you get there, how is the lapel grabbed? There's a big difference between a traditional Japanese lapel grab (or Korean, for that matter) and a grab to the front of your shirt in a street confrontation. And that may well have very big implications when it comes to what things you could do in responce.
Fair enough. Though i was visualising just an untrained, regular grab.
Honestly, this entire sentence I'm not sure about. You've basically said "Imagine what you'd do" against a particular attack, then followed it with "Now imagine if they didn't get beaten by your techniques". Er, right? You'd do something else, then, wouldn't you?
Well, since it isnt actually taking place, of course you have to imagine it. You imagine using anything you learn from Self Defence against a real adversary, dont you? Thats imagining as well. My intention was to communicate for you to think of anything youve learnt, that you would apply to that circumstance.
I do agree that the effects of adrenaline need to be addressed (both in your opponent and in yourself), as well as the potential of drugs/alcohol etc, but the entire idea presented here suffers from the "but what if!" problem that plagues martial arts.
(Addressed later)
If they're not responding to the pain of having their finger or wrist broken, striking them hard won't really do much more. Striking them accurately, to well selected targets, on the other hand... But this does read as if saying "grappling doesn't work, hitting hard does!". Not sure about that....
Id beg to differ - Say you applied pain to someones finger or wrist, and at that moment, it made them very angry. What you want them to do is recoil in pain, but if this person is, as mentioned, intoxicated, or doped up on something, or just damn angry, they wont respond as readily to their own injury. Striking, however, or a jointlock, or even a harsh shove, will work well enough to give them a second to think about it. I never said Grappling doesnt work, though. Grappling does work. I just think it needs to be well trained, first, and perhaps not depended on entirely.
"What If?" shouldn't exist like this. It's never-ending, and shows a lack of confidence and understanding of the system, with the doubt that's being displayed in the question (or in yourself, in some cases). As for your hypothetical, there is too much unsaid to answer it... for example, what are you defining as success? For me, if it's self defence, the aim is to get away safely, with the minimalist risk to your safety and health. In that case, if the self defence classes have instilled escape and observation/awareness then they may very easily be the better equiped to handle the situation.
What if, i think, needs to be taken slightly more seriously. But not to any extreme degree. Are you saying its a bad idea to think, What If, this person has a concealed weapon, such as a firearm, or knife? Its just being considerate of circumstances you cant possibly initially know about. Such as, blood born diseases, the other person being somewhat experienced, or if they have a few friends around that corner your about to run around.
I will also say, in addition though, that i am perhaps defining self-defence in a constrained way, to an engagement, rather than an overall confrontation in which escape is your aim. Thats my bad, there.
In a final statement to that, there is every possible negative ending, and every possible positive ending, to a SD situation. The purpose, if im not mistaken, of SD, is to minimalise the number of possible negative endings, which is ultimately achieved by being well clear of the area. But you have to get out of the area, and evade your pursuers/disable your pursuers, first.
I thnk that is overly simplifying things, and misses the point of both. As well as missing the range of martial arts that exist, and the reasons people train in them.
Fair enough. Upon re-reading my statement, it wasnt very sensible.
For yourself, sure. But that's to do with your personal values. Others may be different... and finding someone who can actually teach a good self defence "angle" can be harder than most think. There's another thread in the TKD section at the moment about what a particular poster should be doing in his self defence teachings, and it highlights to me a huge lack in people's understandings of both topics. And that's with some of the people I respect a lot here.
This is why i cant use my own Training as an example - Due to the increased emphasis on SD. Ive never experienced bad SD Training, so i may be slightly biased away from it. Looking around on here though, is quickly enlightening me to the presence of bad SD Idealogies.
Hmm, I'd be interested to know which martial arts are based more on power and speed being greater than accuracy and technique. I can't think of any that I'd classify as martial arts. They all prefer technique over power, although power and speed can be a big part of what they do.
Kyokushin Karate, Muay Thai, and possibly Kali. Im sure there are more, but their Techniques are geared more toward being basic applications of Power and Speed. Having said that, they are still using Predefined techniques to attain that, so what i should have said is "Emphasise Power and Speed more than Technique, but Technique is still a large factor.
2; Youll likely notice i wont be mentioning my own art. This is because where i train, everything is geared in a more Applicable direction, and some things otherwise less practiced are practiced more. Therefore, where i train is a bad generalisation to make, since its emphases (Multiple emphasis. I assume that would be emphases) are geared away from sport/competition, only really participating in them due to the idea of it psychologically preparing people to be hit, and hit back. Thats another story though. Moving ahead...
