Self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be ethical.

[drop bear]

The reason self defense exists is because of a concern that people will be attacked. And attacked with life changing consequences.

The issue is that these attacks are rare and so we get complacent. Like texting and driving we take short cuts that while we get away with. It is still considered a high risk behavior.

Self defense has become the equivalent of the comment.

"I have been texting and driving for years and never had a problem"

This becomes the evidence we use to justify our methods. We then use this justification to teach those methods to others.

And it is not grounded in truth.

For texting and driving we need to move away from anecdotes and look at the research.

For self defense we need to approach it with the same mindset. And look at the research.

In self defense results theoretically should matter more than happiness, comfort and feelings.

It is more convenient to text and drive. It is more convenient to learn a self defense that doesn't work.

But if you are advocating personal safety then you need a method based on truth and a training system based on results.

 

[skribs]

Everyone has different opinions on what qualifies for proof. Some people only accept what happens in MMA. Others only accept arts that have produced real-life results in fights for your life.

I agree that you need to test your skills. But I don't think there's one source that's the arbiter of martial knowledge, which will tell you what works and doesn't work.

 

[dvcochran]

"Self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be ethical. "

I respond to this quote in another thread before I saw that you had started a new thread with this caption.

I agree with what you are saying and where you are coming from with your analogy. I am not sure what the intent of your post is however. It is established that you have a very singular idea of what 'proof' is and that this is different for most other people. Beyond that I don't know what to say that has not already been said.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

based on results.

IMO, to test whether a SD technique work or not can be as simple as to collect enough testing data.

For example, how to break a throat choke.

- You ask your opponent to apply throat choke on you 20 times. Count how many times that you can break his choke hold. Record the succeed/failure number.
- You ask 20 different opponents to apply throat choke on you. Also count how many times that you can break those throat choke. Record the succeed/failure number.

I truly don't know other ways to test a certain skill.

The only concern of this testing is "your opponents". If your opponents are too strong and you are too weak, the testing result may not be fair for that technique. Also if your opponents are too weak and you are too strong, the testing result also may not be fair for that technique.

How to develop your soldiers?

First, you train them hard. Second, you find a group of weak soldiers that can be beaten up by your soldiers easily. This can help your soldiers to develop confidence. You then find a group of soldiers that's not too weak but not too strong, ... Gradually, your soldiers will become stronger and stronger.

That's the proper way to train soldiers. I believe MA training should be the same.

Make your technique to work on all

Step 1: grade school kids.
Step 2: junior high boys.
Step 3: senior high young men.
Step 4: college guys.

Now you have developed some dependable SD technique.

 

[JR 137]

I agree with your post 100% @drop bear

Only issue - define truth. I’ve stated here a few times what I’ve seen go down so many times (meaning seeing the same things happen), yet people dispute it. Fine by me. If I were teaching, I’d teach how to defend what I’ve seen. And what my State Trooper brother-in-law says he sees. And what others I know who work security and the like at high risk/occurrence places see. And what people who work with victims see/are told.

Seems solid. What if none of my students get into an altercation? Where’s my proof of efficacy? What if they’re losing more than they win, yet aren’t being killed or seriously wounded? Is that proof? What if they’re winning more often than not, but they’re consistently defending against people half their size and unskilled? Who determines the opponent’s skill level anyway?

Pretty hard to prove anything. And as far as win and loss, I don’t mean “let’s step outside.” I mean they truly defended themselves, but the attacker dealt or received more damage than my student.

And there’s sample size. A handful of students being forced to defend themselves once or twice each isn’t statistically valid. Too many variables. If you’ve got results from scores of situations or more, that’ll help make your stats more reliable. It’s like BMI - BMI is horrible for individuals, yet is quite accurate for populations. The mathematical formula accounts for outliers when you’re looking at populations.

 

[skribs]

"Self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be ethical. "

I respond to this quote in another thread before I saw that you had started a new thread with this caption.

I agree with what you are saying and where you are coming from with your analogy. I am not sure what the intent of your post is however. It is established that you have a very singular idea of what 'proof' is and that this is different for most other people. Beyond that I don't know what to say that has not already been said.

If you go to the martial arts subreddit, you'll find a lot of people who share his views.

 

[Buka]

Self defense also needs to be grounded in truth in order for it to work.

 

[Danny T]

Self defense also needs to be grounded in truth in order for it to work.

THIS!!

 

[dvcochran]

I agree with your post 100% @drop bear

Only issue - define truth. I’ve stated here a few times what I’ve seen go down so many times (meaning seeing the same things happen), yet people dispute it. Fine by me. If I were teaching, I’d teach how to defend what I’ve seen. And what my State Trooper brother-in-law says he sees. And what others I know who work security and the like at high risk/occurrence places see. And what people who work with victims see/are told.

Seems solid. What if none of my students get into an altercation? Where’s my proof of efficacy? What if they’re losing more than they win, yet aren’t being killed or seriously wounded? Is that proof? What if they’re winning more often than not, but they’re consistently defending against people half their size and unskilled? Who determines the opponent’s skill level anyway?

Pretty hard to prove anything. And as far as win and loss, I don’t mean “let’s step outside.” I mean they truly defended themselves, but the attacker dealt or received more damage than my student.

And there’s sample size. A handful of students being forced to defend themselves once or twice each isn’t statistically valid. Too many variables. If you’ve got results from scores of situations or more, that’ll help make your stats more reliable. It’s like BMI - BMI is horrible for individuals, yet is quite accurate for populations. The mathematical formula accounts for outliers when you’re looking at populations.

Great post. I'll add this as food for thought:

When I was a LEO I saw over time that there were some officers who got into more physical altercations than others. Some officers had a resisting arrest charge with nearly every DUI or domestic dispute call.
I started studying this and learned that much of it had do to with the officers (demeanor/actions) not the perp. A few of the officers were cocky, loved the 'unfair' fight and would egg the perp on until they did something stupid. Some officers carried themselves poorly and were seen as more of an easy target. Not good for a LEO. I preferred to keep things as short as possible. Once assessment was made, I tried to get the cuffs on before the perp really had a change to process what was going on.

These 'qualities' taught in a good TMA school and some SD programs (and yes, MMA) that are not easily 'measurable' . How you carry yourself; how you interact; how you address someone; your external presence; etc.... Somewhere in there it is the difference between being the predator or the prey.

For LEO in todays society I imagine this has only gotten more important and harder to find when searching for new recruits.

Keeping the test parameters Only in the ring or on the mat make it an invalid test. Period. Any easier test model? Sure. But the data ends up skewed. ​

 

[Deleted member 39746]

That it does. But lots of people generally die before you can pick up on trends and make systems that work. Just look at the U.S army combatives and trends and the amount of research they put into that and the amount of people who died because of false conclusions or what have you. Its one of those the returns take a while to see happen. So if the return is negative, plenty of people will have suffered through it.


It is a ardious and both economically costly task and life costly task to do, and you can adjust one thing in a training system and the results of that one thing can lead to a rabbit hole of issues and you need to ID the source of them etc.

The best analogy i ahve is economics, not to get political but if you manage a country there are thosuands of things to keep a eye on and if you adjust one thing you can have a cause and effect thing happen. Either for better or worse and the results can take years to get.

 

[Christopher Adamchek]

i attack this issue by watching hours of cell phone and security videos of encounters and pressure testing techniques on one of my top students who is nearly twice my size

 

[drop bear]

i attack this issue by watching hours of cell phone and security videos of encounters and pressure testing techniques on one of my top students who is nearly twice my size

You really should show that pressure testing.

Done right your method will work.

Done wrong it goes a bit silly.

If you are doing it right you need to find a way to separate yourself from those doing it wrong.

There is a lot of instructors "pressure testing" by casually walking over everyone in the room.

And the more people show the more real input people can have on a subject they can see and understand.

This for example would be ethical training.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with your post 100% @drop bear

Only issue - define truth. I’ve stated here a few times what I’ve seen go down so many times (meaning seeing the same things happen), yet people dispute it. Fine by me. If I were teaching, I’d teach how to defend what I’ve seen. And what my State Trooper brother-in-law says he sees. And what others I know who work security and the like at high risk/occurrence places see. And what people who work with victims see/are told.

Seems solid. What if none of my students get into an altercation? Where’s my proof of efficacy? What if they’re losing more than they win, yet aren’t being killed or seriously wounded? Is that proof? What if they’re winning more often than not, but they’re consistently defending against people half their size and unskilled? Who determines the opponent’s skill level anyway?

Pretty hard to prove anything. And as far as win and loss, I don’t mean “let’s step outside.” I mean they truly defended themselves, but the attacker dealt or received more damage than my student.

And there’s sample size. A handful of students being forced to defend themselves once or twice each isn’t statistically valid. Too many variables. If you’ve got results from scores of situations or more, that’ll help make your stats more reliable. It’s like BMI - BMI is horrible for individuals, yet is quite accurate for populations. The mathematical formula accounts for outliers when you’re looking at populations.

You could train resisted and catalog you own progress.

You take the tales from a state trooper and recreate them in the lab. Drill it a hundred times and see what happens.

Then show that progress.

 

[skribs]

You really should show that pressure testing.

Why? So I can feel validated by random people on the internet?

 

[hoshin1600]

The reason self defense exists is because of a concern that people will be attacked.

agree 100 %

The issue is that these attacks are rare and so we get complacent. Like texting and driving we take short cuts that while we get away with.

also true but i dont think this is the main underlying reason that your trying to get to.
i get what is being put forth as an issue and it is true to a degree, but on a deeper psychological level the fist statement as is being presented here is using a presupposition that is not 100% accurate.

what i think @drop bear is saying is...

• self defense classes exist because people have a fear of being attacked......and
• the reason a lot of self defense is bogus or doesnt work is people get off track

i do not really agree to this on a wide scale basis, though it might be true in many instances. i am under the belief

• martial art classes exists because people have fear and anxiety about violence.

BUT...... that does not equate to people going out and taking classes to actually learn how to fight. i would propose very very few ACTUALLY want to learn how to fight. i would say most only want the anxiety to go away, thus any placebo will produce the desired result.
one big reason psychiatrists have a job is because people will not face their fears. so to make an assumption that people are afraid of fighting therefore will seek out classes to actually fight is a pretty big leap. people are much more likely to dip their toe in the water with a placebo Mcdojo where its "safe".
this is where i think many of us martial artists are making a mistake when we criticize the mcdojo schools or any school that does not hold the same level of realism that we ourselves look to be real.
the people that attend those schools are not looking to actually fight. the level of fear and anxiety is too high for them to reach that level yet. we criticize them for being ignorant of "what is real". well maybe they know what is real and cant yet touch it due to the fear so they allow themselves to be deluded and pacified with as close to real as they can tolerate.
the level of realism within a training program is going to have a spectrum. each level of that spectrum will appeal to people based on their threshold level and tolerance for violence.
on the higher levels of realism, yes i will agree with drop bear 100% those classes need to be based on and grounded in the truth of what violence actually looks like and how it manifests itself. and guess what those classes exist, but you need to seek them out, and you probably wont find them at your local gym or dojo. i would guess most people are not ready to seek out what is real or they would have found it by now. they searched and found exactly what they wanted and thats why they train where they do.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Great post. I'll add this as food for thought:

When I was a LEO I saw over time that there were some officers who got into more physical altercations than others. Some officers had a resisting arrest charge with nearly every DUI or domestic dispute call.
I started studying this and learned that much of it had do to with the officers (demeanor/actions) not the perp. A few of the officers were cocky, loved the 'unfair' fight and would egg the perp on until they did something stupid. Some officers carried themselves poorly and were seen as more of an easy target. Not good for a LEO. I preferred to keep things as short as possible. Once assessment was made, I tried to get the cuffs on before the perp really had a change to process what was going on.

These 'qualities' taught in a good TMA school and some SD programs (and yes, MMA) that are not easily 'measurable' . How you carry yourself; how you interact; how you address someone; your external presence; etc.... Somewhere in there it is the difference between being the predator or the prey.

For LEO in todays society I imagine this has only gotten more important and harder to find when searching for new recruits.

Keeping the test parameters Only in the ring or on the mat make it an invalid test. Period. Any easier test model? Sure. But the data ends up skewed. ​

So true. It's amazing how a slight variance in attitude can affect a situational outcome in a big way. Sometimes the negative demeanor you are speaking of is a deliberate attempt to encourage the necessity of force , and sometimes the LEO (or anyone) just has little awareness or control of his demeanor.

I agree. Interaction should be kept to a minimum, detached, assertive but respectful. Keep is short and sweet. Pull the fuse before detonation and restrain while you still have full control. One's presence (like a sunny or gray,cloudy day) can have a gut, emotional, response on others. I think it's an instinctual reaction taking in many factors all at once, based on what you are projecting. A professional should be aware of what they are projecting, showing the predator side judiciously - and the prey side never.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The "what constitutes as proof" aspect has already been addressed-so I'm going to address another part of this. It's fine if you teach self-defense that isn't effect IF everyone knows it's not effective. If I teach krav maga, a self-defense minded system, and I tell people up front "this is a system for self-defense, but this class is only to help people get a workout", that's perfectly fine. It's what half of those cardio kickboxing classes do.

I also don't think it's oxymoronic to have a SD class that doesn't teach self defense, if it's just one class. So to go back to the krav, if I taught krav maga somewhere, and marketed it as a self-defense system..I likely teach most of the classes in a self-defense basis. And those should be teaching actual self defense schools. But I could also have cardio/workout/fitness/bootcamp/whatever krav classes on the schedule, and as long as I tell people straight up that those classes are for fitness, I don't see an issue, and as long as I teach actual self defense classes separately, I'm not doing any false advertising.

 

[dvcochran]

The "what constitutes as proof" aspect has already been addressed-so I'm going to address another part of this. It's fine if you teach self-defense that isn't effect IF everyone knows it's not effective. If I teach krav maga, a self-defense minded system, and I tell people up front "this is a system for self-defense, but this class is only to help people get a workout", that's perfectly fine. It's what half of those cardio kickboxing classes do.

I also don't think it's oxymoronic to have a SD class that doesn't teach self defense, if it's just one class. So to go back to the krav, if I taught krav maga somewhere, and marketed it as a self-defense system..I likely teach most of the classes in a self-defense basis. And those should be teaching actual self defense schools. But I could also have cardio/workout/fitness/bootcamp/whatever krav classes on the schedule, and as long as I tell people straight up that those classes are for fitness, I don't see an issue, and as long as I teach actual self defense classes separately, I'm not doing any false advertising.

Disclaimer: I know zip about Krav maga.
I think I understand what you are saying but not sure I understand why you keep it under the "krav maga" banner. Is it commonly understood that krav is not necessarily taught as a MA? That is more a tool for physical exercise?

From Google:
Krav Maga is a military self-defense and fighting system developed for the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli security forces derived from a combination of techniques sourced from boxing, wrestling, aikido, judo, and karate along with realistic fight training.

I am just trying to understand what you are saying. If the class does not teach SD but instead it is a calisthenics and physical exercise class, why not call a spade a spade? Mixing terms IS crossing over into the oxymoronic. IMHO

 

[skribs]

Disclaimer: I know zip about Krav maga.
I think I understand what you are saying but not sure I understand why you keep it under the "krav maga" banner. Is it commonly understood that krav is not necessarily taught as a MA? That is more a tool for physical exercise?

From Google:
Krav Maga is a military self-defense and fighting system developed for the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli security forces derived from a combination of techniques sourced from boxing, wrestling, aikido, judo, and karate along with realistic fight training.

I am just trying to understand what you are saying. If the class does not teach SD but instead it is a calisthenics and physical exercise class, why not call a spade a spade? Mixing terms IS crossing over into the oxymoronic. IMHO

I think what he means is let's say you have class Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. But Fridays you focus more on things like pushups, situps, jump rope, sprints, etc. It would be safe to say that it's a fitness class to get you in shape for the techniques you learn Monday and Wednesday.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You could train resisted and catalog you own progress.

You take the tales from a state trooper and recreate them in the lab. Drill it a hundred times and see what happens.

Then show that progress.

This sounds an awful lot like you're advocating listening to stories, and using them to inform your training...something you've expressed disdain for when I've mentioned doing so. What have I missed in your message?