Self-Protection From Violence

[drop bear]

Even if we accept that to be true, a professional sport martial artist puts in a LOT of hours. I can train an average person to competency without needing them to train 20 hours a week. Also, a professional sport martial artist (assuming a high-contact sport) takes a lot of punishment. This is not a viable option for most people. I'm in my late 40's - I don't heal like I did at 30, so I can't afford the same level of punishment I took then. And if you look at what the professionals deal with, there's a lot of damage to the body over time. Self-defense is about avoiding taking damage, so training heavily in hard-contact sport can be counter to this principle.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with sport or the training used for it. I'm just saying it's not the right choice for everyone who wants to learn physical skills for defending themselves.

Competency for what? What is your end game?

 

[drop bear]

Resistive training is not necessarily "sport". It's a training method, and applies quite nicely to self-defense oriented work, too. I spent most of the class today teaching students counters to 3 techniques, why those counters worked, and how to recover from the counter. In sport, the primary reason for all that would be to be able to actually use the counters and recovery moves. In my training, the primary reason is so they can understand what a technique is not going to work well for. The primary principle in our art is to avoid the resistance. Figure out what resistance they are offering, then work in the gaps that resistance uncovers. There's nothing "sport" about that practice, though the lessons and approach apply to sport, as well. That's why some sport training is effective preparation for self-defense.

Ok. Can you show me these techniques working against a resisted partner?

So I get an idea of what you mean when you say resisted.

 

[Paul_D]

Again what was supposed to be a thread on self protection has descended into a thread on fighting.

You must be able to take a hit, you must have solid basics, you must train against resisting opponents, you must spar, you must have violence as an option because violence is the only possible out come to every self defence situation.

Putting to one side for now the misconception from many male martial artists that the physical side of self protection will resemble a combat sports fighting or dojo sparring (which makes your assertions, on what a persons physical skills need to be, incorrect anyway) the problem you have is that because violence is your only tool, then you are unable to see any other out come to a self-protection scenario.

As your only tool is a hammer, you are forced to turn every problem into a nail,

My wife, who is not a martial artist, has successfully defended herself using her Target Hardening skills during the “interview” stage from three men who were sizing up her suitability as a victim. She was able to defend herself from violence and yet she cannot “take a hit”, and yet it has been stated on the forum on more than one occasion that you must be able to take a hit to defend yourself.

When I have ended a self protection situation non physically, with the 99% of self protection skills that are non physical, where was my ability to “fight”, to take a hit, to spar, to train against resisting opponents?

Simply because you a) do not posses the non physical skills to defend yourself and b) have a blinkered approach in which you are only able to see self protection as synonymous with getting into a street fight, it does not mean everyone else MUST train physical skills in order to be able to successfully protect themselves from violence.

 

[drop bear]

Physical skills assist your non physical skills. Under stress your ability to function decreases. And convincing someone who wants to hurt you that they shouldn't hurt you combines the fear of public speaking with the fear of getting a flogging.

It is a complicated task that you need to engage with confidence. So it is easier to deescalate a confrontation that you would probably win than one you would probably loose.

Or just hit them with the hammer if that is all you have.

My deescalation is a combination of trial and error. Sales methods and some pick up artist stuff. I read the verbal judo book. But the guy seemed to miss the mark for me as he lacked empathy for the person he was supposed to be talking or negotiating with. Called them "wimps" I believe.

The Art of AMOG

 

[Juany118]

Again what was supposed to be a thread on self protection has descended into a thread on fighting.

You must be able to take a hit, you must have solid basics, you must train against resisting opponents, you must spar, you must have violence as an option because violence is the only possible out come to every self defence situation.

Putting to one side for now the misconception from many male martial artists that the physical side of self protection will resemble a combat sports fighting or dojo sparring (which makes your assertions, on what a persons physical skills need to be, incorrect anyway) the problem you have is that because violence is your only tool, then you are unable to see any other out come to a self-protection scenario.

As your only tool is a hammer, you are forced to turn every problem into a nail,

My wife, who is not a martial artist, has successfully defended herself using her Target Hardening skills during the “interview” stage from three men who were sizing up her suitability as a victim. She was able to defend herself from violence and yet she cannot “take a hit”, and yet it has been stated on the forum on more than one occasion that you must be able to take a hit to defend yourself.

When I have ended a self protection situation non physically, with the 99% of self protection skills that are non physical, where was my ability to “fight”, to take a hit, to spar, to train against resisting opponents?

Simply because you a) do not posses the non physical skills to defend yourself and b) have a blinkered approach in which you are only able to see self protection as synonymous with getting into a street fight, it does not mean everyone else MUST train physical skills in order to be able to successfully protect themselves from violence.

No one is saying what you imply we are simply addressing all of the different components. No one would say target hardening nor E & E should be ignored or overlooked. However those things might not work. They are also, imo at least, not difficult to learn once you recognize their value. So once they are defined the discussion on those topics is largely over.

If they fail then you have one of two choices, be a victim or defend yourself. Here is where there is meat in the discussion because the methods of defense are varied and making them effective can be time consuming.

Now not everyone learns how to defend themselves, with MA that is cool, as a matter of fact I tend to recommend that people simply use the above techniques and then obtain a tool, legal in your area, and learn how to properly use it for the event that hardening and E & E fail. Learning a MA for effective self defense takes time and effort many don't have the time for. Regardless of your chosen method however, if you are going to defend yourself it is incumbent on you to learn not only how to properly use your chosen method but also learn under what circumstance that method is applicable, otherwise you are wasting your time. Since this is a Martial Arts forum obviously the discussion will focus more on MAs than chemical agents, stun guns, firearms etc.

 

[drop bear]

For target hardening I use a lot of what we call "cash in transit" methods. Which I can't find a link too that isn't a PDF.

It is basically how to move money from a to b as safely as you can.

And is very similar to the small amount of body guard stuff I did. Just a person not money.

What is also helpful is looking up tourist guides as they seem to be the most vulnerable to that sort of threat.

Lonely planet is pretty good.

Safety in Indonesia - Lonely Planet

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Finally getting a chance to type up my answers regarding what I teach...

The material I teach is significantly more limited than what I train. That's because I only teach two hours per week most of the time (as opposed to training 12 hours per week and studying an additional 3-4 hours on average). In addition, I'm one instructor out of about 15 at our gym, and students float between different classes and teachers, so I can't always structure a set curriculum that I can count on everybody working through.

Lifestyle: Not covered. None of my students are coming to me for instructions on how to live their life.
Target hardening/Threat awareness and avoidance: I'll occasionally toss out some advice on the subject, but I don't feel qualified to offer systematic training on the subject. I know what works for me, but that doesn't mean I have the knowledge base to structure an ongoing curriculum that covers the needs of students in different life circumstances from mine.
De-escalation: Not (directly) covered. I've had some luck with deescalating potential confrontations on occasion, but I don't have the professional experience or knowledge base to teach people how to do this most effectively. As I noted in my previous comment, there can be some indirect benefit to being physically confident when trying to calm down a potential attacker.
Physically fighting: The prime focus of what I teach. BJJ is a fighting art. I focus on teaching the "street" application of the art first before addressing the competitive aspects. I also try to make sure the students understand how things work differently in those different contexts.
Escape/evasion: Integrated with the fighting aspects. See my previous comment for how that works.
Dealing with aftermath: I try to make sure students understand both how to stay within legal boundaries and also avoid the perception of having transgressed those boundaries. I don't cover emotional aspects as I don't feel qualified to do so. There may be some indirect benefits as mentioned in my previous comment.

In general: I try to stick to the principle of "first, do no harm." In other words, I don't want the lessons students learn on the fighting end of things to cause them problems with all the other aspects of self-protection, i.e. getting into confrontations they could have avoided, failing to disengage when they have the opportunity, getting into legal problems for excessive force, etc. I do my best to promote a mindset of getting home safely rather than a mindset of proving oneself by besting an adversary. That's easier with some students than with others.

Validation?: Hard to say. I know my students are developing a certain subset of fighting skills which can be useful in protecting against a violent assault. Since the vast majority of my students are not encountering violent confrontations on a regular basis, I can't say that I know for sure they would apply their skills appropriately in such a situation. I have had one student report that he applied one of my lessons successfully in fending off an armed mugger, but that's one student and one technique and one instance - hardly proof of anything. I do spend time studying available information on common real world attacks and try to make sure that at least my fundamentals classes are focused on handling those sorts of situations.

 

[Buka]

Finally getting a chance to type up my answers regarding what I teach...

The material I teach is significantly more limited than what I train. That's because I only teach two hours per week most of the time (as opposed to training 12 hours per week and studying an additional 3-4 hours on average). In addition, I'm one instructor out of about 15 at our gym, and students float between different classes and teachers, so I can't always structure a set curriculum that I can count on everybody working through.

Lifestyle: Not covered. None of my students are coming to me for instructions on how to live their life.
Target hardening/Threat awareness and avoidance: I'll occasionally toss out some advice on the subject, but I don't feel qualified to offer systematic training on the subject. I know what works for me, but that doesn't mean I have the knowledge base to structure an ongoing curriculum that covers the needs of students in different life circumstances from mine.
De-escalation: Not (directly) covered. I've had some luck with deescalating potential confrontations on occasion, but I don't have the professional experience or knowledge base to teach people how to do this most effectively. As I noted in my previous comment, there can be some indirect benefit to being physically confident when trying to calm down a potential attacker.
Physically fighting: The prime focus of what I teach. BJJ is a fighting art. I focus on teaching the "street" application of the art first before addressing the competitive aspects. I also try to make sure the students understand how things work differently in those different contexts.
Escape/evasion: Integrated with the fighting aspects. See my previous comment for how that works.
Dealing with aftermath: I try to make sure students understand both how to stay within legal boundaries and also avoid the perception of having transgressed those boundaries. I don't cover emotional aspects as I don't feel qualified to do so. There may be some indirect benefits as mentioned in my previous comment.

In general: I try to stick to the principle of "first, do no harm." In other words, I don't want the lessons students learn on the fighting end of things to cause them problems with all the other aspects of self-protection, i.e. getting into confrontations they could have avoided, failing to disengage when they have the opportunity, getting into legal problems for excessive force, etc. I do my best to promote a mindset of getting home safely rather than a mindset of proving oneself by besting an adversary. That's easier with some students than with others.

Validation?: Hard to say. I know my students are developing a certain subset of fighting skills which can be useful in protecting against a violent assault. Since the vast majority of my students are not encountering violent confrontations on a regular basis, I can't say that I know for sure they would apply their skills appropriately in such a situation. I have had one student report that he applied one of my lessons successfully in fending off an armed mugger, but that's one student and one technique and one instance - hardly proof of anything. I do spend time studying available information on common real world attacks and try to make sure that at least my fundamentals classes are focused on handling those sorts of situations.

Lifestyle: Not covered. None of my students are coming to me for instructions on how to live their life.

That's true pretty much world wide, I don't think it's the main focus of those that enter a martial school. Some parents feel the exposure to martial structure, discipline and the example of the instructor(s), if they've checked them our, or more importantly, know them, even if casually, will have a great benefit to their children. And they are correct.

But it's a shame they're not coming to you for that. They would be all the richer for it.

Target hardening/Threat awareness and avoidance: I'll occasionally toss out some advice on the subject, but I don't feel qualified to offer systematic training on the subject. I know what works for me, but that doesn't mean I have the knowledge base to structure an ongoing curriculum that covers the needs of students in different life circumstances from mine.

I think maybe you do. I'm not talking about an every day, part of every class kind of thing, but I'm guessing you know more about this than you think you do.


De-escalation: Not (directly) covered. I've had some luck with deescalating potential confrontations on occasion, but I don't have the professional experience or knowledge base to teach people how to do this most effectively. As I noted in my previous comment, there can be some indirect benefit to being physically confident when trying to calm down a potential attacker.

Again, I think you know more about this than you think you do.

Physically fighting: The prime focus of what I teach. BJJ is a fighting art. I focus on teaching the "street" application of the art first before addressing the competitive aspects. I also try to make sure the students understand how things work differently in those different contexts.

Sounds like your gym has terrific resources for the art and science of fighting, it's always sounded that way. It's rather obvious. And it's SO damn important. Your students are lucky.

Escape/evasion: Integrated with the fighting aspects. See my previous comment for how that works.
Dealing with aftermath: I try to make sure students understand both how to stay within legal boundaries and also avoid the perception of having transgressed those boundaries. I don't cover emotional aspects as I don't feel qualified to do so. There may be some indirect benefits as mentioned in my previous comment.

The emotional aspect can be difficult. I'm wondering if any of the other instructors in your gym have any background in this?

In general: I try to stick to the principle of "first, do no harm." In other words, I don't want the lessons students learn on the fighting end of things to cause them problems with all the other aspects of self-protection, i.e. getting into confrontations they could have avoided, failing to disengage when they have the opportunity, getting into legal problems for excessive force, etc. I do my best to promote a mindset of getting home safely rather than a mindset of proving oneself by besting an adversary. That's easier with some students than with others.

Yes, it is easier with some than others. I'm also sure the example you set is of the utmost importance, so you have that part down pat. I doubt you'll get much of an argument in that area.

Validation?: Hard to say. I know my students are developing a certain subset of fighting skills which can be useful in protecting against a violent assault. Since the vast majority of my students are not encountering violent confrontations on a regular basis, I can't say that I know for sure they would apply their skills appropriately in such a situation. I have had one student report that he applied one of my lessons successfully in fending off an armed mugger, but that's one student and one technique and one instance - hardly proof of anything. I do spend time studying available information on common real world attacks and try to make sure that at least my fundamentals classes are focused on handling those sorts of situations.

I'm still confused by the whole validation aspect of the thread. Validation to whom? I'm not trying to be picky or difficult, I'm just not sure what we're talking about. Do you mean does this stuff, what we are actually teaching, work in fighting and self defense? Or do we, as instructors, have some form of accreditation from some sort of organization to do what we do? Like a license? Like this .....

Anyway, I'm enjoying this thread. Now somebody please validate my parking stub.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm still confused by the whole validation aspect of the thread. Validation to whom? I'm not trying to be picky or difficult, I'm just not sure what we're talking about. Do you mean does this stuff, what we are actually teaching, work in fighting and self defense?

By validation, I mean how do we, as instructors or practitioners, know that what we are teaching or practicing will actually work if it is needed in a real situation.

I think it's a trickier question than most people realize. I could say "hey, I was in this situation that could have turned violent and I talked my way out of it, so my de-escalation skills work." Maybe so, but maybe lots of other people without any training would have done just a good a job of it. Maybe some of them could have done better. Maybe the person I was talking down was just blustering and didn't really want to fight anyway. I could say "hey, my student successfully defended himself against a mugger, so the techniques I teach work." Maybe, but I teach lots of techniques. What about the ones my student didn't use? Do I know those work? Do I know that the techniques which worked for this student would have worked for another student? Do I know that the mugger wasn't just a wimp? I could say "these techniques were passed down from warriors who used them in life-or-death combat, so they must be effective." Maybe so, but do I have reliable historical records of exactly who used the techniques in what circumstances against whom and what their rate of success was? Probably not. For that matter, suppose a founder of an art added a technique to the system because it saved his life in battle. Suppose the next ten people from that system who tried the same technique in combat failed miserably and died as a result. Were their ghosts able to report back to the head instructor and say "hey this technique sucks, drop it from the curriculum please?"

I think that as martial artists we've invested a lot in our training and we want the certainty of knowing "this is the real stuff. This will keep me (or my students) safe." In real life, it's hard to really know that for sure, except within certain limited contexts. The rest of the time we have to do the best we can with limited knowledge and accept a certain degree of uncertainty.

 

[Juany118]

By validation, I mean how do we, as instructors or practitioners, know that what we are teaching or practicing will actually work if it is needed in a real situation.

I think it's a trickier question than most people realize. I could say "hey, I was in this situation that could have turned violent and I talked my way out of it, so my de-escalation skills work." Maybe so, but maybe lots of other people without any training would have done just a good a job of it. Maybe some of them could have done better. Maybe the person I was talking down was just blustering and didn't really want to fight anyway. I could say "hey, my student successfully defended himself against a mugger, so the techniques I teach work." Maybe, but I teach lots of techniques. What about the ones my student didn't use? Do I know those work? Do I know that the techniques which worked for this student would have worked for another student? Do I know that the mugger wasn't just a wimp? I could say "these techniques were passed down from warriors who used them in life-or-death combat, so they must be effective." Maybe so, but do I have reliable historical records of exactly who used the techniques in what circumstances against whom and what their rate of success was? Probably not. For that matter, suppose a founder of an art added a technique to the system because it saved his life in battle. Suppose the next ten people from that system who tried the same technique in combat failed miserably and died as a result. Were their ghosts able to report back to the head instructor and say "hey this technique sucks, drop it from the curriculum please?"

I think that as martial artists we've invested a lot in our training and we want the certainty of knowing "this is the real stuff. This will keep me (or my students) safe." In real life, it's hard to really know that for sure, except within certain limited contexts. The rest of the time we have to do the best we can with limited knowledge and accept a certain degree of uncertainty.

That's why I was looking at validation more in terms of specific techniques. We all have seen the arguments of "oh that would never work irl..." especially from those who seem to have an axe to grind with many traditional martial arts. So even if it is only specific techniques I can speak to regularly validating, these are techniques from the arts I study and so I say my art is validated. Now, to be fair, more than a few of these techniques are also shared by other arts, if with certain stylistic differences, but that doesn't invalidate the observation.

On a side note I think another good source of validation is where else is it trained, even if only in part. As an example while the Filipino Recon Marines train almost exclusively in PTK, but that is the exception. The rule is either a combative system that is designed with techniques from all different arts or, in the US Special Operations Community, different martial arts during different training cycles. I know former operators who one cycle were trained in Wing Chun, another BJJ, the next someone from the Inosanto Academy coming in to teach Kali. The point being these organizations don't take techniques from arts that aren't validated to work irl because here we are talking about people needing skills to legit survive, often on a daily basis.

 

[Buka]

By validation, I mean how do we, as instructors or practitioners, know that what we are teaching or practicing will actually work if it is needed in a real situation.

I think it's a trickier question than most people realize. I could say "hey, I was in this situation that could have turned violent and I talked my way out of it, so my de-escalation skills work." Maybe so, but maybe lots of other people without any training would have done just a good a job of it. Maybe some of them could have done better. Maybe the person I was talking down was just blustering and didn't really want to fight anyway. I could say "hey, my student successfully defended himself against a mugger, so the techniques I teach work." Maybe, but I teach lots of techniques. What about the ones my student didn't use? Do I know those work? Do I know that the techniques which worked for this student would have worked for another student? Do I know that the mugger wasn't just a wimp? I could say "these techniques were passed down from warriors who used them in life-or-death combat, so they must be effective." Maybe so, but do I have reliable historical records of exactly who used the techniques in what circumstances against whom and what their rate of success was? Probably not. For that matter, suppose a founder of an art added a technique to the system because it saved his life in battle. Suppose the next ten people from that system who tried the same technique in combat failed miserably and died as a result. Were their ghosts able to report back to the head instructor and say "hey this technique sucks, drop it from the curriculum please?"

I think that as martial artists we've invested a lot in our training and we want the certainty of knowing "this is the real stuff. This will keep me (or my students) safe." In real life, it's hard to really know that for sure, except within certain limited contexts. The rest of the time we have to do the best we can with limited knowledge and accept a certain degree of uncertainty.

Ah....sorry, I'm sometimes slow on the uptake. So, the question is, does it work in a fight. Not in a match or sparring, but in a fight, an assault, to protect yourself (and/or others) from violence if you're jumped, attacked, suckered, set up, jacked, stalked, ambushed, besieged, pounced on, etc.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Competency for what? What is your end game?

Competency for defending against common attacks by common attackers. That wouldn't necessarily include training them to defend against highly-skilled attackers, because most students won't put in the hours required to reach that goal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. Can you show me these techniques working against a resisted partner?

So I get an idea of what you mean when you say resisted.

I'm not sure how to show you that. If you want to see two people who know what they're doing trying to do these techniques to each other and both using their equal knowledge to resist the techniques (a largely unrealistic scenario for the street), it will either look like Judo competitions or like sparring. Many of the techniques are designed to be used in the direction the person is NOT resisting, so when I show what I do when a student tries to stop a technique, it doesn't look like they are resisting - I'm finding the gap they've made, and doing a technique in that gap, instead of the one they are resisting. (My students can't usually do that same thing to me, because they don't yet have my ability to read where the new gap is and adjust faster than I can block the new technique.)

Here's what I mean by a resisting partner - and there's more than one meaning:

1. A partner who is trying to take you down while you try to take them down. This is the version that usually ends up looking more like Judo, if they are equally matched.
2. A partner who is trying to attack you with all their knowledge while you defend with all of yours. This might look like Judo, but is more likely to look like sparring. Since I've removed the requirement that each try to take the other down, they are now free to use strikes, and most will use those - that's part of our approach in dealing with someone who seems to be able to defeat our throws/takedowns/locks. If they want to strike, we prefer to grapple. If they want to grapple, we prefer to strike.
3. Someone who is providing an attack that is specifically designed NOT to work with the technique you're trying to do. So, I might teach a basic arm bar from a shove. I show them what to look for (pattern recognition) to identify when this should be used, have the attacker provide that pattern, and let them practice the technique (no resistance, at this point). Later, we go back and I teach the attackers one or two things to change in the attack that will make that same arm bar a bad choice. Now, the defender has to find an appropriate "next choice" to resolve the situation, rather than trying to force the "wrong" arm bar.

There are other variations, but these are the big ones.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again what was supposed to be a thread on self protection has descended into a thread on fighting.

You must be able to take a hit, you must have solid basics, you must train against resisting opponents, you must spar, you must have violence as an option because violence is the only possible out come to every self defence situation.

Putting to one side for now the misconception from many male martial artists that the physical side of self protection will resemble a combat sports fighting or dojo sparring (which makes your assertions, on what a persons physical skills need to be, incorrect anyway) the problem you have is that because violence is your only tool, then you are unable to see any other out come to a self-protection scenario.

As your only tool is a hammer, you are forced to turn every problem into a nail,

My wife, who is not a martial artist, has successfully defended herself using her Target Hardening skills during the “interview” stage from three men who were sizing up her suitability as a victim. She was able to defend herself from violence and yet she cannot “take a hit”, and yet it has been stated on the forum on more than one occasion that you must be able to take a hit to defend yourself.

When I have ended a self protection situation non physically, with the 99% of self protection skills that are non physical, where was my ability to “fight”, to take a hit, to spar, to train against resisting opponents?

Simply because you a) do not posses the non physical skills to defend yourself and b) have a blinkered approach in which you are only able to see self protection as synonymous with getting into a street fight, it does not mean everyone else MUST train physical skills in order to be able to successfully protect themselves from violence.

As usual, you are choosing to ignore that most everyone has acknowledged that non-physical skills are a huge part of self-defense. It's not 99%, in my opinion, but I don't know that we can get a valid number to put on that, so let's work with your number.

Physical skills are PART OF the spectrum of self-defense. So, if someone is teaching physical self-defense, they are, in fact, teaching self-defense - just not all of it. If a professor teaches Physics 101, do you argue he's not really teaching physics, since he's only scratching the surface?

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure how to show you that. If you want to see two people who know what they're doing trying to do these techniques to each other and both using their equal knowledge to resist the techniques (a largely unrealistic scenario for the street), it will either look like Judo competitions or like sparring. Many of the techniques are designed to be used in the direction the person is NOT resisting, so when I show what I do when a student tries to stop a technique, it doesn't look like they are resisting - I'm finding the gap they've made, and doing a technique in that gap, instead of the one they are resisting. (My students can't usually do that same thing to me, because they don't yet have my ability to read where the new gap is and adjust faster than I can block the new technique.)

Here's what I mean by a resisting partner - and there's more than one meaning:

1. A partner who is trying to take you down while you try to take them down. This is the version that usually ends up looking more like Judo, if they are equally matched.
2. A partner who is trying to attack you with all their knowledge while you defend with all of yours. This might look like Judo, but is more likely to look like sparring. Since I've removed the requirement that each try to take the other down, they are now free to use strikes, and most will use those - that's part of our approach in dealing with someone who seems to be able to defeat our throws/takedowns/locks. If they want to strike, we prefer to grapple. If they want to grapple, we prefer to strike.
3. Someone who is providing an attack that is specifically designed NOT to work with the technique you're trying to do. So, I might teach a basic arm bar from a shove. I show them what to look for (pattern recognition) to identify when this should be used, have the attacker provide that pattern, and let them practice the technique (no resistance, at this point). Later, we go back and I teach the attackers one or two things to change in the attack that will make that same arm bar a bad choice. Now, the defender has to find an appropriate "next choice" to resolve the situation, rather than trying to force the "wrong" arm bar.

There are other variations, but these are the big ones.

And that is not "sport" ?

And yeah seeing is generally better. Otherwise sparring could mean this.

Or this.

 

[Paul_D]

If a professor teaches Physics 101, do you argue he's not really teaching physics, since he's only scratching the surface?

Sorry, but what does "Physics 101" mean?.

 

[drop bear]

Competency for defending against common attacks by common attackers. That wouldn't necessarily include training them to defend against highly-skilled attackers, because most students won't put in the hours required to reach that goal.

It is a very vague end point though. And not really part of a specialised training set. I mean sports people claim the same result.

Most students won't put in the work because they are ultimately not looking at getting knocked out in front of a thousand people at the end point of their training.

Which is fine. I don't compete because I like pizza and sleep ins. But we are all not as good at martial arts/self protection because of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And that is not "sport" ?

And yeah seeing is generally better. Otherwise sparring could mean this.

Or this.

I think we may simply be using different meanings for "sport". To me, sport is when you are competing to win something. It can have big overlaps with sparring for SD training, but SD training is not (in my mind) sport. There's no reason why it couldn't be. If I wrap some few rules around it (for safety) and keep score in some way, it's essentially the same and would fit the term "sport" to me. Sport can easily be part of SD training, so I don't think we necessarily have a disagreement here, just differing definitions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is a very vague end point though. And not really part of a specialised training set. I mean sports people claim the same result.

Most students won't put in the work because they are ultimately not looking at getting knocked out in front of a thousand people at the end point of their training.

Which is fine. I don't compete because I like pizza and sleep ins. But we are all not as good at martial arts/self protection because of it.

Yes, sport training can (in some cases) realistically claim the same result. My assertion is that training for something specific is always the faster route, assuming equivalent levels of training. If I want to train for a Judo competition, I'll do much better training directly in Judo than training at a BJJ school, though at lower levels both will probably suffice.

In the same way, sport training can get someone to a level of self-defense competency, but if they are training for competition, they'll be focused on some things that are not street-realistic and will entirely ignore some other things that are street-realistic. An easy example here is dealing with a hair grab. No competition I know of allows this, yet it's a realistic problem in physical self-defense. Can an MMA competitor deal with this? Probably, after a certain level of general competency - when they get good enough to generalize the principles well beyond what they were taught to deal with. Someone who is specifically taught how to deal with a hair grab will be able to deal with this attack while at a lower level of overall competency, so earlier in their training.

And I don't think the lack of the threat of being punched out in front of thousands of people is the reason most people don't train so hard. If that were the case, nobody would ever get to that level, since early in a fighter's career, they are only risking getting punched out in front of a few people. It's a matter of priorities. Most people simply have more they want to do with their lives than train that much. And most don't want to suffer the inevitable long-term physical effects of that kind of punishment. That latter is especially true of the folks who want to learn effective self-defense. That kind of injury is exactly part of what they're wanting to avoid, so getting into beating matches with people and getting hurt like that is counter to their goals.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry, but what does "Physics 101" mean?.

That would be an introductory-level Physics course.