Shotokan for self defence.

[Tony Dismukes]

Basically for me it is the same as I teach in Krav so pretty much anything you see in Krav ground work will cover it.

So mostly stuff like protecting yourself from getting kicked in the head and getting back to your feet? Do you include escapes from pins? If so, do you think those go back to the founding of Goju Ryu or are they more recent additions?

 

[Steve]

As we have established earlier, you don't read my posts and you haven't bothered checking my profile. Goju is my primary art. I started with Japanese Goju and if I hadn't discovered Okinawan Goju I would probably believe karate was much like Hanzou describes. I started my Goju school about 9 or 10 years ago so you might say I have accumulated a small understanding of karate over the past 30 plus years.

Seems like that's been building up for a while. I hope you feel better now.

Do you think the extensive cross training you done has helped improve your karate? what about the extensive training youallege to have done with bjj black belts? Seems like those are very positive and helpful thing. sadly, I don't thin that's the norm. We're efery karateka to train as you do, surelyshotokan schools like Hanzou attended wouldn't be the majority, as someone acknowledged earlier in the thread.

 

[Mephisto]

none of that is self defence. Self defence is what I define it to be.

But seriously there is a difference on training a specific skill set. Like not to be surrounded. And this vague idea of training self defence.

As far as anecdotes i punched a guy once in self defence to great success and i had a friend who punched a guy as well. But what have I proven In regards to training methods and their relation to self defence?

If saying i did this successfully or that is really good. Then all training has been shown to be able to be practiced and produce results.

I too punched a guy in self defense with great success in a few occasions, didn't even need to follow up with a groin kick, eye gouge, or knee implosion.

Maybe on the whole I would say you are correct, but again, this depends totally on who you are training with and who your sensei is and what their background and interests are. I would say real world experience which has lead to additional concerted thought and application of these principles makes one hell of a good reference for de-escalation and situational awareness skills.

I have obtained my best and most real world applicable SD training (and which I have put into practice in real situations), both physical and mental, from my goju ryu club. From the head fight coach/sensei that is also a LEO and from the senior jujitsu guy that also trains at our club and that just happens to run his own successful SD school (I say "successful" in that he seems to get a decent amount of students, mainly from security guard outfits, and makes a living out of this). I must say in all honesty though that the teachings of most use and which I have found most "accessible" have come from the sensei who is a LEO who puts a lot of thought into this kind of thing and has used this for years on the beat and in defusing potentially very bad situations between inmates and in the holding pens, rather than the jujitsu guy with the SD school....

Not every goju instructor is an Leo. I do not believe that situational awareness are part of the traditional goju curriculum. Perhaps it's like gjj where self defense is a prominent part of many school's curriculum but I doubt it traces back to Japan or Okinawa.

 

[Mephisto]

Self defense has two components, the soft techniques as discussed here and the martial components. Soft technique largely boils down to street smarts and common sense and an Leo would be a great resource for such training. However, soft techniques are different from martial techniques and quality in one doesn't guarantee quality in the other. Soft techniques can be learned from a lecture format, video, or book, Much more so than martial techniques can be learned. You can give the best soft technique lecture but if you Segway to the martial component and do crappy and ineffective self defense techniques you're still not delivering a quality product.

 

[Hanzou]

Not working to achieve a submission? Are you guys not learning chokes or locks in order to disable a threat? Then what are you working to achieve?

Nevermind, I found this little gem of an article;

Krav Maga and Ground Fighting - Krav Maga Institute

Some of the best techniques to break a person’s arm while fighting on the ground are the armbar lock from Judo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and the Kimura from BJJ. One of the better ways to control your opponent on the ground is the Kuzure Kesa Gatame from Judo. So why won’t a Krav Maga practitioner find these moves in the Krav Maga system if they work so well? What kind of ground game does Krav Maga have?

I will start by saying that even though I have traveled many places throughout the world, I have yet to see streets made out of inch-and-a-half mats.

I say with sincerity that the two fighting systems I mentioned above are amazing fighting styles. But we have to remember that street fighting is very different from competitive fighting, with unknown threats, unknown obstacles, and no ability to stop the fight at will. As a well known fighter/celebrity in the BJJ world once told me: “In the street, I will definitely take my opponent down—but I would not go down to the ground.”

This article illustrates the main issue I have with many similar systems like this. In the goal to become as self defense oriented as possible, and to separate yourself from those "sport guys", you lose part of what makes these tactics so effective in the first place. For example, some of the most effective chokes/locks/breaks come from the Guard position, which is a position where you're fighting from your back. For this article, it would appear that Krav Maga avoids that position entirely all for the single minded goal of getting back to your feet as quickly as possible.

A good goal to be sure. However, the Guard position was developed for those times where getting back to your feet wasn't feasible. Avoiding it entirely, as well as arm locks, Kimuras, and other "submissions" in order to separate sport from self defense is pretty silly IMO.

But to each their own I suppose.....

 

[K-man]

Not working to achieve a submission? Are you guys not learning chokes or locks in order to disable a threat? Then what are you working to achieve?

Certainly I teach chokes and locks but not so much on the ground. Getting the back or even side control I might be tempted to go for a choke but in the main I don't want to be on the ground. I want to be up and away, not rolling around on the floor. Rolling in a competition, fine. Rolling in a street fight, not on. I was watching a video of a couple of the Gracies discussing self defence and I couldn't help but think of you when they said in a street fight they wouldn't want to be on the ground.

 

[RTKDCMB]

That TKD school specializes in self-defense? According to their website they specialize in several things, not just self defense.

The primary goal of the school is to teach our martial art for self defense, there are some students do it for various other reasons but the school is focused on teaching self defense. But I have only been there for 27 years, I'm sure you know better than I do.

I never said I was certain about that aspect. Just FYI.

But you were "pretty sure", and totally wrong.

 

[Zero]

.

Not every goju instructor is an Leo. I do not believe that situational awareness are part of the traditional goju curriculum. Perhaps it's like gjj where self defense is a prominent part of many school's curriculum but I doubt it traces back to Japan or Okinawa.

Agreed, and I had stated as much myself earlier. In my post right now you have quoted I said on the whole I agreed but that that needs to be qualified as it very much depends on who you are training with. In addition, not every LEO will be the best, or even appropriate, person to go to for SD tips or advice in any event...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

However, the Guard position was developed for those times where getting back to your feet wasn't feasible.

As far as I've been able to determine the actual history, the guard was developed for use in challenge matches for those times when you are taken down and can't get the top position, as opposed to use in self-defense situations where you are unable to get to your feet. I think there is validity in the later use, but many jiujiteiros get too comfortable hanging out in the guard when they should be trying to get up in a real fight or self-defense situation. I've been trying to break that habit in myself and in my students.

 

[Zero]

The original question was if those MMA schools offer situational awareness. That was after you asked if MMA or Bjj training could teach you how to avoid a fight altogether. Now you're asking me if MMA/Bjj offers the soft side of SD, which is quite different than what you asked before.

This line of questioning is fairly irrelevant. If a MA school/gym says they offer self defense, that should really be the end of the discussion. Both of those examples I offered state that they do teach self defense. My Gjj school offers self defense courses, and thanks to the combatives wave that swept through the Gracie systems recently, all Gjj schools now offer self defense training.

Now, if you feel that those self defense offerings are sub par, that's your opinion. There's been plenty of examples where people who practice sport MA have done perfectly fine in self defense situations. That really wasn't the point that started all of this. The point was that my current training gives me an answer if the fight hits the ground as it did in that subway stabbing situation. My former Shotokan training (and frankly many traditional MAs) did not.

Sorry Hanzou, you still seem to keep missing the point here. First, my line of questioning has not changed. Situational awareness is tantamount, indeed it very much is, teaching you to avoid a fight altogether. In the context of my posts it is very clear that this is what I am putting into the category of "soft" SD applications - in that you are not having to engage physically with another. My question to you has never changed or waivered. You simply have not responded on point.

Again, you go on to reference "combative waives" and that your school does SD, from your posts to date, all that can be taken from that is that your SD involves the actual combat element, being the physical side.

You have still yet to respond on point. Which is fine - all I was after was whether your school, or other mma schools you have been to and actually witnessed, practice situational awareness and the "soft side" of SD. So far no answer on that.

As an aside, I have never said the self defence offerings you are referencing are sub par. They are not part of my question to you. All you have done is avoid my question and now attempted to misrepresent me with statements I have not made in this thread.

I am glad your current training gives you answers if the fight hits the ground, that is good, I was merely wanting you to answer or perhaps more so, t question yourself whether your current training gives you the training to avoid the fight in the first place. Unless you like potentially exposing yourself to litigation and punitive action and have no issue being engaged in life threatening situations, surely it is a better thing to be equipped so to avoid this in the first place, to the extent possible?

 

[Zero]

Ok this guy has same proof that validates his system. Now I am not dying your system doesn't work. But objectively I cant see how your argument is better than his as to why.

Drop bear, no offense to those guys, but I am not going to even start that Vid, from the stances of at least 4 of the 5 chaps in shot, it looks like a lame duck from the get-go!! That may be completely unfair but that's my take from the school of hard knocks.

 

[Hanzou]

Certainly I teach chokes and locks but not so much on the ground. Getting the back or even side control I might be tempted to go for a choke but in the main I don't want to be on the ground. I want to be up and away, not rolling around on the floor. Rolling in a competition, fine. Rolling in a street fight, not on. I was watching a video of a couple of the Gracies discussing self defence and I couldn't help but think of you when they said in a street fight they wouldn't want to be on the ground.

I always find it interesting that you view comfort level on the ground as being synonymous with desirability to be on the ground.

I don't think anyone wants to be on the ground. The purpose of learning to fight from that range is that if you end up there, you can control the tempo and achieve a dominant position. Further, the better you become at it, the less "rolling" you'll actually be doing against inexperienced opponents. It should also be said that some of the most effective locks and chokes come from the ground position, where more of your weight can be applied to a specific body part.

 

[Hanzou]

The primary goal of the school is to teach our martial art for self defense, there are some students do it for various other reasons but the school is focused on teaching self defense. But I have only been there for 27 years, I'm sure you know better than I do.

We're moving away from the point; The point is that it isn't just sport MAs that make crazy SD claims to draw people through the doors, its the non-sport schools as well.

 

[Hanzou]

As far as I've been able to determine the actual history, the guard was developed for use in challenge matches for those times when you are taken down and can't get the top position, as opposed to use in self-defense situations where you are unable to get to your feet

Isn't that essentially the same thing? In either case, the Guard is there to give you a dominant position from your back in times when (for whatever reason) you can't take the top position, or get to your feet. If I'm in a challenge match and can't sweep for mount, or take their back, then I can fight from Guard. If I'm in a self defense situation and I can't sweep for mount, or take their back, then again I can fight from Guard.

My point is that ignoring that position entirely (or the finishes it offers) simply because you don't want to be like those "sport Jujitsu guys", is pretty silly and potentially dangerous.

I think there is validity in the later use, but many jiujiteiros get too comfortable hanging out in the guard when they should be trying to get up in a real fight or self-defense situation. I've been trying to break that habit in myself and in my students.

I was "fortunate" in that I was never comfortable in Guard during my early years, so I always felt that Guard was the weakest part of my game. To this day, I'm not comfortable in it (and it interestingly made me pretty good at sweeps), but I definitely see what you're talking about. Some guys (and gals) just love putting you in their Guard. Interestingly, getting MORE comfortable in Guard has been a personal goal of mine since I got my purple belt.

 

[RTKDCMB]

We're moving away from the point; The point is that it isn't just sport MAs that make crazy SD claims to draw people through the doors, its the non-sport schools as well.

And my school isn't one of them.

 

[Hanzou]

And my school isn't one of them.

I would say that claiming that your training can "rapidly immobilize any attacker" is a pretty crazy claim to make.

Maybe that's not what YOUR school claims, but that's what that school I linked to claims.

 

[Hanzou]

I am glad your current training gives you answers if the fight hits the ground, that is good, I was merely wanting you to answer or perhaps more so, t question yourself whether your current training gives you the training to avoid the fight in the first place. Unless you like potentially exposing yourself to litigation and punitive action and have no issue being engaged in life threatening situations, surely it is a better thing to be equipped so to avoid this in the first place, to the extent possible?

I have no doubt that my training in Bjj has taught me to avoid confrontations, as much as knowing how to handle myself if things go south.

As for litigation and punitive action, being able to disable someone without actually hurting them has its merits.

 

[Paul_D]

And this vague idea of training self defence.

Its not vague to me, I know exactly what my training in relation to SD is and consists of and its goals.
[QUOTE="drop bear, post: 1691338, member: 32080"As far as anecdotes i punched a guy once in self defence to great success and i had a friend who punched a guy as well. But what have I proven In regards to training methods and their relation to self defence?][/QUOTE]
No one punched anyone, I don't know where you are getting this from?
The skills in Dead or Alive: The Ultimate Self Protection Handbook were used to stop incidents escalating to the punch throwing stage. I've explained the skills, told you were to get them from, told you I know they work, but that's not enough becasue it's "anecdotal". Other than video myself next time I'm not sure what more I can do mate? I guess we'll agree to disagree

But the books only $8.45 on Amazon ;-)

 

[RTKDCMB]

I would say that claiming that your training can "rapidly immobilize any attacker" is a pretty crazy claim to make.

Really? the word 'any' is what you are basing 'wild claims' on. Ironic when you consider many MMA fighters claim to be the best fighters in the world. Have they fought everybody in the world? Now if the website stated that a student would be invincible if they studied there then you would have a case to say they are wild claims. And for the record most of the fights our students, blackbelts and instructors have gotten into have ended very quickly.

Maybe that's not what YOUR school claims, but that's what that school I linked to claims.

That IS my school, in my city, just not my region anymore. Oh and by the way, your comment about being pretty sure the school does not practice sparring, that demonstration video I showed you was on the page you linked.

Care to put up a link to the website of YOUR school so we can compare?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Isn't that essentially the same thing? In either case, the Guard is there to give you a dominant position from your back in times when (for whatever reason) you can't take the top position, or get to your feet. If I'm in a challenge match and can't sweep for mount, or take their back, then I can fight from Guard. If I'm in a self defense situation and I can't sweep for mount, or take their back, then again I can fight from Guard.

Not quite.

In a challenge match, I'm committed to engaging with my opponent. If I can't get the top position, then settling for guard and working for a sweep or submission is a viable option. (Especially if it's a grappling-only match as many of the matches in the formative years of BJJ were.)

In a self-defense situation, I would prefer to disengage from my attacker(s). Having someone in my guard is significantly less bad than being mounted, but it's still potentially a very bad situation. Disengaging and getting to my feet should be a higher priority than either sweeping or submitting in most (not all) cases. Fortunately, the guard does offer some good routes to safely disengage and get up if you are tangled with an opponent on the ground.