Street Jitsu! Punch Block Series for Self Defense

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, it's a commonly taught and effective way to enter your attackers space. The technique itself is a double empty hand block. Another option is to cover your head (bring both hands up to block your head, think helmet) and "crash" into the attacker stopping their momentum and closing the distance to clinch. From the clinch you can control, strike (elbows, knees) or take down. As an LEO, remember, your preferred position should be with the subject on the ground, and you on your feet (if working alone). If working with a partner, then you or your partner can control the subject on the ground (Face down stabilization) while the other provides cover.

FYI - I was Program Manager fof Defensive Tactics / Legal Considerations at a Federal Law Enforcement Academy.

The "crashing" entry is how I teach this to beginners. Later, they learn to use it with more...finesse - more technically.

 

[Steve]

So, you prefer that "self-defense" excludes anything physical? What do you call the physical techniques for defending oneself, then? I don't even know how to describe them in a way that doesn't include "defend" and "self".

Or are you talking about his usual usage? I have no problem with that usage - it's probably more common than my own. I simply divide the actual physical defense from the attack ("self-defense") from the prevention of the attack ("self-protection"), to make the distinction clear. But when someone uses the term "self-defense", I usually assume they're using a definition similar to Paul's.

I think what you think of as self protection. Is what I think of as self defense. Thats the stuff that keeps you out of danger barring just bad luck.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think what you think of as self protection. Is what I think of as self defense. Thats the stuff that keeps you out of danger barring just bad luck.

So, what do you call the stuff you use when that doesn't work - the physical defensive stuff?

 

[Steve]

So, what do you call the stuff you use when that doesn't work - the physical defensive stuff?

self protection? Just kidding. I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part. I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour. We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed. And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure. You need specialized training. But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills? I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else. Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

self protection? Just kidding. I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part. I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour. We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed. And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure. You need specialized training. But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills? I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else. Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.

I'm okay with your stance on that, Steve. I disagree, but we both know that.

As for the definitions, you're pretty much in line with Paul - that SD includes both physical defense and the things that make it unnecessary. I use different terms, mostly so folks know easily which I'm referring to.

 

[Steve]

I'm okay with your stance on that, Steve. I disagree, but we both know that.

As for the definitions, you're pretty much in line with Paul - that SD includes both physical defense and the things that make it unnecessary. I use different terms, mostly so folks know easily which I'm referring to.

What do you disagree with? Do you have data? If so I would love to see it. I'm very interested.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you disagree with? Do you have data? If so I would love to see it. I'm very interested.

I don't have data, and don't think it's possible to have it until we have consistently available surveillance footage of enough attacks. I don't differ on that, at all. I simply differ with you on your conclusion that physical SD training (meaning, MA training) likely has no real benefit in physical SD usage. My information is largely anecdotal, but from enough different sources. I've heard from LEO who worked with LEO who had extensive MA training. The former have referred to the higher effectiveness of the latter. That's not really data we can draw statistical conclusions from, but it is information that sways my view.

Of course, as we've discussed before, there are secondary benefits (for some of us, they were or became the primary reasons for training) that can also be had from other sources, as you mentioned. Those may well be at least as important, averaged across a lifetime, as the physical defensive benefits.

 

[Steve]

Hold on. On a phone so can't really reply fully but there is a critical distinction between what I said and how you restated it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Not questioning the technique, but I don't like the demo. It reminds me of some kung fu, TKD, Hapkido type demos. For example, if the demo boy punches like that in a real fight then he's going to lose. It's really important when learning how to use a technique that the demo boy or demo gal gives an accurate punch, one that is realistic in structure.

 

[JowGaWolf]

is there an example of this working any where?

The one video I don't have

 

[JowGaWolf]

Maybe or maybe not, if my first fist didn't connect the other one is already swinging by the time he connects with my arm, hitting him square in the jaw before he can secure the lock.

This is why I always try to disrupt the balance of my opponent before trying to lock anything.

 

[Buka]

self protection? Just kidding. I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part. I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour. We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed. And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure. You need specialized training. But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills? I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else. Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.

I have to think about this for a bit.

 

[jobo]

self protection? Just kidding. I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part. I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour. We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed. And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure. You need specialized training. But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills? I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else. Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.

its an interesting view point, and I don't disagree with, I think you can break attackers down in to two main groups, that that want something and are acting rationally , that is they want your money, car,etc

and those who are having some sort of psychosis, who arnt acting rationaly and have just decided to start a fight.

you can out think the first by restricting where you go at what time off day and if you look like your a good victim.

the,second are,impossible to avoid, they can be any where at any time of day and any minor disagreement can,set them off,

 

[drop bear]

The one video I don't have

Always the way.

 

[drop bear]

self protection? Just kidding. I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part. I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour. We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed. And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure. You need specialized training. But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills? I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else. Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.

The thing is that is the same suggestion made to people who do fight for a living.

Bouncing is mostly talking to people. Until you can't.

Importance is different to frequency of use. Otherwise a motorcycle helmet would not be considered important. You will only probably fall of a bike once or twice.

 

[Steve]

The thing is that is the same suggestion made to people who do fight for a living.

Bouncing is mostly talking to people. Until you can't.

Importance is different to frequency of use. Otherwise a motorcycle helmet would not be considered important. You will only probably fall of a bike once or twice.

Not quite. I think having a discussion about who is able to fight better is different from a discussion about who is doing a better job mitigating the dangers of living wherever they do. whats the measure of success for self defense? Is it survival? Not being attacked?

 

[Steve]

its an interesting view point, and I don't disagree with, I think you can break attackers down in to two main groups, that that want something and are acting rationally , that is they want your money, car,etc

and those who are having some sort of psychosis, who arnt acting rationaly and have just decided to start a fight.

you can out think the first by restricting where you go at what time off day and if you look like your a good victim.

the,second are,impossible to avoid, they can be any where at any time of day and any minor disagreement can,set them off,

True. Encountering the second is relatively rare, but it happens. Some people who survive these encounters have no martial arts training. Some do. Some train as ninja warriors (the obstacle course show). Some just work out. Some who survive are overweight and out of shape. I'm not saying that fighting skills don't work in a fight. I'm saying there is no evidence that martial arts training makes you any more likely to survive.

 

[drop bear]

Not quite. I think having a discussion about who is able to fight better is different from a discussion about who is doing a better job mitigating the dangers of living wherever they do. whats the measure of success for self defense? Is it survival? Not being attacked?

Depends how much one effects the other. Motorcycles are a good metaphor. You ride defensively. You wear protective gear.

There is the argument protective gear isn't for riding. It is for falling off.

The argument that you do one one the other becomes a bit weird. Which is where this argument goes.

I mean a discussion on the best helmets are not made void by defensive riding. Unless they actively work against that in some specific way.

 

[jobo]

True. Encountering the second is relatively rare, but it happens. Some people who survive these encounters have no martial arts training. Some do. Some train as ninja warriors (the obstacle course show). Some just work out. Some who survive are overweight and out of shape. I'm not saying that fighting skills don't work in a fight. I'm saying there is no evidence that martial arts training makes you any more likely to survive.

but once you remove all the self defence , don't go out at night, stuff, its then a simple fight and the best fighter wins, that may very well not be the MA, there are a lot of other factors in play height weight strengh speed cardio to name a few. But if the MA has though his training got physical advantages as well as skill, then there is a good chance he will win. What's less convincing is the he may be bigger stronger and faster than me, but my MA skills will win it.

that's why i find the non demanding training of some MA hard to justify , they will get eaten alive by someone who is in good shape

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends how much one effects the other. Motorcycles are a good metaphor. You ride defensively. You wear protective gear.

There is the argument protective gear isn't for riding. It is for falling off.

The argument that you do one one the other becomes a bit weird. Which is where this argument goes.

I mean a discussion on the best helmets are not made void by defensive riding. Unless they actively work against that in some specific way.

I hadn't thought of that metaphor before (odd - I used to teach motorcycle safety), but it does reflect my attitude toward training for physical SD. Like my helmet, I hope never to need it, but anticipate the need - because it's too late when you do need it. And I know folks who survived wrecks without a helmet - because their wreck didn't cause them to hit their head hard.