Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Steve]

So it can't be done purposefully, only randomly?

I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. Are you familiar with the infinite monkey theorem? Idea is an infinite number of chimps with an infinite amount of time will eventually, randomly recreate the complete works of William Shakespeare.

so, you can just keep banging away and hope for dumb luck, or you can do the hard work of honing your craft. How do the monkeys do it? They just bang away at the keys. Shakespeare wrote and produced a lot of plays and he got really, really good at it.

how did Jack Nicklaus get so good at golfing? He played a lot of golf. How can I get better at golf? I’d play more golf.

how exactly does one self defend? What does self defending look like?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What does self defending look like?

I'm quite sure people won't call this SD. In other words, this technique will never be taught in any SD school.

To say that SD is only a small subset of the MA system should be fair.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. Are you familiar with the infinite monkey theorem? Idea is an infinite number of chimps with an infinite amount of time will eventually, randomly recreate the complete works of William Shakespeare.

so, you can just keep banging away and hope for dumb luck, or you can do the hard work of honing your craft. How do the monkeys do it? They just bang away at the keys. Shakespeare wrote and produced a lot of plays and he got really, really good at it.

how did Jack Nicklaus get so good at golfing? He played a lot of golf. How can I get better at golf? I’d play more golf.

how exactly does one self defend? What does self defending look like?

Once again, you're making an implicit claim that self-defense fighting skills are things that can only be applied in a self-defense situation. Self-defense fighting skills are pretty much just fighting skills. Tony has already covered the idea that those skills can be applied in a range of situations, including sparring (internal and external) and competition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm quite sure people won't call this SD. In other words, this technique will never be taught in any SD school.

To say that SD is only a small subset of the MA system should be fair.

I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique. But eliminating things like that doesn't reduce self-defense to a "small subset". Sitting here and thinking through the martial arts I'm famililar with, the vast majority of their content - all of the basics, at any rate - would be directly applicable to self-defense situations. The only exception I can come up with might be Capoera. I know little about it, but it doesn't seem particularly suited to self-defense adaptation.

 

[Gweilo]

Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
If you have how many times?

 

[Steve]

You're starting from the premise that SD skill is something different. I would argue that (assuming we're talking about defending against a physical assault, rather than prevention of it) SD is just a different application of fighting skills, with some different context creating different focus in strategy and tactics.

So, you can do that 15x365x15 of sparring, and all of that is feeding into the skillset.

If we're talking about avoidance, de-escalation, etc., then most folks have no opportunity for much practice in those areas.

Self defense skill is different. How different depends on how you train, and how you intend to apply the skills. There are at least two axis here. The first is the whether you're learning actual skill. The second is whether the skill you're learning is close enough to whatever specific self defense situation to translate. The way you're sort of squishing around in this is that you're using self defense, which is a term that is vast and abstract, and you're applying it broadly to everything.

Once again, you're making an implicit claim that self-defense fighting skills are things that can only be applied in a self-defense situation. Self-defense fighting skills are pretty much just fighting skills. Tony has already covered the idea that those skills can be applied in a range of situations, including sparring (internal and external) and competition.

Here's the thing. I'm being very explicit. I am going out of my way to be explicit. Once again, (and truly, I'm getting kind of tired of it), you're suggesting that I'm being disingenuous. When you say things like this, or that I'm ignoring things on purpose, etc, it feels a little petty.

I'm going to explicitly point out to you that applying skills is precisely what I have been talking about all along. Being able to apply skills in a context is not the same as actually applying those skills. You don't get credit for potential.

When you talk about self defense fighting skills, I think it's interesting, because the specific skills are the same, but the context is different... and in some cases, very different. So, as I said above, the two relevant axis here are, first, are you learning actual skill? I believe that without application, you're probably not learning the skill. Rather, you're learning something that mimics the skill.

Second is the context. The more different the context, the higher the skill level must be in order to make the transition from one to the other. The more complimentary the two contexts are, the easier it will be to transfer the ability from one to the other. The simple truth here is that the higher your skill level, the more likely you'll be able to apply the skill outside of the specific context for which it was learned. So, a person who has trained in a boxing gym for 2 months is learning to punch people. But he or she has only done it for two months, and so can barely punch correctly in the gym, much less anywhere else.

Here's an illustration: Two women go into an MMA gym to start training. One has been training and competing as a kickboxer for 5 years. The other has been training cardio-kickboxing for 5 years. They're both equally fit, both very good at their respective activities, and all other things are the same. They're both bringing skills and experience with them to the new context. What do you think their first day looks like? What about long term?

By the way, for someone who is quick to accuse others of ignoring your points, you avoid directly answering my questions pretty much every time. Don't think I don't notice.

 

[dvcochran]

Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
If you have how many times?

In the vein that I think you are asking the question, my direct answer is a big Yes. No, not at all like some cultures and environments where truly living or dying is a daily struggle but real none the less.

I grew up in an environment and lifestyle where physicality and fighting was a just part of life. I cannot count how many times I fought with my father and siblings. It was hands on striking and grappling and while it was never life or death it was always serious enough that we often ended the fights with cuts and bruises. Sort of a rite of passage.
When I became a teenager I rolled with a group of friends who had much the same mindset. We fought all the time either within our own group or with others. We also had a habit of clubbing with the intent of getting in a fight. Getting the bouncers to take it outside was part of the 'art' of it. After that the bouncers usually did not care what happened. It was not very often that we were all fighting at the same time but it did happen. Good times.

Fast forward about 10-15 years and I became a LEO. I found I could handle conflict and confrontation quite naturally, something I realized was very hard for certain other officers. You learned who you could count on when things got dicey.
I also realized just how much I used my life experiences and martial arts training just about all the time, especially in the dicey situations. From SA to SD technical skills to de-escalation to just knowing how to carry yourself. Choose your buzzword of choice, I feel they all apply.

There is a TON of overlapping skills in what I learned in life, in what I learned in MA training, and in what I learned in job specific LEO training. There has been a poster how tries to rebuke this idea but I think their ideas originate from a lack of experiential knowledge and is more based in what they have been told (not done themselves) and theory. To use their words, no application. Remember. we are not talking about mat work here.

Did all my SD skills come from my MA training? Absolutely not.

Does this answer your question? It is a binary yes/no question or are you asking for examples?

 

[dvcochran]

The way you're sort of squishing around in this is that you're using self defense, which is a term that is vast and abstract, and you're applying it broadly to everything.

This is Exactly what you have been doing the whole time. You are beating a dead horse, saying the same thing over and over....and over. It questions your limited knowledge of the subject. You are great in the abstract.

When you talk about self defense fighting skills, I think it's interesting, because the specific skills are the same, but the context is different... and in some cases, very different. So, as I said above, the two relevant axis here are, first, are you learning actual skill? I believe that without application, you're probably not learning the skill. Rather, you're learning something that mimics the skill

A person training simply learns what a tool is, then learns how to use the tool, then how to use the tool with other tools, and then learns what else the tool can be used for. It is ALL application. You have skewed the meaning of this word into irrelevance. You are convinced there is some magic wall between learning skills and application. There is not.
Yes, there are schools/instructor who violate good teaching but that is a much broader subject.

Second is the context. The more different the context, the higher the skill level must be in order to make the transition from one to the other. The more complimentary the two contexts are, the easier it will be to transfer the ability from one to the other. The simple truth here is that the higher your skill level, the more likely you'll be able to apply the skill outside of the specific context for which it was learned.

All you have done here is repeated what @Tony Dismukes said in a previous post about diversity in training. Nothing else.
Has it taken you this long to realize what he said earlier?

Here's an illustration: Two women go into an MMA gym to start training. One has been training and competing as a kickboxer for 5 years. The other has been training cardio-kickboxing for 5 years. They're both equally fit, both very good at their respective activities, and all other things are the same. They're both bringing skills and experience with them to the new context. What do you think their first day looks like? What about long term?

How could there be a more 'nose on your face' question? That said, who knows exactly what the first day of training would involve? Very trainer specific. A good one is going to play to each person strengths. In the long term the training would converge into much the same thing.

 

[Gweilo]

In the vein that I think you are asking the question, my direct answer is a big Yes. No, not at all like some cultures and environments where truly living or dying is a daily struggle but real none the less.

I grew up in an environment and lifestyle where physicality and fighting was a just part of life. I cannot count how many times I fought with my father and siblings. It was hands on striking and grappling and while it was never life or death it was always serious enough that we often ended the fights with cuts and bruises. Sort of a rite of passage.
When I became a teenager I rolled with a group of friends who had much the same mindset. We fought all the time either within our own group or with others. We also had a habit of clubbing with the intent of getting in a fight. Getting the bouncers to take it outside was part of the 'art' of it. After that the bouncers usually did not care what happened. It was not very often that we were all fighting at the same time but it did happen. Good times.

Fast forward about 10-15 years and I became a LEO. I found I could handle conflict and confrontation quite naturally, something I realized was very hard for certain other officers. You learned who you could count on when things got dicey.
I also realized just how much I used my life experiences and martial arts training just about all the time, especially in the dicey situations. From SA to SD technical skills to de-escalation to just knowing how to carry yourself. Choose your buzzword of choice, I feel they all apply.

There is a TON of overlapping skills in what I learned in life, in what I learned in MA training, and in what I learned in job specific LEO training. There has been a poster how tries to rebuke this idea but I think their ideas originate from a lack of experiential knowledge and is more based in what they have been told (not done themselves) and theory. To use their words, no application. Remember. we are not talking about mat work here.

Did all my SD skills come from my MA training? Absolutely not.

Does this answer your question? It is a binary yes/no question or are you asking for examples?

Your youth sounds very similar to mine, I was not asking for examples, everyone has a different understanding of sd, I was just curious, what I should of asked (with relation to the post conversation), is... how many here, have used their martial skills in a real sd situation?
Imo, pretty much every martial art, or sport art can be effective in sd, its whether or not the practioner have had the experience of fighting, and/or the mental capabilities to remain calm enough to execute a technique, and the control to be effective with distance work and timing.
Most of the time, a good hard smack to the face/body will end the fight, and there is no call for martial technique, but how many here has used something they learnt on the mat, to subdue, overcome, finish an opponent, outside of a sports context.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Fair enough. I am having a look myself.

It is gendai krav maga now by the way.

Gendai Krav Maga Melbourne

Sorry about that, I think he used to teach senshido but he's been in a couple different arts so must have gotten it mixed up.

As to why I think he's good-keep in mind I haven't actually met the dude. But he started off with martial arts, then started competing in each art he tried (so he pressure tested it all), then he entered security and saw what actually did or didn't work in actual fights. But the big thing is that he then tried (I say tried because IIRC he didn't do any legitimate studies that were peer reviewed and published) to make it more scientific-speaking to people with various combat experiences, seeing if his own thoughts about self defense held up to their actual experiences. So he's got the mindset and I would bet money that what he's teaching in his classes is stuff that actually helps.

@drop bear and @Steve if you guys have a free half hour, check out the second episode of his podcast, managing violence; he goes over his views on the barebones of what's important for self defense/'surviving' violence. I'd be curious to see what you guys think of the ideas he presents there.

While we're at it, @Tony Dismukes and @gpseymour I'd be curious about your thoughts as well.

 

[Gweilo]

My guess is, very few, there may be the odd, reverse punch, or cheeky leg sweep, palm strike, but I doubt many, if any have won, by reverse spinning back kick, although I did use a spinning back fist once, the result was enough to tell me I had to grow up and calm down.
I think dv is correct in learning to use a tool, and use it well, I havent had a proper fight for about 3 or 4 years, and that is my sd experience of neurocognitive adaptations, I can tell by the face and body language if my potential opponent, is really up for it, or any good at fighting, 9.5 times out of ten, they are not up for it really, but displaying the persona, or they are not good enough at fighting to be confident enough, apart from remaining calm, controlling my emotions, distance and movement, there is no need for martial technique in most situations of sd, unless you are in a control situation, wher a simple lock, or throw is sufficeint.

 

[Steve]

This is Exactly what you have been doing the whole time. You are beating a dead horse, saying the same thing over and over....and over. It questions your limited knowledge of the subject. You are great in the abstract.

I'm not sure you and I share the same definition of the word "abstract." As I said to Gerry, I've been trying to be as specific and concrete as I possibly can. You aren't asking questions and don't seem to want to clarify any misunderstandings. You just keep coming back with ad hominem attacks and declarations that my posts are common knowledge. If you agree with me, I wonder why you're so hostile about it.

With that out of the way:

A person training simply learns what a tool is, then learns how to use the tool, then how to use the tool with other tools, and then learns what else the tool can be used for. It is ALL application. You have skewed the meaning of this word into irrelevance. You are convinced there is some magic wall between learning skills and application. There is not.

If this is the nut, then yeah. I think we simply disagree. I mean, the wall isn't magical. But yeah, learning how something works isn't the same as learning how to make it work.

I've learned a lot about how a lot of things work that I can't do. For example, I know a lot about how to throw pottery. Intellectually, I know a lot more about HOW to throw pottery than I can demonstrate. My brain knows what it's supposed to look like, but I lack the experience to execute the skill.

So, forgive me if this is obvious, but the language you use causes me to question whether you really, actually do understand the difference. If you think a skill, any skill, can be learned without actually doing that thing, I welcome you to come up with an example. I can't think of one, though it's easy to come up with all kinds of examples of learning about how to do things.

Yes, there are schools/instructor who violate good teaching but that is a much broader subject.

Good teaching is an entirely different kettle of fish. So far, I've tried to take that out of the equation by presuming that all of the training is sound.

All you have done here is repeated what @Tony Dismukes said in a previous post about diversity in training. Nothing else.
Has it taken you this long to realize what he said earlier?

There's a lot Tony said that I agree with. In fact, I said exactly that in a post earlier. So, the question is, what's different? I'm either saying what Tony's saying, or I'm not. If you agree with him and not me, what's the difference? I responded to Tony, trying to explain where I thought we disagree.

How could there be a more 'nose on your face' question? That said, who knows exactly what the first day of training would involve? Very trainer specific. A good one is going to play to each person strengths. In the long term the training would converge into much the same thing.

ALERT: I'm going to use the term "apply" the same way I think you guys are using it. This may cause some confusion, but I hope not.

See, this is why things seem so obvious. It IS obvious... until we apply it to a "self defense oriented" school. For some reason, folks start to believe you can fake it. I think we can all agree that the person who has applied the skills outside of training will have the most success. The kickboxer's experience has prepared her better. Clearly. Obviously. Why then, are we reluctant to use this same clear, obvious, common sense evaluation when it comes to self defense?

I mean, substitute MMA school with whatever self defense scenario you can think of... they are both accosted by a group of angry ninja in a dark alley. Who would be better prepared to fight their way out? Once again, I think it's obvious that the kickboxer is better prepared. The context in which she applied the skills she learned makes it a "nose on your face" question. There are a lot of other obvious comparisons out there. An experienced, well trained soldier vs Tae Bo. An experienced, well trained cop vs Tae Bo. An experienced, well trained bouncer vs Tae Bo.

On the other hand, let's take this person who trains Tae Bo (with a self defense orientation) and someone who has five years experience training in Aikido (with a self defense orientation). Who's better prepared? Not so obvious. I mean, I could see it going either way, all other things being equal. What about Budo-Taijutsu and Tae Bo? Once again, I think folks around here who are being honest can come up with a lot of examples.

So, the ball is in your court. Frankly, I debated whether to even respond to this post or not. Way I see it, you can ignore this post and go on about your merry way, you can respond to the points in the post, or you can continue to stay off to the side and take pot shots. Honestly, I couldn't care less which you choose, but if the latter, I will put you on the ignore list and stop giving you any more of my time or energy. Then you can take whatever shots you like.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

See, this is why things seem so obvious. It IS obvious... until we apply it to a "self defense oriented" school. For some reason, folks start to believe you can fake it. I think we can all agree that the person who has applied the skills outside of training will have the most success. The kickboxer's experience has prepared her better. Clearly. Obviously. Why then, are we reluctant to use this same clear, obvious, common sense evaluation when it comes to self defense?

I mean, substitute MMA school with whatever self defense scenario you can think of... they are both accosted by a group of angry ninja in a dark alley. Who would be better prepared to fight their way out? Once again, I think it's obvious that the kickboxer is better prepared. The context in which she applied the skills she learned makes it a "nose on your face" question. There are a lot of other obvious comparisons out there. An experienced, well trained soldier vs Tae Bo. An experienced, well trained cop vs Tae Bo. An experienced, well trained bouncer vs Tae Bo.

On the other hand, let's take this person who trains Tae Bo (with a self defense orientation) and someone who has five years experience training in Aikido (with a self defense orientation). Who's better prepared? Not so obvious. I mean, I could see it going either way, all other things being equal. What about Budo-Taijutsu and Tae Bo? Once again, I think folks around here who are being honest can come up with a lot of examples.

So, the ball is in your court. Frankly, I debated whether to even respond to this post or not. Way I see it, you can ignore this post and go on about your merry way, you can respond to the points in the post, or you can continue to stay off to the side and take pot shots. Honestly, I couldn't care less which you choose, but if the latter, I will put you on the ignore list and stop giving you any more of my time or energy. Then you can take whatever shots you like.

I really think the difference here is a result of availability heuristics. My experience has been that most of the SD schools do apply skills in the same manner as an MMA school, and don't 'fake it'. So the comparison would be comparing an experienced, well trained cop vs a kickboxer vs a kempoist. In this example, all else (particularly fitness level) being equal, I'd say that the well trained cop is above both, thanks to his actual experience.Then the kempoist and kickboxer are about equal in most situations, especially since from my experience the two are likely to have spent a large portion of time training together.

And to go back to your infinite monkey theorem, that would only work if the type of school or instructor I'm referring to is rare. At least from my experience, it isn't. I know it's not the majority, since I've been to plenty of schools that I left within a month because they were clearly spewing bullcrap people were buying, but it exists enough that all SD shouldn't be written off as the bullcrap schools.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique. But eliminating things like that doesn't reduce self-defense to a "small subset".

Do you teach your self defense students how to counter a

- hip throw,
- foot sweep,
- leg lift,
- leg twist,
- ...?

If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why?

For people on the street, 99% of the chance that they will never use those throws on you. If your students train counters for those throw, why? If your students don't train counters for those throws, they are only train "1/2 MA".

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Do you teach your self defense student how to counter a

- hip throw,
- foot sweep,
- leg lift,
- leg twist.
- ...?

If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why?

For people on the street, 99% of the chance that they will never use those throws on you. If you train counters fr those throw, why? If your students don't train counters for those throws, they are only train "1/2 MA".

Learning how to counter something helps you land something better. If I don't know how someone is going to react to a move, and what to look for, chances are I won't do it successfully.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique. But eliminating things like that doesn't reduce self-defense to a "small subset".

So you will never teach the rear neck choke to your SD students.

Do you also teach your SD students the following "offensive" techniques?

- flying side kick,
- flying knee,
- running punch,
- throwing knife,
- use kick to set up a punch,
- use punch to set up a clinch,
- ...?

I assume you won't call this SD either. See how much combat training that a SD student may miss.

I assume your SD students will never learn how to use

- kick to set up a punch,
- punch to set up a clinch,
- ...

Offense is bad, defense is good, with this kind of attitude in mind, how far can your SD students accomplish in their life long MA path?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Self defense skill is different. How different depends on how you train, and how you intend to apply the skills. There are at least two axis here. The first is the whether you're learning actual skill. The second is whether the skill you're learning is close enough to whatever specific self defense situation to translate. The way you're sort of squishing around in this is that you're using self defense, which is a term that is vast and abstract, and you're applying it broadly to everything.
Here's the thing. I'm being very explicit. I am going out of my way to be explicit. Once again, (and truly, I'm getting kind of tired of it), you're suggesting that I'm being disingenuous. When you say things like this, or that I'm ignoring things on purpose, etc, it feels a little petty.

I'm going to explicitly point out to you that applying skills is precisely what I have been talking about all along. Being able to apply skills in a context is not the same as actually applying those skills. You don't get credit for potential.

When you talk about self defense fighting skills, I think it's interesting, because the specific skills are the same, but the context is different... and in some cases, very different. So, as I said above, the two relevant axis here are, first, are you learning actual skill? I believe that without application, you're probably not learning the skill. Rather, you're learning something that mimics the skill.

Second is the context. The more different the context, the higher the skill level must be in order to make the transition from one to the other. The more complimentary the two contexts are, the easier it will be to transfer the ability from one to the other. The simple truth here is that the higher your skill level, the more likely you'll be able to apply the skill outside of the specific context for which it was learned. So, a person who has trained in a boxing gym for 2 months is learning to punch people. But he or she has only done it for two months, and so can barely punch correctly in the gym, much less anywhere else.

Here's an illustration: Two women go into an MMA gym to start training. One has been training and competing as a kickboxer for 5 years. The other has been training cardio-kickboxing for 5 years. They're both equally fit, both very good at their respective activities, and all other things are the same. They're both bringing skills and experience with them to the new context. What do you think their first day looks like? What about long term?

By the way, for someone who is quick to accuse others of ignoring your points, you avoid directly answering my questions pretty much every time. Don't think I don't notice.

Firstly, most of your questions appear to be rhetorical. I also may have missed some actual questions in the longer posts. I don't spend as much time on MT these days, so I'm trying to read faster, and may have missed questions (and points) I didn't respond to. I don't intentionally dodge questions. If they've been asked and answered in the past, I get tired of repeating. If they seem rhetorical (like the last two in this post), I don't respond, because, well, rhetorical.

As to the rest, you're still apparently calling some application application, and other application....not application? I'm not clear on that.

I agree that practicing in context matters, but not to the degree you assert here. If someone can fight, they can fight. Some train harder and get better than others. If it's good fundamentals, it translates to anywhere else good (similar) fundamentals help. Working with some scenarios will help broaden the generalization of the skills. Is it perfect for self-defense prep? No. But there's really not a good way for folks to bridge that, without taking jobs in specific sectors or going out to seek trouble. I get that you think I'm a sham because I teach with a self-defense orientation, having rarely needed to use those skills in that context (including never needing them when I've doon door work and security work). I simply disagree.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
If you have how many times?

Rarely. More when I was a teen (quite a bit back then, actually), but only a very few times as an adult, and never in a really dangerous assault of any sort.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you teach your self defense students how to counter a

- hip throw,
- foot sweep,
- leg lift,
- leg twist,
- ...?

If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why?

For people on the street, 99% of the chance that they will never use those throws on you. If your students train counters for those throw, why? If your students don't train counters for those throws, they are only train "1/2 MA".

Everything I can teach them to do, I also teach them to counter. Why? Because knowing how to counter is part of defense, and also part of recognizing when to use (and not use) specific techniques. It's just part of knowing the system.

I don't generally teach counters to things I can't teach (or at least do well enough to be the "attacker" for them to work against), though I'm happy to give some ideas if a question comes up about something outside my strong experience. The latter is mostly to give them something to work with if they get a chance to experiment with someone who can do that thing. So, if they ask me how I would counter a good BJJ guard pass, I don't know, because I'm pretty sure my guard pass is weak by BJJ standards. I'd give them some ideas to try out, and suggest they experiment with those concepts if they get a chance to roll with someone who has significant BJJ experience. I had similar types of questions from a student who had a strong background in Shotokan, and wanted to bring some of our movement principles to his Shotokan sparring. I remember little of my Shotokan training, so I offered concepts to experiment with, rather than specific technique. I do this stuff because I think it helps students do more thinking for themselves, rather than depending upon canned answers from me. If I can teach them how to experiment better with what they do, they'll get better at it. Maybe better than I am, which would be cool.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you will never teach the rear neck choke to your SD students.

Do you also teach your SD students the following "offensive" techniques?

- flying side kick,
- flying knee,
- running punch,
- throwing knife,
- use kick to set up a punch,
- use punch to set up a clinch,
- ...?

I assume you won't call this SD either. See how much combat training that a SD student may miss.

I assume your SD students will never learn how to use

- kick to set up a punch,
- punch to set up a clinch,
- ...

Offense is bad, defense is good, with this kind of attitude in mind, how far can your SD students accomplish in their life long MA path?

Rear naked choke is a reasonable finish to many defensive scenarios. Sneaking up with a garrot really isn't likely to be.

Why would you assume they don't learn to use kicks to set up punches? Pretty much any style that includes kicks and punches is going to include that. Same for punch to set up clinch. That's part of the standard foundation. You're making assumptions about basics, based on an outlier skill.

As for flying anything? No. I don't care for them and they don't fit well into the overall system. Throwing knives? No. That's an entirely different skill set, and unlikely to be a reliable means of defense unless very highly trained (and I'm not convinced it's reliable even then).