What makes a Martial Arts System Practical for Physical Self-Defense?

[jobo]

Your answers are the only thing that is infinity long & utter BS.
I thought you lifted 100% & not 90% ?

listen you put up a video of this 600LB lift or please shut up !

im not doing either of those just coz you cant grasp elimentary concepts, like leverage,

we had,another eeer challenged guy who couldnt get leverage, i wasted three days trying to get him to understand a push up was a lever, im not doing that again,

 

[stanly stud]

im not doing either of those just coz you cant grasp elimentary concepts, like leverage,

we had,another eeer challenged guy who couldnt get leverage, i wasted three days trying to get him to understand a push up was a lever, im not doing that again,

Mate you are talking utter BS. I am sitting here with a mate laughing like love at you. I feel honestly sorry for you.

 

[stanly stud]

Look how about if i post a picture of my physique & you do the same?
a picture holding an upside down tea cup.
we will see how you look. Also i will post a heavy lift any one you choose if you can do the same. back it up.

 

[jobo]

Look how about if i post a picture of my physique & you do the same?
a picture holding an upside down tea cup.
we will see how you look. Also i will post a heavy lift any one you choose if you can do the same. back it up.

your determind to see me in a my gym kit

no,

ive no great intrest in my own muscle size, ive not all in yours,

ive tried to tell you nicely, but this is getting really creepy

 

[_Simon_]

Agreed, it's gotten really creepy.. I suggest we move on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can destroying one's opponent be considered self defense? Seems like the person whom you're trying to destroy is the one doing the defending.

I've always thought it hilarious that some styles focus on curb stomping, crushing trachea and all manner of ways to rip off gonads or pluck out eyeballs. That has never seemed much like self defense to me.

I'm also curious to hear more about TKD guys who are into this. Around here, at least, it's usually the ninja and the karateka who are into murder as a means of self defense.

I think every place that trains with self-defense in mind at least touches on this. If the situation is dire, you'd want to be able to do a lot of damage quickly. Mind you, not all are going to talk about how to rip out trachea (never been quite sure that's possible, though crushing it would), and most places it's going to be exercises designed to balance the tameness of sparring. There are some good arguments made about using this, related to mindset and mental preparation, though I'm not sure how effective it is if it's done as simulation (not actually putting intent into the response), which is obviously how most approach it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes i know, then you hit other muscle groups a different day, its a pushibg exercis3 , ive move my hand postion slightly to take some off the tri and move it to the shoukders, but it works most muscles in your body to some extent, even you biceps

have you tried it yet and tell me 6 mins isnt enough

I never said you couldn't exercise a muscle group in 6 minutes. You're already changing your story.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

or by pull ups, or by trying to rip a towl in half

or perhaps best doing pull up off a towl

Or even with a newspaper. Tiger Woods used to (don't know if he still does) lay a newspaper flat and crumple each page with one hand on the table. I tried it, and it's a better exercise than I'd have thought.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

im not doing either of those just coz you cant grasp elimentary concepts, like leverage,

we had,another eeer challenged guy who couldnt get leverage, i wasted three days trying to get him to understand a push up was a lever, im not doing that again,

Serious question - what's the leverage-utilizing exercise you're picturing? I can't figure out how (without some complicated contraption) you're levering against your own bodyweight for that.

 

[jobo]

I never said you couldn't exercise a muscle group in 6 minutes. You're already changing your story.

no, you were sayibg you couldnt get any benifit to short burst exercise,

thise a push muscles, it also hits most of the of pull muscles, which are beibg used to stabilise your movements and most of the skelital mucles, on its own its close to a full body exercise, them of course a few days later you do the same with pull muscles, which hit the push muscles that are stabilising, and the skelital muscles, making that al so a full body exercise it also makes your heart go like bilkio, so,, cardio
.with exercises that only need repeating every 7 to 10 days, there plenty of scope for hitting every thing on a rolling program

or you can mix them up and do three mins of each, its rhe concept im demonstrating, you need to do a bit of thibgibg as well

have you actually tried it, coz till you have its hard to describe how hard it actually is on your whole system

when i started doing it, i couldnt stop shaking for hours afterward, such was the overload of my cns

 

[dvcochran]

Can destroying one's opponent be considered self defense? Seems like the person whom you're trying to destroy is the one doing the defending.

I've always thought it hilarious that some styles focus on curb stomping, crushing trachea and all manner of ways to rip off gonads or pluck out eyeballs. That has never seemed much like self defense to me.

I'm also curious to hear more about TKD guys who are into this. Around here, at least, it's usually the ninja and the karateka who are into murder as a means of self defense.

I never pegged you for a Pollyanna with your never ending sarcasm, extremist and fatalistic views on just about everything.

Citing theatrics from a Patrick Swayze movie as a self defense move speaks loudly about your credibility as a source of intelligent information. It is comments like these that keep things mucked up for MA in general, especially impressionable new and young students.

Questions:
How do you measure the level of a threat in real time?
When do you decide higher and possibly extreme measures are required?
How do you balance this with things like physicality, stature, mentality?
Do you view all self defense as reactionary?
If even allowed, do survey the situation and make mental decisions based on this information or just 'wait and see what happens'.

How do you teach people to deal with a threat precursor and beyond?

As usual you are just popping shots, trying to invoke a reaction.

 

[jobo]

F-ck off you queer old C-nt. you talk utter sh-te on here. listen you old fool i can come on here any time i want & i will expose you for the fraud you are.

my bunny boiler radar was right

 

[skribs]

Before I can answer the original question, a few questions must be asked:

1. Risk assessment of what "self-defense" is.
2. Is the art being assessed the sole provider of self-defense in your regimen?

"What is self-defense" is something that has been asked a lot here. It could range from "an untrained unathletic person throwing a single haymaker" to any of the following:

• Multiple coordinated opponents
• An olympian athlete
• Weapons
• A skilled fighter with multiple black belts and professional fights in multiple systems

Or it could be multiple olympian athletes who are all 30-0 in professional fights, all armed with various weapons. Of course, I personally believe that a reasonable assumption is that the majority of the fights you're going to get into are going to be against untrained or moderately trained opponents with more athleticism than experience. And while I do think it's realistic for multiple attackers or weapons to be involved, you also need to have such a higher skill ceiling against them that I think it's unreasonable to train beginner or intermediate students for those situations (if you want to cover them at all).

This brings up further questions. Do you need to be able to defend punches like a boxer? Or just defend against a layman? Do you need both striking and grappling, or are you confident enough in one area that you feel you can keep the fight where you want? A wrestler or BJJ fighter may feel confident enough they can close in and grab against any striker. All it takes is one grab and the striker is done. On the other hand, a striker may feel that he can use his footwork to keep any grapplers at bay...maybe not professional-level grapplers, but he's not expecting to go against that. Or you may feel the need to be proficient in both arenas.

Then there's the question of whether your training exists in a vacuum. Maybe you cross-train. Maybe you have prior experience. You might think Krav Maga suffers from a lack of competition, but if you already have competitive experience, it can give you a different perspective on self-defense situations (something I feel sport arts lack). You may think sport arts suffer from that lack of perspective, but they can give you a different perspective on the effectiveness of your techniques than an art with less competition and/or sparring. Boxing has one of the narrowest scopes of any martial art. If you want to be competent on the ground and standing up, then boxing by itself is a bad choice. But, boxing mixed with another art is a great choice.

Then there are your goals. If you want to be a professional boxer, then time training Krav Maga or BJJ will potentially distract you from that goal. Say you have 20 hours a week to dedicate to training. That could be 10 hours of fitness training and 10 hours of boxing training. If you mix in a couple hours of wrestling, that's 10% of your weekly training budget going towards something other than boxing.

It's a very personal decision. What are your goals and fears? How do you prioritize them? What is your time budget? How effective do you need your countermeasures to be against those fears? I mean, the ideal training regimen is that you take half a dozen different martial arts and do a full-body workout (including stretching and cardio) every day. Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[dvcochran]

Before I can answer the original question, a few questions must be asked:

1. Risk assessment of what "self-defense" is.
2. Is the art being assessed the sole provider of self-defense in your regimen?

"What is self-defense" is something that has been asked a lot here. It could range from "an untrained unathletic person throwing a single haymaker" to any of the following:

• Multiple coordinated opponents
• An olympian athlete
• Weapons
• A skilled fighter with multiple black belts and professional fights in multiple systems

Or it could be multiple olympian athletes who are all 30-0 in professional fights, all armed with various weapons. Of course, I personally believe that a reasonable assumption is that the majority of the fights you're going to get into are going to be against untrained or moderately trained opponents with more athleticism than experience. And while I do think it's realistic for multiple attackers or weapons to be involved, you also need to have such a higher skill ceiling against them that I think it's unreasonable to train beginner or intermediate students for those situations (if you want to cover them at all).

This brings up further questions. Do you need to be able to defend punches like a boxer? Or just defend against a layman? Do you need both striking and grappling, or are you confident enough in one area that you feel you can keep the fight where you want? A wrestler or BJJ fighter may feel confident enough they can close in and grab against any striker. All it takes is one grab and the striker is done. On the other hand, a striker may feel that he can use his footwork to keep any grapplers at bay...maybe not professional-level grapplers, but he's not expecting to go against that. Or you may feel the need to be proficient in both arenas.

Then there's the question of whether your training exists in a vacuum. Maybe you cross-train. Maybe you have prior experience. You might think Krav Maga suffers from a lack of competition, but if you already have competitive experience, it can give you a different perspective on self-defense situations (something I feel sport arts lack). You may think sport arts suffer from that lack of perspective, but they can give you a different perspective on the effectiveness of your techniques than an art with less competition and/or sparring. Boxing has one of the narrowest scopes of any martial art. If you want to be competent on the ground and standing up, then boxing by itself is a bad choice. But, boxing mixed with another art is a great choice.

Then there are your goals. If you want to be a professional boxer, then time training Krav Maga or BJJ will potentially distract you from that goal. Say you have 20 hours a week to dedicate to training. That could be 10 hours of fitness training and 10 hours of boxing training. If you mix in a couple hours of wrestling, that's 10% of your weekly training budget going towards something other than boxing.

It's a very personal decision. What are your goals and fears? How do you prioritize them? What is your time budget? How effective do you need your countermeasures to be against those fears? I mean, the ideal training regimen is that you take half a dozen different martial arts and do a full-body workout (including stretching and cardio) every day. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Great to hear from you Skribs.

 

[jobo]

Before I can answer the original question, a few questions must be asked:

1. Risk assessment of what "self-defense" is.
2. Is the art being assessed the sole provider of self-defense in your regimen?

"What is self-defense" is something that has been asked a lot here. It could range from "an untrained unathletic person throwing a single haymaker" to any of the following:

• Multiple coordinated opponents
• An olympian athlete
• Weapons
• A skilled fighter with multiple black belts and professional fights in multiple systems

Or it could be multiple olympian athletes who are all 30-0 in professional fights, all armed with various weapons. Of course, I personally believe that a reasonable assumption is that the majority of the fights you're going to get into are going to be against untrained or moderately trained opponents with more athleticism than experience. And while I do think it's realistic for multiple attackers or weapons to be involved, you also need to have such a higher skill ceiling against them that I think it's unreasonable to train beginner or intermediate students for those situations (if you want to cover them at all).

This brings up further questions. Do you need to be able to defend punches like a boxer? Or just defend against a layman? Do you need both striking and grappling, or are you confident enough in one area that you feel you can keep the fight where you want? A wrestler or BJJ fighter may feel confident enough they can close in and grab against any striker. All it takes is one grab and the striker is done. On the other hand, a striker may feel that he can use his footwork to keep any grapplers at bay...maybe not professional-level grapplers, but he's not expecting to go against that. Or you may feel the need to be proficient in both arenas.

Then there's the question of whether your training exists in a vacuum. Maybe you cross-train. Maybe you have prior experience. You might think Krav Maga suffers from a lack of competition, but if you already have competitive experience, it can give you a different perspective on self-defense situations (something I feel sport arts lack). You may think sport arts suffer from that lack of perspective, but they can give you a different perspective on the effectiveness of your techniques than an art with less competition and/or sparring. Boxing has one of the narrowest scopes of any martial art. If you want to be competent on the ground and standing up, then boxing by itself is a bad choice. But, boxing mixed with another art is a great choice.

Then there are your goals. If you want to be a professional boxer, then time training Krav Maga or BJJ will potentially distract you from that goal. Say you have 20 hours a week to dedicate to training. That could be 10 hours of fitness training and 10 hours of boxing training. If you mix in a couple hours of wrestling, that's 10% of your weekly training budget going towards something other than boxing.

It's a very personal decision. What are your goals and fears? How do you prioritize them? What is your time budget? How effective do you need your countermeasures to be against those fears? I mean, the ideal training regimen is that you take half a dozen different martial arts and do a full-body workout (including stretching and cardio) every day. Ain't nobody got time for that.

well yes,

youve got to run with the likely and hope it holds up in the unlikely,

id put half a dozon Olympic weight lifters, attacking me in the extremly unlikely class.

and over weight unfit drunks, in the extremly likey class

somewhere in between is the sweet spot

 

[Steve]

I think every place that trains with self-defense in mind at least touches on this. If the situation is dire, you'd want to be able to do a lot of damage quickly. Mind you, not all are going to talk about how to rip out trachea (never been quite sure that's possible, though crushing it would), and most places it's going to be exercises designed to balance the tameness of sparring. There are some good arguments made about using this, related to mindset and mental preparation, though I'm not sure how effective it is if it's done as simulation (not actually putting intent into the response), which is obviously how most approach it.

Regarding ripping out trachea was intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek reference to Road House. The idea being that a lot of self defense techniques that we can easily see all over the internet end in gruesome, violent death of the bad guy. The need for that kind of technique is, I think, exceedingly unlikely. Statistically, even if someone is in a high risk category, actively engaging in high risk behaviors, they are at relatively low risk for being the victim of a violent crime. And the percentage of violent crimes that are actually intended to be lethal is even less likely. Simply put, few people are actually victims of violent crimes. And even violent criminals don't just indiscriminately murder everyone they encounter. So, the idea that every self defense situation would end in the violent death of the bad guy is unrealistic and unhelpful.

 

[jobo]

Regarding ripping out trachea was intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek reference to Road House. The idea being that a lot of self defense techniques that we can easily see all over the internet end in gruesome, violent death of the bad guy. The need for that kind of technique is, I think, exceedingly unlikely. Statistically, even if someone is in a high risk category, actively engaging in high risk behaviors, they are at relatively low risk for being the victim of a violent crime. And the percentage of violent crimes that are actually intended to be lethal is even less likely. Simply put, few people are actually victims of violent crimes. And even violent criminals don't just indiscriminately murder everyone they encounter. So, the idea that every self defense situation would end in the violent death of the bad guy is unrealistic and unhelpful.

well maybe, killing them is best avoided if possible,

but why are they attacking you? and what will happen to you if you loose, a good kicking, your nose bitten off, , he will shake your hand and say " well played, you put up a good fight"

youve got to be aware that those who randomly attack people are perhaps not psychologically stable in the first place, relying on their good will not to cause you unnecessary suffering, may be unwise

 

[Steve]

well maybe, killing them is best avoided if possible,

but why are they attacking you? and what will happen to you if you loose, a good kicking, your nose bitten off, , he will shake your hand and say " well played, you put up a good fight"

youve got to be aware that those who randomly attack people are perhaps not psychologically stable in the first place, relying on their good will not to cause you unnecessary suffering, may be unwise

I think that's the idea... why are they attacking you? This idea that people are randomly attacking other people is way overblown. Generally, people who are encountering violence can anticipate the nature of the violence they are likely to encounter. A college coed, for example, can anticipate that she may be the victim of sexual assault and take steps to mitigate that violence. But would she be justified in ripping out the trachea of the bad guy? Is that the goal?

Or let's look at cops. Cops shouldn't generally be killing folks. And when they do, how often do they use the hyper violent techniques that are often taught in self defense classes? Generally, when a cop kills someone it's with a gun.

Point isn't to undercut the seriousness of violent crime. It's simply to point out that brutally, ruthlessly murdering a bad guy is not reasonable. And if you're in a profession or field where you may actually need to ruthlessly kill folks (e.g., cop, soldier, mercenary, gang member, professional hit man), that to me isn't self defense. It's professional violence, in the same way that when an MMA fighter steps into the ring, what they he/she is doing isn't self defense. And in these violent professions, the rules of engagement are unique to the role.

Edit: Just to add, I'm not saying folks shouldn't train to be prepared. I'm just saying that actual risk of random murder is exceedingly low. Like, dying from falling out of bed low, or dying from constipation low.

And any preparation should be contextual. A surprising number of people are killed by agricultural machinery, so one would expect that people who work around agricultural machinery would want to take steps to mitigate those risks. But these steps wouldn't be all that helpful to folks who seldom or never encounter that machinery. It's specific.

 

[JowGaWolf]

well maybe, killing them is best avoided if possible,

but why are they attacking you? and what will happen to you if you loose, a good kicking, your nose bitten off, , he will shake your hand and say " well played, you put up a good fight"

youve got to be aware that those who randomly attack people are perhaps not psychologically stable in the first place, relying on their good will not to cause you unnecessary suffering, may be unwise

If I'm attacked, I'm first focused on ending the attack as soon as possible. If talking is the fastest way out then I'm doing that, if screaming is the fastest way out, then I'm doing that. If I have to be cruel and brutal, then that's what I must do?

The what if questions don't come to mind until I have ensured my safety. Fighting is brutal and sometimes the people have to do brutal and cruel things to defend themselves. I think there's a lot of people who mentally and emotionally haven't accepted this reality yet.

 

[jobo]

I think that's the idea... why are they attacking you? This idea that people are randomly attacking other people is way overblown. Generally, people who are encountering violence can anticipate the nature of the violence they are likely to encounter. A college coed, for example, can anticipate that she may be the victim of sexual assault and take steps to mitigate that violence. But would she be justified in ripping out the trachea of the bad guy? Is that the goal?

Or let's look at cops. Cops shouldn't generally be killing folks. And when they do, how often do they use the hyper violent techniques that are often taught in self defense classes? Generally, when a cop kills someone it's with a gun.

Point isn't to undercut the seriousness of violent crime. It's simply to point out that brutally, ruthlessly murdering a bad guy is not reasonable. And if you're in a profession or field where you may actually need to ruthlessly kill folks (e.g., cop, soldier, mercenary, gang member, professional hit man), that to me isn't self defense. It's professional violence, in the same way that when an MMA fighter steps into the ring, what they he/she is doing isn't self defense. And in these violent professions, the rules of engagement are unique to the role.

im not at a big on murdering people or indeed justifiable homicides, it mess up your life no end, so no, .

you got cross with me, when i pointed out the chance of any one of us dieing from covid was extremly small, bot your doing the same with violent crime, with no sence of irony ,


if your attacked which is a throw of the dice wrong place wrong time thing , 2 mins later it very well may not have happened at all or certainly not to you,

then you need to win, or you run the chance of being badly hurt, trying to work out the probability of you being attacked is exceedingly low whilst you are being attacked is a bit of a waste of time its happening, now

now all thibgs being equal you probebly wont get attacked if you minding your own business, then all youve wasted is a vit of time

i did get attacked a couple or so years ago, middle of nowhere not a care the world, ATTACKED, after a minor discusion about dog control, by someone much younger and much bigger, so it happens

telling me its unlikely now isnt helpful, my karate was