Joachim
17th December 2002, 11:10
Since there is no pure Self Defense Forum on e-budo, I'm putting this here.
I've seen too many self styled "experts" teaching "self defense"-techniques that would get the defender hurt or killed and so I plan to write some guidelines (in German) for people looking for a working Self Defense.
If asked today, I normally tell people not to believe everything just because the one, who is saying it wears a black belt. I tell them to go to a class and see if the techniques make sense to <b>them</b> (and not to the people who have been doing them for years). If the techniques seem easy enough to be done <b>by them</b> and seem sensible to them, they should stay.
I would like to have a working definition of "good" (vs. "bad") Self Defense though. My plan is to keep it all as objective as possible. I don't want to tell anyone what the best SD is, but to teach them how to look for the one that is right for them. For that purpose, I have first to define what makes up a good SD.
I would like to propose a definition for "good" (working, effective, sensible) SD-techniques and would like you to comment on the definitions and point out any flaws in it.
This is just a first draft of one definition.
If somebody else has already done all of this work, I haven't seen it. Could you please tell me?
According to German laws, SD ends, when the attacker stops attacking ot is no longer a threat. So, I would like to define the goal of SD as to "escape from an attack or series of attacks".
Not, to neutralize the attacker, when for example, you had the chance to flee from him.
<b>Definition:
A "good" SD-techniques for <i>beginners</i> has to: (in order of importance)
1. Defend against an attack (a) and/or diminish the ability of the Attacker to continue attacking (b).
2. (Taking into account the extremly stressful SD-situation) Be as easily performed and as natural (c) in its movement as possible.
3. Has to be as safe (d) for the defender as possible.
4. Has to be as effective (e) as possible.
(a) Either a "direct" attack, like punches, kicks and head-buts, that's supposed to inflict damage or an "indirect" attack, like a grab, that's supposed to facilitate other attacks.
(b) By counter-attacking.
(c) Similar to the natural movement patterns of an untrained person.
(d) Affording the best defensive cover, stability and mobility.
(e) Archives the goal of SD with as few consecutive techniques as possible.</b>
To give an example: According to this definition, a technique may not only be meant to prepare for another technique, nor may a technique depend on another, successfuly completed, technique to work. This would violate points 1 and 4 of the definition. (BTW I think such techniques would be useless in SD)
This definition is only meant for beginners. I think that with enough training, you can effectively use techniques in SD that do not adhere to all of the above rules or do not place the same significance on the order of the rules. I just think that these rules should make up a guidleine for people who don't have years of experience in MA.
Any thoughts?
I've seen too many self styled "experts" teaching "self defense"-techniques that would get the defender hurt or killed and so I plan to write some guidelines (in German) for people looking for a working Self Defense.
If asked today, I normally tell people not to believe everything just because the one, who is saying it wears a black belt. I tell them to go to a class and see if the techniques make sense to <b>them</b> (and not to the people who have been doing them for years). If the techniques seem easy enough to be done <b>by them</b> and seem sensible to them, they should stay.
I would like to have a working definition of "good" (vs. "bad") Self Defense though. My plan is to keep it all as objective as possible. I don't want to tell anyone what the best SD is, but to teach them how to look for the one that is right for them. For that purpose, I have first to define what makes up a good SD.
I would like to propose a definition for "good" (working, effective, sensible) SD-techniques and would like you to comment on the definitions and point out any flaws in it.
This is just a first draft of one definition.
If somebody else has already done all of this work, I haven't seen it. Could you please tell me?
According to German laws, SD ends, when the attacker stops attacking ot is no longer a threat. So, I would like to define the goal of SD as to "escape from an attack or series of attacks".
Not, to neutralize the attacker, when for example, you had the chance to flee from him.
<b>Definition:
A "good" SD-techniques for <i>beginners</i> has to: (in order of importance)
1. Defend against an attack (a) and/or diminish the ability of the Attacker to continue attacking (b).
2. (Taking into account the extremly stressful SD-situation) Be as easily performed and as natural (c) in its movement as possible.
3. Has to be as safe (d) for the defender as possible.
4. Has to be as effective (e) as possible.
(a) Either a "direct" attack, like punches, kicks and head-buts, that's supposed to inflict damage or an "indirect" attack, like a grab, that's supposed to facilitate other attacks.
(b) By counter-attacking.
(c) Similar to the natural movement patterns of an untrained person.
(d) Affording the best defensive cover, stability and mobility.
(e) Archives the goal of SD with as few consecutive techniques as possible.</b>
To give an example: According to this definition, a technique may not only be meant to prepare for another technique, nor may a technique depend on another, successfuly completed, technique to work. This would violate points 1 and 4 of the definition. (BTW I think such techniques would be useless in SD)
This definition is only meant for beginners. I think that with enough training, you can effectively use techniques in SD that do not adhere to all of the above rules or do not place the same significance on the order of the rules. I just think that these rules should make up a guidleine for people who don't have years of experience in MA.
Any thoughts?