PDA

View Full Version : Definable Self Defense Techniques?



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?

jellyman
17th December 2002, 12:23
I tell them to go to a class and see if the techniques make sense to them (and not to the people who have been doing them for years). If the techniques seem easy enough to be done by them and seem sensible to them, they should stay.

Some people are slower learners than others, though.

My rule of thumb is that if it works on me and doesn't require superior physical attributes to pull off, it's worth knowing.

I think you also need a dynamic form of training (like sparring), rather than only having someone repeatedly and predictably throw an attack at you. I know the theory is that this will give you muscle memory, but the more specific the response trained, the less useful it is - because rl is never so predictable. Boxers, for example, drill very generalized 'techniques', like the 'slipping a punch' technique (you might call this a skill instead of a technique). Not often you'll see a boxer drilling a 'counter # 3 to overhand right' technique.

When being shown a defense, the defender should ideally move less than the attacker. In rl, the attacker will have an edge in time, and therefor more opportunity to move. The only way a defender can successfully move more than the attacker, is to be faster, which of course is a superior physical attribute. This highlights the difference between self-defense (someone else gets 'first shot') and sport (both guys get to go at the same time). Thus, in addition to straight sparring, it is good to train while giving up the edge of surprise to your partner.

I like your post.

Joachim
17th December 2002, 12:51
Hi John,


Originally posted by jellyman
Some people are slower learners than others, though.

Yes. What I wanted to say by this is that too many "black belts" teach techniques that may be very easy for them (having years of experience and training). The same techniques might be very hard to do for a beginner.


Originally posted by jellyman
I think you also need a dynamic form of training (like sparring), rather than only having someone repeatedly and predictably throw an attack at you. (...)
IMO Sparring should definetly be a part of SD-training. As should be stress-drills and fitness training. So far I only wanted to define good techniques, not good training though. This is only the first step.

INFINOO
18th December 2002, 16:47
Joachim: Is weapon/tool usage, part of your definition of self defense tech?

Regards

Gregory Rogalsky
Rogalsky Combatives International
Calgary Alberta Canada

Joachim
18th December 2002, 17:35
Hi Gregory,


Originally posted by INFINOO
Joachim: Is weapon/tool usage, part of your definition of self defense tech?

It's just a <b>first try</b> for a reliable definition. But I don't see why not. It's meant as a universal definition for "good" SD-techniques, whether they use weapons/tools or not. Weapon/Tool usage does not violate any of the principles as far as I can see. If you see a difficulty there, please tell me, so I can adjust the definition.

Starting from there, I later want to put up a definition of which weapons and tools are "practical" for aplying SD-techniques with. I wanted to tackle that one later, though. :-)

Right now I`m still thinking about a the techniques and a valid definition of self defense in general (as compared to/opposed to martial arts, martial sports, etc.).
Two of the main problems there seem to be how to differentiate between SD and "fighting" (for lack of a better term). If you either enter willingly into a fight or stay after you could have left without endangering yourself (or others).
The other one is how to incorporate the difference between SD according to the law and SD according to the "real world". There may be times, when SD could make actions neccessary, which are not strictly lawful.

If you could share any insights/oppinions, I would very much appreciate it.

Caveat Lector! So nobody gets the wrong impression of me. I'm not a experienced self defender :-) (thank god). Neither do I teach SD. I have my MA experience, a little SD training, I have read a few books and articles on SD (some good, some bad) and I have given it a LOT of thought.

INFINOO
18th December 2002, 19:27
Thanks for the quick reply. A few points . First of all IMO "law" is the real world. So having a working knowlege of the law in the area of self defense is a good place to start. Having a criminal defense lawyer on retainer and discussiong self defense with him is another smart move, IMO. From there the old saying "dont do the crime, if you cant do the time.
Its easy to say its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Which is true , but the ideal situation is that if you defend your self with in the guidlines of the law and eventually walk away a free man. I say "eventually" because from my experience the police on the scene of a fight will automatically charge all combatants, especially the one who is left standing. So be prepared and "SHUT YOUR MOUTH" untill you talk to your lawyer. The police know that after a high stress event(like a fight for your life) people like to talk and will use these to there advantage and do ther best to get you to cry(and talk) on there shoulder on the ruse that it will make things easyier on you. They will say "where here to help you", just tell us what happened. When really when the police show up "after the fact", there are there to gather information and lay charges. After an "event" make note of any witnessess that may have seen or heard the event or actions and conversations that led up to the event. Many people who witness a scene may not want to get involved. So asking them in a "calm" and gentle way to stick around for the police to take there statement may help you down the road.
More later I got to go to work.

Regards

Gregory Rogalsky
Rogalsky Combatives International
Calgary Alberta Canada

Joachim
19th December 2002, 00:14
Originally posted by INFINOO
(...)First of all IMO "law" is the real world. So having a working knowlege of the law in the area of self defense is a good place to start. Having a criminal defense lawyer on retainer and discussiong self defense with him is another smart move, IMO. From there the old saying "dont do the crime, if you cant do the time.
Its easy to say its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Which is true , but the ideal situation is that if you defend your self with in the guidlines of the law and eventually walk away a free man.
I completely agree. Marc MacYoung put it quite similar, when saying (quoted from memory) "Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Yeah, but only if you're prepared to be raped by 5 in the prison shower".

What I meant by the comparison of lawful SD vs. "real world" SD, is this:
According to German SD-laws, it is illegal to continue to attack an aggressor if he is no longer attacking you. In an extreme scenario, this might lead to the following. If you are attacked somewhere, far away from safety and you managed to defend from the initial attack, IMO it would border on suicide to just take off and leave. Help might not be near, the attacker is still in a condition to pursue you and continue the attack, he might still carry weapons that you have not seen or have not been able to take from him. Attacking his legs to hamper his ability to pursue you or attacking him to knock him out would be completely illegal but might nontheless be the prudent thing to do.

The only other legal option would be to try and restrain him and wait (or call) for help. I've seen up to six policemen try to restrain one drunk too many times to believe to pull that off safely without illegal damage to the agressor.

INFINOO
19th December 2002, 03:25
You make some good points that highlight the complexity of modern self-defense. I wanted to get into some tech but Im late for a class. In the mean time stay aware, mind your distance, and watch there hands.

Regards

Gregory Rogalsky
Rogalsky Combatives International
Calgary Alberta Canada

P.S I like that way and the context you used the word "prudent":D