aka Dr.Ruthless

[Arthur]

I'm away on a training trip. I'll write when I get back. Probably Tuesday.

Also Perry, thanks for expounding on some of those differences. Good stuff to know.

Arthur

[Cady Goldfield]

Very interesting to learn that history. Thanks, Perry.
I'm in Boston, and the women I know who took the course, between 10 and 15 years ago, did so at the Model Mugging program here. Dunno if Ms. Soalt had already sold it at that point.

I didn't seen the classes in person, but one of the women showed me the videotape from her "graduation" (when students go through a random mugging -- they are picked out at random by the "mugger" while watching others train, and must take him out). I have to say that it was intense.

In the program, the women must be able to literally take down their attacker. Even though he is wearing all that padding, they must be able to attack to the knee, throat, etc. and actually use enough force to make him go down -- and acknowledge that the force would have been adequate to cause a knockout in "real life."

Greg, I don't recall seeing knives or weapons used in the tape, but that doesn't mean that some schools don't use them. Maybe Perry has information on that. It's not something I would introduce in a basic course, though. Most women need to get used to unarmed assault and even just verbal assault before they're prepared to deal with weapons.

[INFINOO]

Cady:
Thanks for the reply. Im not a doctor but a strike to the throat or the knee can't cause a knock out. Or did you mean, knock them down and hit there head on somthing hard knock out?
Im really curious , why do you think women need to get used to verbal assault and unarmed assault before women are prepared to 'deal" with weapons in this case a knife? I guess we should clear up what you mean by dealing with means? By deal with do you mean learning repect for knives, safe knife practices, the introduction of training knives, How to carry, angles of attack, draws, cut, thrust, repeat...OO. Or is deal with in terms of the naked hand vs knife attacks.

Regards

Gregory Rogalsky
Rogalsky Combatives International
Calgary Alberta Canada

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by INFINOO
Cady:
Thanks for the reply. Im not a doctor but a strike to the throat or the knee can't cause a knock out. Or did you mean, knock them down and hit there head on somthing hard knock out?
Im really curious , why do you think women need to get used to verbal assault and unarmed assault before women are prepared to 'deal" with weapons in this case a knife? I guess we should clear up what you mean by dealing with means? By deal with do you mean learning repect for knives, safe knife practices, the introduction of training knives, How to carry, angles of attack, draws, cut, thrust, repeat...OO. Or is deal with in terms of the naked hand vs knife attacks.

Greg,

Yes, I meant that those strikes and kicks are meant to get the attacker down on the ground (and, you hope, hit his head) so you can stomp them from an advantageous position and then get away. Repeated kicks to the fronts and sides of the knees can mechanically disable or buckle them.

Actually, if you know how to attack the throat, it is a very vulnerable area. I have been able to get my grip around a partner's trachea, and could easily have crushed it. But that's an aside to this discussion. Such techniques are not intended for a knockout. But, I saw that throat punches and strikes were taught to Model Mugging students. At least, it was evident on the videotape I watched.

Concerning verbal assault, empty-handed assault and weapon assault: Many of the women who sign up for model mugging are individuals who have been the victims of rape, mugging, incest and other forms of abuse. The woman whose "graduation" tape I saw had been raped multiple times by male members of her extended family. She was raised in an environment of abuse, and was intimidated by words and gestures as well as actions.

For many women, all it takes is for a man to tell her what he is going to do to her, to get her to fall apart and be immobile. The first part of Model Mugging training seems to be to get them used to being spoken to threateningly and with the most impactful vocabulary imaginable. Graphic threats, vulgar language, the works.

Then there's the coverage of basic assault patterns -- the attack from the rear, attack when the victim is lying down as in bed, attack when the victim is cornered and other scenarios. The focus is on the kinds of attacks men most often commit on women, including the way they approach and initiate.

The fighting moves the women are taught are those that will work -- if programmed in -- even when the woman is in fight-or-flight mode. That is, the techniques are the most basic, gross motor movement. I know you are fully aware that in a high-duress situation, refined motor coordination goes right out the window. The basic skills have already been mentioned in previous posts. Keep in mind that most of these women have never hit or even raised their hand to anyone in their lives.

Weapons are a different territory, and I believe they aren't approached in the Model Mugging programs -- at least, not the original model -- because handling a knife-wielding opponent has many more variables to deal with, and the women are already absorbing so much new information with the other stuff.

Anyone who has trained seriously with knives knows that it requires a level of awareness and state-of-mind that exceeds what can be conditioned and taught in even a 20 week course. Sure, you can teach some rigid techniques, but I don't think you can really ingrain the intuition and skill for such defense without extensive practice. Not only that, but the gross motor movements the women are taught to disable an unarmed attacker, may put them in danger should they unleash the same responses on an attacker with a weapon.

It's more than physical training, it's psychological conditioning. Considering where so many of the students are starting from, it's just too much to cover.

[INFINOO]

Thanks for the response Cady. I have been meaning to respond sooner, and even tried to a couple of times, I just been really busy..OO. Anyways, my point about the throat shots is that it wont knock someone out , it "may" kill them , but not knock them out, "no". Can you imagine telling a judge after the fact. Ya your honer, I wanted to knock the attacker out so I gave him a "judo chop" to the front of his throat.
I bet that would go over real good .

Before I get to the knife issue, I have to ask when you say, "anyone who has trained seriously with knives". Who are refering to, you, me, or your instructor, or maby someone else? And if so what kind of serious training are we talking about. Was that 20 week course comment a typo? If not please, elaberate. Thanks.



Regards

Gregory Rogalsky
Rogalsky Combatives Internatioanl
Calgary Alberta Canada

[Bruce Mitchell]

okay,
I am sure that I will get jumped on for this, but I am fishing for contrary opinions to balance the view I have of model mugging which is this: It teaches women empowerment, not self defense.

I have watched a couple of Bay Area Model Mugging Graduations and the biggest problem that I see with them is that the "attackers" in no way create anything coming close to the intensity of a real street attack (I am speaking more of the psychological side of it here, I understand that there are real limits that need to be kept to maintain safety in any self defense course). While the attackers do use threatening and abusive langauge, it lacks the intensity of someone who has no qualms about doing what it takes to get what they want. I do think the scenerios are intense, but the attacks are not truely "violent".

I would also venture to say that in 90% of the scenerios, the women allowed the attacker to either close the distance or take them to the ground before the launched a committed attack. The strategies seemed geared to beginning self defense from this position. I would also note that in none of the scenerios that I witnessed, did the women disengage and make a committed attempt to seek escape after launching an initial attack, the training appeared to be geared towards maintaining the engagement to the bitter end.

Either way, this course, as do most self defense courses, seems to greatly underestimate the physical strength of the average male. I strongly believe that, as my cqc instructor likes to say, you must assume that your attacker is stronger than you, he is faster than you, he is smarter than you, and he is armed. Allowing the attacker to control the beginning of an altercation seems to be a great way of insuring the outcome, in his favor.

BTW, I believe that all of what I said above holds true for most men's self defense courses as well. Now, I am currently invovled in a course based off of the Fairbairn/Applegate systems, so I do have a bias.

I may be way off base here (I hope so for the sake of all of the model mugging students out there), and am interested in hearing contrary opinions.

[INFINOO]

Great Post Bruce. The attacker is bigger stronger faster smarter has been "drilled" in to me as well. I would also add, that the attackers also come with friends.
Which is why Im more than a little confussed about all this naked hand self defense nonsense.
Imagine if you where a general talking to the troops. " Well men, the enemy has us outnumbered is better armed, is bigger, stronger and will use surprise when they attack us , now go out there and engage them empty handed? Huh. How long would that army last in war?
The other issue I have is when "they" say (they know who they are ) that there tech/concepts will have to change if weopons like knives come into play. Personally, I beleive and teach that my pocket stick /knife concepts change very little if not at all from the naked hand tech. The angles of attack change not. The effective range if we are talking a 3-4 inch fixed/folder, are the same. And like it or not "the fight, is the fight for your life".
From my experience, there is only two things the bad guys understand 1. pain and 2. injury. The quicker and easier with less risk to yourself you hand out generous portions of both dishes when/if you come under attack the better.
I think the reason that women self defense courses arent taught street weopons like the knife or pocket stick for offence/defense from the get go is all about money. I know from persoanl experience its a much harder sell. And like "they" say, more sales, more profit.

[Perry Hauck]

"The other issue I have is when "they" say (they know who they are ) that there tech/concepts will have to change if weopons like knives come into play. Personally, I beleive and teach that my pocket stick /knife concepts change very little if not at all from the naked hand tech."

Yes. This is a very important point.

Ideally, one shouldn't have "punch defenses" and "knife defenses" (and "bludgeon defenses") they should, to the extent possible, be one and the same. Obviously, there are differences in what you can do against a guy with a club and a knife,that is a given. But as mentioned, the idea should be to make those responses as similar (or identical) as possible.

The supposition of people who take very different approaches to each type of weapon attack is that you will beforehand be able to see the weapon (or that he doesn't have a weapon in his hand) and then be able to select the "appropriate" response. Hick's law tells us that this this is just not realistic.

People often are simply not able to determine that they are even in a knife assault before they have to respond. Many times people just percieve someone swinging at them. They don't know if he has a bottle, knife, screwdriver, club or whatever. They just percieve the motion. They don't have time to determine what "category" of responses to choose from, they just have to react immediately.

For that reason, all attacks should be treated as potential armed assaults.

Bruce,

I generally agree with your post. Honestly, most of what you say is true. But also keep in mind, what you saw was a group of women, probably none with any martial arts experience or previous training, after a just a 20 hour class. Most of those women probably had trouble yelling "No" on the first day and had concerns about ever "hitting" someone, even if that person was hurting them. Men, generally, don't have theses concerns.

Most people who come to take classes at BAMM or any IMPACT affiliated Chapter are very average women like this. What they really get from the class is the understanding that they CAN defending themselves; that is even a possiblity; that they are not automatically helpless just by virtue of the fact that they are a woman. That, for them, is a HUGE revelation. And the first step in learning to protect youself.

Take Care,
Perry

[Bruce Mitchell]

Thank you for your replies Gregory and Perry,
It is good to be reminded that people come into these classes with often little to no training, and/or incidents in their past that influence their behavior.

To clarify some of my concerns, one of the things which was explained and demonstarted was that the these women were trained for some of the "what if's", such as "what if your initial defense fails?". In theory this is not an unsound approach, but in practice, in every scenerio enacted, the first attempt always failed. My observatyion was that the women took a less than fully committed attempt at the initial defense, and were "saving it up" for the secondary defense. In effect, these women were trained to fail in their initial defense. I may be being a little harsh here, but I think it's better to sock it out over the keyboard than on the street.

Most statistics seem to support that victims who put up an initial committed defense fare better both physically and psychologically than victims who have not done so.

I do believe that these courses are signifigantly better than your average karate school self defense course, or YMCA course, but there still seem to be signifigant shortcomings.

I understand that many of the attack scenerios are based off of actual attacks taken from police reports. I would recommend that the instructor/assailant not only be able to re-enact an assault scenerio, but that they really understand the mindset of your average thug or rapist, and be able to bring that intensity to their role. Most of these individuals (not the instructors) are prison-population, serial criminals, and are truly savage in their actions/assaults. The difference is in looking into the eye of your assailant and knowing that they not only are intent are harming you, but may even be relishing the idea.

This may be too much to ask of a twenty hour course, but I don't know if I would send my daughter through a course that I did not feel adequetely addressed these things. Again, I may be wrong here and would be happy to hear otherwise.

Thank you again for the responses.

[mt2k]

Iif someone, male or female, is looking for a solid, pratical, short term method of self defense, then they can do no better than the material presented in those two tapes by Ms. Soalt. Her methods are very similar to WW2 commando unarmed combat tactics.
I rate this tape series a 10.
Matt Temkin

[Bruce Mitchell]

Thank you Matt,
I will look for her tapes. Overall they are receiving nothing but praise here so far. Thank you for the feedback.

[mt2k]

Her tape set, Fierce and Female, is available from www.paladinpress.com
Check them out.
Matt Temkin

[mews]

Originally posted by Bruce Mitchell
Thank you for your replies Gregory and Perry,
It is good to be reminded that people come into these classes with often little to no training, and/or incidents in their past that influence their behavior.

To clarify some of my concerns, one of the things which was explained and demonstarted was that the these women were trained for some of the "what if's", such as "what if your initial defense fails?". In theory this is not an unsound approach, but in practice, in every scenerio enacted, the first attempt always failed. My observatyion was that the women took a less than fully committed attempt at the initial defense, and were "saving it up" for the secondary defense. In effect, these women were trained to fail in their initial defense. I may be being a little harsh here, but I think it's better to sock it out over the keyboard than on the street.

Most statistics seem to support that victims who put up an initial committed defense fare better both physically and psychologically than victims who have not done so.

I do believe that these courses are signifigantly better than your average karate school self defense course, or YMCA course, but there still seem to be signifigant shortcomings.

I understand that many of the attack scenerios are based off of actual attacks taken from police reports. I would recommend that the instructor/assailant not only be able to re-enact an assault scenerio, but that they really understand the mindset of your average thug or rapist, and be able to bring that intensity to their role. Most of these individuals (not the instructors) are prison-population, serial criminals, and are truly savage in their actions/assaults. The difference is in looking into the eye of your assailant and knowing that they not only are intent are harming you, but may even be relishing the idea.

This may be too much to ask of a twenty hour course, but I don't know if I would send my daughter through a course that I did not feel adequetely addressed these things. Again, I may be wrong here and would be happy to hear otherwise.

Thank you again for the responses.

[tmanifold]

What was the point of just quoting what some one else already posted?

[mews]

Well, I screwed up that copy & paste, didn't I? I realized it - but was over the 15 min limit at that point.
---
I understand that many of the attack scenerios are based off of actual attacks taken from police reports. I would recommend that the instructor/assailant not only be able to re-enact an assault scenerio, but that they really understand the mindset of your average thug or rapist, and be able to bring that intensity to their role. Most of these individuals (not the instructors) are prison-population, serial criminals, and are truly savage in their actions/assaults. The difference is in looking into the eye of your assailant and knowing that they not only are intent are harming you, but may even be relishing the idea.
---



anyway - for many women, 'empowerment' _IS_ self-defense.

For most women, the assailant is someone they know, not a stranger-danger rape. Dealing with Step-daddy, the preacher, the professor, the slightly-too-drunk-boyfriend is more the reality than the assault on the street / in the parking lot / in the park that gets the heavy press.

Dealing with Step-daddy, the preacher, the professor, the slightly-too-drunk-boyfriend is a lot harder mentally than dealing with a stranger. We are taught to mis-read, to assume no harm, to question ourselves much more with those people. and therefore get in deeper tourble, faster. A stranger - it's usually more clear-cut, no moral or ethical feelings towards that person, etc... and they can't fire us if we don't go along, or trash our GPA, or tell Mom we were leading them on, or whatever.

mew