flaw of self defense training

[doubleouch]

I've come to believe that one of the big flaws of self defense training is that you never get to engage in the activity you train for. This always leaves doubt in your mind whether or not the techniques and training are effective. With empty hand self defense it is not as bad as with a blade. With blades it isn't as bad as with guns. Boxers get to box, wrestlers get to restle, but self defensers don't get to defend on a regular basis, so they don't have a good way to measure progress. I don't think that this flaw can be effectively overcome. Many smart instructors have invented all kinds of ways to lessen it's effect, but I think the flaw is inherent in the training and can't be eliminated. Any thoughts?

[Szczepankiewicz]

You've definitely got a point.

[darrianation]

I agree with your assertion to a point. Your right you can’t just leave SD (self-defense) class and go the bar and pick a fight to see if what you have just learned will work. If you did you will be spending a lot of time in court if it did work and a lot of time in the hospital if it didn’t.

There is no real clear cut answer for this as I see it. I would like to hear others ideas on this. All I can say is that you have to be pretty creative as an instructor and train hard core and keep it as real as possible without getting your students injured beyond normal bruises and sprains. Other wise you won’t be in business long.

There are some good approaches most notably at least in my mind Sammy Franco, Geoff Thomas et al. . . . As SD against weapons I like Krav Maga. I agree most other MA fall well short when it comes to SD

I think avoidance is a key factor and learning to recognize when a threat presents itself and how to resolve to a peaceful end is paramount. Beyond this it’s psychological training and dealing with, anger, fear, stress/anxiety, and learning to unleash your killer instincts. Not an easy task.

Physical training for Conditioning is also a must sometimes like or not some fights come down to attrition. Also being in good shape is a psychological boost that alone can give you an advantage.

Strength like it or not is important. That’s why little guys don’t box big guys, or little wrestlers don’t wrestle big ones. You may not be able to change you genetics and become a body builder. Being a big body builder isn’t necessary unless you really want to but lifting some weights and doing a few push ups will go a long way.


The mental aspects are the most important, then the physical. Last comes the techniques. Good techniques that are practical and easy to use under stressful conditions are the best. Also it’s best to keep them few. Too many techniques and they will clutter your mind and can make you confused and you might hesitate in a SD situation. This is not good! Maybe a couple or so techniques for the various and as sundry situations and attacks you might find your self in. Of course there is no way to know or train in every conceivable threat but quite a few of the same techniques will work well against different threats.

Any way train hard using situational sparring against an attacker (partner) who is not going to tell you what he is going to do or cooperate with your attempts at defense. Keep working until you can do the techniques successfully on consistent bases then practice some more!

[Thai Bri]

Full contact sparring, and ground grappling are very helpful. BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T LET THEM TAKE OVER.

Peoples egos turn the sparring into competition. They feel the need to "win" instead of "learn". Of course you won't be able to practice all your self defence moves (like kicking to the knee or finger jabbing the eyes etc), but you could still pad up and learn about movement, timing, impact and taking punishment.

But don't do it to the extent that you end up creating tactics and strategies for your training, that don't apply to real fighting.

Does that make sense?

[Cain]

do you ever make sense.. ?

[doubleouch]

Good replies guys! You make some valid points. My own feeling is why bother. I train ring sports now and don't worry about self defense. It makes it much easier to train and test my techniques. It is also alot more enjoyable for me than pretending to be muggers and cursing each other out etc. in class.

[Ryu (JKD?)]

That's all fine and good, but for some it's more enjoyable to pretend to be muggers and curse each other out.

I think people tend to mistake what "self-defense" entails sometimes. You can constantly put self-awareness, situational awareness, etc. to work in real life. Most people who have used "self-defense" in real life have done so because they successfuly de-escalate potential threats, gain experience on how to keep their cool, and their ego down in confrontations, etc.

The physical aspects of "self-defense" should be (at least to me) based quite a bit on what "works" in the ring. At least as a good foundation. Learn to box and spar, learn to clinch and spar, learn to grapple and spar, etc. You can constantly "test" your physical skills by doing what sport fighters do... go in and fight an uncooperative opponent. Try to beat each other, etc.

The more mental aspects of RBSD can be trained in the same alive manner.....in fact most are.
If you're doing de-escalation drills, you do so full contact. One person is not going to cooperate. He's going to do what he can to draw you into a fight, or sucker punch you, or whatever.
You have to put your training to the test and find the proper cues that the fight's about to go physical.
You hit first, hard, and fast, and continue hitting. He's caught unaware, but still tries to fight back. He resists full out. You clinch, and try to end it. The fight goes to the ground, you continue there and try to get back up as soon as possible.

This is all done at full contact with NO cooperation, and with gloves and headgear.

There's no real difference in the physical aspects of it. Both will "test" their stuff in full contact settings with resisting opponents. Neither can "test" it out in the street....legally anyway.

But the one difference is that because the RBSD trainer has spent a lot of time focusing on selective semantics, passive encroachment strategies, what to say, what to do, etc. and has tested THAT type of training (as well as physical skills) on uncooperative opponents.....chances are he'll be able to handle a "self-defense" situation that deals with that a little better than the person who doesn't train that way.

This is why police spend a lot of time with this type of training as well.

That's my take on it. Hope I was clear.

Ryu

[doubleouch]

Good post Ryu, Excelent example of someone being creative in finding ways to minimize the unknown factor. Sounds good. I just don't want to work that hard. I prefer to simply concentrate on the performance end and leave the rest alone. But then, I stopped training for self defense years ago.

[kengar]

I've come to believe that one of the big flaws of self defense training is that you never get to engage in the activity you train for. This always leaves doubt in your mind whether or not the techniques and training are effective

This is a good point, if someone who has never done any training starts their training in Self Defense they don't have a controled battle ground to test their techniques. But I do not agree with your statements because the techniques generally taught can be demonstrated to a degree to show the effectiveness, and are proven effective. Do you not believe a strike to the thoat will work? I could give you an easy pop to the throat so you can get a feel for what a full force blow would be like. Or I could put you in a choke so you understand your response to it, thus you'll know how you'll react if you are in the situation or if you choke someone else. You can lightly kick students legs so they can feel where the knee might give. I've never thrusted my finger deep into a person's eye, though I've poked an eye and it stopped the guy so I feel confident in telling you that you should attack the eyes when given the chance.

I have had my nose busted in training, though I still could have fought, I firmly believe that a good palm strike to the nose will give you a good advantage to win you life back. I have been sprayed with mase and hit with stun guns, and I firmly believe that a good palm strike to the nose will give you a good advantage to win you life back. Do I physically have to punch you for you to believe me? (palm strike is only an example)
True, there is no battle ground to put you skills to the test because training for Self Defense is about training to defend you life. I feel it is always a good idea to further training in an art that will allow you to go up against another person where force meets force. It can help build your fighting spirit as well as accustom you to another person trying to dominate you.
Good post & good replies from others.


Ken

[doubleouch]

Ken,
I think we can agree that the techniques will work. It is our reaction to the situation that we can't guage. We can practice the techniques until we are blue in the face. We've all experienced what happens in competition. It is much different that training in the gym. Imagine how different self defense is than that!

[akja]

Originally posted by doubleouch
I've come to believe that one of the big flaws of self defense training is that you never get to engage in the activity you train for. This always leaves doubt in your mind whether or not the techniques and training are effective. With empty hand self defense it is not as bad as with a blade. With blades it isn't as bad as with guns. Boxers get to box, wrestlers get to restle, but self defensers don't get to defend on a regular basis, so they don't have a good way to measure progress. I don't think that this flaw can be effectively overcome. Many smart instructors have invented all kinds of ways to lessen it's effect, but I think the flaw is inherent in the training and can't be eliminated. Any thoughts?

The answer may be in "how" you are practicing "your" self defense techniques. If you only practice in the traditional methods then you may or may not be lacking.

But the real answer is in "what am I doing" to make my training as real and beneficial for me?

If you just go to class 2 days a week and thats it, then you are guilty. Even in a 100% traditional school, your instructor will tell you that you need to practice at home on your off days.

Your "in class" training is a tool. A vehicle to get you from point A to point B. To learn the "basics," the mechanics of fight technique. "How you" evolve with it is all up to you.

[doubleouch]

akja,
You miss the whole point. What I was saying is that there is an aspect of self defense training that can't be safely trained. Training more won't do it.

[kengar]

Originally posted by doubleouch
Ken,
I think we can agree that the techniques will work. It is our reaction to the situation that we can't guage. We can practice the techniques until we are blue in the face. We've all experienced what happens in competition. It is much different that training in the gym. Imagine how different self defense is than that!

I get were you're going with this and you are right, there's a point that we can't go in training. Even with padded attackers, you can get a feel for full force blows but you're not actually smashing someone's face and getting the total experience. Though I feel even without that absolute engaging in battle you can still train effectively to prepare yourself for an unfortunate situation.
In short: Yes, you do have a good point.


Ken

[jubaji]

Originally posted by kengar

Do you not believe a strike to the thoat will work? I could give you an easy pop to the throat so you can get a feel for what a full force blow would be like. Or I could put you in a choke so you understand your response to it, thus you'll know how you'll react if you are in the situation or if you choke someone else. You can lightly kick students legs so they can feel where the knee might give. I've never thrusted my finger deep into a person's eye

Seems like two things are missing:

1) This theory doesn't let you know that you could do all these things to a resistant opponent moving at full speed
2) This theory doesn't tell the student a rather important thing; not what it will do to the opponent, but whether the student will be able to pull the trigger full-force when he 'needs' to, 'cause after all, he's never done so.

[Thai Bri]

Put it this way.

If we trained tennis, part of our training could involve playing a full game, on a court, in a tournament, refs, umpires the lot.

If we trained soccer, we could do the same. Etc Etc Etc.

But if we are training for self defence, totally no rules streetfighting, involving sticking your fingers in peoples eyes, smashing their windpipes and stomping through their knees...... well we could NOT do this. We can not praqctice the "event" in its entirity. Unless we like either hospital or prison food.

I believe this is the essence of the thread.