Womens self defense, or MMA grappling?

[Uke]

The fact that you would put it that way just goes to show what a no-class (and probably very lonely) lowlife you are. You are disgraceful.

This from the classiest guy on the forum.

Either way, my position is for women to not to have to give up a damn thing while you sit around twiddling your god damn thumbs because all you can tell any women to do is run, wrassle and suplex before making peace with what is inevitably going to happen to them.

I don't care how "PC" you like it. The fact is that your advice is a lot more offensive than any "term" I could ever use.

At least Sag Lu says to get one hard shot in. You don't even have that much to say. Just more "Blah blah blah I doubt" and "Blah blah blah spelling error".

[jubaji]

I think YOU are drunk right now, low-life. You can't even keep the facts of the one incident you are absolutely obsessed with straight. Not to mention everything else wrong with that post.

STFU and go sleep it off before you make more of an ass of yourself.

[Uke]

No anger here.

I very rarely train with blades.

Wow, that's a surprise.

Mostly I've just had a few unfortunate experiences where people with knives were trying to do me harm with them.

Oh, we know. We've read all about it in your thread that you wrote. You told us how the big, drunk guy pulled out a blade. Don't remember him ever trying to cut you before you suplexed him though. Plus, he was drunk. Actually you had a few drinks too so you might have been drunk too and are doing your best to remember through a drunken mind state.

The important point is that he was drunk, so the story ends and begins with you arguing with inebriated guys and using them to demonstrate that risky maneuvers can work. When you grabbed him to belly to belly suplexed him, did you locking your hands around his waist somehow prevent him from stabbing you before you threw him down?

No, it didn't.

He simply didn't intend on stabbing you. He was content slapping you, and brandished a knife to intimidate you. You had to close the distance, lock arms, set your feet and THEN throw him. He had ample opportunity to stab you. Its only that YOU took it as your suplex prevented it. I don't blame you. The guy did take out a knife, but let's not kid yourself. Either he had no intention of using the knife or he was so drunk that he didn't even realize that you had suplexed him until he was already on the ground.

Your "A Young Man's Tale" is a rendition of "Chinese Baby" by Richard Kim.

[jubaji]

What are women who are about to be raped supposed to do? Just give up the tang?

The fact that you would put it that way just goes to show what a no-class (and probably very lonely) lowlife you are. You are disgraceful.

[Uke]

Sag Lu

That's why The Dog Brothers used the name "Die Less Often".

The Dog Brothers are fighting full contact. That doesn't mean that they are fighting in a way to prepare anyone for what happens during a street situation. They start off dueling, mix in some grappling and are allowed to hit each other with sticks while on the ground. That's just dueling at its finest and if you mistake that model for self defense then you're already at a loss because you assume that the other guy is going to be willing to duel.

Any time you're faced with a gun (or knife) and you are unarmed the odds are against you, which means that it's much better to give up your wallet, or television, or car than it is to try to fight, no matter how well trained you think you are.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. No one to date has stated that they take each violent situation as a personal challenge and an opportunity to showcase skills. I agree that disarms are dangerous because they aren't guaranteed. However nothing is guaranteed, not even the fact that even if you give up what the mugger wants he will let you live. In the article I posted here the man didn't even have a chance to give up his wallet. What are women who are about to be raped supposed to do? Just give up the tang? I think not, and self defense teaches that you aren't supposed to take a mugger or rapist's word for anything. You have to assume the worst from the beginning because you don't know what is going to happen next. Anything less is just hoping and praying for things to turn out in your favor.

You're speaking about ideal situations where its a quick snatch and grab, not situations where the man's got you isolated, cornered and produces a pistol or a blade. I like speaking about women because it forces people to realize that having your wallet stolen may not be all he wants. Most women can't outrun men. So when they are forced to attack/defend, the focus goes on to winning and surviving and not just avoiding and diffusing. And while the odds are against you in a street situation with weapons present, I'll take a 50/50 any day over giving the mugger a 100% chance of getting any and everything he wants including my life. Sorry Sag Lu, but any other way of looking at it is just stupid, and its clear that fear plays more of a role in your unwillingness to act than actual prudence.

More importantly I think anyone who trains for such situations without being honest with themselves about the odds is dangerously deluded. That goes right along with my belief that anyone who trains OTHERS to fight unarmed against weapons that doesn't make their students aware of how likely they are to be maimed or killed is a dangerous fraud. That doesn't show a lack of confidence, it just shows a firm grasp of reality.

I agree with this. We are very aware that we can and most likely will get cut during blade encounters, but with enough training we can determine where we get cut and live to fight another day while you won't. So many people have this idea that the first time you get cut it's game over. That's bullshit. I don't care if its a straight blade or a karambit, unless you physically make it impossible for someone to continue the fight goes on. The thing with blades is they have such a profound psychological effect that most freeze up after sustaining a wound. That freeze up give the attacker more opportunity to slice and rip open more wounds, which speeds up the loss of blood, which eventually leads to a black out and then death. Still, its not instantaneous like a blunt instrument. With that in mind anyone who gives up before they even try is a loser by choice. There is no logic in that. Sagacious Lu won't disarm or control the attacking arm while fighting because he might get shot or cut, so he'll just let it happen anyway. By his own admission he may try and get in "one hard shot".

I got news for you Sagacious Lu: This ain't Star Trek and resistance isn't futile. All fantasies are out the door when your ass is on the line and intent and experience go a lot longer way than doubt and feelings of helplessness. Your lack of exposure is your greatest enemy. Many people have told you to get out and learn other things because its a clear consensus that you've backed yourself into a corner of disbelief and ignorance of better methods. Don't take any one's word. Go out and find out for yourself.

Otherwise you fall prey to the idea that if you play enough "what if" games with toy weapons that you're invincible.

Now you're just being a dick and I'm sure you knew it when you wrote it. Must be all the damage that the tae-bo has had on your brain.

Obviously if it's an extreme situation, for instance if the Al Qaeda is trying to take you and your family hostage YOU HAVE to do something.

Bullshit. That's exactly what didn't happen during 9/11 when supposedly Al Qaeda armed with only edged weapons managed to hold off over 100 people while they protected their own man who piloted the plane into the towers. If anything, that's the just another reason to train and grow comfortable with disarms.

I'd much rather have training and experience to deal with a violent situation than rely on "one hard shot" after which I'd lie down to be stabbed to death. Even if I didn't know a thing I'd fight because I happen to love my life. You must be miserable to roll over so easily and give yours up.

[jubaji]

How do you work with blades? Where does your understanding of blades come from, jubaji? How often do you train to deal with blades? .

I very rarely train with blades. I'm no expert for sure. Mostly I've just had a few unfortunate experiences where people with knives were trying to do me harm with them. Of course, what actually happened to me (and others) apparently could not have happened because it doesn't match your 'rules' and make-pretend sessions.

[jubaji]

We wouldn't dispute you talking about a folding chair disarm or blocking a flying elbow because we know that's your niche. That's the area where you have experience.

It is? When did I ever say that? Are you going to start posting lie after lie again the way you always do when you get all upset?

[TTEscrima]

I've never met or even heard of a LEO or soldier that advocated fighting a gun with their bare hands.

That's no surprise since its evident you have zero exposure to the subject.



Weapon Disarming Training

From Kill or Get Killed or Marine Corp field Manual FMFRP 12-80.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 Disarms.

"A STUDY of this chapter will enable the soldier and law enforcement officer to handle most of those situations in which he finds himself held at the point of a gun. By proper training and practice in disarming, skill and self confidence can be developed to a point where the student will become master of any situation in which he is confronted by a gun pointed at him by an enemy who is within arm’s length. Disarming has already been taught, in one form or another, to many men in the military, police, and civil defense services.

If disarming and its possibilities are understood more thoroughly it will be given greater emphasis in future training programs. There are many cases on record in which prisoners of war and criminals have escaped, killed, or seriously injured men who were holding them at gun-point.

On the other hand,many military and police organizations have cases on recordin which their own men have successfully disarmed armed individuals. Disarming is a technique that can be successfully used by
trained men. Recent military history contains numerous examples of successful disarming. It is a subject which cannot be presented cold to trainees, but requires proper indoctrination and training. If a method of disarming is presented without a proper introduction, the chances are that the pupil will practice it only half-heartedly and will never have the confidence really to use it when an opportunity resents itself. The factors which influence disarming must be fully explained before a man can evaluate his chances of success in my given technique."
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty more but I think I've made my point you have no idea what you're talking about.

Lets not forget, we got here because you proclaimed that trying to defend yourself empty handed was suicide, that's just stupid...doing nothing or trying to punch someone intent on shooting you is suicide, reaching for a weapon you'll never get to is suicide, fighting all out with your empty hands to prevent death, yep that's lame, thanks for the entertainment.

I never said anything of the sort, you just insist on reading that into my posts so you can fuel your little tirade.

Oh really?

Trying to disarm a gunman bare-handed sounds like one of the most desperate things you could attempt. As in desperate to the point of being suicidal.

if I'm going to risk my life on a desperate technique I'd rather land the hardest shot I can than rely on a fancy trick-disarm.

I also haven't said anything about weapon retention so I don't understand why you think that represents a great point against me.

The fact that you are unable to understand the correlation between the possibility and effectiveness of disarms and the resultant explosion of weapon retention tools simply proves you haven't even got a rudimentary understanding of the subject.

[jubaji]

Unlike you I live in the real world. I don't speak from a theoretical standpoint either. .

LOL! All your posts (including the one from which this quote is taken) prove the contrary.


How many people have you cut or killed with the phall...uh, I mean knife, you are always referring to? You know, in 'da street' in a COMBATIVE SD situation? How many gunmen who were sincerely out to kill you have you disarmed empty handed?

[Uke]

How much would you bet that this big mouth has never disarmed a gunman who was actually trying to kill him? Or his teacher, or his teacher's teacher...

You'd lose whatever you'd be willing to put on the line.

Unlike you I live in the real world. I don't speak from a theoretical standpoint either. I don't write long posts that describe what I might have done after someone slaps me in the mouth or posts where someone pokes me and I stare at them for 10 minutes fantasizing about what I would do only "if".

As always your baseless doubt is all you have, jubaji. We still haven't heard exactly what it is that you do to be so knowledgeable about what it is that we do. I have told you exactly what it is that I do. So that should explain to you how I know what I profess to know. How do you know what does and doesn't work? We wouldn't dispute you talking about a folding chair disarm or blocking a flying elbow because we know that's your niche. That's the area where you have experience.

My system is based on weapons. The footwork, the strikes, the blocks, are all based on combative elements with a blade. We work live drills from a standing position, sitting position, against a wall and on our backs(mounted and side mounted) that deal with deploying a blade, using a blade and controlling an opponent's blade hand/arm until we disarm. Just about every thing we do works off the premise that we are dealing with an armed attacker ... from grappling to striking. We also work from the standpoint that our opponent is just as trained and good as us, so we don't assume that he won't know this or that.

How do you work with blades? Where does your understanding of blades come from, jubaji? How often do you train to deal with blades? Or is all of your weapon training based on the chance that all men who decide to slap you and brandish knives will all be drunk? Do you wrestle as if your opponent has a blade? Do you strike as if your opponent has a weapon or do you just say "fcuk it" and just wing it? Are you still left believing that there's nothing one can do but duke it out or run in an effort to survive?

These are all questions I pose to you jubaji because its clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and are only here to yell out "NAY!" at every opportunity. Still why don't you dazzle us and tell us about your training, your findings and what you found that lead you to feel that suplexing and running are the only alternatives you have. My teachers have always said that there is no such thing as effortless self defense, but we teach solid methods that have worked and will continue to work as long as you train them.


Hardball:


I notice that Hardball says he knows of Leon Jay. Did you get on the mat with him, Hardball? Why not go up to the man and tell him to prove to you that small joint manipulation works? That isn't disrespectful. Its just telling him that you don't believe in what he does and you'd be willing to see if he could do it to you while you resist and fight back. That's where the proof would have been, not on an internet site when you had the opportunity to find out for yourself in person. I can tell you that you would be a believer had you stepped up and spoke. Leon is a gentleman, but he's his father's son and he would have gladly shown you as he carries an impressive amount of ability with him.

That's the difference between knowing and making excuses for why you didn't go and find out for yourself.

Hardball, if your excuse for not finding out for yourself boils down to Leon showing what he and his father learned from Dillman(and I too think Dillman's KO stuff is fraudulent) then that's faulty logic.

Many people here still study JKD after Bruce Lee said that FMA was crap and had no place in JKD. Yet JKD has Inosanto's FMA all through it. People all over also idolize Bruce Lee even though he supposedly created a death touch called the floating punch. I've asked around on this site and nobody especially JKD practitioners want to talk about that.

Still, no one puts down JKD despite those claims. Couple all that with the fact that Bruce Lee and James Yimm came to Professor Jay to learn grappling and specifically his small circle methods and you've got yourself a painted picture, kiddo. Don't cha think?

Get on the mat with Leon first. Then come back and tell the story.

[Sagacious Lu]

know more about the subject than the pros

I've never met or even heard of a LEO or soldier that advocated fighting a gun with their bare hands.

Lets not forget, we got here because you proclaimed that trying to defend yourself empty handed was suicide, that's just stupid...doing nothing or trying to punch someone intent on shooting you is suicide, reaching for a weapon you'll never get to is suicide, fighting all out with your empty hands to prevent death, yep that's lame, thanks for the entertainment.

I never said anything of the sort, you just insist on reading that into my posts so you can fuel your little tirade. I also haven't said anything about weapon retention so I don't understand why you think that represents a great point against me.

[jubaji]

Either you're extremely dense or you just refuse to admit you shot your mouth off on a subject you know jack shit about..

And there you have the beginning and end of every conversation with TTE unless you are praising his ability to copy and paste what someone else has written.

[TTEscrima]

It makes me thing that some people want to promote their training ideas so much that they're willing to be blatantly dishonest about unarmed defenses against guns. It's also interesting we started off talking about disarming a gunman but somehow now the conversation is about weapon retention. After all, if you don't like the way the conversation is going you can always change the topic.

Either you're extremely dense or you just refuse to admit you shot your mouth off on a subject you know jack shit about.

Do you, or have you ever owned a handgun? Did you receive any professional training? One of the major components of handgun carry and use is WEAPON RETENTION. There are Weapon Retention classes, specialized knives designed/carried/recommended for weak side carry (specifically to defend against disarms), handguns are factory built to help in the defense against disarms, and 20% of officers shot are disarmed and shot with their own guns. This entire retention industry backed up by the officers who've paid with their lives stands testament to the fact that weapon disarming is not only viable its a very real threat that isn't uncommon at all.

Since I already pointed out you're following the clown clubs tactics I'll sum that up for you simply. Weapon Retention is the reaction to the number of Weapon Disarms costing officer/Soldiers their lives. The professionals who deal with the problem daily consider it a real problem, so much so there is a sidearm under development for the LEO/military that wont fire unless the shooter is wearing a specific ring tuned to the gun...but it's obvious why you know more about the subject than the pros, because

I don't practice gun disarms... why would I practice something I thought was lame?

Lets not forget, we got here because you proclaimed that trying to defend yourself empty handed was suicide, that's just stupid...doing nothing or trying to punch someone intent on shooting you is suicide, reaching for a weapon you'll never get to is suicide, fighting all out with your empty hands to prevent death, yep that's lame, thanks for the entertainment.

[jubaji]

It makes me think that some people want to promote their training ideas so much that they're willing to be blatantly dishonest .

So it does, so it does.

[Sagacious Lu]

Does anyone else find it odd that some of the same people who become absolutely hysterical over the idea of using any shot, throw, or strike that they don't 'approve' of (the word 'suicide' comes up quite a lot in fact) under any circumstances on 'da street' have got their hackles up over the suggestion that empty-handed approaches to someone with a gun trying to kill you is not a great bet?

It makes me thing that some people want to promote their training ideas so much that they're willing to be blatantly dishonest about unarmed defenses against guns. It's also interesting we started off talking about disarming a gunman but somehow now the conversation is about weapon retention. After all, if you don't like the way the conversation is going you can always change the topic.