Unarmed Combat and Self Defense

[Sweeet]

As Jim said on the forum on his new website,

'There is a clear difference to Self Defence and Unarmed Combat. In the Military Schools the melee combat that is taught is largely not reactionary, meaning that you are taught to attack first, whereas in a self defence dojo the emphasis is on reacting to the movement or position of your attacker. '

Do you think 'Unarmed Combat' or 'attacking' styles and training are frowned upon (by general society)?

Also, do you think that training in these kinds of arts just as an ordinary civilian with no practical use for them that couldn't be found just as well in self-defense art is a reprehensible thing to do? And, does it encourage them to seek opportunities to use what they are taught - moreso than a 'reactionary' art?

Also, what would you regard as an 'Unarmed Combat' art or style that is geared solely towards attacking as opposed to more reactionary or defensive arts?

That's alot of questions :)

Sweeet.

[Rorny Gracie]

Combat TKD.
nuff said...

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Not really, you've said almost nothing. Kind of a blessing.

Self-defense is exactly that, learning to defend yourself. However the line between unarmed combat and self defense is usually fairly blurred, if you're taught to punch, is that unarmed combat or is it self defense?

The main difference comes in the attitude of the teaching, far too many schools these days teach their students to be hard and tough, or rather don't try to teach their students anything. The good schools will teach restraint, self control, and a lot more.

[Spike]

We`ve always been taught to know that self-defence is a negavtive attitude.

You should be thinking about self-protection.
Basically, if you feel threatened it`s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[Jim]

Ummm, Spike I would've prefered that you'd asked for details on my site or at least talked to me about taking what I'd said on another website and posting it here.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that what I teach is reprehensible or not?

Just for the record my initial training for students on 'self offence' is along the lines of aiding a person in danger (ie. coming to the rescue).

[pesilat]

Actually, Jim, it was Sweeet that did it, not Spike.

But since it's out here now, I'll go ahead and throw in my 2 bits.

To paraphrase one of my instructors (which is in line with what you've said Jim): "We can't be defensive all the time. If someone is attacking a loved one, then we have to *attack* the attacker in order to defend our loved one. If all we know is how to defend ourselves then we'll be out of luck."

But, I think that, in the long run, both approaches end up at the same place.

If the emphasis is placed on being the attacker then, by default, the partner will also be learning to defend. And the defender will improve which will cause the attacker to improve.

If the emphasis is placed on being the defender then, by default, the partner will also be learning to attack. And the attacker will improve which will cause the defender to improve even more.

So ... I think that it's just 2 sides of the same coin and each individual student will have to determine which mindset is right for him/her.

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I'd have to say that in the case of defending someone else or even something the important point is that you're still defending. Offense would be an unprovoked or unnecessary attack. We are trained that if you do feel threatened, or someone is under attack, then throwing the first punch is fine.

If you've walked in in the middle though make sure you help the right person.

[pgm316]

Having been in quite a few real situations. I'd have to say, whether protecting yourself or others, concentrate on beating the other person instead of defending yourself.

Being too passive can get you beat. If possible get the first punch in, assume if they do, you won’t block all their jabs etc. If they’re on the floor don't let them get back up, you might not get another shot in. I believe this is where combat styles have an advantage over the more defensive martial arts.

In my last confrontation I was defending a friend. I got the first punch in. But my nemesis piled into me with a few messy punches. Being in a crowded area it was difficult to step back to put any clean blocks or punches in. After taking a few shots on the arms I pulled his head into a front head lock and replied with a few shots to the ribs.

Always seems distantly related to what I’ve learn in the gym as the situation degenerates into a messy brawl. Where only the simplest most effective attacking techniques work. Does anybody have any thoughts on this??

[Liz]

In terms of UK law and MA, the understading I got from material on this provided by my Lau Gar teacher is that if you have good reason to believe that you are going to be attacked by someone, you can attack them first and this would be classed as self defence in court. The issue then would be whether or not you used "reasonable force"...

[Cooler]

On the issue of defending yourself I agree with pgm316 in a situation were you are under serious physical threat then you use what ever means possible to defend yourself. I have been involved in and seen a lot of violence through working the doors in Glasgow and it is never pretty. There are no rules on the street, if you are attacked there is a chance you could wind up dead, 'THAT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY'. You have to get mean and do what it takes to win. A favourite saying of mine is 'Take the pain and strike again'

Cooler

[Andy Murray]

One of these day's Cooler, I hope you'll tell us some of your tales from the door!

What do you think members?

You wanna hear some stories from Cooler?

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Cooler
On the issue of defending yourself I agree with pgm316 in a situation were you are under serious physical threat then you use what ever means possible to defend yourself. I have been involved in and seen a lot of violence through working the doors in Glasgow and it is never pretty. There are no rules on the street, if you are attacked there is a chance you could wind up dead, 'THAT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY'. You have to get mean and do what it takes to win. A favourite saying of mine is 'Take the pain and strike again'

Cooler

I for one would like to hear some of Coolers stories from working the doors! Situations like that will teach you things you'll never learn while training, things 90% of Blackbelts will never know.

And what I really want to know is how you rate the use of various martial arts techniques in those situation???

[morphus]

Admittingly so, doormen will be better prepared, for they re switched on all the time theyre at work, where as jo bloggs who doesn't want put his life on the line for work(we can't all be doormen etc) - can he learn what the doorman knows in a part time hobby/class?, not likely because he/she'll never know the adrenalin rush a situation like this brings - well not until they're in it up to there neck. What they can learn is some simple techs' that maybe affective with a bit of luck, repeating these techs' over and over in class might give them a habitual reaction that hopefully will help in a crisis situation.
Does anyone with door experience think any part of this rings true?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

With regards to not letting people get back up, the legality is awkward. As soon as their shoulders touch the ground you are legally not allowed to touch them, unless they try to get back up.

[Silver_no2]

Originally posted by Cooler
There are no rules on the street, if you are attacked there is a chance you could wind up dead, 'THAT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY'.I'm definitely going to avoid the street, everyone always talks about how things happen on the street. There are plenty of crescents, avenues, roads and ways for me to walk down without having all these hassles that happen on the street :D

Seriously though....

Originally posted by morphus
Admittingly so, doormen will be better prepared, for they're switched on all the time they're at workThat's true...but only to a certain extent. You can't be at your most alert for an eight hour shift on the door, it's too tiring. What you can do is learn to read the signs and watch people. The fact of the matter is that it is very rare for somebody to walk up to a complete stranger and punch them without any warning (by which I don't mean them saying "Excuse me pal but I'm about tae lamp you!", I mean without the other person becoming aware that somethings about to happen). I only got sucker punched three times in three and a bit years on the door. There is normally some verbal exchange before the fists start flying, the bit where they try and justify why they are going to leather the sh*te out of the other person. Even if there is no verbal build up then you still get a little warning as when the person enters your personal space, you automatically become more aware of them.

While the situation is not the same as an actual fight, any form of sparring will help you to learn how to control your response to the adrenalin rush that you get in a confrontation.

Have to say I agree with Cooler and pgm316 - you do whatever it takes to defend yourself. With regards to the "reasonable force" thing that Liz was talking about, the phrase that I was told to use by a police officer is "I felt in fear for my safety". This does not, however give you licence to jump up and down on somebody's head :D

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Does it give you that license if you do it while they're still standing up?

[Silver_no2]

Last time I checked it was very difficult to jump up and down on somebody's head while they were still standing up :D

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Yeah, but it would be worth a try, no? There's a pub I know with a whole in the floor...maybe if I jumped down and tried bouncing...

[morphus]

I've heard (from a good sorce) that if you stick to " i felt my life was truely in danger" then that is reasonable cause for a pre empted strike.

I absolutely agree with the statement 'do anything to survive' I have spoken to some martial artists and some say they could take an attacker out with a nice lock or other beautiful tech', personally i'll win any way i can, spit in there eye-bite off there ear-wrench there goulies, all good sound techs' in a confrontation where i come from and i teach this to; you name it i'd do it to survive or protect my family!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I still remember one time that someone did a what-if on my instructor. He was picked off the floor by the largest guy in class, and held there, pinned. He explained that there were two things he could do, draw up his knees and thrust them down, shifting his bodyweight fast enough to break their grip and possibly damaging their back for life, or he could...

And he spat in their eye.

[Jim]

I don't know what I'm more disappointed about; the fact that someone took the details from my site and posted them here or that this posting has got so many responces!

What Sweeet (sorry Spike) proposed originally with this thread was is it okay to train in 'pre-emptive' attack technques as an ordinary citizen as opposed to a member of the armed forces? And how could this be justified in today's society. (paraphrased)

[Freeform]

I your 'In fear of your safety', make a big point of saying loudly and noticeably something like 'Leave me alone, I don't want to fight' and if they close in toward you lamp them, hard fast and keep doing it. The people around you will (most probably0 have seen the other guy as the aggressor. Get names and numbers of people willing to back you up. This will help give you some legal defence if it goes that far.

However at the time try to clear your mind of any fear of post-scrap legalities, the doubt will prevent you from being resolute!

Thanx

[morphus]

Thats good - i like that , i was kind of thinking of something similar.

[Silver_no2]

Originally posted by Jim
I don't know what I'm more disappointed about; the fact that someone took the details from my site and posted them here or that this posting has got so many responces!I'm trying to work out why you are disappointed at all. Surely the reason that you put the information on your website was for people to read it and take something from it. Obviously you want people to be using your website - if Sweeet or anyone else keeps saying "Let's discuss this - I found it on Jim's website", it won't be long before we all use yours as well :D

Originally posted by Jim
What Sweeet (sorry Spike) proposed originally with this thread was is it okay to train in 'pre-emptive' attack technques as an ordinary citizen as opposed to a member of the armed forces? And how could this be justified in today's society. (paraphrased) I think that it is okay to train in pre-emptive techniques. This is something that people have touched upon in their replies in this thread - ie Spike's comment about "self-protection" implies attacking to defend yourself, Cooler and pgm316 with their views on using "whatever means possible" to defend themselves, Liz touched on the legal aspects of attacking somebody first and FreeForm has mentioned one of the ways to make sure that people know that you are not starting it. A little known but highly effective method is also to say it after you have lamped them. Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad at giving an account of a situation - should they be asked in court whether they heard you say "Leave me alone I don't want a fight", a large percentage will be hard pushed to say whether you said this before or after the fists started flying.

I think that most MAs teach some pre-emptive striking. Even those that are classed as "soft"/reactionary. Contrary to popular belief they are even a number of these techniques taught in aikido (the style I learn anyway) which is often viewed as the most reactive of the lot :D

[ladyhawk]

I've been told that the use of extreme measures are justified if
your life is in danger (especially if a weapon is involved) or you
are about to be raped.

Now I'm sure there is a fine line in what is considered extreme
and every country and state, for those of us in the US, has guidelines and laws.

A trained martial artist whether male or female is going to have to face the consequences of their actions and it is going to be thrown back at them that they were aware of the end results of certain techniques so why didn't they do something less damaging.

Now a days, criminals sue victims because they say their rights have been violated and it makes no difference that they were engaged in a violent illegal activity at the time because some idiot lawyer is going to take the case and tie up the court system while making a few bucks off of an injustice.

Bottom line to my rambling...
I going to stop them as effectively and efficiently as I can and deal with the consequences of my actions later.

[Jim]

I know I lose something in the translation of UK speak to Oz speak, but I have done a search on Yahoo and Alta Vista and still can't find any details on this technique called 'lamping'. Do I have the spelling wrong or is it just my accent?

Maybe you can show me sometime or just post a pic in the gallery?

[Melanie]

To 'lamp' some one (English slang/abbreviation/who knows?) is to punch some one hard, I normally picture some one throwing a roundhouse punch...but there maybe several other interpretations (?)

[ladyhawk]

LOL! If I were to take a guess at "to Lamp someone" I would say it meant you hit someone so hard you put their lights out.

That's just ladyhawk's definition off the top of her head.

[Freeform]

To Lamp someone: British slang, a term used to indicate punching someone hard enough to either

a) make them fall on their arse

or

b) make then unsure as to what their name is, what country their in, what language they speak and if their face has always been missing a nose and several teeth.

Hope that clears it up for you Jim.

Thanx

[Andy Murray]

A variation would be something we used to call 'poling' in Primary School.
Someone who had upset a group of people would be grabbed, a person to each leg, spread eagled and run groin first into the nearest pole or lamp post. We did have a wonderful junior boy's choir though!

[Sweeet]

You weren't on that choir, were you Andy? ;)

Sweeet.

[morphus]

Thats nasty, but nice!:D

[Andy Murray]

Hi Sweeet, I had a lovely voice you know ;)

Andy

[Cooler]

Getting back to the 'pre-emptive' attack techniques, I would say yes it should be taught to people training in the martial arts. A pre-emptive strike could just save your life.

If someone gets into your personal space you move them out of that space whether that be with a shove or a strike is entirely on how you read the threat level because if you leave them there and wait for them to make the first move chances are you wont see it.

As far as I am concerned if someone moves into my personal space then they have made the first move.

The only time someone will move into your personal space is when they want to snog you :D or when they are acting in an aggressive nature :( . If you can't tell the difference between the two then you are in trouble.

If you are approached by a person acting in an aggressive manner and he puts his hand behind his back or in his pocket, what do you do? Wait and see what he is up to or lamp him in case he is going for a blade. You have a split second to make that decision.
If you are just taught to defend yourself after the first strike is thrown then the chances are you will wait for that person to physically attack you before you react.

I have taught self defence and the first thing I teach is awareness of where you are your surroundings the people around you. Don't do silly things like walk down dark lanes by yourself even if it does take 10 mins of your journey. Most people have the attitude it want happen to me.

Next is run if you can, just run and make as much noise as you can.

Lastly fight if there is no other option this has to be gauged by the threat involved, if you are being mugged then just give them your purse or wallet its not worth dieing over. If the threat is of a higher scale rape, murder etc then you fight and you use everything at your disposal, you poke there eyes out and I mean you stick your thumb or fingers right in there till it pops, you bit chunks out of them you do what it takes to survive.

This is a personal choice and if the situation ever arose you would be one who would have to decide how to handle it.

Cooler

[Melanie]

Wow...there's some wisdom in the old man yet...thanks for posting Cooler :) Hope you didn't strain anything :D

[Cooler]

I'm going to have to rest for a few days as my fingers are exausted with typing and my brain hurts.

Cooler

[morphus]

Good advice cooler.;)

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Cooler
I'm going to have to rest for a few days as my fingers are exausted with typing and my brain hurts.

Cooler

You deserve a rest cooler!!! I agree with you 100% on that article, your absolutely right with the pre emptive techniques. Just be careful not to gouge someone’s eye out as they try to snog you :D

From reading others users comments, they sound worryingly overconfident of their own abilities that they don't need to rely on pre emtive attacks[?]

Maybe this could start a new discussion on assessing situations and appropriate response!?!..............

[Silver_no2]

I haven't actually seen too much evidence of that pgm316. The vast majority of the threads that I have read have talked about doing what is necessary and being more than happy to use pre-emptive strikes. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

[Jim]

The only problem I've had differenciating the two is when I woke up once strangling my wife in the middle of the night because she'd woke me up the wrong way complaining about a noise outside :)

Turned out to be a dog.

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Silver_no2
I haven't actually seen too much evidence of that pgm316. The vast majority of the threads that I have read have talked about doing what is necessary and being more than happy to use pre-emptive strikes. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Originally posted by Sweeet
As Jim said on the forum on his new website,

'There is a clear difference to Self Defence and Unarmed Combat. In the Military Schools the melee combat that is taught is largely not reactionary, meaning that you are taught to attack first, whereas in a self defence dojo the emphasis is on reacting to the movement or position of your attacker. '


I could have worded my comment better. I was trying to get the point over that the majority of people are not taught to be pre emptive because of the defensive nature of their art. This must surely cause many people to fight in a more risky way, giving them too much confidence in the effectiveness of their blocking techniques when instead they could be attacking.

Another worrying point is when people discuss which moves to use so to not injure their attacker too badly, like it’s a forgone conclusion the fight is won. We never know the ability of an attacker! I know we must all consider legal repercussions, but lets not be doing that while led in a hospital bed.

I feel we sometimes overrate ourselves. Over the years I’ve encountered some hardened street fighters that haven’t done a days martial arts training in there lives.

[Sweeet]

I kind of thought that the main reason people train in primarily 'reactive' arts is because that training would in 99.9% be adequate to protect them in most hand to hand combat situations, at a certain point. Besides, if you really wanted to 'go on the offence' all the time as opposed to letting the person grab you or swing at you, why not just carry around a taser?

Oops, you're in my personal space... pzzzzzzzt!

:)

Sweeet.

[pgm316]

Sweeeet.

If your in a situation and you feel its going to end in conflict, you have the opportunity to strike first and probably land a few good blows, would you be happy waiting for them to throw the first punch???

I’d be worried if you said yes. I’ve trained in various martial arts for quite a few years and I’ve not found one that comes close to protecting you in 99.9% of situations. Why gamble with your health!

[khafra]

Strangely enough, although all the moves were lethal, the style the Marines taught me 5 years ago was all reactive. Except with a rifle and bayonet. But hand-to-hand was diminishing the incoming attack enough to be able to fight back, then breaking some bones and popping some tendons on their way to the ground, then stepping rather forcefully on the cranial portion of their supine form.

Personally, I'd rather somebody hit me first :D