Self defence training: the good and the bad

[Aegis]

Self-defence schools: the good and the bad

Introduction
My training didn't start out as a search for the best form of self defence. I started martial arts purely for fun, but as time has passed I have seen others looking around wondering what they should train in. Beginners are met with an overwhelming number of martial arts claiming to be able to teach literally everything from near-invulnerability to psychic chi-blasts. These claims are usually dismissed even by someone with no understanding of martial arts training, but the rest of the pack still number in the thousands of styles, organisations and independent clubs within easy reach of the average would-be beginner. This article is for those chasing one of the most elusive creatures on the planet: effective self defence training. I hope that this helps show the difference between a good club and a bad club if this is your focus.

Where I'm coming from
I started out my martial arts career in Judo when I was 11. We had fun while trying to throw each other to the floor and follow down for a pin or a submission. At the time I doubt any of us thought of this as sparring, probably more as a game. As part of the class we would do self defence training from time to time, and undoubtedly the sparring (or randori in Japanese) helped us to understand the ways in which people actually fall, how to break balance against a resisting opponent and how best to survive someone attacking for real. However, there seem to be fundamental differences between how people behave in a Judo lesson than in a real engagement, and I came to realise that the few self defence classes that we had were merely a glimpse into the world of self defence training. I decided to find myself a second art, one which would complement my Judo effectively while increasing my ability to look after myself.

Since I had already learned throwing, an art that included that made a lot of sense to me. As such I went and tried out a local Jujutsu school. I had a lot of fun learning some self defence applications for the throws I had learnt in Judo, but I realised that there was still something missing. This class trained the self defence techniques in a fairly static manner then moved on to sparring (again called randori, but with completely different rules than I was used to from Judo). This sparring was light contact only, with certain defined scoring areas and would switch to grappling if anyone grabbed hold of the opponent in any way: no more strikes allowed. Looking back, I think I actually learned less about self defence by training in this manner than I thought I was at the time simply because the rules made it very unrealistic.

When I moved on to university, however, I found a method of training that works extremely well for me, one which I have stuck with ever since: non-compliant self defence drills. The idea behind this method is to give your partner an increasingly difficult time within your training class rather than sparring. As such, you can start out by drilling the techniques against a compliant partner, then start stepping up the difficulty. Maybe this time the partner will throw repeated punches rather than just the simple one used when learning the basic technique. Maybe this time he'll step back as you step in, leaving you in a very uncomfortable fighting range for a grappler unless you move quick. Maybe this time he'll grab back and try to keep you away. There's certainly an element of competition involved in this sort of training, but the ultimate idea is simply to push your opponent outside the comfort zone to find out if the techniques work when subjected to this sort of testing.

The advantage that this method has is that it gradually steps up the difficulty and allows training of increasingly more difficult situations. I have no doubt that for one-on-one situations the full-contact sparring seen in MMA schools is some of the best possible training, but when you include things like multiple attackers, grabs (including chokes, headlocks, bear hugs), weapons, defending another person, etc, I believe that sparring becomes very less appropriate while defence drills with resistance method work extremely well. I have been bashed for this opinion by full contact sparring advocates in the past, but I can live with that. They have their training method, I have mine. For the rest of the article I will be addressing situational self defence training rather than sparring. There will be other articles for the good and bad sparring schools, I'm sure, it's just not something that interests me as much as this subject.

Good and bad
I believe that the good end of the scale for self defence training has been explained above. Unfortunately the martial arts world is rarely simple. You can't, as a beginner at least, know whether one school teaching self defence is any better than another until you have some experience under your belt (so to speak), and many schools take advantage of this by claiming benefits that simply don't exist.

Recently I have had a number of work-related problems getting my my usual training venue, and as such have been training in something a little closer to home. This club is part of a global art which makes some fairly hefty claims about how good they are at self defence, yet I see little evidence of this ability in their training methods at the class in question, in their students or in the demonstration videos readily available on YouTube. There are videos of their black belt gradings available for anyone to watch, and the quality of their self defence is scary. Not in a good way either, it's scary that these techniques are the best that these masters of their art know (ok, a black belt is commonly referred to as a beginner who knows the basics quite well, but I'm still appalled that anyone would be given a black belt for these demonstrations).

To try and show some of the differences to any beginners reading this article, here's a simple release technique from a same-side wrist grab. This is a basic technique that you should learn to deal with in any art that looks at self defence. In arts like Judo and MMA you will likely learn it incidentally as part of standard sparring grip defence, in other arts like Jujutsu and Aikido you will practice specific techniques against this grab. The art that I mentioned above with the scary black belts has effectively one technique against this: kick them then snatch your hand free.

To give you an idea of a good art's techniques against such an attack, you have a number of options. First and foremost you assess the situation to see what the free hand is doing. Is there a weapon? Is there a punch coming. If there's a weapon, the grab is now almost incidental, it's all about defending against the next attack. If it's an empty hand but still a punch, you can step in and block the punch or step around the opponent to evade (obviously still keeping a sufficient guard to protect yourself though). You can then choose to escape, if you wish, by rotating your palm upward and stepping back while making a move as though you were running your fingers through your hair (this accesses the weakest part of their grip and applies a large portion of your body weight to it), leaving you outside striking range and able to run if you wish. If you don't want to go backwards you can rotate around the opponent, aiming to strike his elbow with your own as you turn through, releasing the grip (using body weight again) and ending up behind him with the ability to run or counter-attack as you see fit. You can instead extend their arm and step around into a shoulder lock. You can control their hand or arm using various techniques which attack the joints. You can step in and throw them to the floor.

I could go on, but this gives you an idea of the true depth that a real self defence art goes into when dealing with even the most simple of techniques. Naturally these aren't all taught at once to beginners: this would be an information overload that would render all the training useless. Instead one or two techniques will be properly learnt before trying out a few more. Perhaps two students starting at the same time might see five such techniques in their first six months, each of them learning two or three that fit their personal style well. This is more than sufficient because of how these techniques are trained.

Technique or attitude?
The training method as much as anything will define the quality of the techniques. In terms of refinement, the techniques I outlined for a good art are better than the one I outlined for the scary art, but that technique would itself be refined and improved with the right training mindset. Again, let me give two examples of training the same defence situation that define the difference between good and bad training.

In the first class the technique is trained by allowing the attacker to grab on to the same side wrist. The defender then does their technique while the attacker does nothing. Success! The defender gets free, does their counter attack and rejoices that they've learned such an easy defence against a common attack.

The second class starts the same way. They run through the technique a couple of times to get a feel for it, then they start making it harder for the defender. The attacker will grab hold and try to drag them away, or will try to hit them with the free hand. Eventually it all starts looking quite rough, but that's where the real learning happens. A technique learned in isolation with no resistance or pressure testing is worse than useless: it gives you confidence where none is necessarily warranted.

Conclusions
In short, the differences between a good school and a bad are as follows:


In a good school you will learn situations and will have a number of techniques for each situation, while a bad school will teach you one technique per situation regardless of the necessity for more
A good school will push you outside your comfort zone one way or another. A bad school will give you a great deal of encouragement when you have achieved remarkably little
A good school will leave you exhausted. Pressure testing your techniques is hard work: you will be physically exhausted and mentally worn out from the stress. A bad school might leave you physically exhausted if they do a lot of exercise, but if you haven't felt stressed, worried and possibly even afraid, then you're not getting what you need from the training


So, some counter intuitive questions that might help determine if the school is right for you:


Is it hard to learn? Wrong answer: no; right answer: it's very hard work, it's not for everyone, but if you persevere then you will learn it eventually
Do I need to grade? Wrong answer: yes, you need to grade to progress; right answer: no, if you choose not to grade you will still learn a lot
Will it hurt? Wrong answer: no, we take every precaution not to let you get hurt; right answer: yes, from time to time accidents happen when you train hard. However, we have a good safety record and qualified first aiders are present at all times


If you are looking for effective self defence rather than mere self confidence, you have to expect to work very hard, to occasionally go home with cuts and bruises (though not too severe, of course!) and to occasionally be extremely stressed out and frustrated by your training. It's not an easy ability to learn, and in fact it may not be worthwhile. An instructor of mine at university was well known for claiming that learning Jujutsu to a high standard would probably end up being more expensive and painful than a couple of muggings if you summed up both experiences, but self defence is about more than just avoiding losing money to a mugger. It's a legitimate boost to confidence; it's a way to exercise while learning something useful, and it may save you from something worse than merely losing money one day. In short, it's a way of life like any other martial art, but it transcends styles and gives you a framework into which you can add anything from any arts that you like as long as you can answer the question “Can I really use this?” with a “Yes!”

Have fun with self defence training, but please watch out for purveyors of false confidence.

[Decision Tree]

Nice writing. Progressive resistance is the difference between good and bad. Kusa and I were talking and i thin kthe phrase 'The possibility of loss' is a good indication of aliveness.

If you're winning 100% of the time, you're not really winning.

[shift]

Great article. Very interesting. I definitely agree with a lot of what you said. I think more schools should drill self defense more often.

[axelb]

Good article! Definately something to read through for those less experienced who are looking for a class/gym to train at.

I have been to a mix of good and bad, and shades inbetween. Sometimes the best class available is not all of the 'good' and includes a shades of the 'bad', unless you are willing to travel alot further!

One common occurance I have noticed is a 'club' will have several teachers and with classes varying from the good to the not so good, and although this shouldn't be the case it is something to be aware of when you go to different classes of the same club.

[Timmy Boy]

Good article, Aegis. It made me think about a few things I've been pondering about training, now that I'm starting to get back into it again.

The criterion of experience that you mention is flagged up again and again by people who want to defend their arts from criticism, but I think there is a place for common sense when choosing where to train for the first time. I don't have anything like the training, competition or street fighting experience to say that I'm good at fighting, let alone to teach people how to fight. But I do know that, when you are trying to learn a skill, it is generally best to practise actually performing that skill. You don't learn to swim without getting wet, essentially. So I think people who might lack training experience can still have a valid point if they doubt the efficacy of an art's training methods if they know that the art in question does not incorporate live training into its syllabus. And if the training is like that, then I don't see how experience in the art can lead you to some kind of epiphany as to why it's not necessary.

To be fair I can see why safety is a concern when you talk about swimming in this particularly rough sea, but it seems to me that many clubs manage to do live training, including hard sparring, without killing each other. Of course there are restrictions for safety, but there always will be when what you're doing is a drill as opposed to the real thing.

The weird thing is that I never really thought about aliveness until I started posting on MAP. Martial arts, to me, were just about learning techniques. But when I heard the argument about aliveness it made perfect sense to me. When I first tried live training, and I realised how difficult it was to apply even the simplest techniques on someone who was fighting me back, I felt that my old training had been missing something crucial and I just couldn't justify continuing to train at my previous club.

[Mike Flanagan]

So I think people who might lack training experience can still have a valid point if they doubt the efficacy of an art's training methods if they know that the art in question does not incorporate live training into its syllabus.

I agree actually that a degree of live training is necessary, though probably with some differences to the way you do it.

But...

I could repeat your sentence above and replace the phrase 'live training' with any number of attributes I'd consider necessary - defence against weapons, situational awareness, knowing the enemy (self-defence wise not sport wise), conflict resolution skills, study of body language and so on and so on. It seems to me that the 'live training' argument has no more value as an objective and universal truth as any other of these points. That's assuming we're talking about self-defence rather than sport of course. Yep, live training is a part of the solution, but only one part amongst many.

Mike

[Moi]

situational awareness, knowing the enemy (self-defence wise not sport wise), conflict resolution skills, study of body language and so on and so on.

Shouldn't you have learnt these by the time you've left high school?

[Mike Flanagan]

Shouldn't you have learnt these by the time you've left high school?

No doubt most people have picked up some ability in this area just by being alive. But that's nowhere near as effective as regular study and practice. For example, my 'soft' skills were enormously improved by working as a bouncer. Like any skillset, if you don't approach the subject and train it in a rigorous way you'll find your skills lacking when you need them most.

Mike

[Dean Winchester]

Shouldn't you have learnt these by the time you've left high school?

Yet many people still get sucker punched or become victim of a blitz assault.

IMO there's a difference between the social skills we develop through our childhood and those used as a means of protection from the violence you may encounter as an adult.

[Moi]

Yet many people still get sucker punched or become victim of a blitz assault.

IMO there's a difference between the social skills we develop through our childhood and those used as a means of protection from the violence you may encounter as an adult.

No doubt most people have picked up some ability in this area just by being alive. But that's nowhere near as effective as regular study and practice. For example, my 'soft' skills were enormously improved by working as a bouncer. Like any skillset, if you don't approach the subject and train it in a rigorous way you'll find your skills lacking when you need them most.

Mike

I keep thinking I had a regular childhood so I can only see it through my eyes. Guess most people were never as violent. Carry on!

[koyo]

Depends where you were brought up. I do know that there were a few guys you only had to look at the wrong way in my neighbourhood to find yourself in trouble.

I am reading Stephen Leather's latest book and the hero says he was toughened up "walking the beat in Possilpark Glasgow"

That's where I was brought up.:eek:

[Timmy Boy]

I agree actually that a degree of live training is necessary, though probably with some differences to the way you do it.

But...

I could repeat your sentence above and replace the phrase 'live training' with any number of attributes I'd consider necessary - defence against weapons, situational awareness, knowing the enemy (self-defence wise not sport wise), conflict resolution skills, study of body language and so on and so on. It seems to me that the 'live training' argument has no more value as an objective and universal truth as any other of these points. That's assuming we're talking about self-defence rather than sport of course. Yep, live training is a part of the solution, but only one part amongst many.

Mike

I see your point but I'm sure you'd agree that even situational awareness, defence against weapons and the other skills must be learned in an alive way, right?

[Morra]

Hi, Aegis:

Can so-called non-compliant drilling equally create false confidence? A drill by definition is a structured, non-realistic pattern partners comply to in order to practice a technique. It is compliant, all drills are. There are degrees of compliance, but it's still compliance, yes?

So, I'm not so sure that just because you're good at getting bruised up in tough drills that you will be good at self defence. BJJ guys do drills all the time, and when they get punched they drop a belt with each hit they take (as the cliche goes). Boxers drill hard constantly - is it some magic solution to fighting two opponents cooperating together intelligently to bring you down? I think not.

In your example with the wrist grab, you fall into the same trap as the people who think one kick is the solution--and it could be the solution, but then you advocate having multiple responses to this attack. You're both kind of wrong but on both ends of the spectrum. You are offering these little band-aids, and they are offering one big band-aid, but in the end, they are individual techniques not connected by an over-arching strategy/ response.

The solution you mentioned, about turning your hand supine and turning it free won't work against all opponents (think a 310 lbs muscle man on PCP). So, what's worse, one good kick or a bunch of responses you'll probably forget in the middle of an attack?

I love what you say about your uni teacher saying it's easier to be mugged a few times than pay for and work at MA for all these years! He is so right! I think if self defence is your goal, MA is a very inefficient way to protect yourself (carry a little club or gun if you're that worried about it). A lot of people, I have found, start with the intent to protect themselves, but in six months just drop that aspect (Unles they're military types).

My adivce would be to not worry about self defense, but to concentrate on the present moment within the dojo. This doesn't create over confidence or under confidence, you just are; no judgements, no ego, no self-loathing, no frustration. I don't agree that you should feel frustrated. Maybe for a moment, then let it go and return to the present and just let go. Frustration is a sign you are not in the right head-space (I'm an expert in that!).

Anyway, I think the article is a great conversation starter, and it made me think! Thanks...

[Mitch]

Hi, Aegis:

Can so-called non-compliant drilling equally create false confidence? A drill by definition is a structured, non-realistic pattern partners comply to in order to practice a technique. It is compliant, all drills are. There are degrees of compliance, but it's still compliance, yes?

I disagree strongly with this. Creativity is required to ensure drills are not compliant, overly structured or unrealistic, but it can be done.

Mitch

[Aegis]

Hi, Aegis:

Can so-called non-compliant drilling equally create false confidence? A drill by definition is a structured, non-realistic pattern partners comply to in order to practice a technique. It is compliant, all drills are. There are degrees of compliance, but it's still compliance, yes?

I have to disagree with this. A drill can be almost entirely non-compliant. When I say "a drill", I mean something that starts off in one position to learn to deal with that attack, but then it descends into something much less structured when you put the pressure on. At that time the drill is in no way compliant aside from the initial set up if a specific technique is to be drilled.

I wouldn't say that this breeds false confidence either. My thought is that this type of training teaches how difficult self defence can really be, and as such it encourages people to find other ways to deal with a situation at all costs.


So, I'm not so sure that just because you're good at getting bruised up in tough drills that you will be good at self defence. BJJ guys do drills all the time, and when they get punched they drop a belt with each hit they take (as the cliche goes). Boxers drill hard constantly - is it some magic solution to fighting two opponents cooperating together intelligently to bring you down? I think not.

Tough drills against a specific attack or situation will develop competence at dealing with that attack or situation. If you drill against two opponents with a fair bit of intensity you start to develop tactics that can help. You'll lose a lot, probably more often than you win, but as you train more and more the odds improve.


In your example with the wrist grab, you fall into the same trap as the people who think one kick is the solution--and it could be the solution, but then you advocate having multiple responses to this attack. You're both kind of wrong but on both ends of the spectrum. You are offering these little band-aids, and they are offering one big band-aid, but in the end, they are individual techniques not connected by an over-arching strategy/ response.

The over-arching strategy is to get free and get away. The specific techniques used to get free depend on the specific situation, and a single technique drilled non-compliantly simply will not help you to escape.


The solution you mentioned, about turning your hand supine and turning it free won't work against all opponents (think a 310 lbs muscle man on PCP). So, what's worse, one good kick or a bunch of responses you'll probably forget in the middle of an attack?

Depends how much you train the various techniques. It's possible to get away from someone much bigger than you, and if you've trained the techniques often enough and hard enough to understand the body-mechanics that best allow a release, you will have more of a chance of escaping. In certain situations there will simply be almost no chance at all, but no martial art is going to train someone to get out of those. After all, the kick from someone much smaller currently being grabbed is even less likely to get them free than correct application of weight to the weakest part of the grab.

I'd prefer to have a small number of well-honed techniques to use if I get into trouble. Too few and the technique isn't varied enough to get you out of some situations, too many and you can't train them often enough to get good enough.


I love what you say about your uni teacher saying it's easier to be mugged a few times than pay for and work at MA for all these years! He is so right! I think if self defence is your goal, MA is a very inefficient way to protect yourself (carry a little club or gun if you're that worried about it). A lot of people, I have found, start with the intent to protect themselves, but in six months just drop that aspect (Unles they're military types).

Can't carry clubs or guns here in the UK... Probably for the best given what we Londoners all have to put up with on the underground!


My adivce would be to not worry about self defense, but to concentrate on the present moment within the dojo. This doesn't create over confidence or under confidence, you just are; no judgements, no ego, no self-loathing, no frustration. I don't agree that you should feel frustrated. Maybe for a moment, then let it go and return to the present and just let go. Frustration is a sign you are not in the right head-space (I'm an expert in that!).

I'm of the belief that if you don't worry about self defence, you don't learn well-rounded self defence. You have to think specifically about certain situations because they just won't arise in sparring naturally but could in self defence.

Anyway, I think the article is a great conversation starter, and it made me think! Thanks...

Good! The whole point is to get conversations started.


For the record, I think that training in an art that spars in a realistic manner will very much build up self defence ability in certain areas. There will be bits missing, but they can be worked on with drills.

For those of us that just don't like sparring, drills work well for most self defence situations.

[Atre]

Ooooh, this description of training at university is really tempting me to go to Ju jitsu at said university - sounds awesome.

Cheers Aegis

[Morra]

I disagree strongly with this. Creativity is required to ensure drills are not compliant, overly structured or unrealistic, but it can be done.

Mitch

Name one drill that is 100% non-compliant and 100% realistic.

[Morra]

I have to disagree with this. A drill can be almost entirely non-compliant. When I say "a drill", I mean something that starts off in one position to learn to deal with that attack, but then it descends into something much less structured when you put the pressure on. At that time the drill is in no way compliant aside from the initial set up if a specific technique is to be drilled.

Wait, you just said "almost entirely non-compliant". So you admit it's compliant. It's less compliant that just having the opponent stand there, but it's still compliant. My point is, with all these cliches about "non compliant" and "pressure test", the fact is, it's still falling short of what you will experience in a true self defense situation. I totally agree it's the best way to train, but don't kid yourself or be imprecise: it's still compliant, and it is very unrealistic - obviously, I don't have to list why to you as you're aware of all those crucial differences.

I wouldn't say that this breeds false confidence either. My thought is that this type of training teaches how difficult self defence can really be, and as such it encourages people to find other ways to deal with a situation at all costs. [QUOTE/]

Why wouldn't you say that? You're saying no one ever could get a bit over confident in your training method, then get his or her ass kicked because of the differences between your toughy drilling and a real attack? Anyone can get overconfident in what they do, no matter how good the training is. Always someone or some method that has different +s and -s.


[QUOTE=Aegis;34070038] Tough drills against a specific attack or situation will develop competence at dealing with that attack or situation. If you drill against two opponents with a fair bit of intensity you start to develop tactics that can help. You'll lose a lot, probably more often than you win, but as you train more and more the odds improve.

Again these weasle words: "a fair bit of intensity". Yes, more intense, probably, than the "compliant" drills, but not full intenstity- or people just get injured. Total complaince has its place. In BJJ they do it all the time. If you don't start with compliance, you will not be sharp, you won't know what ideal to aim for during the real melee. Only after drilling compliantly over and over and over again, do you jump to what you advocate.

My problem with what you suggest to beginners is that it is totally dismissing the benefits of more compliant drilling (I say more because your drilling is still compliant, just to a lesser degree). You have to have both, and it's tempting to jump to the fun stuff, but it's bad because you jump into something without maintaing proper technique or form because you never had a chance to really "get it". Royce Gracie advocates you train very SLOW, get it right, precise... takes years and years and years.

The over-arching strategy is to get free and get away. The specific techniques used to get free depend on the specific situation, and a single technique drilled non-compliantly simply will not help you to escape.

Ha-ha! The over-arching strategy to escape is not "to escape". That's like saying my strategy to win is to win. If you practice low side kicks on a totally compliant tree, that will help you in your self defense. You'll have good kicks- how is that bad? Yes, better to practice against an opponent, but on the other hand, you can't kick his knee as hard as you can the tree. Most good fighters actually only have one technique. That's right: one technique. Everything else is just a way to get to it!

I'd prefer to have a small number of well-honed techniques to use if I get into trouble. Too few and the technique isn't varied enough to get you out of some situations, too many and you can't train them often enough to get good enough.

Fine, but you are talking to beginners in your article. What is wrong with giving them one or two techniques against a hand grab? Maybe the point is to get them first used to being grabbed, moving without losing balance, giving them some success and confidence so they can tackle more difficult problems in 6 mos time. I just don't see the big deal with a limited structured curriculum that starts with a few basic techniques that you can build upon.

Can't carry clubs or guns here in the UK... Probably for the best given what we Londoners all have to put up with on the underground!

You CAN... it's just breaking the law.

I'm of the belief that if you don't worry about self defence, you don't learn well-rounded self defence. You have to think specifically about certain situations because they just won't arise in sparring naturally but could in self defence.

And I believe if you have strong fundementals in a legit art, it will see you through naturally to increase your chances to survive no matter the circumstances.

[Timmy Boy]

Name one drill that is 100% non-compliant and 100% realistic.

Nothing is 100% realistic but when it comes to compliance I think you can be pretty much 100% uncooperative. I mean, the end goal of a training exercise is for each partner to get better and you impose rules for safety or to focus on something, but within that framework you can resist as much as you like.

[Murdog]

You know, of man--this hits the nail on the head for me and my whole journey as a martial artist! I trained at a TKD school for three years before joining the Marine Corps. I was a red belt. I figured I had a fairly decent idea of what self defense was all about.

Well, while I was in bootcamp the platoon I was in was learning hand to hand combat techniques. When we were learning how to deal with a strangle hold--my partner actually attacked me, wrapping his hands around my throat and choked me--hard. I was shocked! I remember seeing the look on that guy's face; he looked like he was very serious! I'm thinking 'crap I can't breath--I can't breath! See, that's the thing. If you don't really know what it's like to be attacked--then how do you know how you're going to react, let alone if what you're being taught is going to really work? These guys wanted us to attack each other with verociousity and violence--with some control, however. Nobody wanted any recruits to get injured. But, they wanted the Marine recruits to understand to the best of their ability just what real combat is like (we all know, though, it's never like really being there). This was indeed a great and insightful article with straight forward, need-to-know stuff. And, I'm grateful for having found it. Thank you.

[YouKnowWho]

It's always good to look at the MA training from a throwing art (SC, Judo, wrestling) point of view. In the throwing art, not only you have to learn different throws, you also have to learn counters against each throws. You then learn counters against those counters. Soon you will get into combo training (use 1 move to set up another move). If we can train our striking art this way then beginners will have a clear understanding about their striking art.

[housefull]

Great article. Very interesting. I definitely agree with a lot of what you said. I think more schools should drill self defense more often.
Good article! Definately something to read through for those less experienced who are looking for a class/gym to train at.

I have been to a mix of good and bad, and shades inbetween. Sometimes the best class available is not all of the 'good' and includes a shades of the 'bad', unless you are willing to travel alot further!

One common occurance I have noticed is a 'club' will have several teachers and with classes varying from the good to the not so good, and although this shouldn't be the case it is something to be aware of when you go to different classes of the same club.

[Pugil]

The best form of self-defence is not to be in a situation where you need it in the first place. In other words, it's not so much about 'fighting', as not needing to fight in the first place. If, however, you find yourself in a dangerous situation, then get the **** out of it fast, to a place of greater safety. Should you need to use some kind of physical response in order to extricate yourself from that situation, then use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid! Because most of your fine motor skills required to make some complicated little wrist grab escape (not that I've ever seen a bloke attack another bloke in that manner anyway!), will suddenly be absent.

For me, effective self defence / self protection is about avoiding conflict, if at all possible. And all you gung ho 25 year olds out there who think otherwise, stop and ask yourself how your thinking might change if you were a suffering from a slipped disc, or other physical impairment, or you were a small 57 year old woman (for example), at the time of the attack. If you have to fight back, especially in the most dangerous of situations, strike for the eyes, groin, knees and throat. If what you try to do ain't do-able by an average person, having had the most limited amount of training, and in the most stressful of situations imaginable, then it shouldn't even be attempted!

[YouKnowWho]

Name one drill that is 100% non-compliant and 100% realistic.

Ask your 250 lb opponent to chagre in full speed and tries to

- knock your head off, try to see if you can stop him by your front or side kick on his chest (without letting him to push you back).
- shoot at your leg/legs, try to pull him down in front of you (before he gets your leg/legs).

Repeat these drills 100 times daily and keep your record for your success/failure ratio.

[RobP]

Ask your 250 lb opponent to chagre in full speed and tries to

- knock your head off, try to see if you can stop him by your front or side kick on his chest (without letting him to push you back).
- shoot at your leg/legs, try to pull him down in front of you (before he gets your leg/legs).

Repeat these drills 100 times daily and keep your record for your success/failure ratio.

That isn't 100% realistic, you are restricting yourself to only two responses.

[YouKnowWho]

When somebody runs toward you in maximum speed, you truly don't know what he is going to do to you. He may want to:

- jab at your face,
- upper cut at your chin,
- hook punch at the back of your head,
- hammer fist on top of your head,
- back fist at your face,
- bear hug on your waist,
- head look on your head,
- grab your single or double of your legs,
- ...

It's more than just 1 or 2 responses. If you can stop your opponent before he gets too close to you, you already have strong "defense" skill - protect your territory.

One simple test can be to draw a circle. You stand in that circle. Your opponent tries to enter that circle and you try to prevent him from doing that. Let your opponent to try 100 times and see how many times out of those 100 tries that your opponent can step into your circle. Keep you successful-failure rate and see if that ration can be improved through time.

[47MartialMan]

The best form of self-defence is not to be in a situation where you need it in the first place. In other words, it's not so much about 'fighting', as not needing to fight in the first place. If, however, you find yourself in a dangerous situation, then get the **** out of it fast, to a place of greater safety. Should you need to use some kind of physical response in order to extricate yourself from that situation, then use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid! Because most of your fine motor skills required to make some complicated little wrist grab escape (not that I've ever seen a bloke attack another bloke in that manner anyway!), will suddenly be absent.

For me, effective self defence / self protection is about avoiding conflict, if at all possible. And all you gung ho 25 year olds out there who think otherwise, stop and ask yourself how your thinking might change if you were a suffering from a slipped disc, or other physical impairment, or you were a small 57 year old woman (for example), at the time of the attack. If you have to fight back, especially in the most dangerous of situations, strike for the eyes, groin, knees and throat. If what you try to do ain't do-able by an average person, having had the most limited amount of training, and in the most stressful of situations imaginable, then it shouldn't even be attempted!

Kudos! Bravo! It is what I have been trying to explain in almost the same manner to flash and pizaz martial artists throughout the decades.

[Draven Azropht]

Name one drill that is 100% non-compliant and 100% realistic.

Ok, you need 2 buddies and bag of cereal boxes filled with sand, mouth guards and MMA gloves will work for protection and you'll be training in a parking lot at night. The goal is simple get into your car while dealing with "attacker a" trying to intimidate and distract you from "attacker b" oh and there could be an attacker "c" & "d" shock knives or padded sticks & no one is holding back. Stops when you get into your car & exit the parking lot or go down and can't defend yourself...

Drills should be based on specific scenario simulating real world conditions as much as possible, its not 100% more like 99% but thats as good as it gets.

The best form of self-defence is not to be in a situation where you need it in the first place. In other words, it's not so much about 'fighting', as not needing to fight in the first place. If, however, you find yourself in a dangerous situation, then get the **** out of it fast, to a place of greater safety. Should you need to use some kind of physical response in order to extricate yourself from that situation, then use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid! Because most of your fine motor skills required to make some complicated little wrist grab escape (not that I've ever seen a bloke attack another bloke in that manner anyway!), will suddenly be absent.!

I agree on the matter of Keeping it simple and on the importance of avoidance a lot of fights can be avoided but people let ego or "I'm a fighter" mentality get in the way. As far as fine motor skills disappearing, not so much. Fine motor skills might break down but if you train under life conditions and add stress to the mix it can actually desensitize the individual to the adrinoline dump and improve how they handle it.

For me, effective self defence / self protection is about avoiding conflict, if at all possible. And all you gung ho 25 year olds out there who think otherwise, stop and ask yourself how your thinking might change if you were a suffering from a slipped disc, or other physical impairment, or you were a small 57 year old woman (for example), at the time of the attack. If you have to fight back, especially in the most dangerous of situations, strike for the eyes, groin, knees and throat. If what you try to do ain't do-able by an average person, having had the most limited amount of training, and in the most stressful of situations imaginable, then it shouldn't even be attempted!

Thats the best advise for SD techniques yet...

[Dikzzz]

Oh please.

Once again, we've degenerated into the internet's favourite passtime - fantasy lives.

There is no such thing as a 100% realistic drill - and nor should there be.

If you want 100% realism - go pick fights and generally act like an .........
And then live with the consequences, good and bad.

Training for realism requires:
a) Experience of the real world - which plainly many people just don't have. If you don't have it, don't pretend, be honest about it and stop making rash assumptions.
b) An understanding of how real people perform under pressure, how far regular training will take them, and what conditioning is required to bridge the gap.
c) A goal and a requirement for each exercise you are doing i.e. where the participants are now, and where they'll be at the end of the scenario. That includes pre-fight, in-fight, post-fight and all the tactics, concepts and strategies that might be employed.
d) Everything is being done to survive that first encounter. To survive that feeling of helplessness and denial. To overcome the voices inside screaming at you to be somewhere else. To live through the knee-jerk responses that are flooding your mind.

Anything else is just boys playing at being tough. A quick trawl around youtube and you'll find all sorts of BS being touted as reality training. Most of it with NO training motive whatsoever.

[sakumeikan]

The best form of self-defence is not to be in a situation where you need it in the first place. In other words, it's not so much about 'fighting', as not needing to fight in the first place. If, however, you find yourself in a dangerous situation, then get the **** out of it fast, to a place of greater safety. Should you need to use some kind of physical response in order to extricate yourself from that situation, then use the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid! Because most of your fine motor skills required to make some complicated little wrist grab escape (not that I've ever seen a bloke attack another bloke in that manner anyway!), will suddenly be absent.

For me, effective self defence / self protection is about avoiding conflict, if at all possible. And all you gung ho 25 year olds out there who think otherwise, stop and ask yourself how your thinking might change if you were a suffering from a slipped disc, or other physical impairment, or you were a small 57 year old woman (for example), at the time of the attack. If you have to fight back, especially in the most dangerous of situations, strike for the eyes, groin, knees and throat. If what you try to do ain't do-able by an average person, having had the most limited amount of training, and in the most stressful of situations imaginable, then it shouldn't even be attempted!

Dear Pugil,
Thank you for this blog.While other people are speculating what fiendish techniques could be used against an angry gentleman you have focused on one mayor aspect of Martial arts training.In a word the correct strategies to use depending in the given situation.Common sense dictates that you only need to resort to violence when /if you do not have an alternative.Doing /rehearsing movements in a dojo with a training partner is useful , but not quite the same as confrontation outside in the street etc.

[47MartialMan]

Oh please.

Once again, we've degenerated into the internet's favourite passtime - fantasy lives.

There is no such thing as a 100% realistic drill - and nor should there be.

If you want 100% realism - go pick fights and generally act like an .........
And then live with the consequences, good and bad.

Training for realism requires:
a) Experience of the real world - which plainly many people just don't have. If you don't have it, don't pretend, be honest about it and stop making rash assumptions.
b) An understanding of how real people perform under pressure, how far regular training will take them, and what conditioning is required to bridge the gap.
c) A goal and a requirement for each exercise you are doing i.e. where the participants are now, and where they'll be at the end of the scenario. That includes pre-fight, in-fight, post-fight and all the tactics, concepts and strategies that might be employed.
d) Everything is being done to survive that first encounter. To survive that feeling of helplessness and denial. To overcome the voices inside screaming at you to be somewhere else. To live through the knee-jerk responses that are flooding your mind.

Anything else is just boys playing at being tough. A quick trawl around youtube and you'll find all sorts of BS being touted as reality training. Most of it with NO training motive whatsoever.


Yes. And then there are those little squabbles between schoolyard pals, boyfriend and girlfriend, good ol boys in a pub, and anything else that seems off hardcore defense.

[Commander Nitro]

Good point! This is an interesting and useful article and some I've already used in choosing a martial arts class

[Haohmaru]

Do you guys do any sort of reaction training? My friend and i would stand in horse stance and look straight ahead un-focused and throw a rock or hacky-sack and catch it with "peripheral"(?) vision. Anyone got any other ideas?

[Aegis]

Have a couple of training partners stand to either side of you and occasionally try to slap you in the head. It might work your reactions a little, but it'll certainly be amusing for your friends.

From what I've seen so far, some form of sparring is probably the best way to train your reactions because you have no idea what your opponent is going to try at any time.

[kenpokev]

the best thing thats has helped my reaction timing and how to react is knife training, NOT WITH A REAL BLADE, yes it adds a sense of urgency but you will get injured and possibly die and your training will end. But it really adds a sense of "oh crap i have to solve this quick and it has to be done quicker!!!!" Just a suggestion.

[47MartialMan]

Do you guys do any sort of reaction training? My friend and i would stand in horse stance and look straight ahead un-focused and throw a rock or hacky-sack and catch it with "peripheral"(?) vision. Anyone got any other ideas?

Find the biggest red marker and with old clothing, try to stab each other with the marker.

You would be surprised how realistic your reaction will be.