Does anyone actually need to learn self defence?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1q-xMSyIIo"]DART Students Scenario Training Medley - YouTube[/ame]

I responded to that post and it has not been established that pro fighters dont strike to a great standard. There were varying views. It was also an example of just boxers at a weigh in, fighting each other.

Same one.
It doesnt matter. If someone hits first they hit first. Its pre emtive.Why is a pre emtive not also sucker punch?
So its not that they have not learnt to hit well and that it shows it doesnt work all the time? Anything but that eh.

You say you dont think its true but in an ideal world you owuld have them fight. So im confused there.
Part of the escape is being able to fight back to get away.

You dont seem to grasp that I am not saying pre emptive striking is not valid but that a person should learn to fight first or at least have it pointed out to them its better to be abe to fight before getting into pre emptive striking because if they have basicaly just hit somone and afterwards could be in a
fight.

 

Those attributes cross over easily into SD they are not just for competative fights. Anyone saying otherwise maybe has not develpoed those attributes to even know how important they are.Its not about probing or tit for tat.

Seriously? What can I say.

No I am thinking of chaotic, intense violence not competition

 

Im not complete no way. I train to fight, have been in some , real and competative,been around violent people. seen them in action...been wolloped by some. Done my own research.
I dont think im specail, im still learning. Just giving my views
I have done the SD stuff early on like I said in an earlier post,,tried both and recomend what im saying and will back it up howver

 

Are you going to quote Hannibal on that too, as his respnce to me was..''your just wrong''

Plus i was trying to be unoffensive. My real thoughts are negative and so theres no point in saying them.

 

Surely the only validation of SD training is out in the real world?

Formulating ideas about training from your training sounds like a viscous circle of fantasy.

 

In blue.

 

Think.

What is the training based on? It's based on observations of cctv footage, ED reports and Home Office reports along with international research and experience sharing by those who deal with violence professionally. So is it a fantasy? No. What is the training? Pressure training techniques against pads and resisting partners in scenarios based on real events.

What are we training for? Self Protection. So that's avoiding, deterring, negating and escaping from aggression and violence. If we actively seek out real violence to get new experience we are completely negating our training.

 

I was specifically talking about teaching it. What happens in training is in prototype phase. It is critical that the methods and techniques work in real application. Are there stats for the efficacy of SD training?

 

I teach self defence as a large part of my class. I haven't trawled through all 25 pages of this thread but self defence is an emotive subject at best.

Some people aren't cut out for it, I consider myself comfortable with it but by no means an expert. I do believe everyone should have a basic understanding though, even if you live in a safe area, you'll venture out of it eventually

 

As in how many people who've been trained that haven't had to fight?
Or how many people who've been trained who have had to fight? Of these how many fought successfully?

I don't think you can get the above without a population census. What you can do is look at what training paradigms for conflict resolution and SD training that are currently being endorsed and adopted by increasing numbers of law enforcement groups across the western world and the reasons why.

 

True, so its not established. I still dont agree with evidence.

Geoff thompson introduced the concept into mainstream SD after he stole in from a bouncer friend who,like others using it for thousands of years, used it as basicaly a sucker punch to get the upper hand. Its a sneaky, violent responce thts been turned into a tactic for SD by every expert there is. Hitting someone first is hitting them first,, how or why you do it is irrelevant for the points im trying to make. You are stuck in the SD world view of it. Its hitting someone first no matter how you dress it up.

Sorry im not at your high and mighty level.

Im being confused.
I dont agree there should be any Sd that makes out there are quick ways. Everyone should learn to fight etc etc and if they cant be bothered or dont want to, understand they are worse off and get on with life. Not be told there are quick fixes or faster ways.

 

Please comprehend that I was trying to get Simon to elucidate on his methodology. I was commenting on his wording, not your training. I don't know enough about what you do to give an opinion.

It sounds like Badger Ladder has had bad experience with SD instruction, and surely we've all seen people conning others that they are teaching SD? I just thought that reassuring him of your research, methodology and particularly results might convince him (and the thousands of others who will read this thread) of the worth of good SD training better than telling him he's not "on your level" enough to warrant a discussion?

 

I understand that if you don't agree with something that is provided as evidence of something else that a few people have stated, and no-one else in the thread rejects, then you view it as not established.

Noted.

I think you'll find that the concept of the preemptive strike and its role in pleas of self defence has been in the law for some time, and a tactic in mainstream martial arts training long before Geoff Thompson was born. It's discussed by Funakoshi and Mabuni and Motobu in early Karate texts for example.

But 100% relevant to the points that anyone who knows anything about SD and the law are trying to make.

No need to apologise.