We teach physical rather than verbal skills. Though I am quite good at the latter and a also teach them in schools. The different typs is the one that seeks verbal rather than physical abilities. Confidence is a powerful defuser.
None Your "none of that" it is light on evidence. Your jkd is very similar to stuff (good stuff) I have seen in km seminars. Given that jkd evolved post km, would that indicate it is derived from or indistinct from km? My points were about emphasis and combination.
Is it a case then that the student is happy to go physical because they are confident to do so. I'd argue verbal confidence is backed up by physical ability. I'm confident enough now not to care much, so have found my verbal de-escalation has improved greatly.
Confidence I'd say that confidence precludes the necessity for violence which so often results from fear. If I seem confident I am less likely to be attacked. If I am confident I am less likely to lash out.
I know nothing about the various KM groups or politics, but the few people I know who have trained in it did express concern about a lack of force continuum (or, more worryingly, pride in a lack of lower-force options). It was attack to injure and maim without any consideration of situations that require a lower level of force. The attitude of always attacking without wider tactical considerations seems to reinforce that image. This makes sense from a military perspective, where personnel are expendable to some degree, but not from the perspective of civilian violence. What are your thoughts on this?
And confidence comes from...? Not just knowing you have physical skills I'd hope. This isn't a criticism of just KM, but if you are only teaching physical skills and calling it SD then your syllabus has to work for all. If a light 120LB teen kicks you and just provokes you then that teen is in a world of trouble. SD sadly isn't a one stop shop.
TBH I haven't analysed it that far. My students very rarely get into fights and in 7 years in the police I never struck anyone and never backed away either. And neither in teaching some VERY difficult characters in schools and PRUs. So we must be doing something right. My confidence derives from... Yes. Physical ability. But more acceptance of my limitations. Will to love the other. Forgiveness. Other things that would be worth discussing but are not strictly KM and can't be included in our syllabus.
But when they do? Would more non physical skills have benefited them? I'd be interested as to why those encounters went physical.
Three come to mind. All drink-fuelled. 1. Domestic - student V pinned to the ground by her husband. She flipped him and pinned him down. 2. A horrible student A - we gradually learned he was a fascist and stopped coming when another student took over my admin. and realised he hadn't been paying his subs. Got into a fight with a boxer ( not knowing his background) and the moment the table was thrown aside replicated our latest warm-up drill. Groin kick, jab-cross, knee, hammer, knee. A said he knew he would have been battered if he hadn't thrown the first shot. 3. Very nice student J. Drunkenly remonstrated with a drunken thug for peeing everywhere. Did not attack when the guy got aggressive got head-butted.
JKD has no connection at all with Krav - none. It's sourcing is primarily boxing, wing chun and fencing but does things distinct from all three And light on evidence? Look at ANY video on combatives - QED I like the idea of a streamlined combatives program - hell I teach one that the military and special forces use - but the key phrase is "streamlined"....and that is often ignored and overlooked If you are teaching self defense and have no UoF , desecalation, avoidance or legality then you aren't teaching self defense at all, you are teaching a small subset
Excellent. Pleasing when things like this happen. You can't cater for people like this. An understanding of violence and the consequences would have helped here. Not sure attacking would have been a good idea. Beating someone up for peeing makes you no better than them in my book.
Q E non D. Find them. Show me people who move like RD, and systematically respond as I have taken the trouble to show you. Fairbairn stuff, yes. And almost definitely connected in history. But emphasis and combination and TEACHING very distinct even from that. Yes physical SD is a subset of overall SD. So what? We started on a comparison between ring combatives and the inappriateness of h2h training in that context. As to the evolution of jkd- I know. Just showing that similarity is not equivalent to derivative.
Not for peeing. For turning and abusing nose to nose (and whatever else) when J remonstrated. Yes. More and better training would have helped. Learning for me and J.
And the sourcing for krav is mainly boxing and wrestling. Though it does things differently from these. (QED?)
