Taking a step backwards

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by Simon, Mar 27, 2016.

  1. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    True that! Tai Sifu turned me onto that place. Lived in the area for ages and had never gone to it before, even though it is right on the way home from the school!
     
  2. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    All of the videos of his that I've seen have been that.

    He's obviously looking to make money out of YouTube, and I doubt actual sensible self-defence would be half as popular, so as an income stream it makes sense to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
     
  3. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    I am going to jump in here. David, mods have been cracking down on videos with a language warning where the language isn't necessary. Meaning if the language is tied to what one faces in a MA scenario, it might be allowed. A lot of the video's that have been cracked down on lately were bad language that were completely off topic. If it is relevant to a topic like self defense, that may be another story as it ties in to the purpose of MAP.

    If you are unsure if we would allow it, why don't you PM the link first to a Global Mod so it can be reviewed by the mod team?
     
  4. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Thanks aaradia, the policy wasn't clear to me before. I've PM'd you :)
     
  5. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    I was going there for breakfast and dinner :D
     
  6. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Preparing for and training in worst case scenarios is so that one has time to de-escalate. Getting experience in the speed of real world conflict.

    Notice I didn't say anything about martial arts as being different in this from other training? For instance, how does one prepare for emergencies such as a fire in a building?

    1) Have a plan (e.g., calmly go to the nearest exit, exit to pre-determined safe location, make sure everyone is accounted for...)

    2) Walk through (e.g., fire drills) following the plan

    3) Study and knowledge (e.g., learn about the dangers of inhaling smoke, what to do when there is smoke, how long you have, signs of fire, feeling doors for heat before opening, etc.)

    ------- above this line is 99% of the population / below this line 1% --------

    4) Enter burning building simulation, take off self-contained breathing apparatus and experience the effects of smoke and fire.

    5) Enter real burning building and real world situation.

    The 1% stuff is nearly 100% stuff for some professions (e.g., fire fighter).

    #3 touches on worst case scenario by proving the facts/knowledge of what could and is likely to happen based on real world events. #4 is the equivalent for preparing for worst case scenario. I think the disagreement is at #1 (Plan/Procedure). #1 isn't about worst case scenario, but is about the standard best practices. For some people, however, I think they try to put #1 as being about worst case scenario.

    An example for self-defense: Does your plan account for weapons and multiple attackers? Person 1 says yes, it is standard best practices. Person 2 says no, that's worst case scenario and likely to not happen. Person 2 is wrong. As evidenced in step 3, facts will indicate that accounting for weapons and multiple attackers is standard best practices for self-defense.

    Does the plan take into account using lethal force? Person 1 then says, we train to kill the attacker in self-defense. Person 2 says, de-escalation is more important. Person 1 is wrong. As evidenced in step 3, the facts will indicate that the threat of lethal force is used as a deterrent to allow de-escalation. This goes more into buying the time to de-escalate behind some kind of deterrent.

    Of course, I could be wrong, comments welcome.
     
  7. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    Hmmm , a lack of context almost proves th point

    how big fire ? what kind of fire ?

    At no point have you addressed fire prevention protocols (awareness) , or indeed basic fire fighting (de escalation) , you're going straight to evacuation and , presumably , calling the fire brigade (worst case scenario)

    These are unnecessary unless someone is in danger , quite a rare situation for joe public.

    All these considerations come under awareness which should be the cornerstone of anybodies self defence.
    Again , going back to the "worst case" unprovoked attack , this is pointless by the very nature of the attack.

    this is one of the biggest problems with "self defence" as it tends to be sold , the amount of times someone has demonstrated a "knife disarm :rolleyes:" to me and then imitated sticking the knife into the person you've just taken it off , or advocated "hitting them till they stop moving" is ridiculous and needs to be stamped out

    :)
     
  8. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    It's got my quote in it so its easy to wonder.

    What do you mean ,with nothing to back it up?
    I can train how I like and put emphasis on what I like as no one is going to be there but me and ..hello...its a free world.
    No one has the monopoly on what a person should or should not do because each situation is infinitely variable. If a person can not, from as many options as possible, make it up on the spot based on each situation , then they are screwed.

    Where do I decry these skills then?

    Where have I claimed I offer a different view? I'm simply saying how it is for me.
    And how does this fly in the face of logic and statistics?

    If a person randomly attacks you physically, and you cannot fight back physically and fight to get out of that situation , then you are in a bad situation.
    If a person has great de- escalation and soft skills and it still all goes physical and you can not fight back then you are in a bad situation.
    Bad situation all round there.
    Even with soft skills.

    The ability to not fight back somehow to get away is the common denominator that is always there.

    People survive and get through life and do not get into fights all over the world and not all have them have studied soft skills or care anything about SD.
    Obviously both skills would be the ideal. An individual is free to make a choice on what is more important for them and how they balance it and what they spend their energy and hard earned money on.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    This is not an either or discussion.....or more accurately it shouldn't be

    Can I also ask that people who do not actually train in emergency service response options stop guessing as to how it is conducted because it creates some terrible analogies
     
  10. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Your not trying to reason with me.

    Your trying to tell me how to train and what to put emphasis on and what SD should be for me .
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    You can lead a horse to water..........
     
  12. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    ...but they don't drink it if it smells like ......its not for them.
     
  13. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    For #1 plan, it does not matter the size of the fire. However, I did leave out necessary context. The context is the fire alarm goes off. The reason it doesn't matter is because it could be a false alarm, a test, or a fire. The basic plan is the same because the only information is the fire alarm has gone off.

    Nope, I'm training the best practices for when the fire alarm goes off. It isn't worst case at all, it is practical training and required by the law for any building owner to meet fire safety codes.

    All the awareness and etc. is covered in step #3. This is the education (knowledge, case studies, video study, book study, seminars, story telling, etc.). This is everything needed to understand the process. As a result of step #3, you will have other step #1 plans/procedures that cover areas such as putting out fires, reporting fires, etc. You could become a fire marshal, for example.

    I don't see much use for #1 plan to include ANYTHING beyond the basic best practices or in other words, anything not adequately covered first in education/knowledge (step #3).

    Step #4 is determined by step #3. For example, you will be educated about the effects of smoke. Now you have the option, in step #4 to actually experience it. It is not cheap (costs more money to experience such things in simulations), so in the $$$ sense it isn't for everyone. But those small percentage of folks that do step #4 are going to be more the folks you can rely on to be factual about things, because they have some applicable experience.

    On a scale, step #2 is like sparring in boxing, step #4 is like going into amateur boxing bouts, and step #5 is like professional boxing bouts. If this analogy helps.

    Anything is pointless except the minimum best practices for step #1. Everything else should require passing step #3 before it can be introduced in step #1.

    Experience in steps #3, 4, and 5 shape what is relevant for the person in regards to steps #1 and #2.



    Oh my. I don't think that is best practices for beginners.

    Someone with extensive knowledge and experience would not perform the above the same way. This goes back to the context you spoke of.
     
  14. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    It absolutely would matter , would you honestly evacuate a building for a relatively small , and manageable , fire which if left could spread to become far more serious.

    You kind of undermine your own argument here , as government guidelines (at least in the UK) dictate that you must have a fire marshall , who would assess whether to fight the fire themselves , you don't have that luxury on "da mean streetz"

    Not really sure where you're going with this to be honest

    Where did you get beginners from ?
    This gets to the root of it , many self professed "experts" some with legit black belts teach this kind of stuff , and because they're great at teaching sparring/kata/whatever , this carries over to self defence , it really doesn't.
     
  15. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    How do you train for unprovoked attacks beyond employing a Japanese butler?
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    I actually do have a couple of methods I use with my War Dogs :)
     
  17. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    It doesn't matter. The bare minimum plan is what to do when the fire alarm goes off. I think you are skipping ahead to the next logical area that the size and nature of the fire is being assessed.

    Step #1 plan for self-defense is distance from the threat, get to safety, report to proper authorities.

    For example: What do you tell a child to do if they see a gun, don't touch it, distance (get something solid between you and the gun), get to safety, tell the teacher/adult about it.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to point out that the first is to establish the minimum requirements for best practices. This is like a foundation so that what is built on it doesn't cause bad habits or misconceptions.

    I was trying to say that you want qualified people to put out fires. Step #1 is just the plan/procedure to follow. Step #2 is the practice. It isn't until step #3 that actual qualification is touched with formal education. So basically, you want to train people in step #3 the same lessons that a fire marshall learns, but tailored to what is practical for them. So you discuss grease fires in the kitchen and educate them on it, so they know to keep a lid and salt or an ABC fire extinguisher around. Give them all them parameters that go around a procedure (step #1). So based on step #3, you go back to steps 1 and 2 for plan and practice.

    People with real world experience (step #5) and real world simulation experience (step #4) tend to be much more reliable sources of practical information than those with only knowledge (step #3).

    The advice to disarm and stab the attacker with their own weapon is a lesson that has no value to a beginner because it skips a lot of education that needs to happen first around it. The person has to know enough to know how limited the option to do such is and how basically unrealistic it is.

    However, someone proficient in such, could make the case that it is very realistic, but there would be a lot more experience and details for it. For example, you might train to always keep the weapon pointed at something you don't mind getting cut/stabbed. So if the knife is pointed at the enemy at all times, that makes sense. They might run into it by accident. The point is that at some level you don't just care about the knife never pointing at YOU but you also reach a level where you care at where the knife is pointing when not at you but someone else. And this can be different than just stabbing the enemy with their own weapon, even though it might appear the same. One is being aware of where the weapon is pointing at all times, the other is the intent to kill. Can the two be discerned with the naked eye?
     
  18. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Nope. Step number one both cases is awareness and prevention.

    Don't allow smoking in the building, keep fire doors shut, have regular checks on extinguishers, keep emergency exits free from obstruction, have protocols in place for the handling of combustible materials etc...

    You have your training partners attack you unprovoked outside of a training context.
     
  19. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Yes that's it.

    Now, what is the step #1 for self-defense for beginners.


    As knowledge grows (step #3), step #1 includes more. I'm looking for the bare minimum for beginners. The starting procedures for step #1.
     
  20. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    Awareness and prevention.
     

Share This Page