Counter Attactics - Homemade Self Defence

**Xiangfei** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 5:05am

Nothing 'qualifies' me. I am surely allowed an opinion as much as the rest of you.

I find no evidence on the site that their physical self defence would be effective - or even exists - seeing as only three pictures appear to involve any striking and they do not look good.

I find the statement "Know how to defend yourself while out of town!" amusing seeing as, if their advice was effective, one would not not need to pay for a special class for 'out of town' defence - what exactly is going to be different? If their verbal and awareness and physical strategies work, why do they need extra 'out of town' knowledge? I find their breaking down of everything into 'four rules' or 'three reasons' condescending - I am sure there are more than three reasons for violence and four rules for survival. I dislike the way they condense something serious into something playful.

While I do believe that self awareness and verbal issues are important, a lot of people either already ignore such advice or it will not be enough to fend off their attack, although it may sort out the majority. For example, "date rape prevention" does not need a class or a teacher. That would involve not going into the rooms and cars of men you don't know. No amount of verbalising will save you if you are already behind a locked door. (drug rape would be a whole other discussion.)

I do not believe in giving people false hope. I dislike quotes on sites where people declare "Now I know I can defend myself" and the like, because they don't know that - none of us know that. And I find no evidence on that site that their physical self defence has any basis in martial arts as a lot of it discusses self awareness and so on - which is fine - but it won't defeat a physical attacker.

You see evidence of good, effective MA on there, then fine - that's your opinion. And this is mine.

I do not ever suggest that I know better, but it is of my opinion that padding a guy up and allowing people to hit him just to make themselves feel better is - although as Kickcatcher says, better than doing something entirely useless - not as effective as encouraging them to learn effective techniques.

**oldshadow** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 6:05am

It’s hard to tell much from the site but there seams to be hard contact in the training at least on the side of the defenders. This could be the way they start with the defenders throwing mostly then the attacker stepping up the contact. This is a way of building up to the more aggressive defenses tactics. You start out with the defender doing all the hitting then the attacker gets more and more aggressive. It’s the same as training a fighter. If you throw a new guy in with a very experienced one and turn them lose the only thing the new guy learns is how to bleed and what the ceiling looks like. You would have to see more to really make any kind of judgment.
Bob Thurman does know contact he was a very good kickboxer in the “old days”. So I can’t see him teaching bullshit. He was always nice when I meet him and seamed to be straightforward.

**DdlR** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 6:33am

Impact-suit based training programs typically build quickly from low stress, medium contact drills into full force, realistic "assault scenarios". It's a very effective way to train people who may not have any interest in traditional martial arts or combat sports, but need to learn how to fight.

**YJT** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 6:35am

As far as I can understand, this seems to be similar trainig that Peyton Quinn gives as RMCAT or Bill Kipp at FAST defense. No, I have not attended either of their schools, but I have read some books by them.

It seems to be alive drills against an padded opponent, I can´t see what´s wrong with that.

**Matt Bernius** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 8:11am

Originally Posted by Xiangfei

Nothing 'qualifies' me. I am surely allowed an opinion as much as the rest of you.

I find no evidence on the site that their physical self defence would be effective - or even exists - seeing as only three pictures appear to involve any striking and they do not look good.
...

You see evidence of good, effective MA on there, then fine - that's your opinion. And this is mine.

I do not ever suggest that I know better, but it is of my opinion that padding a guy up and allowing people to hit him just to make themselves feel better is - although as Kickcatcher says, better than doing something entirely useless - not as effective as encouraging them to learn effective techniques.

Here's the thing: you're entitled to have an opinion. Just don't think what you have is an informed opinion. 'Cause, quite frankly, it ain't.

And what demonstrates it is that in each of these threads you've had people with more knowledge than you point out the problems with your assumptions and arguements. Now instead of doing the smart thing and going out and researching this area, you seem to think that your opinion still has equal weight of those in the know and continue to spout off your mouth. What that in turn shows is that you're not particularly interested in learning and more interested in sharing your uninformed opinion.

Thus you fail to learn from great Sifu Mark Twain: Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

In fact, at this point, I'd go so far as to argue that the folks in this program are learning far more about self defense (including the physical side) then you've ever learned in Wing Chun.

- Matt

**Cdnronin** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 8:39am

The first and most important rule in self defense is awareness, it is better not to be in a fight to begin with, than to find out that whatever MA you take doesn't work without a co-operative uke.

This sounds obvious to most folks on the boards, but the majority of people out and about in public have NO idea how to avoid confrontations. Will taking a course like this turn them into cage fighters overnight? No. Will it POSSIBLY help keep someone out of a bad situation? Yes.

So here we have a course taught by a former PKA full-contact kickboxing champion, whose wife was attacked. From his background, it is obvious he knows something about physical violence, yet he obviously acknowledged that there is more to real life self defense than just punching and kicking. He has worked with
qualified specialists in their fields to develop a program that covers more than when you are attacked a right hook to the jaw is all you need.

This may be difficult for you to grasp, but not everyone is interested in studying/practicing martial arts for 10-20 years, yet many people are interested in
self preservation. Many people have also never hit anyone else, and are afraid to do so. Padded suits help them overcome that fear.

So, what is the problem here? Is there not enough martial arts covered in this course for your liking? Do you have trouble understanding that a 40 year old female office worker who has concerns about being mugged, doesn't want to be a cage fighter?

Take a look around on a busy street. How many people are wondering around with their iPods blasting? Yakking on their cell phones? They are usually task fixated, making them an easy target as they are not aware of their surroundings and who is near them. Is it better for them to learn about awareness and avoidance by being mugged, and possibly needing dental work(or funeral services)? Or could a course in awareness and tactics help them avoid such a situation? Will it stop a bullet? No. Will your Wing Chun?

**GoldenJonas** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 9:20am

Very nicely stated Cdnronin.

**Matt Bernius** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 9:48am

Originally Posted by GoldenJonas

Very nicely stated Cdnronin.

What he said. Actually, across the board I've been really impressed by a lot of the responses on this thread.

- Matt

**Xiangfei** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 4:01pm

And what demonstrates it is that in each of these threads you've had people with more knowledge than you point out the problems with your assumptions and arguements.

I must have missed that then. I post 90% of stuff in the News forum, which is pretty dead. Don't recall a whole lot of discussion going on... had people pointed out such things, discussion would have occurred, and has. This is the first 'discussion' I've been involved in.

What that in turn shows is that you're not particularly interested in learning and more interested in sharing your uninformed opinion.

Entirely incorrect. I am here to learn, and will happily accept alternatives and change my mind on issues should a persuasive argument be offered. Reading the thread, on the notion of the usefullness of the 'slam man', I am about to state that yes, I believe it has more use and effectiveness than I previously assumed - it is better to have had at least one experience in being aggressive than to have none at all, and hopefully some of the experience will influence later behaviour even if not in a physically aggressive way. Ddlr's and CDnRonin's posts highlighted issues I had not previously considered as well as respectfully disagreeing with me. Without resorting to accusations.

Do you have trouble understanding that a 40 year old female office worker who has concerns about being mugged, doesn't want to be a cage fighter?

Of course not. I think it's a tricky one because you're right, how do you teach them and what do you teach, given that you probably have quite a short space of time to do it in.

But I am concerned with too much emphasis - and that would be TOO MUCH, as it is still very necessary - being placed on 'verbal' self defence - remember the thread where the instructor taught nothing physical but said that just shouting "Stop, this is illegal!" at your attacker would be enough? - and awareness. Obviously it is a large part of it, but go overboard and you remove the situations that depend on neither of these things.

This is possibly personal - I've been in situations a number of times and none of them I could do a damn thing about - no amount of verbalising would have helped and my locations couldn't have been safer (from a textbook point of view.) So yes, my opinion is probably biased off in a weird direction because I believe a many situations you can't avoid, though I would not state whether I believe unavoidable ones to be more or less common than avoidable ones (getting in strange cars, walking down alleys.)

There is a tendency for women to blame themselves for an attack, as well, and I wonder - I don't KNOW - could this lead to a hightened blame as they ask 'was I aware enough? Should I have gone to that place?' and whatnot.

Plenty does need to be done on awareness and self-preservation - not getting in strangers' cars, not putting yourself in dangerous situations. Yes. Highly necessary. I just feel some classes put so much emphasis on it that other aspects are lost. Can violence really be condensed into three easy reasons?

(And don't start adding your little digs at the WC. It has nothing to do with this.)

Yes, my opinions are nothing more than witterings and I don't claim they are any more than that, but don't make assumptions that I am not willing to learn or even be persuaded to change my mind.

**Cdnronin** · Posted On: 2/06/2006 4:26pm

As much as folks on here rag on "instant self defense" courses, the fact is you don't need a lot of techniques to survive most fights, if they are applied with the right mind set. However, trying to teach hard core techniques to a soccer mom is a dead end,as they will recoil in horror at the idea of attacking someone's throat or face or groin. Can you have better results teaching them verbal skills and awareness over physical techniques? Yes. every time I have tried to teach women who are not into the martial arts, they have trouble conceiving doing violence unto someone else until you start visualisation about someone attacking their child, then they unleash the tiger.

Where would you spend your time in an limited time class with newbies and soccer moms? Give that serious thought, you will probably end up with something similar to Thurman's course.