Bruce did popularize the "toolbox" approach, but he never abandoned his original fighting principles. The thing about the "classic" JKD students is that they still take time to evolve and grow, while retaining the core principles of Bruce's fighting style. Too many "Concepts" guys toss out everything, ape what is popular, and call it JKD. You don't know what you're getting. I know many people who think they're studying Bruce Lee's personal style, when they're really just getting a MMA class with a fancy name. This is why lineage is important! It can tell you if the art you're paying money for is the art you want to study.

IIRC, recently the Bruce Lee estate has taken steps to rein in overuse of the JKD name. The "Classic" group are going to be the only ones allowed to use the name; I have no idea of what'll happen to the others.

Most of my Bruce Lee experience was with the older crowd: Taky Kimura, Jesse Glover, Patrick Strong, James DeMile, among others. Their perspective is older, but they all learned their lessons well, and have evolved to suit the times.

Hey, any chance we can all get together and have a big DSF throwdown or something? I live in Las Vegas; we could go out for cocktails and roulette later. Like, after we get swollen bruised faces.

I live in small-town Oregon. Getting away to Las Vegas isn't going to be easy for me, and I have a feeling that I'm the one everyone wants to hit.

No, that would be Doc Funkenstein, I think.

Some of the well-known casinos are only charging like 70 bucks a night to stay in their hotels. A trip to Vegas is probably one of the cheapest vacations you can take nowadays.

Also, being punched in the head > drinking a beer. They have similar effects on the brain, but one makes you tough, whereas the other makes you fat.

Getting to and from Vegas and getting room and board there is a very cheap vacation, yes. The rest of what is expected of you once you're in Vegas, not so much (which is why they can afford to knock prices for travel and the room down so low).

Well, you don't have to gamble, or go to any shows, or stuff large-denomination bills into the thong underwear of half-naked people, or drive to a neighboring county with a population of less than 400,000. You can, in fact, spend time in Vegas doing nothing interesting at all.

But we should seriously consider starting a card counting ring.

I'm just sayin' that if we were to have a DSF throwdown or meet up or whatever that Las Vegas is just perfect and cheap at this current point in time. Not even touching on the possibility of stuffing one dollar bills into thongs at Palomino's or whatever.

^
|

I want to party with this guy.



I dissagree. It took at least two *trained* adults to physically restrain me when I was grade school age--usually three to keep me from being able to hurt one of them. Then again, I was pretty badass when I was a kid, and had a talent for cracking skulls with the back of my head when people tried to grab me.



Sounds wonderful, I could use an excuse to start training again. I've been getting fat and slow ever since the last time I took a trip to spar with somebody I knew from an online forum. He was a former Muay Thai champion, we sparred in a field for about 45 minutes before he suggested we call it a draw. Best Halloween ever.

Leaving out the machismo, that's two or three adults trained in using gentle, nonharmful techniques in subduing a child. A kidnapper won't handicap himself like that, restricting himself to a handful of techniques that barely work under the best of circumstances. Typical child vs typical adult = kidnapped child.

Including the machismo, that's exactly the sort of attitude that get's people hurt. "Why should you stand and fight instead of running away? Because I'm badass, and for $75 a month, you can be badass too." Dude, you are not as badass as you think you are.

Look at it this way, Cain - it would be your one chance to win an argument with me.

A DSF throwdown in Las Vegas? I'd be up for that, but I don't want to even think how long its been since I sparred! I went to a BJJ class last year just for old times sake. I was pleased to realise I could still fight, but wow was I out of shape. It would be a good excuse to get fit again, though.

I don't think we should allow SnowFox, though. I don't think she can be separated from her guns.

K.

Not at all. That was two or three child abusers using illegal restraint techniques that left me permanently physically disabled. Running was always my first choice back then, and it rarely worked. There were more of them, with longer strides and better ability/training to coordinate as a group. I couldn't observe their actions as they were chasing me, so I had no way of responding, but once we were in contact, I had several reference points to determine their position and aim an attack, even without being able to see them.

The machismo you keep referring to is your own creation. I don't think I'm a badass, and I never said that. I said I used to be. Today I am physically impaired, out of shape, out of practice, and very aware of it--hence my wistful/humorous comment about being "pretty badass when I was a kid." On the plus side, I don't have to defend myself against people 2-3 times my size too often these days, so I can get away with being lazy.

Why should you stand and fight?

Because if you injure your attacker, you have a much better chance of escaping. Because running does not stop them in any way. Even when I did manage to get away, I eventually had to go back, ensuring that I would face the same situation again. Sometimes there is no one who can or will protect you, and the only way to ensure your safety is to harm your attacker.

To head off your next comments. Yes I told people. Yes I told the cops. I have a whole medical history full of documentation. It doesn't help when the people in charge don't want to believe it. Denial is a powerful force, and to this day I sometimes encounter doctors who react funny when they find out how I got injured.

What I'm saying is not machismo, and it's not "they hurt me and I want to hurt them back". It is simply what I learned in the course of staying alive. Bullshit and self-deception do not last long in those situations, be it machismo or pacifism. You're lucky that life has allowed you to maintain your illusions, Cain, but they could cost you, and they could cost anyone you pass them on to. That's the funny thing about learning the hard way: You either get it right or you don't graduate.

------------------

On a much, much lighter note: Yeah, the Vegas thing could be a lot of fun. I've always thought a forum sparring meet would be hilariously cool. There's the concern about meeting people IRL, but ironically, if you're meeting for a fight it's actually safer--there's no surprise round.

Then if you're telling the truth, you have my sympathy. But you forgot the second half of the formula: "Scream for help". If you're being chased by strangers, that alone is enough to deter most of them. I've been accosted at the mall by security, for trying to bring my own child home-- I was accused of being a kidnapper.

If you're lying-- and a story about being attacked by not one, but three strangers-in-trenchcoats simultaneously, is a pretty tall tale-- you just lost all credibility. About the only way I can see that story being possible is if you were in trouble with the state somehow, in which case they were trained in how to corral a kid and were improperly using "safe" restraint techniques. That also casts your whole story in a different light, because the only time they're supposed to apply that kind of force is when the patient is the one resisting and running-- you don't jump on a guy who's not putting up a fight.


Bragging about how macho you used to be may be even more pathetic than bragging about how macho you are.

Only when you have to, which is fortunately almost never.

And now you've pissed me off. You have no idea what I've been through, junior. All you know is that I haven't been bragging and boasting about all the fights I got into, plus tossing in a "woe-is-me" child abuse story with no proof to back it up. You may have been hurt once, and want to keep hurting the world as a result, but that doesn't even come close to a hard lesson learned, sonny. Nor does it mean that lashing out is the best means of self-defense.

So far, I've posted a list of realistic self-defense scenarios, and demonstrated how violence is seldom the best response. Your only reply to that list is a personal anecdote of dubious quality. Do you have any better counter-examples?

The idea that humans have no instincts is absolutely rediculous. I'm pretty sure we have instinctive drives towards sex, the fight or flight response, instinctive knowledge of how to breast feed, instinctive desires to play fight with siblings, etc.

But back on topic, one "adept" I can think of was that FBI agent in IIRC the 20s. He was said to never have missed when shooting, and when asked how he shot so accurately, he said you just had to watch the bullets as they travel to the target. At once point, a science magazine did a slow motion video of him holding a quarter out at arms length, dropping the quarter, drawing his pistol, and shooting the quarter in midair about a foot below where he dropped it from. Insane speed on that guy, and insane accuracy, he fits the definition of a pistol adept perfectly. Sadly, I can't remember his name right now.

JaronK

Jelly Bryce

And although you think its ridiculous, the fact is that there is great debate by people who know a lot more about this shit than (probably) any of us.

You're wrong on all counts except for the breast-feeding one, and even then you've got the details wrong. However, the rooting reflex, in addition to not engaging the parts of the brain required for a true instinct, extinguishes itself pretty rapidly.

Like Method said, there's large debates going over rather or not humans have instincts. I'd pull up a bundle of APA studies on the topic, except the stuff would be boring as hell to read, and the rebuttals would be just as bad.

Group homes, omae. Screaming doesn't help when the only adults in earshot are the ones chasing you. But yeah, in most situations, yelling for help can be very effective.

For the record, the authorization to use force kicks in when you're "being a danger to yourself and/or others" and there's a lot of leeway given with that definition. In my experience, the rules of when and how to use force were largely disregarded anyway--that kind of job attracts a lot of messed-up people with control issues, and there's very little accountability or oversight to rein it in.



No, I don't know what you've been through. I do know you're holding on to some ideas that I know to be untrue, and that you're so devoted to them that you choose to insult me and dismiss my arguments rather than consider them rationally. I'm sorry if I pissed you off, but you've been attacking my character since your first response.

I didn't mention all that to brag, or to give some sob story, I did it to illustrate my point and the fact that it is the product of experience. Being violently attacked every day for over ten years will teach you some things about keeping yourself safe, and having to live in that environment forces you to cut out the BS and get practical.

I'm not arguing from emotion or pride here. If you could drop your attitude and prejudice you might be able to see that. I could be wrong, and if you think that I am, I'd like to hear your reasons--but insults and statements of faith will not convince me.

In my experience, a child running from an adult doesn't have much of a chance unless they've got a pretty big head start. Kids are quick, but adults have a longer stride and a longer reach, and from what I've seen an adult can overtake a kid more often than not. We tend to think of children as being faster, but I'd say they just go full-throttle more often. When an adult and a child go all-out, the adult is usually faster.

At least, that's what I've observed. I don't have any hard data on the subject, but generally having longer legs increases your speed, because you can cover more ground with each stride. If we're talking about an adult chasing a teenager or someone more their size, then it probably comes down more on youth and fitness level.



Actually, you've presented those scenarios and then stated that violence is seldom the best response. Most of the arguments I've seen from your are just statements of fact, with another unsupported statement offered as proof. For example, saying that running is the best response, then stating that striking exposes you to more risk.

I've provided several reasons why both of those statements are untrue, such as your inability to see and respond to your opponent while running, and the fact that turning to run takes time and telegraphs your intent. I've yet to see you address either, you just fall back on your litany of "running is best", or attack my character instead.

Dismissing someone's argument as "macho BS" is just name-calling, if you can provide an example to support your point, I'll be glad to hear it.

I think it's amusing that folks can (for lack of a better term) "agree to disagree" when it comes down to the nit-picking little side argument of "do humans have instincts or not," but refuse to do so on the overarcing point of "is it better to ALWAYS run or ALWAYS fight?"

Because (like I said several pages ago), the plain old truth is fucking neither one. It's gonna vary from person to person, attacker to attacker, scenario to scenario, and terrain to terrain. So what are we still arguing for?

Um, it's the internet?

SHUT UP, STUPID. NO ONE ASKED Y--oh, huh. Yeah. I kind of see what you mean.

Like I said, state situation. And like you said, that's hardly the normal self-defense situation.

I'm sorry you were stuck in a state home; but if there's any lesson to be learned from them, it's that they're not a stand in for real life.


That's why I said "Running *and* screaming". A child's best chance for safety is to attract the attention of other adults. You need time and distance to have a chance for screaming to work. Just the other week, I had my daughter start running and screaming from me at the mall, and I had to answer some harsh questions from mall security. That's exactly how the scenario is supposed to work, and it does.


Punching and striking also telegraph your intent. And don't give me guff about how enough training will remove that; if you watch MMA fighters or boxers, you can clearly see it when they go to strike or attempt a move. Running telegraphs less, since the other guy's primed for attacks coming in.

Once you start running, if the other guy is going to get you, he's going to have to grab you. Once you feel that grab, you can easily whirl and attack the arm, since he can't dodge the blow without letting go. Attack your way up the arm, knock him down, and start running again. You don't need to see the guy to anticipate his moves.

NO U R.

Interesting article on hoplology.com related to the whole run vs fight debate.

Predatory aggression --> Fight
Affective aggression --> Run/Walk away

Because banging one's head against the wall is sometimes enjoyable?

Actually, I've been staying out of the "do we have instincts" side of this, because it's patently ridiculous. Human instinct is about as readily observable as any phenomena gets, so there's little possible debate besides semantics and outright BS.

Ultimately, whether people debate something or not is just a question of whether they feel like it at the time. It's not like there's any logic involved.

For myself, I like sparring. ;-)

As for circumstances affecting which response is best, of course that's true--but when you zero those out you can still make a general comparison between two types of responses. The argument hasn't been whether it's always better to run or fight, but which one it's usually better to do, all other things being equal.



That too. :biggrin:



Just to clarify, most of them were private businesses, not state-owned, which is part of why there's such an oversight problem. The few state-run facilities I was in were much better, actually.

As for them not being a stand in for real life, I disagree--they're an excellent example of the kind of worst-case scenarios you probably won't find yourself in, but really should be prepared for. IE: Facing multiple foes with a size and skill advantage, with no help available.

Sure, you're not likely to win a fight like that, (I never did) but facing an impossible challenge really hones your skills, and forces you to find the most effective ways of improving your chances--rather than just settling for what works in a normal situation.

Even just the regular brawls the broke out among the kids were helpful. Facing multiple opponents on a regular basis who really intend to do you harm is a lot better practice than sparring in a dojo.



You told your daughter to start running away from you and screaming while in a public mall? Ballsy, but a good way to illustrate it's effectiveness.

Also sounds like a good way to get arrested or have child services come sniffing around--you might want to be careful about stuff like that. I'm glad that mall security isn't as apathetic where you live as they are in some places though. Sometimes a kid screaming and trying to get away from an adult just gets written off as bad behavior--even if they yell "stranger" or the like. Again, I'm speaking from personal experience here, your mileage may vary--I seem to have had a lot of bad luck growing up.

Bottom line is that you can't always rely on other people to help you. I think the biggest difference in our approach to self defense is that you go with what will work most of the time, where I prefer to plan for the worst-case scenario. I try to find what's best, instead of what's "good enough, usually".



Training won't completely remove telegraphs, no, but I have to disagree that turning to run telegraphs less.

First of all, watching a fight from the sidelines or on TV is not the same as facing the guy yourself. You're watching the fighters from the side instead of head on, which makes the telegraphs easier to spot. Secondly, if by MMA you mean crap like the UFC, I haven't been terribly impressed with the level of skill shown there. Granted, I haven't watched much--that last fight between Chuck Liddell and Randy Couture a few years ago pretty much ruined it for me. Big unskilled guy wins because his opponent slipped on some sweat and fell down? Check please.%0

So, in other words, you believe what you see, and not what science tells you? How's that flat earth working for you, anyway?

Dude, it's readily observable that the sun comes up and down each and every day, when in fact it's just an illusion. Don't believe everything you see. The sun doesn't go up and down, we go around and around. Likewise, humans may have things that look like instincts, but when observed from the correct stance, they turn out to be something totally else.


I taught her to run and scream from strangers. I didn't expect her to use it on me, but as least I know the lesson took.

Nothing works *all* of the time. If you waste time training for situations that never happen, you'll lose time training for the situations that will happen.

THe average martial arts student, IIRC, stays in training for about 3-6 months. During that time, you cannot effectively train someone to defeat a clan of ninja masters, always the worst-case scenario. You can, however, give them the tools to deal with the situations they're most likely to come across. That's why you need to emphasize running, instead of fighting.



Try this little experiment. Have a friend throw a quarter at you, and see how often you can catch it. Now, have him throw it at his shoulder, same speed and everything, and see how often you can catch it. In addition to the distance factor, your reactions aren't trained to deal with non-incoming objects.

Or, alternately, you could join a gym instead of paying out the butt for a martial arts class, if all you want to do is practice running.

Last I checked, martial arts classes were cheaper. But the retention rates at gyms were just as bad.

Anyways, as I've been saying all along, running should be your primary mode of self-defense. Fighting is your last resort.

Don't try that, not without eye protection. A quarter can cut your eyeball.

And you're wrong about the master ninja thing. There is, in fact, a type of martial art that one can apply to sufficient effect to defeat a clan of ninja masters with less than six months of training. One can learn this art at a place called the Thunder Ranch.


I'm going to make a statement, and wish to know if you agree, Cain the the important thing is to retreat towards safety instead of just running away from danger. Simply running away isn't going to work unless what you're running to is less dangerous than what you're running from. You don't even have to get away from the danger so long as you get to a position where it is unlikely to be able to cause you harm.

For example, in the event of a home invasion one might get the kids, retreat to a safe room, call 911, grab a gun, and position everyone in the corner by the door so that the invader won't be able to shoot you from outside the room and will be vulnerable to you during entry.

I would also ask if you'd consider using the terms "retreat" and "disengage" instead of "running" for they do have different connotations. "Running" suggests mindless panicked flight, which probably won't be conducive to safety, due to being mindless and panicked. "Retreat" suggests an intelligently considered tactical decision, which may include everything from flat out running to slowly walking into a busy shop where there would be many witnesses and "disengage" suggests simply removing oneself from the confrontation. The phrase "retreat to" is also very useful. Retreat to safety. Retreat to your vehicle. Retreat to a well lit area with many people. Retreat to your weapon. Always retreat to something good, rather than retreating from something bad. If you don't know what you're retreating to, it could be worse than what you're retreating from.

More or less. If you don't know of a safe place nearby, then distance is your friend. I can't quantify all of the variables in a possible fight, so retreat to safety (or how safe that place is) may or may not be a possibility. However, distance is always there for you.

Here, I disagree. From what I recall reading of the NCIS statistics, your best plan for safety is to Get Out of the House. Call 911 from a neighbor's. If you can't get out, get your kids out and have them make the call. You're many times safer leaving the house than standing and fighting.

[edit]Computer borked, sorry for the repost.[/edit]

I'm sorry, but that appears to be a clone of your earlier post. It's late where I am, could you show me what the differences are, and reply to the responses I already posted? Not trying to sound snippy, I'm just tired.

Take the whole intelligent creation vs evolution debate. One side says that it's some divine being that made everything by design and sheer awesomeness and the other side says that a pool of snot and a lightning bolt did the deed. Neither is observable or testable (read: actually scientific) but boy will these people get nasty about the whole affair.

And I'm not a sparring man, myself. Self-defense (hopefully) doesn't involve two people agreeing to terms and warming up before they go at it an an attempt to make things all nicey-nicey and somewhat safe for each other. I prefer the ol' 80-lumens slap in the retinas followed quickly by a 230gr JHP double tap, a poke to the neck followed by a groin or hamstring slash, or a biuji to the eyes, to trapping, to strike with the flashlight to the jaw joint followed a potential takedown.

Yeah, we know that's what you've been saying all along. Otherwise, we wouldn't be disagreeing with you right now.

The whole point of needing hand to hand combat skills is based on the assumption that the following conditions apply: 1) All attempts to avoid the situation have failed, 2) all attempts to defuse the developing situation have failed, 3) life threatening damage will be inflicted upon you if you do not "do unto others before they do unto you". Attempting to run from the situation will often escalate the level of force in the situation, or bring the situation to a hth combat situation that much faster. It can very often be the worst thing to do. Calm steady movement allows you time to think, plan, and maneuver before the preconditions are met. Running often puts all these time space factors into overdrive, not to mention flooding your system with adrenaline before it is really needed. Once the preconditions for hth combat have been met it is in your best interest to cripple your opponent. If your opponent is crippled he cannot chase you as you run for assistance, or in this case an arresting officer. Self defense instructors often offer the worst advice because it is based on the weak helpless victim model, and that the purpose is to simply buy a meek individual time. Often the techniques are not highly effective and will simply anger a skilled or motivated attacker, resulting in an escalation of force.

Personal experience: I was walking home one night in a transitional neighborhood, at about 0200. Six youths decided to push me into a confrontation. I acted as if I was ignoring them, and made no sudden moves. Calmly walking towards my porch, I interposed vehicles, and trees between myself and them cutting off avenues of approach, and limiting the number of potential attackers. As I walked up the porch this further limited their options, and essentially restricted the number that could attack at once to two, additionally I took the advantage of high ground. As I spun around deliberately the youths realized that I was not easy prey, and began to think twice. Their leader decided to confront me, by attempting to attack me (apparently a beat down was what they were after). I broke his elbow, knee, and ankle in roughly two seconds, and knocked out half his teeth and broke his nose in another second. The blood curdling screams, the blood, the unnatural positions of his arm and leg removed any thought of further confrontation from his friends. As they turned to run, and their friend passed out from the pain, I told them to take their trash with them. It was the last time anyone on my block was ever bothered again.

Ah, yes, the macho posturing comes out. Fact of the matter is, most self-defense courses don't train you in defusing techniques. Removing yourself from the situation automatically defuses it, since you're not there to be a target anymore.



And here we go again. Sooner or later in these conversations, someone has to start bragging about what a badass he is, thereby making him head ninja master and everyone else his helpless student mooks. I have no idea what you've been through, or if your story is even a lie. I also don't know what anyone else here has been through. But don't go around posturing, thinking it's going to impress someone.

Oddly enough considering how dynamically opposed the two of you are, I think you're both right at least some of the time. It's entirely situation-dependant.

• As both of you said, it's almost always better to defuse a situation through talking or leaving before it gets to a confrontation, if you can.
• Intent - Some antagonists are thoroughly committed to attacking you, while others may only lash out because you're nearby/convenient, or percieved as trespassing. In the first case it may be a question of fighting now, versus fighting later. But in many cases running away will allow the opponent his 'victory' without him feeling like he has to go to the trouble of chasing you down. I don't buy the argument that someone who already plans to fight you will want to beat you down harder because you ran than they would if you took the first swing.
• Numbers - If you have a single opponent, there's a chance that striking first might degrade his ability to catch you when you do run. But with multiple opponents attacking any single one gives the rest time to attack back, cut off your escape, whatever. Also, while running may tire you out, it'll tire out the opposition too. When fighting I can only strike one or two assailants at a time, but when running I can make every one of my opponents tire themselves out trying to catch me. Since they won't run equally fast, it'll possibly spread out the attacking group (if I can run long/far/quick enough) so I won't have to fight as many at once.
• Positioning - If you're already surrounded, or your asailant is already within striking (or worse, grappling) distance, then turning to run could expose you to to an attack from behind with little chance of actually getting away. But if I'm more than 5 feet away when I turn to run I've got a decent chance of escaping, unless he's just faster than me. When guns are concerned, if the weapon is already drawn and pointed at you, you've got almost no chance to disarm before he gets a shot off unless you're closer than 3 feet, and at closer than 10 feet you're likely to get hit. At much more than ten feet, against a dodging/moving/running away target, with other distractions and less-than-ideal conditions, an untrained shooter is less likely to get a deadly shot.
• Capability (both yours and theirs) - If I'm faced with a couple drunk 300-pound behemoths, I'm more likely to outrun them than I am to out-fight them. Even more so if they've got weapons of any kind. Similarly, I know a lot more women who can outrun me than those who are likely to land a debilitating blow before I can close with them and bring my strength advantage to bear.

Ultimately, there are too many variables involved to say that any one tactic will work best for all people, or for any one person in all circumstances.

Sorry if you think that was posturing. It was not. I was simply relating my experience as a counter point. I was in no way attempting to be a "ninja master", nor was I implying anyone was a "student mook". I was simply disagreeing with you about running, it certainly did not warrant the response you gave. Neither did my original points have anything to do with defusing the situation. I was pointing out that there are situations you cannot defuse. You can use every technique in the book to defuse and still have it thrust upon you. When that happens it has nothing to do with machismo or any other testosterone driven bullshit, you will either be prepared or not. If you run in those instances I wish you, and anyone who chooses that option the best of luck.

For what it's worth, I have a friend who went to Germany when she was younger. While she was there, she was basically an outcast (didn't fully speak the language, didn't look quite right, etc) so she ended up hanging out with the only people that would take her in, the local high school goth crowd. Every day when they walked to the gym (since the school gym was seperate from the main campus) a group of Neo Nazis would throw rocks at them. The first time she asked, she was told they'd been doing that for years... it's just what they did. So the next time they did it, she threw back and charged them. They ran off and scattered, never having had anyone actually fight back at all, and they never did it again (at least not to that group, and not for the remaining 6 months of her stay). So at least in that case, avoidance and diffusion was totally the wrong situation. Sometimes you do have to establish dominance, especially if the person attacking you is just trying to establish their own. Running just continues the pattern.

JaronK

Which is what I've been saying, too, and you'd think that Critias being the guy taking the moderate stance would be a sign to people that either (a) the End Times are nigh, or (b) there's some truth in it.

I would say the answer is B) of course that it what I was suggesting in the first place. My whole argument has been that both are useless without the other. Your situational awareness will ultimately dictate the response in any situation.

Ha!!

I laugh only because I very often find myself agreeing with you, Critias.

Unless they randomly (or not so randomly) run into you later and beat/stab/shoot your ass down (or to death) then. It's happened a lot more than you think, homie. Sometimes (a lot more than you seem to realize) there is a distinct advantage to "taking care of biz" right then and there.



The funny thing about this comment is that despite 17+ years of in unarmed and armed combat training, I'm still probably about the last person in a group of 1000 randomly selected citizens that would ever get jumped by anyone by pure genetics. I'm alert (which is really the best self-defense tool you'll ever have), aware of people around me (which just about automatically disqualifies me for most low-end criminal-types), carry myself well, and stand at an athletic 193cm and 105kg. I've literally had girlfriends tell their drunk boyfriends what an asshole I just was to them to have the boyfriend just take one look at me and tell her, roughly the equivalent of, "I'm not messing with that guy. I don't give a damn what he just said to and/or about you".

As for the rest of the comment, I carry a gun, flashlight/impact weapon, knife, and my minimum out-of-house alertness of Condition Yellow so I don't have to run away. I should see it well before it becomes a "run or die" situation, and well, at the risk of sounding like a macho blowhard, I'm not going to run and leave my wife and/or kid behind for some potential psycho to have their way with them. You see, being into fat chicks means that you sometimes can't run away because you'll always out-distance your ol' lady and four month old son in short order.

Of course, if I'm ever being chased by a Shogoth, I won't even have to trip her to make my getaway...

I've always been of the opinion that the best defense is Adamant Skin Technique. I mean, Heavenly Guardian Defense and Flow Like Blood are cheaper, but sometimes you can't dodge far enough away, and sometimes you don't have a ready weapon to parry. So Adamant Skin Technique it is!

Or were we still going back and forth about RL...?

Can we possibly turn this back to a shadowrun theme? I'm not actually interested in hearing how any of you are '230 pounds of twisted steel and sex appeal' or if you know 37 ways to kill a man with a spoon.

I enjoy martial arts in general, and like to spar. But in the last 30 years or so (since middle school) I've never actually needed to use it in a street encounter. I tend to believe that's true for most normal people who don't go looking for trouble, since today's society (at least in the US) is not that much like a dystopian walk in the Barrens.

What do people think that life would be like for the average middle-class wageslave in 2070? Is Mr Wageslave likely to get mugged on the way to work? Often? Or does that only happen once you've left the protection of your corp life and try to make it on your own in the Barrens?

Most civilians today don't have any martial arts or self defense training. Would that change in 2070? Would the average corp-er make sure he sent little Johnny to Krav Maga class so he'd be able to protect himself from the orc kids on the playground? Would wageslaves tend to have a more combative or more passive mindset compared to now?

Consider the popular PMV, a moving suit of armor that wageslaves drive to work and home in. Probably indicates some level of danger perceived in their life.


Top of the head things to consider: First, corporate solidarity programs. Many Japanese companies in the 80s would have a group workout at the beginning of each shift, it reduced back injuries and stress, along with supposed team building. Some American companies followed suit, but it never really caught on. However, with Shadowrun's ode to the 80s and violent culture, I think it'd make sense for companies to have similar shift starting rituals that include martial arts. (Also note that many Japanese salarymen in Tokyo carry ceremonial swords, and the knowledge of their use is considered kudos building.) Naturally, we're talking skill levels of 1 or 2, but such widespread would bring forth people disposed to the arts. Something to look at before an extraction.

Second, just how prevalent are skillwires?

Third, AR games and tutorsofts. Does playing Street Fighter XIII, where one must kick and punch and dodge bestow a certain skill level on long term users? Maybe not, but Krav Maga classes can be taken from your living room, with an instructor who can actually see you and motivate you. AR would also make sparring less dangerous.

Riiiiight. Random guy mugs you, you give up your wallet and get away, he randomly decides to stalk you and kill you to death. Yup yup yup.


So, you'll stand and fight, exposing them to more danger as they now become nice hostages. You *all* run, and you all get away. If you stand and fight, there's a good chance that you'll become the hostage, and your family will come back to save you. If you run, and fight only as needed to make your escape, you'll be a lot better off.

More to the point, as in the example I gave... bully types who hang out along your regularly traveled route. In that example, it was a group of neo nazis who hung out on the route kids took to get to the school gym. Other cases might include people in rougher neighborhoods that give kids on their way to school a hard time. Running away encourages more bullying... standing up and fighting rapidly discourages it.

So especially in the case of bullying or dominance behavior, yes, someone will continue to go after you to continue that dominance if you give up.

Or how about an abusive/stalking ex? Do you think that doesn't happen, or that the cops can do anything about it?

What if you have children or friends there with you that you need to protect? Will running away really help if you have to leave them behind to do so?

Do you really not understand that this sort of thing happens, and that running away really might sometimes be a poor option?

JaronK

Or gets your face beat in. Or escalates matters. You don't honestly believe that you're always going to be able to beat up a bully, do you? You've been reading too many children's novels if you honestly believe that.


Seen it. All I'll say is, if some of the abuse victims had tried to run instead of fight, some might still be with us today.


See my response above. Standing and fighting when you have helpless victims present is stupid.

Guys, can we all just acknowledge that Cain has a different plan than the rest of us might, for situations like this, and we all agree we hope never have to find out which school of thought is right?

We're not going to change his mind, he's just going to respond with "running away is better" no matter what situation is presented, and that doesn't seem likely to change any time soon going by the pattern of recent posts.

Seriously, Cain, if you're not familiar with the methodology of the modern criminal element, you seriously need to shut the hell up. No, really.

Burglaries and/or robberies after a mugging are quite common. You see, you just gave them your address, probably your phone number, some credit cards more often than not, and any number of other information sources that tell them about your job, socio-economic status, and the people you meet regularly. Let's say you have the business card of a gun shop in your wallet. You just told them that breaking into your house will probably get them some guns. A quick check of your debit card and/or credit cards tells them about how much money you make to determine if your place is worth burglarizing or robbing. A quick credit check with any of this info tells them if your car is worth carjacking and the probable routes you take from your home to work. In otyher words, you just handed some random junky FUCK enough info to bury yourself with and he just might "know a guy" who can rape you with it.

And you obviously have no idea about the typical response a mugger has seeing a "victim" suddenly end up with a gun. It certainly isn't "CHARGE!" or "Take them all hostage!", fer chrisakes.