Thats one of the fundamental concepts of modern combatives like MCMAP. When your sympathetic nervous system kicks in your ability to coordinate fine motor movements goes right down the shitter. Any system designed to be effective with minimal training has to be built on gross motor movements by necessity.

Not just "simple" movements. Their is also quite a bit of thought and practice put in to being able to use most manuvers while armed and/or injured/exuasted. As well as softening blows such as throat strikes, eye gouges, and other generally painful manuvers.

I guess I can cross capoeira off my list of potential martial arts to study.

Thank gods for small favors. Was that the one on Greenwood? You can google "Oom Yung Doe" and get the whole sordid history of the school. I believe it was declared a cult under the name of "Chung Moo Doe", and closed down in a different state, thus forcing the name change.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I have to say that Faelan misses an important point. The best thing to do when confronted by multiple opponents is to get the hell out of there, as quickly as possible. Focusing on naked aggression, which not everyone will be able to attain, makes you ignore potential avenues for escape. Focusing on naked fear, and running away, is a smarter thing to do. Sure, it's not as glorious, but you'll be a hell of a lot safer.

It's different for soldiers, who may have to defend their lives in a fight; the vast majority of us will never need to face a skilled opponent in a serious fight. Learning to fight like a soldier, or to fight trained martial artists, is a waste of time from the standpoint of effective self-defense. Learning to disable the opposition just enough so you can get away should be the goal.

Nah, the Greenwood one is still there, or was two weeks ago. This one was on Mercer in Queen Anne, next to "Hair Concierge" - possibly the best named barbershop EVER.

I looked 'em up after you mentioned them by name. Their whole crazy-ass "herbal implements" training sounds eating-paint-chips crazy.

They were all wearing hakama. I blame their dismal performance on aikido training. Too much compliant drills and training has built up insurmountable reflexes where whenever Jet Li mimes an attack they throw themselves to the ground as dramatically as possible.

ROTFL

More seriously, I don't buy the "run away" argument. You have to incapacitate your opponent(s) first. The moment you turn your back to run, you leave yourself completely open. Running does not stop the attack, or prevent them from following you, or pulling out a gun and shooting you in the back. What it does do is burn energy, severely impair your awareness and ability to respond to the situation, and maybe delay combat.

Personally, I find the best thing to do when facing multiple opponents is position yourself and try to talk them down. If you can dissuade a few from attacking, good for you, if not, the talking can often serve as a distraction while you keep your distance and look for an opening. Trying to talk your way out also makes you seem like less of a threat, which can make your opponents underestimate you.

I don't buy the macho BS of needing to beat the other guy in order to have effective self-defense. If the guy's got the mindset to pull out a gun and shoot you in the back, he's just as likely to pull it out and shoot you in the face. Distance is your best friend.

If you can get away without incapacitating an opponent, you should do so. Your first thought should not be: "How can I take this guy down?", but rather: "How can I get out of this in one piece?" Too many people focus on getting into it, rather than getting away.

Fact of the matter is, in reality, if you run before the other guy can instigate an attack, you'll probably stop the fight before it starts. He's not going to chase you unless he's really determined; and if he's that pissed, he'll have already attacked. Hand-to-hand combat is for after the other guy has attacked you, and *then* you move to incapacitate. But only enough to make sure he can't chase you, and then you run.

Basically, it works like this:

Rule 1: If you can run, run.

Rule 2: If you cannot run, do whatever it takes to make sure you can run.

Rule 3: See Rule 1.


This I agree with. Except you shouldn't look for an opening, you should look for an exit. Particularly when faced with multiple opponents. This isn't a Jackie Chan movie, and you're not Bruce Lee. You don't want to have to fight multiple opponents, and you don't want to try and incapacitate all of them before you make your escape.

You misunderstood. I'm not talking about macho BS, I'm talking about practical self defense. I agree it's better to avoid actual combat if possible, your only goal should be to prevent yourself from being harmed--I don't believe the "run first, respond second" approach is the best way to do that.

If you think they won't follow or attack if you run, that's a risk you might be willing to take, but it's not the safest option. Waiting for an opponent to attack you is bad. Turning your back and rendering yourself unaware and unable to respond at all is worse. As for pulling a gun, if you are facing them you will be aware of the attack and can respond to it. You can attempt to prevent them from drawing the weapon, take cover, or try to move out of the line of fire. All of which have a better chance of success than hoping you can turn around and get far enough away for it to matter in the time it takes them to draw and shoot.

Of course, if you can defuse the situation or get away safely, that is ideal. Looking for an opening does not just mean looking for an opening to attack, it also means looking for an opening to get away, but trying to run while out in the open is just dropping your guard.

Otherwise, you have to strike first, not because it's macho or bad-ass, but because you have a better chance of stopping your opponent if their fist isn't already flying at you. If you wait for them to attack first, you lose reaction time and have to hope you can either avoid the strike or hit faster than an attack which is already in progress--which is never a certainty.

Not looking for openings just means blinding yourself to your options, which puts you at a disadvantage. Not doing your best to incapacitate an opponent when the opportunity presents itself just means giving them another chance to harm you.

It's not pretty, it's not nice, and it's not usually legal, it is simply practical.

Not being within attack range of the guy is best. Creating distance is your safest bet, and running is the best way to create distance. If you can't run safely, then you can't run, and you resort to Rule 2. But you should look to run away first, as your primary response.

If you are close enough to them to do something about the gun, you are also within point-blank range, where they are unlikely to miss. You can do things about the gun, if you are close enough and fast enough; but your best defense against a gun is also distance. Cover is nice if you have it, and can get to it in time, but that's not something you can count on. OTOH, distance is always available to you.

Besides which, unless they're a trained marksman, anyone using a gun under real-world conditions tends to shoot like a spastic monkey. They can hit you if you're close-- the number I hear bandied about is that most hits come from within 15 feet-- so you don't need a lot of space. If they are a trained marksman who can accurately hit a moving target at range under combat conditions, you're probably dead anyway.


If you strike first, there is a 100% chance that you will expose yourself to danger. If you talk or run, there is a much higher chance that you will face no risk at all. There is no way you can be 100% positive that you can disable all your opponents. Again, this is not a martial-arts action film, fighting a lot of enemies is not easy-- in fact, it's downright dangerous!

Additionally, a lot of attacks (I'm thinking rape defense, here) come from people the victim knows. You can't attack Uncle Albert just because he's acting weird, you need a good reason. Defending and running is the best way of handling the situation, assuming that you can't defuse the situation.


Not looking for exits forces you to get into it physically, with someone who may be bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled than you. Or worse, multiple people who may be physically superior to you. The most practical thing to do is remove yourself from the situation, as quickly as possible. It's not pretty, and it's sure not glorious; but if you can stand to lose some ego, you will be safer.

Right now, I'm deciding on what to teach my five year old daughter about self-defense. What she's being taught to do is defend, then run away and get a teacher. That should be enough for the schoolyard. Later, I'll teach her sexual assault defense, which works the same way. The focus is not on hurting the other guy, it's on getting away in one piece.

This isn't really the place for this, so I'm going to respond via PM. I'd love to discuss this with you further, if you're so inclined. Intelligent debates on self defense are rare--especially on the internet.

In response to the OPs question, what about Small Circle Jiu Jitsu? Check this link [link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Jay"]here[/link].

I've done a lot of martial arts but I'm going to avoid discussions on a lot of this other stuff, except to say Cain's posts are bloody spot on.

- J.

WHATEVER IT WAS YOU JUST SAID WILL NOT WORK ON T3H STR33T. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY ON T3H STR33T SINCE THE BAGGY PANTS OF GANGBANGERS ACTUALLY EMIT PARADOX FIELDS WHERE THEY GO SUPER SAIYA JIN AND CANNOT BE HARMED BY MORTAL WEAPONS. INSTEAD, TAKE THIS MAGIC SPEAR. IT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH MAY HARM THE JAGUAR MEN.

Actually, it's usually not quite that bad...

If I had a magic spear, I'd use my stabbidy-stabbidy powers for good.

I'm not quite sure how effective that'll be in the long run. Schoolyard conflict isn't like other kinds of fights. It's 100% social posturing and acting dishonorably has far worse consequences than being beaten up does in those situations.
When I was in school, one of the most important rules was that you never tell a teacher. It was against the code. Everybody knew it. Even the teachers knew it. And you don't break the code.

There were other rules to, of course, though less well enforced. One of them was that that fights could be settled with simple equity, if both parties agree to it. The party that was struck gets a number of free hits equal to the number of times he or she was hit. And that works because most kids who try to start a fight really don't want to go through with it, and it allows things to end in a controlled manner with both parties saving face. Ideally, the fight ends with both parties respecting each other, if not being friends.

Of course, this really only applies to conflicts between boys.

Girls fight for social reasons, too. But it is different with girls. Girls, for the most part, don't have to worry about principles such as honor the same way that boys do. Their fights have fewer rules, if any at all. They tend to be rather savage gang attacks perpetrated by friends of the victim for the purpose of establishing pure social dominance, essentially depositing the victim at the bottom of the group's social hierarchy. It is the extreme form of relational aggression; while boys beat up their enemies, girls beat up their friends.

I'm not well versed in the customary rules for violence between schoolgirls, but I can say with some certainty that running away and getting a teacher would be just as socially disastrous for a girl who is on the receiving end of a pummeling as it would be for a boy. You have to maintain control and self-discipline and avoid signs of weakness or cowardliness. This might mean fighting back and winning, successfully asserting personal dominance, it might mean fighting back and and reaching a position where the attacker chooses to call it a draw, or it might mean that taking the blows with a wide smile and occasionally suggesting that the attacker hit harder if no other defense is feasible.

Of course, these concerns only apply to social posturing, which schoolyard fights are, and not to other self-defense issues.

I will say that the only safe retreat is a tactical retreat, and that it is important to know when it is appropriate to use deadly force. In some situations, such as a quick snatch and grab, running is never an option, and your left with no realistic options other than stabbing femoral arteries or capitulating and facing probable death.

I'm going to say, with guns, it really depends. Seriously, you can't outrun a bullet. But, more importantly, every weapon has both a minimum and a maximum effective range. The key is to remain either outside the maximum, or inside the minimum, so that they can't bring the weapon to bear against you. Pistols have very low minimum ranges, you'd have to practically be grappling the gunman. But, it is possible for a normal human being with no special training to sprint 15 feet and stab a trained shooter to death before he can bring a holstered weapon to bear (which is why cops are allowed to shoot people with knives who are within 15 feet). Is it ideal? No, but it ends the threat.

I'm also going to say that humans are natural predators; we're genetically programed to stalk, chase, and kill. And when dealing with predators in a predatory mode, running is the stupidest possible response. Running is what food does. Running from a predator merely invites pursuit, and being perused invites being eaten. This is even worse when you're dealing with packs or groups, since you get the whole bunch of them after you. The slow and clam retreat is the only viable retreat. The trick is to at least appear potentially dangerous while disengaging. This applies to muggers just as well as it does to mountain lions and feral dogs.

Of course, mountain lions cannot open doors, so simply ducking into a nearby building would be useful with them, if you can do it without running. People are more clever, but there are these things called locks that can slow them down. There are also these things called claymore mines that you can set up for when they get through the lock, though I'm not sure if doing that would be entirely legal.

The most important aspects of self defense are situational awareness and following your instincts. Know where the exists are, know where the other people are, know if your in a well lit area or a dark one. Most importantly, if you feel afraid or uneasy, don't ignore that instinct, act on it. Fear is your brain's way of telling you that you are in a dangerous situation.

If you end up being attacked, give up your money without hesitation, but never, under any circumstances, allow any attacker to take you to a second location. The only reason for them to do so is to do something to you that they don't have time to do where they attacked you, and it is rarely good.



Can't denotes physical impossibility. I don't think that there is anything physically stopping you from attacking Uncle Albert. I assume that you mean that it would be socially inappropriate to do so. I say, if Uncle Albert is touching your naughty place, then it would be socially appropriate to apply the Monkey Steals Peach to him.

The way I see it, teaching kids self-defense against sexual abuse is simple. Tell them that if someone makes them uncomfortable they should speak up and say so. Tell them if someone touches them in a way that makes them uncomfortable then they should make their discomfort known, order that person to stop, and kick, scream, twist, fight, yell for help, get away if possible, and immediately tell someone else about what happened (though an adult is often ideal, one might not be available). If they're in public, it is important to differentiate this from a simple temper tantrum and begging for help is one way to do so. Making it clear that the attacker isn't a parent can also help (even when the attacker is a parent). Of course, if that doesn't work, then there is no other choice but to escalate to deadly force, which is something that a child is certainly able to do, with the proper tools, but may not have sufficient emotional maturity to handle properly.

The size difference between young children and adults renders non-lethal defense techniques fairly worthless, but their small size combined with their superior reflexes and agility make children ideal knife fighters. Back in my day, carrying a pocket knife to school, where it would be useful both for utility and for defense against sexual assault, was uncommon but didn't raise any eyebrows. Unfortunately, most school systems these days have a zero tolerance policy, forcing one to rely on makeshift weapons such as well-sharpened pencils in case of sexual assault by an adult. The key isn't just to get to safety, but to be willing do whatever is possible to further that goal, including causing grievous injury or death. If you aren't prepared to use deadly force, there is a good chance that you'll freeze up when it becomes necessary. Unfortunately, there is no right age at which to teach this principle to children, and no right way to teach them. If they have the emotional maturity to understand when it is appropriate to use such violence and when it isn't, then they should be taught when it is alright to use it, when they're truly afraid that they'll be badly hurt or killed. But if they don't have that emotional maturity, then teaching them lethal self defense can potentially cause more problems that it protects them from.

The most important thing is that children in that situation should know that it is alright to do whatever it takes to get away from the predatory adult. They shouldn't limit their tactics, they shouldn't be afraid to act out, they shouldn't be afraid to cause injury. In essence, it is the exact opposite if what you teach your children every other day of their lives. And that's the important thing to teach them, that when an adult tries to hurt them, kidnap them, or touch them in a way that makes them uncomfortable, then they are no longer bound by the rules. If that happens, all the rules go out the window and they can do anything, without any sort of limitation, to get to safety.

Also, I'd recommend against teaching "stranger danger" because that's just stupid; it gives kids a false impression of an international organization of trenchcoat-wearing cartoon villains that is out to hurt them. The vast majority of child abuse is performed by friends, acquaintances, or relatives, as you say. More important is to teach situational awareness and differentiating between a dangerous situation and a safe one. It is also important because in a public attack, abduction, or just plain being lost in the mall (which happens with sufficient regularity that there are protocols for it), they may have no one to turn to for help but strangers. It's important that they learn to communicate with strangers safely, without putting themselves at risk, and to say no to those things that would put them at risk.




If I had a magic spear, I'd ride on horseback with it, charging at some heavily-armored evil giants. And then, I'd stand on the horses ack while it is going full speed, like the horse is a surf board. And when I get close enough I'd leap from the horse at the giant and drive the spearhead between the plates of his armor while hanging on tightly so I don't fall to my death.

Of course, the giant was a windmill and it took around five hours for someone to spot me hanging there and for the fire department to get me down. So you might not want to try that.

I can say that those days are gone. Many schools have a zero-tolerance policy for bullying these days. I concede that the effectiveness of the response depends on the effectiveness of the school; but nowadays, going to the teacher guarantees action. I can also say that my daughter remains one of the most popular girls in her class.

Um, no. Not even close. Humans are hunter-gatherers, which means we aren't natural predators. Without tools, we're just ineffective monkeys. And hell, you don't see a lot of predatory monkeys roaming about.

I agree wholeheartedly. Always know your exits, and how to get to them.

I would amend it to say that some humans are natural predators. By and large, those you'd have good reason to want to run away from are the sorts that might just be spurred on by such an obvious show of fear. Don't run unless you're sure you can get away, in much the same way you shouldn't fight unless you've got good odds of winning it.

Nothing to say but the ubiquitous internet "+1" on the "but never, ever, no matter what physical property you're willing to hand over, do not go fucking anywhere with anyone." Nothing good ever comes from getting into a car, stepping into a back room, being lined up against a wall, or letting yourself be herded anywhere by bad people with weapons. It'll never be easier to get away and safer to attempt it, than it whatever relatively public place you stumbled across the violent person in the first place -- they're sure as shit not going to take you to a police station or a hospital, so take your chances in that dark parking lot or back alley.

What happens if you don't know if you can do either? The answer is, fighting him will definitely expose you to a lot of risk, while running exposes you to less risk.

I'll also add that, to the best of my knowledge, humans do not have a "chase instinct" in the way dogs and cats do. If they did, humans would be compelled to chase and pounce on any fast-moving object, such as cars in the street.

Well except for that whole pre-frontal cortex bit that allows us to override our instincts... funny image tho...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQepG7sD6vk...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt5cx_nc3Jw...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtucwBlNr3A...=1&index=53
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/...ain678061.shtml


Apes, not monkeys. Humans are apes. And apes will mess you up. Especially chimps.

Hunter-gatherer is a type of society, not a classification of animal. We're omnivorous territorial tool-using social apex predators.

And while human chase instincts are subdued and subtle, they are most certainly there, sometimes manifesting during adrenalin-filled confrontations. And they're more likely to manifest when there is a group than when dealing with individuals alone.

And to better understand the probability of actually evading a group of determined attackers, I recommend watching an episode of Cops and so how often the people who run actually get away, and how often they suffer for their attempt to remove themselves from the situation. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just difficult in most circumstances.

It's best to make attacking you as risky as is possible, so that they'd have enough sense not to bother. Use the environment to put barriers between you and the aggressor(s), try to stay in well-lit public areas with a decent amount of traffic, that sort of thing. Retreat is never away from the aggressor, but toward a better tactical position, so that the aggressor is less likely to be able to do you harm if he or she follows.

Of course, since most fights are likely to start because of some sort of territorial transgression, it is rather important to be polite and non-aggressive when accidentally transgressing against someone. Of course, since most other fights are likely to be started for the purpose of territorial transgression, it is also important to make people think that the potential gain from fighting you just isn't worth the risk.

You're exposed to risk already if you're in a situation where you need to make a fight or flight decision. From there it's just a question of how you're going to handle that; by removing yourself from the risky situation, or by removing the other person who's chosen to put you at risk.

Like every such decision, it comes down to which one is going to work in that specific situation, for that specific person, facing that specific threat, on that specific terrain, under those specific lighting conditions, and on and on and on ad infinitum. There's no automatically right or automatically wrong answer -- everyone's got to decide for themselves which option is going to work for them, if/when they're forced to figure it out.

I'm just trying to point out (and so are a few other people) that flight does carry risks with it. There's no guarantee that you'll get away, and the first step in most "run away" plans is "turn your back on them." That may or may not work out well for you. I just think "hoof it" isn't always the answer, any more than "kick 'em" is always the answer.


Humans as a species might or might not -- I don't really know or care -- but the scum that already dwell on the weak certainly do. If they catch you, you've made it a certainty that their blood will be up, they'll be angry that you tried to get away, they'll be high on adrenaline from a chase, and they'll certainly be the immediate aggressors in the physical confrontation to come (because while your back is turned and you're focused on running, they're focused on you and the prey-creature you've just turned yourself into). And, of course, that's even assuming they have to run to catch you. Bullets trump running shoes, when it comes to maximum speed.

Hell, even cops succumb to the "if I have to chase it, I'll punish it" mentality; who gets treated more roughly, generally speaking, people who run or people who don't?

Sorry, we are not predators. When was the last time you hunted down a meal? The human body is not built to chase down and kill prey.

Once again, apologies, but you're wrong. An instinct is an innate behavior over which the creature has little control. Get a dog's chase instinct going, and there's nothing it can do about it. As Method pointed out, humans have a conscious override, which technically means we don't have instincts at all.

Cops is an edited TV show, they don't tend to show the ones who get away, since it makes for bad TV. About ten years ago, they were filming in Seattle when the SPD busted the wrong house. That never made it to TV, AFAIK.

This is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. There's a zillion possible reasons why a confrontation could start, from bar fight to rape defense. They're hardly all "territorial transgressions". Sure, it's important to be polite and non-aggressive, especially since that may defuse the situation. And making them think that the "potential risk" is a deterrent is just so much macho BS.

Basically, things aren't ever that neat, and attacking a bunch of people is never a good idea. Getting the hell out of there *is* always a good idea. You have to swallow some pride to do it, but it is unquestionably safer.


True, but the great failing of many self-defense courses is that it encourages people to stay it out and fight, instead of doing damage and running away. Running should be your primary option. Definitely not your *only* option, but it should be the one you center your self-defense strategy around.

Let's take it down to a case of strategy and tactics. Most people get these mixed up. Your strategy for a confrontation should be to get out of dodge. How you do that depends on the situation, so you train tactics to achieve your strategy. They train strikes, joint-locks, whatever techniques float your boat. Often times, people get so caught up in their tactics, they focus on using them. But you have to keep an eye on your overall strategy, and remember that your purpose here is to stay safe.


Once again, if the other guy is a skilled enough marksman to hit a moving target under combat conditions, you're going to get shot no matter what you do.

As for cops, well, I can't say for certain; but I have a cousin who's a prison guard. The prisoners who get treated more roughly are the ones who fight back, not the ones who run away.

Many social redtors practice division of labor, though few have been so successful at taming their prey.


Your definition is so narow that nothing can be said to have instincts.



Bar fights generally don't start for no reason. Usually, someone steeped on someone's toes. And, seriously, if rape isn't a transgression I don't know what is.




Prisoners don't run away, they escape, and if it happens often enough to make such a generalization, then that prison has serious problems.

[edit]Sorry for the double-post, my internet connection at home is screwing up.[/edit]

Well, I *tried* to not hijack the thread...

This has gotten way too big to do a line-by-line response, so I'll just address a few of the common points being brought up:

> Yes, humans do have some level of predatory instinct. It's influence varies according to the individual and the circumstances, and yes, running or otherwise showing weakness or fear can egg on an attacker in some situations. In fact, the kind of person likely to pick a fight with you (and especially the kind likely to attempt a sexual assault) is the kind most likely to respond to signals of fear and weakness--those are, in fact, exactly the responses they're probably looking for.

If you don't think showing fear can trigger predatory impulses in some people and egg them on, ask a school bully, or better yet, ask someone who's into S&M.

> My biggest problems with running is that it's inefficient, and leaves you helpless. Running uses alot of energy, requires a certain amount of time for you to turn around before you can even begin to run, and once you are running you have your back to your attacker and cannot see or respond to their actions. In addition, turning to run telegraphs your intent.

You're betting everything on an action that takes longer, burns more energy, and is easy for your attacker to read. Not smart. Remember, you have to turn around before you can run, but your attacker doesn't have to turn around before they start chasing you.

Not only that, but running in no way hinders your attacker from coming after you, either then or at another time. In that respect, running always fails to stop a fight, it at best prolongs it. What you're really doing when you run is relying on your attacker having no way of stopping you and/or losing interest.

Running exposes you to more risk than facing (note: I said "facing", not necessarily "fighting") your opponent, because you can still keep your guard up while facing them.

> Relying on rules, be they laws or school policies, to keep you safe is a joke. Zero tolerance policies will not prevent you child from being attacked anymore than laws will prevent you from being mugged in an alley. Enforcement will always be an issue, and getting punished usually makes bullies take it out on their victim. This goes for adults as well, restraining orders are a good way to get yourself killed.

> People usually give off a lot of signs, and rarely initiate unprovoked attacks without some kind of warning. Thinking you "can't" predict an assault is even worse than thinking you "can't" hit them to prevent it. They're both pure falsehoods that impair you ability to protect yourself.

The question isn't whether you can, it's whether you should. This inhibition against violence only makes us prey to those who don't have it--or have less of it.

In this FBI report about criminals firing on police officers, the criminals had a much higher success rate of hitting their targets than the cops did--largely because the criminals did not hesitate and often managed to shoot first. By the time to cops responded, they were usually either wounded or at a greater distance due to the criminal moving away after firing.

The criminals in this report did not hesitate to shoot, did not take time to aim or align the gun sights, and often practiced more regularly than the police officers they shot at, though the quality of the practice was in doubt in some cases.

The result? The criminals were almost twice as successful at hitting their targets as the trained police officers they shot at.

I would rather be facing my attacker at a distance where I have a chance of stopping them if they go for a gun, than turning my back to them as they draw it.

The average distance for a successful hit in that study was 15 feet. The greatest distance was ten times that. There was one instance of an officer being hit at 150 feet by a criminal firing a shotgun. Ask yourself how often you get into an altercation at 150 feet, and then ask yourself how far away you'd need to be before it would be safe to turn your back and run.

> Martial arts that start with a block or parry are inefficient. Period. A strike requires less time and movement, and has a better chance of ending the fight, thus keeping you safe.

Running: Least efficient. Requires the most movement, has the least chance of ending the fight, and leaves you the most vulnerable.

Blocking/Dodging: More efficient. Requires less movement, has about the same chance of ending the fight (almost none), leaves you less vulnerable.

Striking: Most efficient. Requires the least amount of movement, has best chance of ending the fight (and the only chance of directly ending it), leaves you about as vulnerable as blocking if done correctly.

If someone is acting in an aggressive or threatening manner, there's a chance they may try to attack me. If they try to close with me or make a sudden movement, that chance goes up quite a bit. It's safer and more practical to strike preemptively in these situations, than to wait and hope I can defend against an attack that's already in progress. After all, what are the chances that angry guy was just reaching for his business card?

As for situations involving people you know--use your brain. If someone's making you feel uncomfortable, tell them so and ask them to back off. If they refuse or move closer, something is wrong--hit them.

The other chapters of the report "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers" can be found >here< it has a lot of information useful to those interested in self-defense, particularly involving firearms.

While I'm at it, I'd also suggest you read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker, which concerns predicting and defusing violent behavior, and "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" by Bruce Lee, which concerns efficiency and practicality in self-defense.

Here's a spoiler: Bruce Lee advocates striking as your first response to an attack.

Finally, I think the best chance of escaping a conflict unharmed lies with social manipulation in most cases. As has been pointed out, the social dominance aspect of our instincts is more active compared to hunting instincts or the like, and therefore is an easier button to push, one way or the other. In addition, trying to talk someone down can be performed while retreating, defending, or attacking, so even if it doesn't work you still have other options. In fact, talking to your attacker during a fight makes an excellent distraction which can be used in a number of ways.

It's the least-cost, least-risk response, which makes it the best, in my opinion.

My only thought is that while we can always make a case for running, lots of people are fat and slow and out of shape, and if they run it will simply be a comedy show we get rather than any sort of evasion.

Huff, huff, huff, WHUMP WHUMP WHUMP.

Too much for a line by line response, so I'll try to sum up:

• Bruce Lee, and most "self-defense" manuals aren't interested in self-defense. They're interested in the way-of-the-warrior, techniques to combat and fighting. They're not interested in defending and running, they're interested in using their martial way to defeat an opponent.
  
• Defense is always the best place to start. Look at just about every martial art out there. They start by teaching students a defensive pattern, instigated by a punch or a kick from an opponent. These basic defensive patterns form the cre of just about every martial art out there, including the aggressive ones.
  
• Humans have no predatory instinct. Technically speaking, they have no instincts at all.
  
• Distance is, by all accounts, your best defense in every situation. 15 feet is enough to protect you against most handguns, and you can run 15 feet very quickly. Running is normally the best way to generate distance, since that's the fastest the human body can travel unaided.

THe bottom line here is that your primary strategy should be to run away from the situation. If you can't run, then you resort to other tactics, but only enough to make sure you can run. No one principle can cover everything in a fight, but the basic strategy of "defend and retreat" is one of the best when it comes to protecting yourself.

Cain, I can honestly say that you managed to post two things that I had never heard another human say, write, or type before in just two sentences of your post above this one. Kudos to you, sir.

Unfortunately, you were dead wrong on both counts.

Still, it's no mean feat to catch me with two things I had never experienced via any media before in such a short series.

What, humans have no instincts? Ok, I'm stretching a bit; but by strict definition, we don't. An instinct is a complex behavior that cannot be overridden. Get a cat into chase mode, it must chase, it cannot help itself. A human being has a frontal cortex that overrides such things. That means in humans, they're just compulsions, and not "true" instincts.

I defy you to show me a single human behavior that cannot be overridden.

You guys do realize that you are arguing one of the central controversies in evolutionary theory right? Experts in human behavior and evolution have gone rounds for decades about whether humans have instincts in the strictest sense. If you guys come to a consensus, I'll be a monkey's uncle... (fortunately we all know that consensus on the internet is impossible within our time-space continuum)

But just to add fuel to the fire: Drinking when you are thirsty. You can resist for awhile, but eventually hypernatremia will shut down your handy-dandy prefrontal cortex. You cannot choose to die of thirst.

Even then, suicide by thirst is entirely possible. Unpleasant, but possible. It just involves making a conscious choice to isolate yourself in a place with nothing to drink.

Instincts are not behaviors that cannot be overridden. Instincts are innate non-learned inherent dispositions toward particular behaviors. There is a difference.

A dog or a cat can learn not to chase things fairly easily, and they can learn when not to chase things and hold themselves back from dangerous situations.

Likewise, humans who have no training will almost always respond to certain situations in exactly the same way. For example, using the hands to defend the face and neck during a fight,

You mean the instinctive protection of the blood vessels that lead to the CNS and the CNS itself? The precise reaction that Krav Maga intensifies and hones to be more effective by relying on your instinctive reactions?

Surely you jest!

Not necessarily true as a hard and fast rule, though I’d definitely place it under guidelines or in the “be wary of� category.

The main reason is that many teachers today name their schools in honour of their own masters; the prime example from my own experience was a fellow in Norway who’d named his TKD Pomese school after his own teacher.

[EDIT]
On the other hand, I've never lived or trained in the US, and in Europe the idea of a franchised martial arts school is relatively alien. Many teachers have a number of schools under their club/name, but these are for the most part old students who have started up on their own taking advantage of a more well known name, or simply several branches of the same company without the franchising aspect.

I seriously do think this approach may have a pretty big impac on the discussion.

[qng. uote]Instincts are not behaviors that cannot be overridden. Instincts are innate non-learned inherent dispositions toward particular behaviors. There is a difference. [/quote]
Almost. "Innate, non-learned inherent behaviors that cannot be overridden" is the correct definition, depending. At any event, "Human instinct" has been a discarded notion since the 70's.

As Method pointed out, this is a highly disputed field or psychology; however, most definitions classify an instinct as "irresistible". They also agree that, for the most part, a human "predatory instinct" or instinct for violence does not exist.


In just about every case I know of here, if you want to name a school in honor of your master, you take the name of the style. For example, no one calls their art: "Bruce Lee Kung Fu"; they call it "Jun Fan" or "Jeet Kune Do". Sometimes this leads to style wars, as in the aforementioned "Jeet Kune Do", where lots of people will fight over the right to a name. This is also why many masters will tend to keep their names out of it.

On a less controversial note, Sijo Emperado is the acknowledged founder of Kajukembo. Some of his students went on to be highly recognized in their own right, such as Al and Mark Dacascos. Instead of naming a school after them, their students call their art "Wun Hop Quen Do", with the Dacascos name tossed in here and there for PR purposes. Basically, rather than breach ettiquette and steal someone's name, you use the name of their style in their honor.

Er, we're not talking about "stealing someone's name" here. That would be both rude and monumentally stupid as most students opening their own schools are still quite eager to retain good relations with their old master.

From what I've seen it would be more the result of a polite question, if the answer's yes, then go ahead and use the name, if no, then they have to think of something else.

I see the point with the style wars, though, but that only makes it more important to be polite about the whole thing, and not step on the toes of neither former teachers or other student plannig to open their own schools.

Still doesn't change the fact that you usually take the name of the style, and not the instructor. I'll wager that what you see is a lot of "Kajukembo" in large letters with a small line saying: "Founded by Sijo Emperado". It's a far cry from: "Oom Yung Doe! The Grandmaster Iron Kim Style!" (which, incidentally, is a direct quote from the sign we mentioned earlier.

Hmm, making unsupported statements instead of arguing your point, misrepresenting the definition of a word to support your side, refusing to address the points put forth by others--this is no longer a debate. I guess it was too much to hope for.

There can be no discussion with someone who states their beliefs instead than arguing their position, so I'll be moving on. I would say that you are mistaken on several points, but since science is merely another form of faith (faith in one's senses) there's really no reliable way of determining reality at all. I'll simply say that your arguments are logically flawed, and that by adhering to an article of faith instead of examining it, you limit yourself and all those you teach.

My own prejudices when it comes to self-defense are obvious, but I do my best not to let them blind me and at least attempt to back up my position with logic, rather than stating my opinions as fact, rhetorically. I hope your learn to see past your limitations, or at least, I hope they never cost you in a fight. They very easily could.

They haven't yet, but that's because I try to get out of the situation before it comes to violence. I'll eat the machismo lack, because it works.

I mean, let's look at some of the common self-defense situations, and the best responses:

Mugging. Give up your damn wallet! Fighting over a few bucks is stupid.

Bar Brawl: Defuse the situation. Buy the guy a beer, then leave as soon as possible.

Child being kidnapped: Run and scream! A child trying to take out a full-grown adult is futile.

Rape Defense: Run and scream some more! Only fight if the guy has you trapped, and then you need to break free and run for help.

These are the real situations a person's going to face, and only in one of them does physically attacking an opponent make sense. And even then, running and screaming for help is preferable.

Opinion? These are stone-cold facts, acknowledged by many self-defense experts as the best way to handle the situation. Don't buy into the macho BS; if you want to defend yourself, learn to run away.

Unless you also want to defend your property (perfectly legal and, as such, agreed by political consensus as ethical, in many states), the property of others (likewise), or the safety and well being of those around (certainly likewise), instead of only worrying about your own skin. And unless you don't have anywhere to run, aren't a fast runner, unless your assailant might be armed with a gun, might be a fast runner, himself...and on and on and on. IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST ANSWER. STOP SAYING IT IS, PLEASE.

You might want to hand your wallet over, for instance, and work on the assumption that because the man with the knife said "give me your wallet or I'll kill you," he really did mean the or part, and gamble your life on the fact that he's a criminal thug of his word. If, to you, that's the way to go -- good for you, but don't act like it's anything but opinion, and don't act like people never get killed after capitulating with violent robbers. Read up on the FBI crime statistics and compare injuries when the robbery victim resists versus when they don't (and when they resist with a weapon, in particular).

Once someone's decided to threaten me and mine over the contents of my wallet, well, I know I'm not going to assume they're worth trusting with my life, so that I'll meekly hand if over and trust them to leave quietly once they've gotten what they came for. I live in a state where I don't have to, so your mileage may vary, but there's a reason I practice holding my wallet out with one hand, and drawing from concealment for a double-tap with my other.

Your "best responses" might be your best responses, but they're not the same for everyone. I can find just as many self defense experts that will suggest a more aggressive response, and we can just whip out our e-penises and see who can cite more references...or you can just admit that you're doing nothing but stating your opinions, which may or may not be valid for everyone, equally.

I have. I've read home invasion statistics in particular, which the NRA couldn't even spin into making an attack better than calling 911. But if you have better numbers, please provide them!

There, corrected it and added a few comments I have heard over the years. Not to knock Dacascos (who I have trained with and respect highly) or Emperado (who I have heard many a good tale about) but there were and are other people involved in the process of making Kajukenbo and keeping the ball rolling.

To be honest, there isn't all that much to be proud of in Kajukenbo's true history. Most of the founders were thugs from the Palama ghetto, many were violent drunks, and even fewer of these "Masters" contributed much to the martial arts than making a bunch of ruthless streetfighters who went on to teach a bunch of people that really shouldn't have been taught how to hurt other people better in the 1960s and 70s. Yay?

Point taken. The reason I chose Kajukembo was because it's relatively famous (thanks to Mark Dacascos) and it has a clear lineage, unlike the Bruce Lee and Ed Parker messes. Particularly in the case of Bruce Lee: walk into a Jeet Kune Do school, and you have no guarantee that you'll learn a single Bruce Lee technique.

In martial arts, lineage is important. But putting your master's name on the billboard shows just as much insecurity as if he demanded it. Let the style, and your skill, speak for itself.

True. My JKD instructor told that you can get "official JKD-Instructor license" in 8 hour course.
I mean, how much can you learn in 8 hours? Let alone be instructor...

I dont know details about Bruce Lee and Ed Parker mess, but there are lots on instructors with no real certification to teach JKD.

Luckily my instructor does.

Not to insult your instructor, but there are two schools of JKD: JKD "Classic", which focuses on the core are Bruce used at the time of his death, and JKD "Concepts", which tossed the traditional techniques in favor of "what works". You will not learn the same thing between the two schools, even though they have the same name. I know I'm going to piss off a lot of JKD students by saying this, but in a "concepts" school, you're more likely to get a MMA experience than a Bruce Lee technique.

It shouldn't piss anyone off, and I really don't think it'd even piss Bruce off if he was aliev today. Mixed Martial Arts is really just furthering the idea that he...hrm, not that Bruce conceived (because I'm sure there were plenty of folks mixing and matching martial arts long before he came along), but maybe that he forged a path for into the mainstream. "Use what works" was more important to him than "do things the way I do them," so I really don't think he'd be offended at someone pointing students to an MMA school instead of folks diligently practicing what Bruce did almost forty years ago. Folks looking to learn "Bruce Lee JKD" can go find those sort of schools, people looking to learn what JKD has evolved into can be more than happy at a regular old MMA school.

My own JKD/Escrima instructor studied alongside Dan Inosanto, and has certification, etc, right from Dan. He tends to teach us stuff the way he was taught it, because that's what he's the most comfortable with (so a "classic" school) -- but our assistant instructor has studied an assortment of different martial arts throughout his life (and was a combatives instructor in the USMC for a time), so he's right there to show us different ways to accomplish what our main instructor shows us, little variations on a move, a nasty follow-up, etc, etc...so that overall we're left with the option, with almost everything we learn, and it's up to us what we want to take away with us from class. I feel pretty lucky that one's big on the martial, one's a little more focused on the art, and we get to hear them both.

My school is Conceps branch.

From Wikipedia: Link, branches section.

The JKD Concepts branch, whose proponents include Dan Inosanto, Richard Bustillo, Larry Hartsell; these groups strive to continue the philosophy of individual self-expression through re-interpretation of combat systems through the lens of Jeet Kune Do, under the concept that it was never meant to be a static art but rather an ongoing evolution, and have incorporated elements from many other martial arts into the main fold of its teachings (most notably, grappling and Kali / Escrima material) based on the individual's personal preferences and physical attributes. The entire JKD "system" can be described through a simple diagram, and the concepts can then be applied to a variety of contexts in a "universal" way.

Emphasis mine. Yes, we take what is useful, but if traditional techniques works, no need to toss it.

Critias: May I ask who is your instructor?

Not at all, check your inbox (we're getting far enough off topic we might as well take it over to PMs).

To get back on track, as good as the instructor in the OP was, I get the feeling that the idea of the adept is that an adept within their niche would make that guy look like a punk. The addition of true "magic", as portrayed in the SR universe, would give an adept insights into the ways of motion, forces, and the timing of the flow of the energies of the combatants that the master in the OP couldn't hope to match.