20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tau
Tau's picture
Reality of Attacks

Video I've been think about for some time. Finally come together. Hope it makes you think.

Marc
Marc's picture

Thanks for the video. Very interesting.  

Alex.M
Alex.M's picture

Thank you for this video. It really does make me wonder where the "long range self defense"-training comes from.

Tau
Tau's picture

1. Sportification of the arts. Striking sports do happen at long range.

2. It's an easy way to teach and promotes some impressive techniques.

As ever, the caveat; nothing wrong with either of the above as long as you're honest about what it is that you're doing.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Alex.M wrote:
It really does make me wonder where the "long range self defense" training comes from.

Tau wrote:
1. Sportification of the arts. Striking sports do happen at long range.

2. It's an easy way to teach and promotes some impressive techniques.

As ever, the caveat; nothing wrong with either of the above as long as you're honest about what it is that you're doing.

I’d agree and would add the following:

We spend most of our time training with practitioners of the same style we do i.e. karateka train with karateka, MMA fighters train with MMA fighters, TKD practitioner trains with TKD practitioners, etc. So the vast majority of martial artists will only experience one type of combat i.e. fighting each other. This will be at the extended “duelling range” which gives the reaction gap which facilitates skilled exchanges between complementary skillsets. Because they only have experience of this single type of conflict, they incorrectly assume that conflict is universal in nature.

We see this all the time when people get very adamant that “duelling skills” are 100% transferable to physical self-protection. They “know” it works … and they are right; it does work, but only in the specific context in which they have experience in applying those methods.

This mistaking of “mono-context” for “uni-context” makes people extremely reluctant to accept the contrary experience of others because it does not match with their own (unknowingly limited) experience.

We see things like blocking, feints, distance footwork, guards, etc all presented as highly-relevant to self-protection; despite the fact that everyone with actual direct experience states that they are not relevant. Attacks from an exaggerated distance are part of this: they are common in duelling, but uncommon in self-protection where close-range barrages are the norm.

Duelling is mistaken to be one and the same as civilian criminal violence; therefore solutions for one problem are presented as being a solution for a different problem. And because the “question” is not fully understood, the answer seems legitimate and valid.

As Peter said, people can train for both, but a confusion about which skillset applies to which situation is where problems arise.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Interesting piece. 

If  if it's OK I'd like to make a couple of observations (not criticisms ) and ask a couple of questions. 

Can I ask - are you drawing  on actual experiences?  

I personally have experienced conflict that started at a longer range, which closed very quickly , during dialogue, and as a result of punches thrown (as you demonstrated with the big old right hook). I've experienced the close and grab the jacket (which is often followed by a headbutt), and I've stood and traded punches (in punching range, obviously ).

A couple of points I'd like to make for consideration, particularly for training purposes -

When a person seizes clothing ,if they are able to "anchor on" then their arm will often be rigid/solid. This makes striking the arm with a  heavy hand MUCH less effective,  and occasionally completely ineffective.  It's a good strategy, I teach it myself, but I also teach my students that the chance of failure is high, so don't freak out if that happens . Add to this the strikes being delivered by the other guy and this increases the chance of problems. 

This brings me onto my second point-the strikes from the opponent.  To practice this type of scenario we need the aggression,  the speed, the "go forward " from the opponent,  remember, he's gained the initiative at this point.

I realise the presentation was to stimulate thought, rather than a " how to" exercise,  however,  if  you've never truly experienced these situations it is very difficult to appreciate the speed, the movement,  the aggression - not to mention the fear, the adrenaline etc

A thought provoking piece though, with some good points made.

Tau
Tau's picture

Mark B wrote:

Can I ask - are you drawing  on actual experiences?

Yes, you can ask.

I'll also answer the question before you ask it.

The video was already 12 minutes long which in my experience is 9-10 minutes longer than most people will tolerate. There was a LOT editted out. One of bits of dialogue editted out drew from seminars with Iain and Rory and referenced the "expert" aspect. I said something like "I've been fortunate enough to not be in too many physical altercations, at least, since leaving school. And I'm happy to lead my life in that way. And that is why I have to seek the information from the experts; from those that have actually done it. However I'm increasingly selective as to which 'experts' I listen to"

So, no.

What I hoped to present, was "expertise" from a different perspective. And there it is, in total honesty. What I've said to Iain in person (and I said in more editted material) is that I'm an outspoken person and I wouldn't be afraid to tell him if my experience differed from the information that he (and other like-minded practitioners) present. But, interestingly, my professional experience entirely endorses what Iain, Kris, Rory, Geof et al tell us.

Really that was the primary purpose of the video.

Mark B wrote:

When a person seizes clothing ,if they are able to "anchor on" then their arm will often be rigid/solid. This makes striking the arm with a  heavy hand MUCH less effective,  and occasionally completely ineffective.  It's a good strategy, I teach it myself, but I also teach my students that the chance of failure is high

As I think about it, you're right, and I did experience that in school..... a looooong time ago. My finding from back then was that the rigid arm make the attacker's striking impossible. They had to pull me / bend their arm to make it work. And my punch was quicker! I concede this was a sample size of one so I accept your greater experience.

Mark B wrote:

This brings me onto my second point-the strikes from the opponent.  To practice this type of scenario we need the aggression,  the speed, the "go forward " from the opponent,  remember, he's gained the initiative at this point.

I realise the presentation was to stimulate thought, rather than a " how to" exercise,  however,  if  you've never truly experienced these situations it is very difficult to appreciate the speed, the movement,  the aggression - not to mention the fear, the adrenaline etc

Oh yes, absolutely. But as you say...

Mark B wrote:

A thought provoking piece

That was the objective smiley

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Some additional thoughts on this topic (now I’m back from training):

It’s always important to mark the difference between “possible” and “probable”. It is possible that you could be attacked by a jump spinning back kick, but it’s not probable. It therefore makes sense to train for what is most likely, as opposed to things that are unlikely but possible. We all have a limited amount of practise time, so we have to use that time as effectively as possible. Getting good at what happens the vast majority of the time requires we spend the vast majority of our training time on what happens the vast majority of the time.

Sometimes people will try to justify presenting duelling skills as an ideal fit for physical self-protection by pointing to the rare exception i.e. “I know this guy who had his angle snapped in a street fight; therefore it is vital we all practise how to get out of ankle-locks as part of our self-protection training”. The statistics of course never bear this out. There is no crime epidemic consisting of ankle-locks, roundhouse kicks to the head, juji-gatames, or people getting mugged in a “Queensbury rules” fashion. What we see is explosive, close range brutality which makes use of deception, shock, numbers, weapons, high rate of fire, etc. This of course the most effective way for the criminal to achieve their goal and for the violent to inflict suffering on others. “Putting up their dukes” and squaring off at a distance is an inefficient and impractical way to achieve their objective.

There are sure to be examples of situations starting from an exaggerated distance with a guard up; but that’s not the norm, and it’s not smart on the part of the assailant. It’s equally not smart to make that rarity the standard practise in self-protection training; and, as Peter’s video points out, we do see that. Every now and again, just in case, is totally fine. Sadly, however, it become the norm way too often for the reasons stated above.

Best practise in self-protection training should mirror the “best practise” of the criminal element and the violent. Instead, we see a solution to the problem of duelling forced onto the problem of self-protection. Ignorance of the difference is one reason. Another is “logical gymnastics” such as pointing to the rarity as the norm in order to reinvent criminal violence in the image of an existing skills set. We also see the argument that dealing with “trained attacks” makes one impervious to “lower level” criminal violence: which totally ignores the fact they are very different situations! It’s a bit like saying learning to drive like a rally car driver is the best way to learn to get from A to B safety and within the law on public roads. You may be a skilled driver, but apply the “rally car solution” to the morning school run and you’ll either end up in jail, killing yourself or killing others. Differing problems require differing solutions. Training exclusively for a consensual square go in the belief it will cover all you need for self-protection is a mistake. Both skillsets have value, but we can’t mistake one for the other.

Those with first-hand experience of criminal violence are universal in saying that criminal violence is faster, closer and more chaotic than “martial duelling”. So if we are training for criminal violence we need our solution to address the problem as it is; instead what we see is people “reinventing” violence to fit their “solution”.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

I don't knew how to use the quote facility on my phone - Iains last paragraph states "those with first hand experience of criminal violence......is faster, closer and more chaotic...." That was a key point I was trying to make. In my dojo I'm able to get that across based on my experiences. Training for that environment makes up a large part of my karate, not all, but a significant amount. Another consideration for the training for more realistic scenarios in the dojo is understanding the potential malice, and sheer nastiness of some people. My adult students tell me I'm very good at getting that across.... I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not :-) Peter is right - not having those experiences is a good thing, I wish I hadn't. At the time they were awful moments. I can't change that, but what I can do is try and extract some positives from the experiences, in the form of what I teach in my dojo, and how I approach my Bunkai Oyo and close quarter impact work. All the best Mark

sarflondonboydo...
sarflondonboydonewell's picture

Thanks for posting this video; I have a couple of observations, martial arts/ RBSD etc can have a cult like effect on people in that they follow the way(nothing wrong in that) and hang on every word their instructor tells them and those that don’t are heretics/non believers etc haven’t got it right etc. Where developing an enquiring mind, being evidence based and promoting healthy debate  should be promote certainly around self defence which has many variables, views and experiences .

When teaching self defence I work on the principal that for it to be successful you need to work on what is more likely to happen rather than what you think might happen.

To me a grip is a slow punch(be it the grip can be as fast as a punch!) and being griped with both hands is your lucky night as they cant punch and punches/ blows to the head/face/neck make up at least 60% to70% of facial injuries as result of fighting treated in A and E although a Scottish study puts it at  least 80%(  I concur with Mark B re the grabbing hand acts like an anchor;)  my view is ‘hit first hand second’( which means dont waste time dealing with the grip just ignore it)  Magicians and Physiologists agree that the hand is quicker than the eye and the speed of an assault means from my boxing coaching point of view the attacker is now on the front foot( both physical and mentally) and the defender is on the back foot(possibly not physically but most likely mentally). I always think it is quiet difficult to create the rage of aggression coming towards you unless you have experienced it but that doesn’t mean one cant providing one accept the concept of it. I have developed a chaos drill which can act as a good warm up be it done slowley to stimulate the mind and vison to chaos.

One again thanks for posting and stimulating the debate around the point that close range is statically self defence range and that assaults very rarely start from a long distance.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Some more thoughts to add to the tread.

sarflondonboydonewell wrote:
being griped with both hands is your lucky night as they can’t punch and punches/ blows to the head/face/neck make up at least 60% to70% of facial injuries as result of fighting treated in A and E although a Scottish study puts it at  least 80%

I get where you’re coming from. It’s true that a hand that is gripping you will not be punching you; at that moment at least. However, I would add it’s far from being lucky if there is more than one person involved. If Person A uses both hands to grip you then your mobility is massively reduced, leaving you a static target for Persons B, C, D, etc. Being solidly gripped also prevents you from escaping so the most effective option is removed. Getting gripped can therefore be very serious.

A one handed grip also drastically increases the enemy’s ability to hit you with their free hand because it will limit motion and give an instantaneous awareness of any motion you do make via proprioception.

Sometimes you hear people say that getting gripped is a good thing because it means he now only has one hand to hit you with. That fails to take into account that fact the enemy will now be far more actuate with the free hand, and your mobility is massively reduced. I often do a little drill at the seminars which shows that using a “datum” (a touch or a grip) can radically increase the hit rate of the other hand when trying to land blows in a chaotic environment. That works for us, and it can work against us too.

sarflondonboydonewell wrote:
my view is ‘hit first hand second’

Totally agree, that impact should always be the priority. I would add that it is possible to do two things at once and begin addressing the grip while impacting. The key thing is to angle away from the free hand if you can. This kata principles of “keep off the enemy’s line of attack; while keeping the enemy on your line of attack” along with, “move towards what you know, and away from what you don’t know” apply here.

If then enemy straightens their arm, you will struggle to hit them (assuming you are of either equal size or smaller than the enemy) because their arm will keep you away. So take the path of least resistance and turn so you are effectively behind the arm (as you find in Pinan Yodan, etc). You can then work from there.

If the enemy is pulling you – i.e. bending their arm – then again, go with the path of least resistance and hit the arm to add to the enemy’s energy. This will disrupt their posture as well as helping to keep you away from the free hand by securing your tactical advantage via your positioning (as you find in Pinan Godan, etc).

They key though is not the try to bend a straightening arm, or straighten a bending arm, but to add to the direction the enemy is going.

The third, less likely, possibility is that enemy is neither straightening nor bending in the arm but it is locked in a static position. This is less likely because physical conflict is dynamic and chaotic in nature i.e. nothing is still for very long unless it is unconscious or about to be unconscious. The enemy is effectively not using the arm for any meaningful purpose at this point, other than to prevent escape, because they are not pulling you or pushing you, and the fact the arm is locked with solid muscles makes it poor at giving information via proprioception. So deliver impact as before such that the enemy’s unconsciousness takes the problem of the grip away, or they move in which case you can go with the movement of the enemy as above to help deal with the grip and facilitate escape.

Above all, avoid getting gripped in the first place if at all possible. Live drills are the best way to teach both avoidance of the grip (and this should include grips secured during the dialog phase), and how to take the path of least resistance to get rid of the grip, in a way that minimises the advantages the grip give the enemy, should that not be possible.

All the best,

Iain

css1971
css1971's picture

It's something I've been considering for quite a while now specifically with respect to karate blocks.

I'm personally pretty sure that the karate "blocks" are designed to deal with the gripping hand rather than the punch itself. And the misunderstanding when told that they block punches is the students without real experience think it's related to karate style punches and the punching hand rather than the gripping one. Example where the grip is on your arm, apply uchi-uke across the body against the elbow of the gripping arm and where it's higher up e.g. a grip of shirt, use shuto-uke, again across the body. The result of both is rotation of the opponent away from you and the application of a shoulder lock. The punches are blocked.

As my evidence for this I humbly submit the movements of Pinan Shodan the shuto sequence, shuto-ukes 2 & 3, with the nukite as the response dislocating the shoulder and the uchi-uke, with kick sequences with the gyaku-tsuki as the response pushing the arm up the back.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Iain, you state a third less likely option is when the opponents arm is locked in position, with solid muscles, and that they're only preventing escape. In my experience that's exactly why an opponent with violent intention will grab your clothing. In the initial stages of the conflict the clothing may be grabbed and pulled in/towards. This is an attempt to establish dominance, physically and psychologically. If the aggressor feels they have control the arm will lock (solid muscles) and they look to batter their victim. Physical confrontations are dynamic and chaotic, but an aggressor who knows what they're doing doesn't want that! They will close, and if they decide to anchor on they will use a strong arm and blitz with a minimum of fuss and movement. Drunken brawls are different. These type of conflicts will be more like you describe, much more fluid, with greater movement

Tau
Tau's picture

One thought for you all:

My video looked at different violence scenarios including drunken brawls and also intimate domestic violence. No-one has commented on the latter.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Mark,

I’m a little confused by that post. I’m not sure what you are driving at and what you feel I said?

Mark B wrote:
Iain, you state a third less likely option is when the opponents arm is locked in position, with solid muscles, and that they're only preventing escape. In my experience that's exactly why an opponent with violent intention will grab your clothing.

Of course, but that’s also true if the arm is extending or bending. The grip prevents escape. Whether the elbow is bending or not is irrelevent to that.

Grabbing also increase the accuracy of strikes as well as per by above post. I think that’s why it comes naturally to people.

Mark B wrote:
In the initial stages of the conflict the clothing may be grabbed and pulled in/towards. This is an attempt to establish dominance, physically and psychologically. If the aggressor feels they have control the arm will lock (solid muscles) and they look to batter their victim.

Agreed … aside from the “lock” bit.

If you mean “tense” of “forcefully contracting” then I’m totally with you. That's why I was stressing the need not to work agaist such strong forces.

If you mean locked as in “totally still” or “unmoving” (which is what I take the word to mean) then I think that is less likely for the reasons in the post. Not entirely unlikely or impossible. But there’s lots of movement in all kinds of violence.

If they grab and pull, as you describe, then the arm is bending (i.e. not locked). I they are punching it is highly unlikely the grabbing arm will remain totally still (that would be very unnatural and weird looking) but will instead “pulse” with the punching arm.

The grip will prevent us escaping regardless of whether the arm is pulling, pushing or still. It is the hand that secures the grip, not the elbow.

Locking the elbow still give no advantage, it will not reduce the chaos, and it will not make the grip stronger. It will make the punches with the other hand weaker though because it impedes movement required for power generation. It’s also not how people move when battering each other.

Mark B wrote:
Physical confrontations are dynamic and chaotic, but an aggressor who knows what they're doing doesn't want that! They will close, and if they decide to anchor on they will use a strong arm and blitz with a minimum of fuss and movement. Drunken brawls are different. These type of conflicts will be more like you describe, much more fluid, with greater movement.

I agree with the first sentence entirely. But would say a “strong arm” and a “static fixed unmoving arm” are two different things. I’m also confused by the distinction you are drawing between drunken brawls and other forms of violence. Both involve lots of movement and drunken folks can blitz too. A “blitz” is exactly what I’m describing. How can you have blitz without moving? The arms have to move rapidly for punches to take place … and that’s what I was saying. Movement means that a locked and entirely still elbow is less likely. It’s possible, but less likely. Live practise will mean we are capable of dealing with all three.

We also need to remember that the enemy is grabbing something big. Even the smallest person will weigh more than the biggest dumbbell. When that person moves – even only if it’s due to the fact they are getting hit – it would be a herculeanly strong person who would not flex or contract their elbow even the slightest bit. All I’m saying is that the arm will bend and flex with much more regularity than remaining totally still.

I can’t see what I said that would contradict with the general sentiment of your follow up post? I think you may be misreading something I said or I’ve failed to communicate the point clearly enough. Does this help clarify?

I think that maybe when you say “locked” you mean “strongly contracting” whereas I’m taking it to mean “100% still and not moving in either direction”. Is that right?

The main thrust of my post was that we should try to take the pasty of least resistance. If the enemy is pulling then don’t try to straighten his arm. If the enemy is pushing then don’t try to bend the arm. Pretty straight forward stuff that I felt everyone would agree with?

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Some posts have been removed to keep the tone and clarity of the tread. I hope everyone understands and feels this helps a good discussion continue.

All the best,

Iain

css1971
css1971's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

If the enemy is pulling you – i.e. bending their arm – then again, go with the path of least resistance and hit the arm to add to the enemy’s energy.

There is another option; to choose not to engage directly with the biceps/triceps which are pushing or pulling. If the arm is bent then you have a lever and can apply force at 90° to the direction which those muscles function.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi Iain (again) Tense, or forcefully contracting are probably better words, I know what I mean, anyway :-) and how it feels, I found that movement was seriously compromised. Working on the principle that I'm sober, which I usually am, then handling a drunk who is blitzing is massively different to a sober adversary who is blitzing, which is the point I was trying to make there. Now taking the path of least resistance - 100% agree Regards Mark

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Mark B wrote:
Hi Iain (again) Tense, or forcefully contracting are probably better words, I know what I mean, anyway :-) and how it feels, I found that movement was seriously compromised. Working on the principle that I'm sober, which I usually am, then handling a drunk who is blitzing is massively different to a sober adversary who is blitzing, which is the point I was trying to make there. Now taking the path of least resistance - 100% agree Regards Mark

Thanks Mark. I'm with you and that makes perfect sense. I thought in must have been a somatic issue on "locked". On the other point, I guess it depends on how drunk the drunk is :-) Someone "three sheets to the wind" is not going to blitz as fast as full sober person. Alcohol obviously effects muscle control and balance so I understand the point you were making. Of course some folks can be drunk enough to be violent, but all to able too effectively and explosively enact that violence. As the streets, police cells, and A&E depts of this island can attest each weekend.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi Iain You're absolutely right, being drunk doesn't necessarily mean incapable of inflicting extreme violence. Regards Mark