What causes karate to fail with regards to self-protection

Interesting topic.

IMO number 12 is the biggest failing.  People - and many instructors - have bought into the idea that more skilful = more effective but without the willingness to do harm skill is useless on it's own.

Gary

Are there any schools out there that claim to ONLY teach karate as a self defense tool?  Along those lines, I would expect the use of only one or two katas (or pinan series) for drilling techniques, etc. I liked one of Iain's previous podcasts where he talks about styles: "Naihan'chi style" of fighting.  Why dilute or complicate techniques, when only two or three good "get out of jail" or trouble free, well drilled techniques should suffice?

The Priors wrote:

Are there any schools out there that claim to ONLY teach karate as a self defense tool?

I’m not aware of any personally. I think most dojo also include elements of fighting, health & fitness, etc. I’m a big believer that all aspects have value so long as we don’t confuse them.

The point of this thread though is that those who are claiming self-protection skills as part of that they do, often fail to deliver. It’s my suggestion that this failure normally results from some mix of the above 12 points. However, there may be others I’ve failed to capture?

The Priors wrote:

Why dilute or complicate techniques, when only two or three good "get out of jail" or trouble free, well drilled techniques should suffice?

I agree that the need to “streamline and simplify” for self-protection is vitally important, but I feel that can be done by demarcation within a wider set of skills that also address other areas. I would see this as part of point 1. Do people feel this issue needs a separate point? I worry that what would lead to a “retelling” of the martial map podcast if all differences between contexts where discussed.

All the best,

Iain

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

IMO number 12 is the biggest failing.  People - and many instructors - have bought into the idea that more skilful = more effective but without the willingness to do harm skill is useless on it's own.

Agreed. Although the points are in no particular order, there may be a case for putting that first?

I would.

It's not just for self-defence (although not meaning to digress) but as an example I just bought a book on Full contact karate training.

193 pages, lots of pictures, lots of diagrams.  Eagerly flicked through to the 'Mental Training' section ...

3 paragraphs on page 191.  That's it.  I think they missed a huge chunk out of their book.  Skill doesn't win full-contact tournaments or make for effective self-defence without the mental side being strong.

As Fairbairn said, "You must become attack minded and dangerously so"

Gary

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

I would.

Seeing as “mindset” underpins everything else I think there is a case for putting them in some kind of order in the finished work. Not a “Top 12”, but some kind of priority based ordering. Thanks for the suggestion.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

As Fairbairn said, "You must become attack minded and dangerously so"

I do love that and it fits well with both point 12 and point 8. I may make reference to it :-)
 

I am looking forward to this one! Great points all, and very seldom addressed!

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I do love that and it fits well with both point 12 and point 8. I may make reference to it :-)

The full paragraph is:

9. One of the primary objects of the instructor is to make his students attack-minded, and dangerously so. No effort should be spared to realise this object, which should be regarded as on of the instructor’s chief responsibilities. No instructor should be satisfied unless his students become thoroughly proficient in the performance of the few simple things enumerated in the syllabus. Dull as it may become, constant repetition is the only road to proficiency and constant repetition there must be, no matter how much the students complain of boredom. Their business is to learn, at any cost. By proficiency is meant the ability to execute all the requirements of the syllabus swiftly, effectively and neatly, without having to stop to think.

Still as true today as in 1943 IMO.

Gary

Hi Iain

I think they are good and valid points.   I'd also add the failure to expose people to contact (both giving and receiving) in training.

I also think that they are tough points to address. I like to cover theory aspects while stretching in the warm down, and in debriefs following scenarios - but it is easy for this to get omitted in a physical class.

In alive training, particularly scenarios, things don't always go to plan.  Here as an example is what I would consider a low level simulation.  It's done at the end of the class when the participants (a 1 Kyu and 2 5 Kyu) are tired.  Why is it low level?  The crucial element is the verbal.  The venue has thin walls and shouting (and loud swearing) could cause problems.  As anyone who has done simulations knows - intense loud verbal posturing and abuse makes a big difference to the perception of the situation in all but very experienced people.

By contrast look at the same light hearted scenario a moment or so later - with the 5 Kyu defender only taking part in their third training session (and first High gear session) in 8 months (university absence).  Even though the attacker (twin brother) is going light, the lack of contact makes a big difference to the outcome.  How many dojos train the ability, psychological and physical, to make contact against another human?

Note I didn't video these as examples of good practise - I videoed them so that students could be walked/talked through the events afterwards and see another view.  

In answer to The Priors I would say that at my Dojo I ONLY teach Karate as a self defence tool.  However, I also recognise that not everyone would regard what I teach as Karate!

JT

A good list for sure.

Personally i'd also add obsession with complexity to the list, especially these days where application of kata is where so many Karateka's thinking is, I see alot of stuff that seems to ignore simple and effective in favor of  complicated and cool looking...i.e. heavy focus on things like wrist locks and small join manipulation where they are not  appropriate.

It's worth noting though that this complaint, and most of your own could be directed towards a large amount of modern training, so I guess none of this is particularly Karate-specific.

Great post Iain.  I made connections to your old post on the "3 Mistakes of Karate".  I enjoyed that post so much that it inspired me to make a podcast on the topic and add my take on extracting the practical gist from any traditional system.

From my observations, the fallacies you mentioned above are applied universally to any Martial Art really.  Whether it's traditional or even the so-called RBSD.  Take for instance the infamous Russian Martial Arts:

in this clip you see an instructor demoing Systema...known for it's realitic Military applications.  I was floored when I saw the mind control take downs....this is plain rediculous!

This among an infinity of schools out there, well, aside from the mind control stuff, is teaching the world techniques that simply will fall apart under pressure.  By keeping a realistic view on reality so to speak, you will only get at the truth.  Rigid guidelines for learning, absorbing, assessing, and evaluating your martial art must be in tact for you to get any realistic return on investment.

Plenty of schools are money pits,  McDojo's, Brand name gear pushers, tournament pimps, and kata hustlers.......I met an instructor in Toronto that would charge you by the kata you've learned!!....$50 CAD a kata.  And you'd have to learn a few a month....can you say "cha-ching" (that's not chinese...that's the sound of a cash register! hahah)

Some Martial Arts schools have shamefully gone soft, and the fallacies outlined above have only become more prominent over the years....sad thing is, Sensei's don't even know it!...they're simply consumed by the money and false entourage of bravado and starchy gi's that give you the ego-istic armor.

I rant, but correct me if I'm wrong here.

Bottom line, in my opinion, the only way we can realize Iain's pointed out fallacies of Karate or of any Martial Art, is by taking a step out of it, and being withdrawn from it, by cross training in other arts, and by being open to rigid and tedious stress testing.  Taking a step out of our system is our way to rid the brain from marinating in bias.

Bruce Lee way back in the 1960's, was one of the few who bravely pointed out Martial Arts are in a "Classical Mess".  This Bruce Lee cliche speaks millions to me.  I'm biased by being a Bruce Lee fan, however, I have also undergone some reflective transformations in my Martial Arts experiences...being aware of the above fallacies is the first step in attaining truth.

Let's face it...every single thing we do in the dojo or at our home for training is simply theoretical.  For us to experience the reality of combat as it unfolds in our violent world is to be that violent world, and I have to go to work the next day....I can't afford to do that as a school teacher! LOL!

Our successive attempts at training only increases the odds of a successful counter.  It's how you train and being aware of theoretical loop-holes, shortcomings that will make a difference.

Awareness is the predecessor of any kind of change!

Hi All,

Thanks for the feedback on this. All very useful!

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

9. One of the primary objects of the instructor is to make his students attack-minded, and dangerously so. No effort should be spared to realise this object, which should be regarded as on of the instructor’s chief responsibilities. No instructor should be satisfied unless his students become thoroughly proficient in the performance of the few simple things enumerated in the syllabus. Dull as it may become, constant repetition is the only road to proficiency and constant repetition there must be, no matter how much the students complain of boredom. Their business is to learn, at any cost. By proficiency is meant the ability to execute all the requirements of the syllabus swiftly, effectively and neatly, without having to stop to think.

Still as true today as in 1943 IMO.

Absolutely! What book does that come from Gary?

JWT wrote:

I'd also add the failure to expose people to contact (both giving and receiving) in training....

 ....How many dojos train the ability, psychological and physical, to make contact against another human?

That’s a very valid point. I’m trying to keep the list as “to the point” as possible and the various issues and subcategories will be expanded upon in the work itself. I therefore wonder if that is not covered by Point 1 (contact is needed in the SP context), Point 7 (ensuring impact can be developed), Point 10 (the needs for training to match reality as close as safety allows), and Point 12 (the mindset to actually make it happen).

Am I missing something not covered by the above that an additional “contact point” is needed to capture?

Also, is there any redundancy in the above 12 where one point could contain another?

Zach Zinn wrote:

Personally I’d also add obsession with complexity to the list, especially these days where application of kata is where so many Karateka's thinking is,

I’d say that kata should encourage and endorse the need for simplicity, and if it is not that then that is a fault in the way kata is viewed as opposed to kata itself. It’s very true that “complex” and “advanced” are perceived as “better” in many quarters and that does need addressed. I mentioned simplicity above and wonder if a separate point is needed? :

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I agree that the need to “streamline and simplify” for self-protection is vitally important, but I feel that can be done by demarcation within a wider set of skills that also address other areas. I would see this as part of point 1. Do people feel this issue needs a separate point? I worry that what would lead to a “retelling” of the martial map podcast if all differences between contexts where discussed.

You are the second person to raise that issue so perhaps a separate “need for simplicity” line is needed away from the need to understand the context put forward by Point 1? Point 10 also tends to burn away any obsession with complexity quickly too.

With Zach’s and John’s points I wonder if the solution could be a list of key contextual considerations as a subset of Point 1? These points will be discussed therein, but perhaps initially brining them out in a similar list format would be useful?

Zach Zinn wrote:

It's worth noting though that this complaint, and most of your own could be directed towards a large amount of modern training, so I guess none of this is particularly Karate-specific.

Absolutely. I think many of the points are commonly found elsewhere too. It’s simply that my project is looking at things from a karate perspective.

chrishanson68 wrote:

Bottom line, in my opinion, the only way we can realize Iain's pointed out fallacies of Karate or of any Martial Art, is by taking a step out of it, and being withdrawn from it, by cross training in other arts, and by being open to rigid and tedious stress testing. Taking a step out of our system is our way to rid the brain from marinating in bias.

That’s very true. I was talking with a skilled MMA coach recently who also has a strong background in traditional arts and self-protection training. We were talking about the need to define context and he said that part of the problem is that those who only have experience of one context are unable to do that because they have no external form of reference. I think you’ve captured that really well too.

For my part, cross-training has been just as valuable for the insights it gave me to what I already had as well as adding to the knowledge pool.

Thanks once again for all this! Massively useful.

All the best,

Iain

Here you go Iain:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3419339/OSS-SOESilentKillingManual

It's a bit brutal for some peoples tastes (understandable given the times and what the students were preparing for) but there's much wisdom in there just the same.

Gary

Hi Iain

If you are going to break each point down into the article length argument that each one can be then I'm happy that 'contact' will be covered. :)

Another thing I would throw up which I feel is important enough to deserve a point of its own, is the failure to identify and observe the  clear combative principles in the construction of the training repertoire.  It is so big, so important, that it's easy to miss.  To be effective not only do you have to have clear targets, you also have to have a clear framework as to how you intend to achieve them.   For example your list above represents the steps I took on my journey from being a cross training Shotokan Karateka teaching increasingly bunkai orientated Karate to teaching purely self protection orientated Karate, however in my training rationale I record that:

"DART’s training methods are based upon movements and tactics meeting as many as possible of the following combative principles:

HAOV Relevant

Legally Underpinned

Effective, Efficient and Easy 

Minimizing Risk of Harm (defender) 

Technique Multiplicity with Transferable Skills

Utilizing Predictable Response

Taking and maintaining the Initiative

Inherent Redundancy

Vital Points Targeting

Adrenaline Tolerant

Low Maintenance

Stable Posture

Physiology appropriate movements utilizing Natural Positions"

I actually make my students read articles on each of the above principles and sit exams on the theory in addition to their physical exams!

I recognise that your list above is essentially a guide to what needs to be included, but I think that it is missing the identification of underlying principles for the combative element of Karate for self protection.

Thoughts?

JWT

JWT wrote:

Another thing I would throw up which I feel is important enough to deserve a point of its own, is the failure to identify and observe the clear combative principles in the construction of the training repertoire.

That’s very important and I agree an understanding of combative principles is vital in order to construct effective training. My initial thought was that this would be covered by number 1. By clearly defining the self-protection context, it naturally flows that the next thing to do would be to continue with what methodology is best suited for the context (and also identify what methods would be unsuitable for it). Point 10 would also ensure that all elements need to be fully understood and brought out.

However, I have brought out a number of context related points (the ones I feel are most often overlooked) some of which directly overlap with your own list i.e. Legally Underpinned – Point 4, Taking and maintaining the Initiative – Point 8, etc.

I will need to look at other points and see if the list needs to be extended or whether the other issues are best captured as sub-sections as the project develops.

JWT wrote:

I recognise that your list above is essentially a guide to what needs to be included, but I think that it is missing the identification of underlying principles for the combative element of Karate for self protection.

The aim of the above list is not be a definitive list of all elements required for effective self-protection; but a list of the most common and significant failings in karate with regards to self-protection. So while your list is a great one for the requirements of physical methods within self-protection, something like “stable posture” is perhaps not one of karate’s major failings in the way the other points would be? You are totally right that underlying combative principles do need to be captured, but the nature and intent of this piece means that I think I’d like them discussed as sub-issues so they don’t obscure what I see as the more common and significant failings. However, there are other failings to be sure.

In light of what has been said by yourself and others, I do feel there is a place for adding in a further point on simplicity (“effective, efficient and easy”) as it is a major failing in the same way that too much emphasis placed on reaction and everything always being practised one-on-one are. It’s therefore one issue that probably needs explicitly brought out and can’t be a sub-topic in the way I’d previously intended … and I’ll have a think about the others :-)

Many thanks for this!

All the best,

Iain

Hi Iain

I think we both agree, it's more a matter of the different way our minds organise the same material! :)  As an example I would see 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 as part of 5. :)

Life would be boring if we all processed information the same way!

John

I think that points 4 and 8 are strictly connected. I don't know much of UK legislation, but I suspect it's not very different from my country's in the fact that there is a huge gap between what is considered an "attack" by the law and what a real attack is, in the perspective of practical self-protection. In some contexts, a grab is not a simple grab: is an effective attack, which preludes to other, more incisive ways of harming the target. In many years as a lawyer I never saw anyone being absolved after a use of violence in response to an aggressive, motivated grab, even if the reaction was proportioned to the aggression. Traditional karate didn't have to deal with these problems and therefore karate training lacks this kind of awareness. It is an "on-off" martial art. Kata sequences are constructed in a way that encourages finishing off your opponent. They flow from the simplest deflection to a deadly head stomping in the quickest, most brutal way. Modern masters should also teach where to stop, which in real life can be really hard to judge, since adrenaline and anger can be very bad counsellors. I'm not so sure that the transition from "jitsu" to "do" is enough to accomplish this.

JWT wrote:

I think we both agree, it's more a matter of the different way our minds organise the same material! :)  As an example I would see 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 as part of 5. :)

Definitely and I can certainly see a connection between the pints you listed :-)

JWT wrote:

Life would be boring if we all processed information the same way!

It would … and teaching would easy :-)

Thanks for the input John. Most helpful.

All the best,

Iain

Enrico wrote:

I think that points 4 and 8 are strictly connected. I don't know much of UK legislation, but I suspect it's not very different from my country's in the fact that there is a huge gap between what is considered an "attack" by the law and what a real attack is, in the perspective of practical self-protection.

UK law is actually very good in this regard. The right to strike first when you honestly believe a physical attack is imminent is well established in UK law (R vs. Beckford 1988 & R v Deana). Even when that belief is mistaken (so long as it is not a result of “voluntary intoxication”- R v OGrady 85 Cr App R 315), and even if it is an unreasonable belief providing you can demonstrate that you genuinely held it (R Vs. Williams 1984).

The key bits are copied here:

R vs. Beckford 1988: “a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot, circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike. Neither does he or she have to retreat before using force.”

R Vs. Williams 1984: “In the case of self-defence, where self-defence or the prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury come to the conclusion that the defendant believed, or may have believed that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed and the force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not proved the case. If however, the defendants alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected. Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely on it.”

UK law does also not expect you to judge to a nicety the exact level of force used:

Palmer v R, 1971: “If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...”

We’ve had other threads on the law so I don’t want to derail things here, but point 4 is important to stop people thinking that they can’t hit first, they need to judge exactly how much force is used, and that they will be prosecuted it they get it “wrong” in the heat of the moment. Despite the media hype around this at times, it simply does not happen. If people know the law it frees them from having to worry about it.

Enrico wrote:

In many years as a lawyer I never saw anyone being absolved after a use of violence in response to an aggressive, motivated grab, even if the reaction was proportioned to the aggression.

You’d have less work if you lived over here :-) UK law expressly gives people the right to defend themselves even before the grabbing stage. All you need to legally defend yourself is an honest belief that you are about to be attacked. As I’ve said before, I think UK self-defence law is pretty fantastic and it would seem to be much more realistic than the law in your part of the world. If you don’t mind me asking, where are you from? The law around the globe is something that fascinates me and I’d be interested in your insights.

Enrico wrote:

Kata sequences are constructed in a way that encourages finishing off your opponent.

I disagree with that but I can see where you are coming from. I would say that they are often trained that way as opposed to being constructed that way. That is why I feel point 5 is so important in order to counteract that bad training habit:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

5 – A failure to teach effective escape skills and tactics.

Throughout the martial arts there is often an assumed “fight to the finish” mentality (which no doubt spills over from competitive martial arts) as opposed to a “fight to flee” mentality which is far better for self-protection. It’s not good to say, “run away if you can” without teaching the associated skills needed to disengage and effectively escape individuals and groups.

As an example, if you look at how we drill the bunkai for Naihanchi you can see escaping is fundamental. This video clip gives examples of that and if you skip ahead to 6:20 you can see how we use the kata as a means to escape. Notice how I’m using the kata to create opportunities to flee, and when that opportunity is there I always take it i.e. every section ends with me backing off. Some may stay and “fight to the finish” but I would see that as a misunderstanding of context as opposed to any fundamental flaw with kata i.e. kata is being used in the wrong was as opposed to “being wrong”.

All the best,

Iain

Hi

Interesting thoughts Enrico - and great replies Iain.  Iain's stated cases, although the most relevant pieces of legislation are the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (Section 3) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 2). The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (Section 76) goes into great detail concerning how things are judged on the belief of the person claiming self defence rather than how things actually were. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/youth-justice/assessment/ukpga_20080004_en.pdf

I'm also with Iain on the subject of Kata.  I see Kata bunkai as presenting us all the times with options, and technique redundancy.  There are options to simply disengage, to continue to a finish or to trap and hold/restrain.  This does come down to the objectives you set yourself for your Kata training (and bunkai) - which of course links back to Iain's point!

JWT

Truisms for traditionall (budo) karate but usually missing in modern karate is hardening the relevant body parts. There is not only seiken to be considered in this respect, e.g. in former days attacks by seiken was rarely used, nakadake-ippn-ken etc was preferred.

People should be taught vital points and how to attack them, i.e. by what weapons and how to increase effect (mawashi-geri looks different in sports karate and traditional karate).. Knowledge of effect is also of use. In competitin they score by hittinig the breast muscle (this could have little effect on the street fighting a body bulider for example).

Since the attack is usually close distance after the first strike or kick, students should practice infight techniques (ura-zuki, hiza-geri, empi-uchi, low kicks in kihon and kumite).

Useful combinations should be practiced as well that take into account that distance comes from far to middle to close. Even if the idea (one hit-one kill) is a nice idea and good to develop an effective technique, it should be in one´s mind that you need 6-8 of these killing tecniques when air is substituted by a fighting person who defends himself. This is also not reflected in common kihon and kumite programm.

Karate students should know what they are good at and what not. Ground fighting isone of their weak sides as well as wrestling is. Gripling and grabbing is of course very important.

If you study the videos of attacks recorded in tube stations in Berlin that took place within the last three months, the law and conversation aspects of self-defence seem to be of little importance (in these particular examples). The victims were attacked by several youngsters and almost booted to death when lying on th ground. A homeless in my neighborhood also got killed in theses days by such a kind of attack. Not to speak of the knives that such people usually have with them. Such examples (death or life affair) in mind helps develop the right mindset for practicing karate. For much part the wrong mental attitude when practicing karate spoils karate as being applicable in self-defence situations.

Thank you Iain, a very interesting reply. Lots of legal information, also! I don't want to go off-topic, so I'll spare the technical details for another time. I'm from Italy and from a professional perspective I can honestly say that italian legislation regarding self-protection lacks in pragmatism. Both Italian and UK legislation apparently say the same things, just in different words. Where they differ a lot is in the interpretation given by the Courts. There is a little, yet foundamental clause, called "eccesso colposo di legittima difesa", roughly translated into "culpable excess of legitimate defense", which simply states that if the reaction is not proportionate to the aggression you are passible of prosecution. The problem is that Courts almost always interpret it in the most strict and impractical way. The subject of an aggression is expected to always keep the lucidity to never exceed, even in desperate conditions and under the psichological stress of the aggression.

Yes, I would definitely benefit from something like R Vs. Williams 1984. And yes, I'm still here just because of the food and the weather . Anyway, if Iain or anyone else wants more detail about my country's law on this particular aspect, I'll be more than happy to share what I know. Just drop me an e-mail. It's a complex theme (and it's just great against insomnia!).

About kata, I see your point Iain. I think I have to clarify what I wanted to say: katas are constructed to give you each and every option, from the "lightest" to the deadliest: it's because of a cultural heritage that people train it without attention to the "fight to flee" mentality. When I say that katas encourage you to finish your opponent, I don't want to say that they always want you to do it. It's just that it's sooo simple to go to the end of the sequence once you gained the upper hand after an assault! You need a specific training to avoid it and that is why I admire your work.

There is historical evidence that some of the old masters had a strong sense of restraint when it came to apply their knowledge against untrained villains, even if they were dangerous criminals . They precisely used what it had to be used in a given situation, no less and no more. Nowadays karatekas' ego has improved dramatically, while their skills in evaluating the situation and in reacting accordingly seem to be unable to keep the pace.

Enrico wrote:

I'm from Italy and from a professional perspective I can honestly say that italian legislation regarding self-protection lacks in pragmatism. Both Italian and UK legislation apparently say the same things, just in different words. Where they differ a lot is in the interpretation given by the Courts. There is a little, yet foundamental clause, called "eccesso colposo di legittima difesa", roughly translated into "culpable excess of legitimate defense", which simply states that if the reaction is not proportionate to the aggression you are passible of prosecution. The problem is that Courts almost always interpret it in the most strict and impractical way. The subject of an aggression is expected to always keep the lucidity to never exceed, even in desperate conditions and under the psichological stress of the aggression.

Hi Enrico,

Thank you for the above. That’s most interesting and nicely adds to the thread I think. Thanks very much for sharing that – greatly appreciated!

All the best,

Iain

I'd add 'Making things too complex'.

From a purely practical perspective the best way to drop someone is by blunt force trauma to the head.

Why overcomplicate?

The human mind gets excited by options and possibilities.  We want to know what every move is for and then 15 ways to apply it.   That's great for chess but I remain less than convinced that it means a lot for SP.   The best options are always simple to learn, easy to apply and very effective.

Gary

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

I'd add 'Making things too complex'.

From a purely practical perspective the best way to drop someone is by blunt force trauma to the head.

Why overcomplicate?

That’s definitely going to get added. I had considered the need for simplicity was a fundamental part of the self-protection context and hence would naturally flow from defining the context. However, a few people have mentioned the need to bring that out and I can now see why that is necessary.

Also totally agree with your observations on the best way to drop someone. As Motobu said, “In a real fight always aim to strike the head because this is most effective”. Simplicity is the way to go, but people get distracted through “martial train spotting” i.e. always looking for things they’ve never seen before. Of course, refining the simple is an infinitely more effective way to go.

Thanks for all the feedback.

All the best,

Iain