38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anf
Anf's picture
Run away

I have heard many, many well respected martial artists say that if you get attacked, your best option is to run away. You may have to engage briefly in order to create the opportunity to run, but ultimately, you're best to run away.

I can see a lot of logic in that. I see little point in reiterating points about risk of jail, risk of getting beaten up and possibly even killed etc. Such points have been made many, many times before.

But very often, this sounds advice to run away is presented as a one size fits all solution. It is not. In some scenarios I think it is terrible advice.

We know that your typical opportunist street thug likes to choose what they perceive to be an easy target. An old person, a very young person, someone with a physical disability for example.

Let's say I, as a mid 40s slightly overweight man were to get attacked on the street by a spritely teenager. Should I run away? If he runs after me, he will easily catch me, only whereas before it would have been my strength, skill and experience against his, now I'm out of breath and he is still full of energy.

I'm also a family man. What if a group of young thugs were to start while I'm out with my wife and kids? Do I run away and leave them to fend for themselves?

Perhaps the recurring advice to run away is really just meant to make people feel less bad about what they'd probably do anyway. Instinct drives us to move away from danger. Such instinct is good. It keeps us alive. But there is another instinct that we strangely overlook despite training it every time we step into the dojo. That is, to become the danger. Instead of the one size fits all advice to run away, perhaps we should explore the use of posturing and such to try to make the threat go away, rather than running away and leaving our slower family members to fend for themselves?

As an aside, this is built in. Dogs are especially good at it. Anyone that has ever seen a small dog try to ward off a much larger dog will know this. Small dog has no chance if it really turns nasty, small dog probably knows this. But small dog makes so much noise and shows such ferocity in its face that bigger dog often decides it's taking no chances.

PASmith
PASmith's picture

I've always seen self defence advice to exist on a kind of flow chart.

If you can't avoid trouble then escape it.

If you can't escape it (for all the reasons you mention) then deter or talk your way out of it.

If you can't deter it then pre-empt it.

If you can't pre-empt it then you'll have to fight it.

But all along you're trying end the situation as early along that flow chart as possible.

Marc
Marc's picture

More useful than the advice to "run away" would by to rephrase it to "escape to safety". This might seem like a minor change but I think it makes a huge difference.

Running away is a panic reaction. It is the flight reflex. I'm not saying it is bad. The flight reflex is built into us for a reason. It seems to have served our ancestors well, or otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. So if starting to run is what your instincts tell you to do, you might well go with it. It may buy you the time necessary to intellectually grasp the situation and to come up with a better plan.

But as it is with reflexes, we don't have to give people the advice to do it. Just as we don't need to tell people to take their hand off the hot plate.

"Escaping to safety", on the other hand, is a strategy. Do not just run aimlessly into any direction. Run to where there's people and light and maybe police or some other form of protection. Also "escaping" is not the same as "running". Escaping is removing yourself (and/or your loved ones) from danger.

If there's a fire then running away makes sense. But maybe you're in the building with other people. Then escaping to safety might mean to remain calm, take the fire escape (don't use the elevator), or even close a thick door and call the emergency number to let the fire fighters know where you are, so they can get you out with their big ladder. But the best advice would be to blow out the candle on your bedside table before you fall asleep.

If you are attacked then maybe you'll have to fight to stop the attack and to make sure the attacker will not be able to follow you, but the goal is to escape to safety.

Take care,

Marc  

Paul_D
Paul_D's picture

Anf wrote:
Let's say I, as a mid 40s slightly overweight man were to get attacked on the street by a spritely teenager. Should I run away? If he runs after me, he will easily catch me, only whereas before it would have been my strength, skill and experience against his, now I'm out of breath and he is still full of energy.

There’s nothing to say you can’t hit them before you run away.  Now it’s no longer a case of just chasing after you.  Firstly the shock, pain, and loss of breathe or vision are going to have to be overcome before they can give chase, which takes time.  This means by the time they get round to being able to chase you, you are now a lot further away.  He also has to weigh up the fact that you are clearly not the easy target he thought you were, and does he really want to risk another smack on the nose if he does catch you?  Sure, he’s younger, fitter, stronger, he knows he will most likely end up winning the fight, but it’s not going to be one way traffic like he thought.  Is he up for that?  I would say probably not, he chose the out of shape older guy because he doesn’t want to get involved with someone who is going to fight back.  You have now essentially become the small noisy dog of which you speak, only you are now the small noisy dog 20+ metres away and counting, and he is the bigger dog figuring out if his nose is broken or not, and if it isn't is he willing to risk you finishing the job when he catches you. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
I have heard many, many well respected martial artists say that if you get attacked, your best option is to run away. You may have to engage briefly in order to create the opportunity to run, but ultimately, you're best to run away.

“Run away” is often a throw away phrase martial artists use to give the pretence of having covered escape skills.

Anf wrote:
But very often, this sounds advice to run away is presented as a one size fits all solution. It is not. In some scenarios I think it is terrible advice. .

In all situations, seeking to escape is excellent advice. “Run away” is an overly simplistic way of describing the associated skill set though.

Anf wrote:
Let's say I, as a mid 40s slightly overweight man were to get attacked on the street by a spritely teenager. Should I run away? If he runs after me, he will easily catch me, only whereas before it would have been my strength, skill and experience against his, now I'm out of breath and he is still full of energy.

You should seek to effectively escape. Turning and running is likely to be an ineffective way to escape. Pre-empting and seeking safety would be much more effective. As I semi-joke, I could outrun Usain Bolt if I was allowed to punch him in the head, or kick him in the legs, before we ran. Good escape tactics ensure you reduce the enemy’s ability to give chase before you flee.

Anf wrote:
I'm also a family man. What if a group of young thugs were to start while I'm out with my wife and kids? Do I run away and leave them to fend for themselves?

No. You seek to facilitate the effective escape of your whole family. There are skills and drills associated with this. The trouble with “self-protection”, as a term, is that it is not just the “self” we should be training to protect. If you were to stay and fight, your family remain in danger. Escape remains the best option.

When under threat, we talk about the Fight or Flight response, but there are the additional F’s of Freeze and Flock.

When we freeze, we are staying still in the hope the predator has not seen us. If your family freezes, they won’t run. So, you need to drill breaking the freeze in others with verbal commands and physical actions.

We also have the instinct to flock i.e. seek safety in numbers. Your family will probably not run, no matter how much you command them too, if you are staying put. You need to escape so they will “flock” with you. As you do this, there are tactical considerations to ensure effective escape and to ensure you are between the danger and those you are seeking to protect. This needs to be taught and drilled. We do it pretty much every time we engage in live practise.

Anf wrote:
Perhaps the recurring advice to run away is really just meant to make people feel less bad about what they'd probably do anyway.

It’s more of a good idea badly understood. Escaping is smart tactically and legally. It’s not just running though. It’s way more than that. Escaping is a full skillset that needs taught and practiced regularly. However, generally speaking, martial artists are more than a little lazy when it comes to the aspects of self-protection not covered by their martial arts practice. They therefore don’t seek to educate themselves on escaping, they don’t teach it, they don’t practise … and they use the term “run away” to get themselves off the hook. If they don’t cover escape skills, they are not teaching true self-protection.

It’s the same as how we often hear “talk your way out if you can” when there is simultaneously no attempt to teach or practise effective verbal de-escalation skills.

All the best,

Iain

Heath White
Heath White's picture

My very first instructor used  to tell us (kids) that "shoe leather express" was a perfectly good karate technique.

What he meant was, don't think you HAVE to fight.  Avoid one if you can, and don't worry about your ego or how it looks.  Of course, for various reasons, SLX might not be an appropriate technique in a given circumstance (like any other technique) and so you use your (hopefully well-developed) judgment.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Anf,

Great post.  I don't have much to add to what's already been said, but there is one additional dimension worth considering.  If self-protection is a serious concern for the individual (as in, there's a credible, substantial risk), and if that person has mobility issues that make it hard to run or to fight, it does become more important to consider carrying a weapon.  There's a point where unarmed combat just isn't on the table anymore.  (I'm not saying this is the best answer for your specific question, but it is worth a mention.)

Granted, this raises a large checklist of other considerations (making sure it's legal, deciding whether the weapon will be for home use or everyday carry, deciding what kind of weapon to get, etc.).  The most important of those are making sure that the individual is emotionally stable enough to have the weapon around, that the weapon can be safely stored, and getting excellent training in all aspects of the weapon.

(Restrictive laws may make this a moot point in many countries, especially the UK.)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

deltabluesman wrote:
If self-protection is a serious concern for the individual (as in, there's a credible, substantial risk), and if that person has mobility issues that make it hard to run or to fight, it does become more important to consider carrying a weapon. 

(Restrictive laws may make this a moot point in many countries, especially the UK.)

UK law prohibits having in public (without “good reason”; and potential use in self-defence is not deemed a good reason) anything designed to harm a human being, has been adapted to harm a human being, or is being carried with the intention of harming another human being.

The only legal option would be learning to use everyday items (i.e. designed and carried for another purpose; and that have not been adapted in any way) as weapons.

Weapons – whether improvised or not – do require combative skill to be applied. “Fighting” therefore does still need to be practised. We can’t rely on the weapon alone.

Escape also needs practised; even if running is not option i.e. drawing attention so the criminal runs to avoid detection, retreating following the criminal being sufficiently incapacitated to facilitate a slower speed escape, etc. As an example, we had a gent in a wheelchair at the seminar this weekend. He showed me how he has practised violently pivoting his chair to one side if it is gripped from the back. It cranked my wrist pretty hard (making it hard to hold on) and the wheel hit my foot (effectively an improvised weapon). When a person was in front, he also practised redirecting arms to hit / grab the groin (based on methods from the kata) seeing as that is the target that naturally presents itself. He then uses the natural reaction (bending forward) to lower the enemy’s head for a strike (potentially with a handheld and readily accessible improvised weapon) before quickly moving the chair back. The resulting pain and disorientation could create the opportunity to escape; even though running is not an option.

Weapons are something to be considered, but I would say they need to be legal and that they don’t remove the need for combative skill or the practise of escape skills. We would obviously ensure the combative skills and escape skills were appropriate to the individual and took into account any weapons / improvised weapons that may be involved.

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

In recent weeks as a result of training with Iain but crucially with our seminar with Jamie Clubb as a catalyst I've started using the term "tactical escapng." This encompasses a number of aspects and is tied into our broader pragmatic style. It includes environment and situational awareness as we don't want to "run away" from one attacker into their accomplice nor trap ourselves. It also includes what is meant by a place of safety as it accounts for differences in self protection for adults and children. Consider, as an example, that from an occupational perspective I may wish to tactically escape but "running away" isn't an option.

Anf
Anf's picture

There's some excellent input here. Thanks all. Certainly food for thought.

Following on then, I wonder, how does one know what to teach? To teach martial art to a particular syllabus is surely, I won't see easy, but measurable. A student can perform a kata well or they can't. A student can do a roundhouse kick with good form or they can't.

But how do we measure and assess teachings of the less measurable things? If a curriculum calls for a student to spot trouble brewing before it erupts, how does one test and measure that ability? If a curriculum calls for a student to talk about situation down, how do we know what is really effective when every situation and every potential assailant is different?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
how does one know what to teach?

We need to ensure we are correctly educated. Most people learn martial arts and then think they are good to go for self-protection. If we truly want to teach self-protection, then we need to ensure we are educated in all parts of it; not just the bits that happen to overlap with our martial arts training. There are lots of good resources and courses out there.

This one would be highly recommended to martial artists wanting to ensure they know what they are talking about (not just saying so because I deliver the course): https://iainabernethy.co.uk/news/combat-coach-programme-iain-abernethy-and-peter-consterdine

Anf wrote:
To teach martial art to a particular syllabus is surely, I won't say easy, but measurable. A student can perform a kata well or they can't. A student can do a roundhouse kick with good form or they can't …

I think we need to be careful not to conflate self-protection with martial arts.

You can teach and practise martial arts in a way that also addresses self-protection, but the two are not the same and can be taught independently. If I were teaching pure self-protection – which is a “life skill” akin to first aid, and as such it is delivered in short, intensive courses – then I would not be including roundhouse kick or kata. Of course, those things can be relevant to self-protection and that can be covered in-depth in martial arts training as we refine technique to very high levels. However, self-protection is not a lifetime’s work.

Although not the main thrust of the post, it is vital to keep self-protection, fighting and martial arts distinct if they are to be trained effectively and embody their own inherent values.

Anf wrote:
If a curriculum calls for a student to spot trouble brewing before it erupts, how does one test and measure that ability?

Not everything taught in self-protection can be tested. For example, we can’t ask people to fake a long-term relationships and spot signs its is likely to become abusive. We can teach such issues and ensure people understand it, but it can’t be tested in the same way techniques can be in a martial arts grading exam. Yet another reason why the two need to be kept distinct.

One thing that can be done is scenario training. You set up a scenario that may or may not require verbal de-escalation, escape, physical technique, etc. The student would need to spot the warning signs, if any such methods were required, act accordingly, and then explain their actions post drill.  If such exercises are to be meaningful, they need to have the possibility of a benign outcome i.e. they can’t all get physical or demand escape. In some cases, the drill involves someone legitimately asking for the time and then moving on :-) We nickname these as “shoot / don’t shoot” drills in reference to the pop-up targets we see in the movies i.e. one pops up and it’s a bad guy with a gun, the next is a mother holding a baby.

Anf wrote:
If a curriculum calls for a student to talk about situation down, how do we know what is really effective when every situation and every potential assailant is different?

We drill lots of scenarios so that as many variables as possible are covered. Students get good at playing various characters and we can set up various scenarios. Sometimes they are angry, sometimes charming (deceptive), sometimes they can be reasoned with, sometimes they can’t, and so on.

It’s akin to physical technique in that there are always many variables in play, and we need to be able to adapt the technique in accord with those variables. The key to doing this is internalising the core principles; which do remain constant.

There’s a lot on this in this podcast:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/verbal-de-escalation-podcast

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Anf wrote:
If a curriculum calls for a student to spot trouble brewing before it erupts, how does one test and measure that ability?

Mostly scenario training, as Iain said. And teaching the most likely indicators of criminal behaviour, monkey dance and abusive relationships.

To test the knowledge one could show the student images (drawings/fotos) or short clips of (staged or real) situations that might or might not end in violence. The student then would have to analyse the images and explain what they see and whether the situation appears to be dangerous and why by pointing out the indicators.

I would prefer if such a test would not be held like a driving test with multiple choice answers and test scoring. Rather I would like it to be a sort of discussion. It would not be about being right or wrong but about awareness and being able to verbalise it.

Might that be a good idea?

All the best,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
To test the knowledge one could show the student images (drawings/fotos) or short clips of (staged or real) situations that might or might not end in violence. The student then would have to analyse the images and explain what they see and whether the situation appears to be dangerous and why by pointing out the indicators …

… Might that be a good idea?

An excellent idea! I have something of a library of such footage for instructional purposes (as per this video: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/multiple-assailants-inconvenient-truth)

The one caveat is that such footage can be graphic and we need to have sensitivity to the fact it can be upsetting to view.  Especially if the person watching is dealing with trauma from previous events. That’s also an important caveat for scenario training too.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Again more good points well made.

Digging into this a bit further if I may, consider this scenario. You are returning home from the local shop with your young son when a local teenage thug, so full of himself that he doesn't care that you're there, starts showing aggression to your son. This is clearly the immediate danger in any scenario based thing. Our training tells us to extract ourselves from the immediate situation. But does doing so really remove the danger?

Now let's say we are passive and make a hasty retreat. Danger now behind us. Except now there is potentially a much bigger danger to come. Now we have just given power to the thug that was already full of himself. Now not only does he know he can bully the kid, but he also knows that the dad will do nothing. In his mind, the dad is a coward. Further, word will get round, so now even the less confident would be bullies now feel empowered. And worse than all of this, the kid in this scenario (the whole scenario is fictional by the way) now believes that the dad he thought was invincible and could be trusted to solve any problem, is actually a coward and there's no point tell him if there's a problem.

Of course the alternative is to stand your ground which carries many risks in itself. It seems any choice of action is a gamble. And in the moment we don't have time to analyse every possible option to the nth degree and estimate odds of a particular outcome.

How can we train for this? Or in this scenario, are tried and tested parental instincts the best teacher?

Marc
Marc's picture

Anf wrote:

You are returning home from the local shop with your young son when a local teenage thug, so full of himself that he doesn't care that you're there, starts showing aggression to your son.

(the whole scenario is fictional by the way)

I think the description of the scenario includes too few details to give any useful advice. It is a bit like expecting a judge to come up with a verdict on the case after the only evidence presented was the headline of a local newspaper.

What is the history of the "thug" in general and with your son in particular? What exactly does he do when he "starts showing aggression"? What makes you think that "he doesn't care that you're there"? Does he have intent, means and opportunity to hurt your son? Are there other people around?

Of course you would not have time to consciously consider all variables to arrive at an objective conclusion, but your fast decision making system would probably factor in many of them intuitively.

Take care,

Marc

Anf
Anf's picture

Marc wrote:
I think the description of the scenario includes too few details to give any useful advice ... SNIP

Exactly. This is why, with respect to anyone that tries to teach people such skills, I'm a little bit sceptical. There are simply too many possibilities to train for effectively. Even if you could have exactly one scenario with no variables at all (impossible of course) except for the individual that is the intended victim, the best course of action will still very much depend on the attributes of the target. A burly man in his early 30s for example might stand a better chance of scaring off a would be attacker than a frail old lady of 90 years. But then equally the burly man is more likely to be considered 'fair game' or even a challenge. So with so many variables, I struggle to see how an effective self protection curriculum could work.

Marc
Marc's picture

Anf wrote:

So with so many variables, I struggle to see how an effective self protection curriculum could work.

The forum members with more experience in teaching self protection may correct me on this, but as far as I understand there are some key variables we can learn/teach, like for example:

- The difference between social violence and predatory violence.

- Knowing your personal boundaries and capabilities.

- Possible risks of harm for different domagraphics.

- The law.

- Typical signs of violence about to happen (body language, unhealthy relationship factors, ...).

- Possible levels of force and when they are appropriate.

- Being able to verbalise those variables, which helps with being aware of them before and explaining your actions in court after a violent encounter (btw.: get a lawyer!).

- An analysis of your individual risk factors, which allows you to better avoid or prepare for the dangers that you personally might face, considering your lifestyle.

Anf wrote:

the best course of action will still very much depend on the attributes of the target. A burly man in his early 30s for example might stand a better chance of scaring off a would be attacker than a frail old lady of 90 years.

The differences in age, gender, physique and capabilities are important, of course. A "burly" person will have a better chance of fighting off a physical attack that a "frail" person.

Anf wrote:

But then equally the burly man is more likely to be considered 'fair game' or even a challenge.

Not quite, because "fair game" and "challenge" are two very different things:

A strong young man may make look like a great challenge to another young male who thinks he needs to prove something (i.e. social violence) but would be considered not so fair game for a thug who wants to rob somebody (i.e. predadory violence). Criminals do not seek challenges, they want victims.

The old lady on the other hand is less prone to be the victim of a bar fight over who's pedigree is more convoluted, but she makes for a much better target if you want to mug somebody.

The young man in the example appearently has more options on the table (fighting, sprinting) because of his physical prowess, so the old lady might need a different strategy for her "way of self-protection" (would be "hoshin-do" in Japanese, I will use that from now on).

In the end I think that it is more important to learn/live self protection as an approach, a life style, than as specific methods to deal with possible dangerous scenarios.

It is a bit like in self-defense (the actual physical part of self protection). It is impossible to learn techniques and tricks for every possible physical attack. Instead we strive to learn/teach principles we can apply to most attacks.

Take care everybody,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Anf,

Anf wrote:
Exactly. This is why, with respect to anyone that tries to teach people such skills, I'm a little bit sceptical. There are simply too many possibilities to train for effectively.

I totally disagree. Physical combat as loads of variables; but, as Marc said, we manage to teach it effectively because we instil solid habits based on sound tactical and technical principles. It’s exactly the same with escape and verbal de-escalation. Not only can it be trained effectively, it MUST be trained effectively. It’s genuinely not hard to do.

The issue is that most martial artists don’t know this stuff, so it seems “complicated”. The do know consensual fighting though, so it seems “simple”. So, they take the simple path – which is also dangerous and irresponsible – and just teach they students what they already know (martial arts); instead of doing the right thing and educating themselves in all elements of true self-protection.

If we ignore this massively important topic, we are not teaching self-protection. I have been taught and do teach these elements. It’s no harder to teach than anything else. It can be taught effectively, and such training develops real world skills that do work.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
and such training develops real world skills that do work.

I guess this is the root of my scepticism. With respect, and this is genuinely objective, how do we know these skills work? Unless my experience with several teachers in several styles is utterly unique, I'd say it's common within martial arts to be told that this works or if this happens you can just do this. Half a second later, a compliant student that doesn't want to undermine his teacher is pinned down on the floor suitably impressed. But how do we really know what works? We can't test it outside of the training hall. I can see how such skills can be developed. Bouncers and coppers must develop such skills, but there's differences there. Bouncers and coppers usually at least look tough and authoritative, and both have to deal with such issues routinely in their jobs. But what of the rest of us? Those that spend our working hours at a desk and a few hours per week of our leisure time practicing our hobby of martial arts?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
I guess this is the root of my scepticism. With respect, and this is genuinely objective, how do we know these skills work?

Because they work :-) I know that sound flippant, but I genuinely mean it. We know a punch works, because there are countless examples of them working. Same here.

The information we teach is based on the real-world experience of countless individuals and a great deal of research. I have personally used these skills to good effect and I know of many others who have too. Among my own students I know these skills have proved effective across the full range for experiences: calming down an angry work colleague at one end, right up to escaping from a mentally-ill, knife-wielding attacker - while protecting another person - at the other end.

Many people are taught these skills are part of their employment and they know they work too. It’s not just police officers either. Flight attendants, nurses, school teachers, government employees, and on and on are taught communication skills for dealing with people who are getting aggressive or agitated.  

Anf wrote:
Bouncers and coppers usually at least look tough and authoritative, and both have to deal with such issues routinely in their jobs. But what of the rest of us?

I know plenty of police officers who don’t look intimidating in anyway. The fact they are in uniform and have authority obviously helps, but the skills are not wholly dependant on that. The fact their communication skills need to be used more often means they are likely to be more honed. However, the opportunities for civilians to use communication skills in the real world are far more widespread than the opportunities to use physical techniques. Just like the physical, we also ensure realistic scenario training helps develop the right skills.

Anf wrote:
Those that spend our working hours at a desk and a few hours per week of our leisure time practicing our hobby of martial arts?

It is far easier to get the verbal methods to work than the physical. I’m assuming you don’t believe your “few hours a week” to be a complete waste of time when it comes to physical technique? Do you feel that a few hours a week can develop a degree of physical skill? Of course, it won’t be the same degree of skill as the full-time combat sports athlete, but nevertheless it produces something worthwhile? If you do accept that (and I think you should) then it’s the same with the verbal skills. We drill it most classes and it does not take that long to rehearse and refine once they have the principles down.  

The bottom line is that any training that completely omits verbal de-escalation and escape is NOT self-defence training. It is an unequivocal MUST HAVE. There is a HUGE hole in training otherwise. One of the most effective skillsets is totally overlooked and that leaves the students with nothing but the combative; and that can be massively problematic tactically and legally.

As previously mentioned, the main reason martial artists don’t want to teach it, down play its importance, or give it lip service only, is because they don’t know it. They should educate themselves, but they don’t. If that knowledge-gap is because they are teaching art or sport only, then that is totally OK. However, if they are claiming relevance to self-protection they are being negligent if these skills are overlooked.

I’m not saying this is your motivation, but many of the arguments you have put forth are the same ones I hear from martial artists who want to teach their martial art as “self-defence”. They don’t know about escape and verbal de-escalation; so, they have two ways to reassure themselves they have a “complete” skillset for self-protection. The right way to ensure a complete skillset is to ensure a complete education. However, some opt for the illusion of a “complete” skillset by justifying an incomplete one.

Can I ask if you have listened to the podcast linked above? This one here:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/verbal-de-escalation-podcast

It’s only 30 mins long, but it does cover the basics of this topic. There will be lots of people reading this who do teach and train this stuff, and they will attest it is effective stuff that is simple enough to teach (much simpler than physical technique).

If you have no experience of the topic, I can understand the confusion and assumptions. The podcast will be an easy place to start and it will address many of the issues raised.  

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

the main reason martial artists don’t want to teach it, down play its importance, or give it lip service only, is because they don’t know it.

Is there scope for someone like you Iain (or Peter C, the BCA/WCA, etc) to set up a stand alone course on this kind of thing? Something that specifically covers the soft verbal skills, de-escalation, etc. Something that can help people inform their training and/or teaching. There may already be such a course?

I've been in martial arts for a while, actively sought out good instruction and advice on self defence but still struggle with quantifying those sorts of soft skills into a cohesive structure or process (with drills, progression, etc) in the same way as I can with kata bunkai.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
Is there scope for someone like you Iain (or Peter C, the BCA/WCA, etc) to set up a stand alone course on this kind of thing? Something that specifically covers the soft verbal skills, de-escalation, etc. Something that can help people inform their training and/or teaching. There may already be such a course?

There are lots of courses out there in both the self-protection and cooperate worlds. I have included such skills in seminars too when asked to do so. It seems there may be demand for a specific day / weekend to cover these issues and, now you’ve put the idea in my head, I will consider organising something.

If people really want to get to grips with all of this material, then the WCA’s Combat Coach programme is a great option:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/news/combat-coach-programme-iain-abernethy-and-peter-consterdine

All the best,

Iain

Gabriel Suarez
Gabriel Suarez's picture

Coming to this a bit late.  I hope my following comments are useful, and in advance - no offense is meant if I disagree.

I have been studying martial things since ten years old, starting with Kyokushi Karate.  Later I studied several other systems, both complimentary and completely different.  I served 15 years as a police officer as well and applied some of my knowledge there.  I say this only to give a back ground of perspective to my comments.

I don't know about other parts of the world, but in the USA fights are serious and often, weapons are involved.  Running away, often gets you chased.  Then it becomes an issue of who has spent the most time sprinting rather than training.  The other factor is that you often have non-combatants with you (family, etc.).

My policy has always been as follows.  Don't go to places where a fight is likely (unless of course you are going there to get into a fight...but that is another matter).  As soon as something looks wrong, leave.  Don't wait until someone has you by the shirt to consider that.   Avoid affairs of honor.  By that I mean if somebody calls you a name or flips you the "bird", go elsewhere if you can.  If you cannot, such as its your home, business, etc. you have different responsibilities at that point.  But if you can avoid, do it.  Not due to some mistaken sense of Uyeshiban-harmony, but simply one of inconvenience and cost. 

When you cannot avoid/evade, or morally should not avoid/evade, learn to justify preempting the fight.  I know all about "Karate Ni Sente Nashi", but that is hardly a reason to stand around waiting for the assault.  There are many "clues" that the enemy has launched is attack, and you see these easily if you are looking.  So see them developing and hit him before he is ready.  

Situations where you cannot or should not seek to get away include for me -

1).  In my home or business

2).  Where any attempt to evade would put me at a tactical disadvantage

3).  Where I am responsible for the safety of others than cannot evade easily (children, elderly, etc.)

4).  Where I am the only person there preventing innocents from being victimized and injured.

When I choose to preempt the attack, I target parts of the body that will injure easily or cause sufficient pain to prevent a response.  My goal at that point is quite serious and I am seeking to break things not to "score a point".  Things like low mawashi geri to the knee and below, shuto to the side of the neck or bridge of the nose, driving mae geri to the lower abdomen/groin area, hard slap to the ear.  I want to cause pain and damage so I don't have to fight longer than that. 

Understand the isues of force and size disparity as well.  The bigger, faster, younger or more numerous the enemy is, the greater leeway you have to use force...or weapons.

More to follow if you guys are interested....

Marc
Marc's picture

Very interesting post, Gabriel. Thank you.

Gabriel Suarez wrote:

More to follow if you guys are interested....

That would fantastic.

Gabriel Suarez
Gabriel Suarez's picture

Here is a teaching tool that I use.  It was developed by my staff and I...many of us having an investigative and operational LE background.  It involves deadly force, presumably with firearms, but karate can be looked at in that way as well.  In essence if you are justified in shoting someone, you are probably justified in breaking their leg, or neck as well.

I am not one of those guys that tells students that I hope they never have to use their skills and to live in harmony with the universe and all that.  I have seen too much of human nature to say such things.  So I say, "when you use your skills" make sure you do it correctly and justifiably.  This flowchart serves as a sort of "mental kata" to get your mind in the right place sooner and to eliminate the second guessing that comes from uncertainty and fear.

I will disagree with some and say that fear is not a gift, but rather something that must be overcome through the development of physical confidence and the internalizing of practical rules of engagement.  I suspect that is what the old masters did, and something we should seek as well.

Marc
Marc's picture

Gabriel Suarez wrote:

Here is a teaching tool that I use.  [..] It involves deadly force, presumably with firearms, but karate can be looked at in that way as well.

Thank you for sharing your material.

Gabriel Suarez wrote:

This flowchart serves as a sort of "mental kata" to get your mind in the right place sooner and to eliminate the second guessing that comes from uncertainty and fear.

I really like the term "mental kata". To a karateka this is a great way of expressing the idea that we can internalise a flow chart or decision tree by repeatedly walking through it while visualising scenarios in which the different branches would apply.

All the best,

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

If anyone has not yet read Rory Miller's books "Facing Violence" and "Scaling Force", I would highly recommend them.

"Facing Violence" is a fairly comprehensive book on the legal, social and psycological circumstances of violence. It adresses things like awareness, breaking the freeze, articulating violent encounters, different forms of violence, the various phases and levels of violence, long-term effects, and much more.

"Scaling Force" looks more on the practical side of defense at the various phases and levels of violence from presence to using your voice, to ways of using touch, to restraint, to less lethal force, and up to lethal force. Rory describes what the difference levels mean, when it is appropriate to apply them, and he explains in detail which methods or principles exist that can actually be practically applied and how they work.

Take care everybody,

Marc  

Anf
Anf's picture

As always on here, lots of very solid points well made.

To pick up on what I think is the broader theme, here's a couple of my thoughts.

There is often debate about the validity of a particular skill or set of skills. My view is that all skills are worth having. The ability to pull off a jumping 360 roundhouse kick is worth having, knowing how to use a firearm is worth having, and knowing how to talk your way out of a fight is definitely worth having.

A skill is worth having even if you have far from mastered that skill. Being able to throw a roundhouse kick even if badly, is an improvement on not being able to throw a roundhouse kick at all.

But there is a caveat. A rather huge one.

A skill is only a good thing if you understand and accept how proficient you are in it and how effective it may be in a given situation. Being able to throw a good roundhouse kick to head height is a great skill to have. But if you believe that skill will keep safe in a street attack is in my opinion worse than useless. Because unless it's 100% successful first time, it's very likely to result in you getting decked. For those that live somewhere where guns are allowed in public, being a good shot on the range is great, as long as you understand and accept that if you are attacked suddenly (as per most attacks), you may well get your head smashed in before you can bring a gun to bear. And having skills to diffuse a situation is fantastic. As long as we accept that it won't always work and some people genuinely just want to fight. All skills are useful tools, just as long as we recognise them as tools, and not as some ultimate safeguard.

Gabriel Suarez
Gabriel Suarez's picture

"For those that live somewhere where guns are allowed in public, being a good shot on the range is great, as long as you understand and accept that if you are attacked suddenly (as per most attacks), you may well get your head smashed in before you can bring a gun to bear. "

Oh, believe me...we are not gun focused, and the shooting range is only a very small part of the correct type of training.  Samurai used swords...but they knew how to fight empty handed as well no?

"And having skills to diffuse a situation is fantastic. As long as we accept that it won't always work and some people genuinely just want to fight. All skills are useful tools, just as long as we recognise them as tools, and not as some ultimate safeguard."

I have found that not lookig like an easy mark tends to diffuse things better.  The likelihood of the adversary dying or at least being permanently changed as a result of him targeting you is a far better diffuser than a compelling argument. 

But the last time I looked, there were no ultimate safeguards, nor secret ingredients to the noodle soup

Malachy Devlin
Malachy Devlin's picture

There is a book called "3 second self defence".

This book advocates running as the 1st defence & in fact says you should train to be able to run at least 1/2 mile.

There is a lot to this section of the book on this 1 topic alone but some brief points are obvious:

  • Only if you have the option to running and arent trapped or need of protecting someone else as the OP asks
  • You may have to "create the opportunity" to run away, anything goes there.
  • Work on fitness and keep in shape to be able to run this distance.
  • When running away try to create a disguise and blend, remove a coat, join a Q etc. etc.
  • 90% of assailants wont give chase (if a group this is more likely though - mob mentality).
  • Modern media has us believing that the tough guys stay around and dont run, this is a misconception and against our nature eg (caveman v Tiger? run like the wind!)

Staying around to avoid looking like a coward is insanely stupid.

The author puts it bluntly..

"you have lost the use fo your legs and most of your brain function. but hey.. you can say you didnt run away"

its a super self defence strategy when you have the chance.

im in my mid 40s and i do keep fit for other reasons but being fit is going to help - a lot!

Gabriel Suarez
Gabriel Suarez's picture

First option?  Not for me.  I am not saying it is "never" an option, but surely not the first option.  Why do we train the fighting art of Karate, keep ourselves fit and skilled?  To always run away?  That may be some people but its not me.

A man grabs your wife's arse - you run away?  A man slaps you or spits one of your kids - you all run away? 

No, I am not seeing that.  Western society is great at telling everyone that fighting is wrong and violence is to be eschewed.  First option...run away.  Nope...I disagree.  Now if thirty ANTIFA are moving toward you with bats, bottles and molotovs...alright...run.  But not everyone is a mob. 

There is a place for fighting over matters of honor, not just self defemse.  Can you imagine somebody spiting on Motobu and he riunning away?  Of someone grabbing Oyama's wife and he running away?  The ridiculousness of it is inconceivable.

Lets bring the "martial" back into the "art".

Pages