joesteph

DWx was pointing out that she'd been in a headlock, had difficulty getting out of it, though she finally did, and the one applying the headlock said that if she'd broken his finger, it'd have been much more expedient. She then asked that if one of us were mugging someone and she broke your finger, would you let go. Sensei8 and I were agreeing that we would. I don't think anyone's saying that breaking the finger devastates the attacker, but it gives precious time to the freed defender to run or hit and run.

Yes I would, then I'd run away as fast as I can before the police arrive to arrest me for attempting mugging. I feel Bob's absolutely right. These guys are looking for an easy target, not a brawl. They want to grab your purse and take off. It's an unfortunate story, but I remember reading about an elderly woman who came out of the bank, only to have her pocketbook grabbed by some young tough. She held on and fell; he dragged her several feet then took off rather than rush over to her to strike her so that she'd let go. No time. The friend I had whose little finger was broken when he was younger held his hand up so that his fingers were vertical, and then pushed that finger to the side just a bit. He described the break as putting that finger in a horizontal position. Excruciating!

Poll at top of page.

When this is presented to high school students, the majority think it's fair, expecting that the doctors and nurses should all be able to identify a sane person. We then discuss it, and while I'm careful not to say that there's a "right" answer I expect from them, in discussion I bring out what the school nurse had told me some time ago. Admitting the person is pretty much a no-brainer. The diagnosis is standard, given the symptoms, and the expectation that medication will be given and hopefully work is something just as standard. If a committed individual suddenly says the voices are gone, there's nothing that says the voices can't just return the next day. The person has to be monitored over a period of time, especially since medication just doesn't work that quickly. Someone who's released is someone the doctors believe is stable, who (it was thought) has shown he's taken the medication regularly, and is therefore less likely to have a relapse. Imagine if the voices return, only to say to kill? It's safer for the person as well as society to keep him long enough to give the illness a chance (so-to-speak) to reassert itself; if it doesn't, great, but if it does, it's better that it does so in the psychiatric ward. Incidentally, I learned over the years I've taught psychology that certain things a patient does should not be brought up unless the patient chooses to mention it, to avoid triggering a negative reaction. If the staff had leaned over to see what the pseudopatients were writing, they might have been violating instructions. What if it triggered a paranoid reaction?

A mugger attacks a woman because he's a coward who's looking for an easy target; he'll attack a 19-year-old woman to grab her purse before a 19-year-old man for his wallet. If you break his finger, which you're not supposed to do because you're a weak, helpless female, exactly why he picked you in the first place, he's going to let go. He'll get mad? Will he have a smile on his face when he grabs you, as in, "Hi! I'm Poindexter! I'll be your mugger today!" I say break his finger, let him jump and let go with the unexpected pain, and if you're still holding onto his finger, yank on it for maximum effect. Then either sceam and run or give him a swift kick and then scream and run.

I think Danielle's getting out of the headlock without the finger break was sound; get out and run, or get out, give him a swift kick, and then run. Joint breaks, in this case the finger, or even giving pain to the assailant's joint, likely work as enough force to get out of the hold and buy time. During that time it's like the above: run, or give him that swift kick and then run.

When I practiced finger joint locks (from a Chin Na video) in the past, one of the guys was really skittish about them and had to bow out. When he was younger, his little finger was broken, and it's apparently easy to make a broken finger really stick out in a crazy direction. The pain, he said, was terrible. When I took self-defense JJ lessons, I asked Sensei about finger locks, and he addressed my question by demonstrating for the class--fortunately with a more experienced student than me. That guy went right down to the floor, onto his belly, and Sensei was showing how he could manipulate the controlled man (who'd be crying out in pain if for real) so that he could warn off the guy's friends. I don't know if pain compliance would work with someone on drugs, Danielle, but if his fingers are snapped they won't work, an advantage to you to get away.

Imagine that you're sane but in a mental institution, and you believe that your actions demonstrate your sanity--but is anybody listening to you? Observing your behavior as sane? D.L. Rosenhan's "On Being Sane in Insane Places" (Science, 1975) is about eight sane individuals who gained admittance to twelve hospitals throughout the US, wondering if hospital personnel were going to catch that they were actually sane. Each had an alias and arrived at different hospitals claiming to hear a voice that said, "empty," "hollow," and "thud." They were admitted as schizophrenic patients and given medication, which the pseudopatients knew to avoid actually taking. Upon entrance to the psychiatric ward, they exhibited no behavior other than that of an ordinary person. They mingled with the real patients, discovered that if they took notes right in front of hospital staff that it was nothing they would be questioned about, and made it known when they did speak with a doctor that the symptom of the voice had vanished. Each pseudopatient had entered wondering how quickly he would be caught by the staff; instead, some actual patients asked them about the note-taking and wondered if they were there to check up on the hospital. Their average stay was nineteen days, released from the hospital with the diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission--which is not the same as saying they were sane persons. (Thinking ahead, that someone might be inside indefinitely, attorneys cooperating with the experimenters were kept "on call" for a writ of habeas corpus.) _____ I teach psychology as a social studies teacher on the high school level, and present the actual article to my students. They answer certain questions in writing first, then after they've done their individual work we discuss it as a class. The most important question, to me, is: Was this study/experiment a fair one? Could those involved as pseudopatients have reasonably expected that hospital personnel would expect that a sane person would want to be admitted to a psychiatric ward to see if they would be caught? What do you think?

Would it be how far to go? To control or beyond?

Which makes it flawed, given that it's presented to people learning/training in self-defense. If there were no need for self-defense, then we'd be living in Utopia. The people learning self-defense are being realistic about the world, and are correctly envisioning themselves defending themselves against an attacker. It's a sick puppy who thinks of himself as the strangler; that's what's actually being presented, a strangling.

It is debatable. It's an invalid experiment in human perception when dealing with persons who are studying "self-defense." Presenting someone standing over a kneeling person, hands around his neck and squeezing away, is a self-defense situation. If not for sport, which means willing participants, then for self-defense. I'm sure you're a decent man who wouldn't encourage his students to attack people with these techniques to prove they don't have a "victim mentality," which you referred to in an earlier post.

How is presenting this to people who are interested in self-defense to the point that they're training, or have trained, to defend themselves valid to conclude "passive" or "victim mentality"? I wouldn't even consider doing what appears in the scenario as strangling someone.

This is a great demo, Jay. He does a strike, then shows the alternates or variations of where he can strike. I thought that 1:10-1:17 was especially practical for giving height to the defender's kick.

This YouTube video is the first one in my OP, in which I was questioning not the weight on the leg, but the "bump" or "crash" of tori, who's larger than uke, against uke's chest. The other videos after it from eHow also show a larger, heavier tori. I was questioning the validity of learning/reviewing the technique from a video if it seems based on size/weight. When I did this with Sensei, the difference between us was 100lbs--in his favor. But by performing a twist of his shoulders to break his balance (and he was letting me do this; no resistance), it was technique and not my physical size that caused him to go down. This was reinforced by Shihan, who was less than my weight (170lbs), but who turned the tables on me if I didn't do that twist of his shoulders, turning my shoulders if I tried to use muscle instead of technique, and I would wind up taken down. When I worked with Sempai, I had to block a hook punch, "strike" his face with my elbow (as though softening up), then twist his shoulders and get my leg in there for the takedown. After Sempai, I worked with other students while he observed. I do follow what you mean regarding the legs and weight distribution, Kuma, and I can see in the second half of the YouTube video that uke's forward motion, and then tori's coming in on him, takes advantage of a lack of balance. The opening throw of this video is more technique than size-oriented, more aggressive on moving in to break uke's balance and take him down. The "resistant uke" variations are interesting. Thanks for the find.

So, Kuma, when you said: " . . . you're twisting them in such a fashion that the leg you're going to sweep has less weight on it and makes it easier to get." Did you really mean: " . . . you're twisting them in such a fashion that the leg you're going to sweep has more weight on it and makes it easier to get."

I thought of this as an option, too, Danielle, but I didn't put it separately because there can be several reasons for each answer.

There's a poll, above.

When I was back in school, a study about people making purchases included people buying from a person at a counter as opposed to from a machine. Overwhelmingly, people preferred to purchase when they saw someone at the counter, rather than the machine next to it. (Like, say, a can of soda.) When I go to the supermarket, I tend to go to the local A & P. There are many cashier aisles, and a number of self-service checkout aisles as well. Repeatedly, when self-checkout was introduced, there'd be few people at the self-checkout, but a line at each with a cashier. I've noticed that the number of cashier checkouts that are not in service has grown, meaning longer lines. There were occasions when I just didn't have the time to wait on these longer lines because there were so few cashier ones open, so I used the self-checkout. Now I find myself not even hunting for an open cashier checkout. (I said "hunting" because that's what it feels like.) Just tonight I realized that I haven't used a cashier checkout at the A & P in about a month; it's like I've been on automatic to go to the self-checkout. But I feel I'd rather use a checkout with a cashier than the machine. If you're someone like me, in at least one situation with self-checkout v. cashier checkout, then if given a choice, which would you prefer to use? BTW, the fly in the ointment about today was that there was someone who would have been ahead of me in each self-checkout. I chose the one with the person who had the least to buy, the same as I would if there were only cashiers. Poll above EDIT: Added bold.

Nice album photos by Ninjanurse! Youngest students and the Demo Team.

In Soo Bahk Do, there are the Ten Articles that, in particular, refer to character development. I remember speaking with my SBD teacher about them as we stood before the poster up on the dojang wall. I told her that these were very good values to teach to children, and that it's likely the families who bring their children to the dojang are doing their part to raise their children "right." But then I told her that I didn't believe it worked with adults. I didn't say teens and adults, even though I believe that teens are young adults. I said that the way the adult comes in is the way the adult remains. I told her that there are those who will look at these values and be glad to see that they and the art are in agreement. I then said that there are adults who will be able to repeat the list word-for-word, but it's all lip service. She knew I was referring to a certain adult, but neither of us said his name. I've watched children's classes at the dojang, and I see how my own children respond to the values taught. I don't know what to say about teenagers, but I believe that when an adult comes in, the dojo or dojang will not change/improve/develop that individual's character for the better. An adult comes in with the values and reflects them, or lacks those values and isn't going to adopt them. When dealing with adults, there may simply be a limit as to what a teacher might say or do, or might be comfortable saying or doing. If the unnamed adult I referred to, above, had been a kid, he would never have gotten away with all that he did. No way.

I like the upper and lower forearm clashes, Kuma, and I did see something about the bone turning in at about 1:38, looking like one of the answers to "When is a block a strike?"

Congratulations, Quinteros! Enjoy "wearing" the Member of the Month belt!

For demos of 30 kata, with a YouTube link at the bottom of the list, try Shitoryu Cyber Academy: http://www.shitokai.com/movies/movies.php You can always enter: shito-ryu youtube in a search engine for more videos. When I purchased training DVDs for Soo Bahk Do, they actually demonstrated instead of trained, expecting that you can always slow the speed, but videos are great to supplement what your instructor teaches.

Do you mean that your classes are once a week, Robbo? When I took Soo Bahk Do, taking classes twice a week challenged my memory because of the "art" facet of the martial art. When I took Jeet Kune Do, which is a combative art, I attended only once a week and practiced on other days with no trouble, because practice was footwork and striking, which I did with a WaveMaster and BOB (Body Opponent Bag). I see you're studying Wado Ryu. When I took Soo Bahk Do, there were DVDs and books that I bought from the official organization. They weren't to replace instruction but to reinforce it. Ask your teacher.

I just posted a family photo (Father's Day) under a non-MA section of the Photo Album. It'd be nice if more members posted as well.