algernon

Very good point. As I've said elsewhere, what one lacks in formal training may be easily compensated for with size, strength, tenacity and experience. Size matters. The more skilled you are, the less it matters, but it will always be a factor. The goal of training is to make your advantage of skill outweigh any disadvantage of strength.

Perhaps we could call this meta-complacency? Be careful not to err too far on the side of caution. Opposite of complacency is insecurity, which could be equally dangerous. While complacency may lead to brash action, insecurity in your training may restrain your actions. Delivering good technique without authority and power is no better than performing poorly with confidence. That is why my previous post stressed a realistic and accurate assessment of your capabilities. Of course, I realize that this isn't what you meant, but your post made for a nice segue! I agree completely.

I grew up in a small village, and most fights were drunken. As were the rapes and robberies. A person living in a small town is just as likely to become violent as one living in a large city; they are just a little more likely to be recognized. Having a lot of neighbors does not turn someone into a criminal.

He really seemed to have done his homework. He nicely supplemented theory with experience, and I liked how he emphasized the necessity of matching strategy to skill and preparedness. It's good to see some videos that aren't a bunch of rubbish!

It is quite a jump from complacency to narcissism. Indeed, any of these attributes could contribute to a complacent mind, but they are the cause, not the result; more factors may be at work than egotism. "Complacency," at least as the word relates to the martial arts, generally connotes an unwarranted feeling of security. Though it can come from an overestimation of one's abilities, it can also come from an underestimation of danger; in fact, it is easy to see how the latter could be the source of the former. Overcoming a hazardously complacent mentality is not a simple matter of humility; it requires an accurate awareness of the dangers to which you are exposed, and a realistic understanding of how your skills measure up to them.

I have not seen hair pulled as a primary means of harming someone, but I have seen hair grabbed while punching the head.

Do you know anyone who is handy with coding? If not, there are probaly plenty of students at your nearest college in need of a quick buck. If you ask around, it shouldn’t be too hard to find someone who could write a program to fit your needs on the cheap. In fact, if you give me a description of what you are looking for, and if it's not terribly complicated, I or a friend of mine might be up to the task.

If they begin to cower, then I agree that you have the upper hand, but not if they break away from you entirely. You have not won; they have escaped the injury that you were about to inflict. If they manage to pull away before you have caused enough pain or damage to subdue them, then they are free (and, at least from my experience, quite likely) to come at you again. You have managed to "slip" their attack, but there is no certainty of such a favorable outcome the second time. Yes, by taking their outside and forcing them to disengage you have demonstrated your superior skill, but unless you are in a ring with judges keeping score, you have still not "won."

I find myself moving predominantly to the outside, for all of the aforementioned reasons, but I do find that taking the inside makes it easier to maintain contact. When moving to the outside, I've noticed a tendency for the other party to either turn away and slightly cower, or disengage entirely, which robs me of the advantage that I had just gained.

If you go to a school and see a phenomenally talented instructor, perhaps you should find his teacher, who has clearly done something right! While it is important that the instructor actually have the skills that you hope to learn from him, I put more weight on the quality of the students (relative to their time in training, of course). Rather than finding a teacher who has the attributes that I want, I tend to put more emphasis on finding a teacher who can effectively instill those abilities in others. Often (and ideally), a good instructor possesses the skills he is teaching to a high degree, but that is not always the case. An instructor's skill is not a ceiling for his students' progress; indeed, if that were the case, there would be little room for progress! The ultimate aim of a good teacher is always to be surpassed by his students. A prime example is an older instructor with waning abilities. Though he may no longer be able to perform as well as some of his students, his ability to elevate his students above him is what counts.

I have experienced this myself, and I expect that it is quite common. This is because a fighter's skill has limitless dimensions, not a single spectrum. To say "P can beat Q and Q can beat R, ergo P>Q" is to fail to consider the specific properties of the individual fighters that enable them to beat their opponents. Combatants have particular strengths that allow them to exploit weaknesses in certain opponents, and they have particular weaknesses that can be taken advantage of by another with the appropriate skills. To continue your analogy, scissors can cut paper, but they can be broken by rock. While you might be able to make a linear ranking of arm wrestlers and successfully predict who will best whom, fighting is much more dynamic, employing a broad range of skills. The victor is not determined by just the levels of skill, but how each individual's "skill signature" compliments or clashes with another's.

I find it too cumbersome to focus my eyes on any specific part of an opponent. I simply try to keep as much of them within my field of vision as possible. At close range, body contact is more useful than sight.

This is something that you may have to check your state statutes for; their may be a duty to flee kind of clause. Also, you can find it in so-called "castle laws," in which a victim does not have the duty to flee from their own home, if burglarized/attacked. Something to look into to be prepared for. I have read my state's (Wisconsin's) criminal code very thoroughly (self defense is covered in chapter 939.48, and “imperfect self defense” is also discussed in 940.01(2)(b), if any Wisconsinites are interested), and we have no such requirement. Regardless of the statutes, legal liability is a highly fickle matter that varies greatly between states, and it was therefore with ethical implications that I concerned myself. So far as legal considerations are concerned, it may be of interest to note that Ruff v. State (1974) set a judicial precedent which allows just the sort of continued barrage that we have been discussing in the case of a robbery involving a firearm. I like that. Who are you quoting?

What one may lack in formal training can be easily compensated for by size, strength, tenacity, and experience. Yes, I am quick, coordinated, and I have a proficient knowledge base, but that does not enable me to best anyone of a lower belt "rank." My training has made me a far more competent combatant than I would ever have been without, but it has not transformed me into a Jason Statham character. Furthermore, I do not know who has had what sort of training, or how much. We would all like to think that martial artists are of a higher moral caliber (at least in respect to the use of their skills), but that is just self aggrandizing. How many martial arts schools or competitive fighting clubs require comprehensive background and psychological screening? Really, anyone who attacks you might have any amount of any sort of training, and unless you know them, there is no way to tell. Of course there is no reason to continue if they surrender, but if you are running away, it is probably because they have not surrendered. If they have clearly stopped fighting, then there is no longer a fight and you should have stopped hitting them. Since their "surrender" should end the fight, the question of whether flight is an obligation no longer applies. They may, of course, change their mind and attack again, which is the risk taken in not running. The question is whether you must prevent harming them by running away as soon as you are able. Is the victim of an assault morally required to run, thereby removing the potential of having to continue to fight, or is it acceptable to hold ground and fight for as long as necessary to cause the criminal to stop? It was in answer to this question that I put forth my arguments.

sensei8, I have no problem with fleeing, and I have done my share of it. If you choose to take your fist opportunity to escape, I will think no less of you for it. If you choose to remain in harm's way, and risk having to continue to fight, I will think no less of you for that, either. I do not see any dishonor in running; I take issue only with the claim that the victim of an attack is under a moral obligation to avoid the fight. That is quite the opposite of my point! If someone else "starts it," it is up to them to finish. They brought violence to you, and you retaliated as you needed. They decide when they stop fighting. If they can still stand when your blows stop, it is upon them to desist. If you stun them, you may take that opportunity to escape, but you do not have to. Of course you must stop hitting them when they give up, but before they do, if and when you run is your decision. If you flee before they have quit their aggression, they decide whether they chase. If you beat the aggression out of them, it was still their decision to stop the fight. If you beat them unconscious, and you appropriately stop, you have still only stoped in response to your opponent's cessation of violence. Provided you do not harm them when they no longer pose a threat, the fight will only end when your attacker quits fighting. The instigator assumed the risk of injury, and did so for the sake of harming another. The burden of his safety is not his victim's to bear.

So it is the victim's duty to flee? What if I am attacked in a place at which I have every right to be, and I do not want to leave? Flight may be an option, and it may be the best option, but to suggest that it is an obligation is to forget who started the fight in the first place. You initially asked about the virtue of a proportioned response, and that virtue is in self-control; however, I would still be far from my Nicomachean mean if I were to run when I believed that I could stand. There is vice in excessive violence, but there is also virtue in a just fight.

Thank you. I will pass that on.

The Japanese variety.

Yellow pages, my friend! Martial arts schools seem to be trailing behind on website development, so find some schools in the phone book, and give them a call. Make a personal visit to the ones that sound promising.

Have you considered training in two separate arts? A single style that teaches both empty hand and weapons rather narrows your options, but there are schools that teach both an open hand style and weapons; many schools teach a weapons-only art such as Kobudo in addition to their unarmed system. Searching for such schools could greatly broaden your options, as there are really no limits on what empty hand or weapons styles might be taught under one roof. My suggestion would be to find the schools in your area that offer the sort of traditional weapons form that you are looking for, and then choose from that list the empty hand style that suits your needs.

A friend of mine and his wife recently moved out of state, and are considering joining a Jiu Jitsu school in their area. They asked for advice on deciding if that school was worth the investment, but I have never formally trained in Jiu Jitsu. What are some key elements particular to the art that should inform their decision? I understand that determining the quality of a martial arts school is really a matter of preference, but any input would be helpful. Thank you.

Well put! I did not watch the first or third videos in their entirety. The bad advice came soon enough to have to. In the first video, the demonstrator committed both hands to to his attacker's grabbing hand without protecting himself from the attacker's free hand. He then seemed to suggest maintaining that hold while being pulled around. This technique left him vulnerable to any strikes save the wide round punches to the head, and would expend unnecessary energy struggling against his opponent. The woman in the third video instructed dropping to your knee while your (probably larger) opponent is still standing and still has a hold on your head. Don't do that. The woman in the second video begins strong, using both hands briefly to pull the attacker off of his base, and setting him up for a kick. That seemed to me to be the beginning of a solid defense. However, she then began some awkward small joint manipulation; the problems with such have already been well covered. I would not recommend any of these videos.

Our thrusting rear kicks (some know these as "mule kicks") connect with the heel, which is above the rest of the foot; it would be impossible to perform a heel kick directly to the rear otherwise. These are a favorite kick of mine, and I find them to be superbly powerful and stable. We also practice a downward vertical kick to downed opponents, stomping with the ball of the foot. The heel is necessarily up in this kick as well. I have never applied this in a live fight, but I have never experienced any balance issues. These kicks do deliver notably less power than an axe kick (which we also practice only against downed assailants), but they are faster, more compact, and cause less exposure of the groin and base knee. We make no point of teaching a "heel up" methodology. In fact, we do make a point of teaching students to keep their heels up in the aforementioned kicks, to maximize balance and power in the former, and to increase penetration in the latter. There are several kicks that require a horizontal foot, but the rest are performed with the heel down, and since that is the natural bodily tendency anyway, I have never found a need to teach that specifically. Are there any particular kicks that you have in mind, where some tend to kick with an improperly aligned foot?

To me, it's when you shouldn't have to. There have been times that I could have avoided a fight by leaving, running, or giving them what they want (once something as simple as a seat in a park). I am a very slight man (about 5'6" and 125lb.), and each one took that as an opportunity to control me by force or threats. That is wrong; I am not required to yield to anyone who happens to have greater biceps. I will fight with fist, foot, tooth, and nail for what is right, and I am no less justified by the fact that I could have avoided causing or receiving injury. To bow to these brutes would be a worse consequence than my swollen lip or my oppressor's broken nose. Edmund Parker said it well: "Should it be a matter of life or death, of right or wrong, then here are my weapons . . . "

Your self honesty is commendable. Anyone not having these concerns should. That very aptly states the issue. I would not hesitate to wager my every cent that no one reading this has applied their entire skill base in self defense. Some have certainly utilized more of their training than others, but no one has put everything they teach to the final test. You are right to have concerns about your experiences limiting your ability to to confidently declare every movement or strategy that you pass to your students to be effective, and in those doubts you are not alone. When you find yourself beyond the boundaries of your personal experience, you must trust in evidence, your own reason, and the experiences of others. Speak to your own instructors, peers, and even students about any experience that may inform you, and thoroughly examine each suspect technique for technical soundness. Seek opportunities to expand your experience. Find someone with whom you may engage in full contact fights, drills, and scenarios; test any questionable material with as much power and realism as reasonable safety concerns will allow. If you have any opportunity to use Blauer "High Gear" training suits or similar equipment, I hope you take it. Your students trust you and the education that you provide with – potentially – their lives, and good conscience, if nothing else, should restrain you from teaching anything which you believe may fail them; if you have doubts about a technique, seek to eliminate them. This may require some effort, discomfort, and risk on your own part, but the willingness to take those measures is a mark of a good teacher. *Salute*