cross

It certainly would be practiced heavily in most jkd schools. Alot of RBSD styles practice "trapping" also, not in the traditional sense however. Its more often alot more basic and direct.

The applications look good if the idea is "how to do the form with a training partner", but if thats their idea of self defense training, im not so sure.

Agreed. Try from your knees until you build up some more strength. Also, set yourself goals, pick a number that is not to easy for you, but is still obtainable. Even if you dont reach the number the first time, keep trying each day or so until you get it, then continue to build from there.

I was thinking about a knife attack while reading another post and the common defenses seem to follow the above three steps. However, I wonder whether step three should be "separation of the weapon (knife in this case) from the attacker" instead of "neutralizing the attacker" (which is rather broad in scope). Often I see knife defenses that involve a block or grab then a strike of some kind. I can see the merit in such a strategy as one tries to put "pain in the brain" of the attacker and divert his focus from "attack" to that new pain that just coursed through his body. However, if the strike proves less effective and doesn't capture the enemies mind, then he still has the weapon in hand. Would it not be best to first remove the weapon, then neutralize? Is removal considered neutralization? Ed Interesting point. Neutralizing the attacker refers to doing whatever it takes to remove the threat. You "might" be able to seperate them from the knife, but if you cant do that extremely quickly, they will catch on and you will get into a tug of war over the blade. Even if you do remove the blade, unless you have caused them serious injury already, they are still a threat to you, only difference is they are unarmed now. You note that the term "neutralizing the attacker" is broad, i agree with this and the reason is because you should not be limited to just removing the blade, or just striking them, but rather do whatever it takes to neutralize the attacker. If you have the chance to remove the blade, then by all means do it, however without attacking them in some way first, your chances are slim. Its also important to know that the idea behind the principle is to continue attacking until the weapon is no longer in the attackers possession, and they are no longer a threat.

I fail to see how a fan being used against a straight sword has anything to do with todays self defense. If you want to do weapon training that relates to modern times, look at modern weapons. Knives, sticks, guns. Fan training may be very interesting and worthwhile for artist purposes, but its relevance to practical self defense is slim to none.

Its possible to train most things, within reason and with a few modifications. The different between brushing your hands across someones eyes and digging your fingers in is very slight. The difference between holding onto someones ear or ripping it off is very slight. The difference between driving a punching into someones chest or driving it into their throat is very slight. The difference between palmstriking someone in the face wearing protection at 75% power or hitting someone with no protection at 100% power is very slight. Training has close as possible to reality is important if the thing your preparing for is reality. Anything less simply isnt going to cut it when things turn real.

Agreed. Its been shown time after time that people who get stabbed often dont know they have been until its 2 late. A good rule of thumb is there are only 2 things you can safely assume in a self defense situation: 1. The other person is armed, and 2. He has friends.

Keeping your hands in a position that allows for quick response and max protection to the majority of your upper body is important. Protecting your head specifically is crucial, has you said, most people will head hunt when placed under stress. But dont limit yourself to just protecting the face, even the most conditioned stomach wont stop a knife....

Certainly. When survival is your goal, any method that ensures this is useful. The verbal especially, because if you can talk someone out of a physical confrontation then the situation works out better for everyone involved. And whilst trying to talk you way out should always be the first option, if things are going to turn physical, hit first and hit hard.

Great example. Following on from that, there has been research which shows in a large number of stabbings, the person being attacked doesnt even realise they are being stabbed, or that the attacker has a knife until they have already been cut several times. With this in mind, taking the initiative and stopping an attack before it happens, either verbally or physically, is the safest and strategically smartest option to maximize your chance of survival.

How many times have you successfully defended yourself in training after being hit first? If youve never do it even in training, perhaps you have a false sense of ability.

Unless you have actually performed these "deadly" techniques you mention, in training over and over, then regardless of how lethal they potentially are, chances are you will not have the composure to perform them in a real situation. The thing about mma, is that there is a real fully resisting opponent, and you are really trying to hurt each other. That it far closer to reality, and will serve a person much better in self defense then doing a form that has a neck breaking technique.

Where did you get this peice of information from? It seems to be agreed apon that the peak in biological function and physical performance occurs between 20-35 years of age.

IMHO = In My Honest/Humble Opinion

Personally, I don't like the defend-first idea, because when you defend (read as "block") first, you have to play on reaction. Reaction is almost always slower than action, because you have to wait to receive the stimulus before you react. Therefore, you are always playing a constant game of catch-up. Not good, in my opinion, when you are trying to defend yourself. The mindset of "wait for the attack" sounds like "wait to be the victim." I completely agree. There are times when you will be forced to defend first, i.e. surprise attack, and in that case you have to convert your defensive position into offense has soon as possible. In the event that its not a surprise, then it would be foolish to allow the situation to escalate so far that the aggressor attacks you before you pre-empt, or take other action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freestyle_Fighting_Championship ??

Sure, its possible, but at close range there are much more damaging options that you can use long before a rear leg kick comes into play, but if its the only opening ofcourse you would exploit it. Agreed.

The best system varies alot from style to style. Go with what you recall from your training.

If you have the strength, why not use it?

It can be tactically sound, at times. However, there are alot of situations where it is a poor option. It depends on the principles of your system, but if you follow something along the lines of "closest weapon, closest target", then it is rarely applicable. Also distance is a factor, it generally requires a greater distance and more time to land a rear leg kick than a front leg kick. Not to mention in self defense situations you will only rarely find yourself in kicking range. Everything usually happens much closer.

Interesting post. The reason why i continue to train is because its something i enjoy and a way to maintain a certain level of fitness and stay active. (Note: i train at home so it doesnt really cost me anything, and i pick and choose the things i like to do and direct my training towards certain goals i want to reach). Also i like researching self protection specifically. I no longer have much of an interest in the tradition etc. So i suppose it depends on if you enjoy what your doing or not. If you dont like training anymore, than dont. Lifes to short to spend it doing things of no use. But i do think its important to find something you enjoy doing that will help you maintain a healthy lifestyle.

A little is an understatement, I'm amazed he made it as far as he did. Thank god the UFC is starting to get some good fighters, and not just poster boys like Lidell and Franklin. Sure, if you look in a boxing textbook, you wont see anything chuck liddell does in there. But just because it doesnt "look" good, doesnt mean it bad. He has proven time and time again that what he does works for him.

Ofcourse, anything can be effective if you land it. Some tactics have a far better chance of working than others however, and a kick to the stomach is a fair way down the list of tactics in my opinion.

Not to mention it allows you to practice your techniques and get a good workout at the same time... Martial arts multitasking?

Thats fine, but unless your Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic, or fighting under the same conditions they do, then him being able to stomach kick people in a ring doesnt do a great deal to prove the effectiveness of body kicks for self defense purposes.