szorn

Honestly I think we are just going around in circles here. The point is that research and interviews prove that solid self-defense "crash courses" do in fact work, regardless of what martial artists think of said courses. In fact, these courses have proven themselves way more effective than long-term martial arts classes for realistic and practical personal safety. Again, I do agree with you in that practice makes perfect. I have never said differently. However, I still say that a program based on realistic research, natural motor-skills, and modern teaching/learning theories is superior for real self-defense, for both a short-term and long-term training schedule. This can easily be pressure-tested by using 2 students with no previous knowledge, training, or skill. Put one through a 4 week traditional martial arts self-defense class and put the other through a 1 day modern reality-based training program based on my criteria. Then pressure test them in various simulated scenarios. You will quickly have your answer. As for your analogy, it's off a little. There are hundreds of thousand of people who take 1 day DIY "crash courses" so that they can handle minor issues and make minor repairs on their homes. This is fact. Do they need the long-term and high level education of a licensed practitioner to perform these simple tasks? Absolutley not! However, if they wanted to go into business of home repair then that long-term high level education would be necessary and required. The same holds true for self-defense and personal safety. A person doesn't not need a long-term high level safety education in order to keep themselves safe. However, if they chose to become instructors in this field that long-term high level education would be necessary and required. Honestly, the same thing can be said regarding the study of martial arts and it's transference to self-defense. Personally I don't think that the study of martial arts alone qualifies anyone to teach self-defense or general personal safety. In fact, while a person my be highly qualified in a particular art, style, or system all that proves is that they have an education regarding that specific art and nothing more. In the corporate world they use the term "subject matter expert". The individual in question would be a subject matter expert on their chosen art but not on self-defense or personal safety. To become a subject matter expert a person needs to invest time, money, and energy into learning as much as they can about their chosen field. Even if they don't agree with something, they need to do the research. Steve Zorn, ICPS

In regards to CPR, a person can't really do anything wrong to cause more problems, as cardiac arrest is about as bad as it can get. The only wrong thing would be to not do anything when they have the necessary skills. When a person goes into cardiac arrest any kind of help, even if not executed technically correct, could mean the difference between life and death. Statistically the only negative that has come from technically incorrect CPR is a broken rib or two. When their life is on the line that's a small price to pay. It is true that even perfectly performed CPR doesn't alway help but that has to do with other variables than the actual application of CPR. The point is, that tons of people who have taken CPR courses have successfully demonstrated the ability to retain and utilize these skills under stress in real situations. I will agree with you in that the person who practices more will be better. That's a given. However, you initially stated that a crash course was a waste of time and that it would only create false confidence. However, as I have pointed out, that simply isn't the case. As long as the program is based on solid concepts, natural motor-skills, and modern teaching/learning theories it not only improves survival odds but it builds confidence that is both true and applicable under stress. Steve Zorm, ICPS

If I could afford it, I would consider it. I too understand how hard it is to get people to understand the differences between personal safety and martial arts. I also understand how easily people relate certain concepts to totally unrelated activities. To give you an example, I rarely teach martial arts anymore and even when I do it's nothing like Karate or Tae Kwon Do. However, since those are common forms of martial arts and the most often heard terms, that's what people think I do when I offer the martial arts classes. The same holds true for teaching child safety. I have parents ask if I teach "Stranger-Danger" and I have to tell them no and then go on to explain what it is I actually do teach. It can be hard and it can be frustrating but eventually some of the people get it and then they begin to spread the word to others. Another example is when I tell people that I teach abduction prevention to children. They immediately think I teach martial arts skills like punching and kicking. I then have to go through a long explanaition as to what it is I actually do teach and why. It's tough! You are more than welcome for the links. Steve Zorn, ICPS

I thought that might be your reasoning and I do understand that. However, while your program may not be a typical "Stranger-Danger" program, the term still emphasizes the "stranger" aspect just in the terminology alone. In NLP this is often thought of as an anchor. It's kind of like this- if you tell someone "don't think about strangers" what's the first thing they think about? In order for them not to think about strangers they have to picture in there mind's eye what it is they are NOT supposed to think about. This actually keeps the thing we don't want them thinking about at the forefront of their mind. Does that make sense? It goes back to that old adage "out of sight, out of mind". In other words if we throw out the word "stranger" they will eventually forget about it and instead focus on the big picture. I realize that you have your own program but If you might be interested in a solid program to implement I would highly suggest checking out http://www.safetykids.org - I spent years building my own program only to find that it wasn't half as complete as the "Be A Safety Kid" materials. They offer comprehensive curriculums for every grade up through 5th. They have discarded the word "stranger" and other terms typical of the "Stranger-Danger" programs. Here are a couple of links to articles on this topic, one I wrote (which you may have read on my website) and another was written by Nancy McBride of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children- http://www.geocities.com/combatives/strangerdangerarticle.html http://www.myparentime.com/articles/05/articleS517.shtml Steve Zorn, ICPS

Thanks for the kind words. You are right and I did make an assumption based on the term "Stranger-Danger" and for that I do apologize. And, no offense taken by your comment because you were correct. I should have asked what you meant by the term rather than just assuming what you meant. While this might be the subject of another thread- might I ask why you still use that term if you don't teach "stranger awareness"? I do realize that it's common term and people are familiar with it but that's all the more reason to move away from it. The term leads parents and children to incorrectly believe that strangers are more of a threat to children than those known to them. Unfortunately, we know that isn't the case and that in fact stranger abductions and molestations are the least likely scenarios. Also, the fact that most adults don't know what a "stranger" is makes it even more difficult to teach children about the subject. The use of the term "stranger" and "stranger-danger" has been something passed on to children and parents for many many years but we know that this hasn't helped reduce abduction or molestations which should encourage us to eliminate these words and terms from our child safety curriculums. Steve Zorn, ICPS

As I mentioned previously that's just your personal opinion and isn't based in research or facts. There is plenty of research and proof to show that solid programs provide the students will the mental and physical skills to survive life-or-death altercations, and don't just give them false confidence. However, on the other hand I would agree that there are thousands of martial arts systems out there teaching complex and fancy techniques, calling it "self-defense" and giving the students false confidence. Let me break this down for you another way. Have you ever taken a First Aid or CPR course? Hundreds of thousands of of people take First Aid & CPR courses each year. These courses are usually taught in 4 to 8 hours (depending on the client's need) and only require that the students attend a recertification course once every 2-3 years. In that 2-3 year period most people do not physically or mentally practice their skills even once. However, there are thousands of resports all around the world of some of these people using their skills to save lives during highly stressful situations, after only taking one "crash course" every 2-3 years. Have you ever taken a fire safety course and been taught to Stop, Drop, & Roll? Hundreds of thousands of children go through such courses each year in school. On average the courses are presented in short time-frames of less than 1 hour. However, it's a known fact that most of these kids will remember and be able to utilize Stop, Drop, & Roll for the rest of their lives. In fact, there are many reports of this simple skill saving lives. If what you say is true and if learning anything through a "crash course" is truly impossible, then how are these adults and children doing this year after year? Is it truly false confidence as you claim or is it that the educators who teach these programs have figured out how to increase learning and retention by applying simple and natural motor-skills with proper learning/teaching theories? The truth is most martial arts instructors get so caught up in art, sport, and tradition, especially traditional teaching methods that they don't realize that there are other more efficient ways to pass on knowledge, especailly self-defense skills. If they did a little research into how people actually learn and retain information they would be able to pass on their knowledge more quickly and have better, more highly motivated students because of it. Steve Zorn, ICPS

I mean no offense by this but why would you continue to teach an outdated concept like "stranger-danger"? But that might be for another thread. Noone is saying that repitition isn't important or even necessary. What I am saying is that out here in the real world people have busy lives that include family, friends, careers, sleep, etc. In most cases those people who need self-defense skills the most don't have the time, energy, or even the desire to invest hours each week practicing complex martial arts skills or even basic self-defense. Here is a good example: most law enforcement officers are required to qualify with their firearms on average once per year. This means going to the range and shooting at a static target and receiving a minimum of 70% hit ratio. However, it's well known that many officers don't take their guns out of their holsters to shoot them even once between re-qualifications, even though their lives my depend on their firearm accuracy. I have personally re-certified (for concealed carry) many civilians that followed the same thought process who were able to successfully pass the re-qualification requirements with no practice in a years time. Is that ideal? No, it's not. However, it is reality. Once we understand and accept this reality we can take steps to offer these people skills that are based on natural and instinctive movements, most already hardwired into the neural-pathways. Skills that are easier to learn, easier to retain, and easier to pull off under the stress of a real assault with minimal practice. If this criteria is utilized people won't need to invest hundreds of hours practicing skills that won't likely work under stress anyway. Instead they can spend a few quality hours each week or each month or even every couple of months working with skills that have the highest probability of actually saving their lives. Also, those who don't have the time or desire to practice regularly should be taught about mental rehearsal techniques which can be used to greatly improve their skills with minimal time and effort. Here is good quote that fits well here- "The old-fashioned view that self-defense instruction is training to reach a high level of fighting skill has the effect of eliminating those individuals who have the greatest need." Bruce Tegner Steve Zorn, ICPS

I would suggest checking out the above mentioned systems and see for yourself. Attending a hodge-podge seminar containing a collection of traditional and complex martial arts skills doesn't fit the criteria that I mentioned. I have personally had students successfully survive violent altercations after only attending one 3 hour self-defense course and having no previous knowledge or skill. There are hundreds of similar stories from those who have attended those courses I mentioned. As I also mentioned there is a difference between real self-defense and martial arts. Most martial arts, including stick systems and BJJ contain only minimal realistic self-defense techniques and tactics, and most of those are unnatural and difficult to master under stress. Steve Zorn, ICPS

I would say that any solid self-defense program is never a waste of time. In fact, I know of many cases were such a program helped save lives. However, I would tend to agree if we are talking about a traditional martial self-defense class that emphasizes complex unnatural skills that require months and years to master. The fact is, there are dozens of solid reality-based self-defense programs out there enhancing people's lives everyday. Many saving lives. The fact that these programs are offered in short 1 or 2 day programs speaks for itself. I would suggest checking out Fast Defense, Model Mugging, IMPACT, RAW Power, and any of the other similar short-term programs. Steve Zorn, ICPS

As was mentioned, self-defense and martial arts are two different animals. While it is true that most solid self-defense programs are conducted in short periods of time, I wouldn't call that a problem. Generally, such programs reach those people who need self-defense the most and where regular long-term martial arts classes wouldn't be viable. I agree that unnatural martial arts and self-defense skills require thousands of repititions to master. That's exactly why most solid self-defense programs are based on natural instinctive gross-motor skills, essentially skills that are already hardwired into the neural-pathways. By building the program around natural and instinctive skills the student requires less training time and less long-term practice in order to effectively learn, retain, and us the skills if needed. While this obviously isn't the most ideal of situations, many times it happens to be best for those who might actually need such training. I would agree that a program that teaches complex or dangerous techniques in a short period of time could lead to a false sense of confidence and actually lead to a dangerous situation for the student. However, if the program is solid and built on reality-based concepts and effective natural skills, it should not only improve confidence but prepare the student physically and mentally to survive a life-or-death altercation. In such case, I wouldn't call that false confidence. Also, it should be pointed out that in some cases the improvement of confidence itsself can decrease the chances a person will be victimized. Steve Zorn, ICPS

You may want to try using a simple rubber exercise band commonally found in sports stores. You might have to use some velcro or something to help keep it in proper position. Here is the generally idea- your son will hold on to the band's handles while the remainder of the band will go behind his back. You will want to position it so that there is no slack in the band when your son is in his proper hands-up stance. Now while your son is practicing blocks and strikes his hands will automatically be brought back to the ready position by the band's resistance. On the plus side the bands can actually improve arm strength. Some of the boxing suppliers use to sell these bands with specific harnesses designed to hold the bands in place but not sure if they still do. Obviously you would want to use a band of low resistance since the idea is just to train the stance and not build strength. With the use of this simple tool your son will soon get the perfect feel of where the hands should be and it will become an automatic response to return them to this position. Hope this helps, Steve Zorn, ICPS

ok, thanks for the clarification. I apologize, it just seemed like you were saying it was a good idea to go to the ground. A good way to train that is to let your partner take you down during a mock chaotic scuffle. That way we develop the positive habit of only going to the ground when we are forced there. If we have the ability to reposition ourselves into the mount, we could easily bypass the mount and stand up. I have seen this hundreds of times by groundfighters who claim to teach "reality"- they will fight to get to the mount, when they should be fighting to get to their feet. As I mentioned, IF we feel the need to use a mount the "head mount" is better and it allows for an easier escape. I might have just been reading things into this but it sounds more like a boxing match on the ground than a survival situation which is why I like to clarify which tactics and targets should be used. I agree that we must do some serious damage to prevent them from doing us further harm, which is why I am a fan of the simple but effect tactics and targets. I just don't think our primary goal should be to continue our counter-assault until they give up or pass out , as this takes up valuable time, which may give the attacker a chance to turn the tables on us or for someone to come along and help the attacker because they think we are the bad guy. Also, from a legal standpoint we are only allowed to do what is necessary to survive and escape the altercation, anything else might place us in jeopardy. However, I am all for doing whatever is needed to survive, and I do mean "whatever". No offense taken either. Thank you for the compliment, it's greatly appreciated. Steve

Mike Tyson, one tougher than tough male athlete, broke his hand while trying to punch during a street fight. The fact is that when teaching personal protection you should teach strategies and tactics that are easily applicable by everyone while still being effective. Not to mention, that punching is a learned skill that requires lots of training as well as protective equipment to protect the hands. Average people who want to protect themselves don't have hours to spend in a gym learning to punch or box. I should also point out, that the human skull contains the hardest bones in the body and the hands contain the softest. If we do the math, we see that the good lord didn't give us hands to punch to the head with. Ask youself this, which requires more training, more skill, and more energy to execute- a powerful punch or a quick finger gouge to the eye? Steve

I agree that without going to the ground there is no ground fight, but going to the ground on prupose is NOT a viable tactic in a life-or-death situation. Learn to use vicious groundfighting tactics that will allow you to get back to your feet as quickly as possible and don't purposely go to the ground. This is a superior position in sport grappling but not for street groundfighting. Remember the goal is to get back to your feet as quickly as possible but IF you insist on using a mount, go for a head mount. This is another sport tactic. If you truely want to dominate the situation and get back to your feet you will focus on vital targets such as the eyes, throat, groin with simple gouges, grabs, and strikes. Don't over-emphasize punches to the head as they can lead to broken hands and ultimately cost you a life out on the street. The goal is to get back to your feet as quickly as possible not beat the attacker into submission. I agree with this completely. Let me say that I mean no offense with my reply but wanted to point out a few differences in sport-based tactics and the much needed survival-based tactics. The key is to ask yourself are the tactics that I am teaching as "reality-based" as equally effective for average women, men, and elderly individuals as they are for male athletes? Steve

I would attempt to strike or grab the groin, gouge the eyes, and get back to my feet as quickly as possible! Steve