JusticeZero

Scheduling has been a mess, so we've just been working our way through Miller's Meditations on Violence chapter by chapter, with frequent discussions of the material covered. I'm heading to the studio later today though, if I can work the timing out.

I tend to see that type of technique as 'probably ineffective'. It is a structural attack on one of the most resilient and reinforced pieces of anatomy on the human body, and not something that gets tested very often. I try to push a loop that at every second step asks 'Can I run away now?' so that students won't cross the line into assault; I also treat techniques as ways to move an attacker or degrade their ability to persue, rather than 'how much can I hurt them?' If it comes down to it, I want them to be able to say something like "I hit him that hard so I could get him out of the way to RUN OUT THE DOOR" rather than try to justify some Mortal Kombat style special finishing move in a court to a peeved hotshot lawyer brother-in-law of the attacker.

My wife had an injury three years like that. She didn't go to the doctor. Her foot is still injured, and hasn't improved much at all.

I've seen some very unrealistic, performance based JKD; i've seen some bone-jarring hard-core sweat bruises and blood Tai Chi. I'd be careful about making assumptions about the totality of an art based on what one or two people do.

You would rather save face and protect your ego than walk away and save yourself from a possible trip to the prison, hospital, or morgue? Not something that I would particularly want to see in one of -my- students, really... I feel that it is more important to be left than it is to be right. You may not be 'required' to yield to someone who feels that they can throw their weight around. Understand though, that they are not 'required' to refrain from pulling out a knife, gun, friend with steel toed boots, or lawyer/crooked police officer friend on speed dial if the resulting head butting clash of egos does not go in the way that they initially prefer, either.

Well, how tightly are you defining style? My art in general is pretty darned open source, but a specific kernel/lineage generally can be traced to some extent or other for a few steps at least. Improvisation, personalization, and grabbing of useful stuff that can be made to fit the kernel structure is more the norm than the exception in a lot of ways.

*cough* ...sorry, but you're talking bad about the stuff that I teach, so I need to go off a bit here. A large portion of the sub-Saharan combat styles have a similar structure to Capoeira - the 'dance' like sparring structure is as standard as the use of kata and forms to catalog techniques in the arts native to sections of and near east Asia. Or for that matter, as standard as putting martial arts into sports contexts is in the West. Also: ..The few of those conditions we fulfill actually puts the Capoeira i've experienced as MORE reality based, as according to thoughts of well-known 'real combat' gurus. Lifestyle.. not particularly.. philosophical beliefs toward strategy/tactics - expect to be ambushed or stabbed in the back at any moment, lie to get away from a threat, fight dirty, assume that you are outgunned and going to be blamed for everything, be manipulative, and run away?.. which is also as close as i've seen to the spiritual beliefs about combat in general? The aesthetic element I can't speak to, as it has thus far universally been my experience that EFFICIENT and EFFECTIVE movement is also PRETTY movement; show me an ugly movement and I will show you movement that attempts to violate numerous biomechanical and structural principles and leaks force like a colander. There might be some exceptions somewhere, but i can't say that i've seen them.

I study MacYoung, Miller, et al; when I hear about other people getting into situations I ask questions about how it went down, build scenarios out of those conditions, and try to build plans for those attackers. I actively look for counters and holes in my movements that I need to address or take note of. I don't assume that I can do a whole heck of a lot of damage, and try to make sure that there are contingencies for me to do a technique that does exactly nothing. Techniques should always be done to open up options to flee, and so I work toward more generous victory conditions than others might.

Valhalla - Viking heaven to be earned by a death in battle. Those who died outside of battle were consigned to the frosty (and, iirc, generally boring) wastes of Hel instead.

Incoming force is directed away from it's target, but obliquely, and a vector is added to the force; the body of the attacker is thus redirected into a compromising position. Key is the ability to collapse and abandon structure and solidity strategically, intentionally crumpling a target and rolling along the edge of the attack vector.

Teach about fringe areas and how criminals identify targets. Teach about how to recognize warning behaviors, and teach that once things go sour, get away, don't try to 'teach them a lesson' or anything of the sort, just break and go.

Esquiva is at it's heart an extreme step. Form: in unison, 1: turn both toes to face the direction, 2: launch off with the back clf, 3: extend your lead knee in the direction of travel, gliding the foot, 4: suck the center behind the sternum into the knee and foot in the lead, 5: lead with the elbow in order to ensure good defensive cover. Spent two hours just drilling that. Each point was done with specific drilling of the movement, connected with stepping practice, and an admonition to concentrate on that aspect of the movement. This was followed by a round table discussion of how the exercises felt kinesthetically to perform compared to before; the consensus was that it was "more solid", among other comments.

The theory there is that while in an adrenalized and unfamiliar situation like a fight, people will not be good judges of force levels and justifiable response. If I keep hammering a loop that repeatedly asks "Can I run away now?" it will mitigate locking into attacking a threat after the threat has ceased to be a threat and thus turning into assault.

Started with theory. To have crime, you need Opportunity, intent, and Capacity. Try to neutralize all as best you can. Don't glare at bad guys and threaten them; they're not out to get you yet, and if you're aware, staying away from places where you're vulnerable, and look decently confident, they're not likely to register you as a target. Puffing yourself up, though, might. Levels of response was covered - particularly 'don't be there'. Structure of esquiva. Break, during which some of the disaster response experiences from Katrina were noted, particularly how people don't fall to anarchy but rather look to people who are confident and have a plan, and congregate around entertainers like musicians. On return, au was covered, specifically the way balance shifts into and through it rather than diving through it. Had to end class early due to student schedule issue.

Actually, it isn't; whether or not people are holding a receiver to their ear or using a hands-free set has consistently been demonstrated in test after test to have no effect on safety; the fact that you are listening to someone who can't see the traffic situation you are in is the important factor, and is as impairing as driving drunk.

Self defense is mostly non-combat stuff. There is a lot of completely justifiable combat that is NOT SELF-DEFENSE that it is completely reasonable to do. Restraining someone from injuring others or themself? Not self-defense. Taking down a Columbine-style attacker? Very possibly not self-defense. Arresting someone? Not self-defense. Most of the "what if" scenarios people pull out in a martial arts class? Not self-defense. For self defense I like my "levels": 1: Don't be there in the first place. 2: Run away. 3: Make some distance, pass the blame off, make yourself look like an embarrassment to fight. Run away. 4: Remove the immediate threat of injury, go over/through the attacker forcefully enough to deter pursuit. Run away. There really isn't any #5, as 'removing the immediate threat of injury' can extend up to and including lethal responses; nonetheless, they are only applied in order to facilitate flight. Basically it can be stated as "1: Run away. 2: If 1 fails, do something to facilitate running away. 3: Go to 1." Anything that interferes with the ability to run away - like grappling - is no longer a defensive response.

with one, the power is generated before impact, with the other, the power is applied after impact.

One of the two things I have to tell people allll the freaking time in class, the other being "Just STEP!"

I use 'bar' specifically because I have heard a lot of "self defence" questions that are, essentially, asking how to use the martial arts to win a bar fight that, even according to the whitewashed fictitious scenario given, wasn't being avoided very hard.

Out at about 20 feet, tests that i've read indicate that the fellow with the gun is going to get sliced to ribbons by the knife user something like 98% of the time before they can bring their gun into play, assuming that they have their hand on the gun ready to draw at the slightest twitch of the guy with a knife in their pocket and two empty hands in the air. 20 feet is not terribly close, and those are not good odds. Also, a knife can do some pretty horrific amounts of damage.

The main issue is that a 'reasonable person' should just walk away from silly challenges to their ego, but lots of people seem to want to 'teach them a lesson' or get their last licks in. As I often tell people, "If it started with "I was in the bar.." it's not self defence." But the principle is a bit more broad than that. If you blindly and carelessly walk into dangerous places and situations, expect danger to happen.

Oh, and for my thoughts on the matter (duh) - i'm partial to a knife or a club - things that are socially acceptable to carry, or easily improvised. When I was delivering pizzas in the bad part of Austin, I carried a 5 D flashlight with a steel barrel. If anyone asked, I needed the light to find my way around and illuminate house numbers. But if it came down to it I had a sturdy club that I could dazzle with to tilt the odds a bit more. I could carry it in front of jumpy police or into stores and nobody would bat an eye. I actually have a police combatives manual on large flashlight use that I acquired gods only knows where that I dogeared up a bit during that stage of my life. Nowadays though, i'm not in those same risk factors, and i'm more concerned with mobility and not having to kit up like I was going down into Ye Olde Monster Infested Dungeon every time I walk out my front door now.

Have you ever actually looked at the results from the police tests on that? As it turns out, you'd have to be an idiot NOT to bring a knife to a gunfight at many common engagement distances for a handgun.

Thursday: Basic stuff, though I spent more time on paired drills. These are chained strings of attacks and defences, which mesh at a specific tempo. I instructed Vidro and kid to, if they saw the other defend before the kick was actually launched, turn around and use a different attack; if the drill called for a (reverse crescent) kick to the right, if they loaded up the kick and saw the defence already in place, they should quickly switch to a spinning kick to the left. It is important not to telegraph defences! Telegraphing ATTACKS can sometimes be very useful, however, if it gets the other person to commit to a defence while the attacker can still change up their attack. Worked on increasing the body awareness of the kid, who still needs a nickname (Vidro suggested 'monkey', but she doesn't move in a monkey sort of way..) after discovering that she had to stop to look at her arm before being able to tell us if it was straight or bent. This was done by blindfolding her and having her move around, telling her to freeze at various points, then quizzing her on her body positioning. I'm sure there is a better way, but i'm low on ideas.

Yeah, I don't use levels like that. One of the people who was explaining it to me did, and that's a paraphrase of that bit of explanation; it pretty much was that any techniques on the top end of the force continuum should be specifically tailored to be lethal; ie if given the choice between severing an attacker's hand or severing the attacker's throat, where no lesser response is practical, one should always chose the technique to sever the throat, as the repercussions will ultimately be much less severe. Troubling, but the logic seemed sound.