Self Defense Classes

[szorn]

bingo.

For most of the population, self defense classes are a waste of time because the person learning the techniques will not practice them once the seminar is over. For those short seminars, teaching technique is just a waste that brings money to you, but nothing to the attendee. At seminars I've conducted, we started with stuff they can instantly use - awareness. teaching them to be more aware of their surroundings, how to not look like a victim, how to actively monitor for possible threats, etc. We showed some technique at the end of the seminar, but it was largely what I mentioned above.

that said, if the class is ongoing, where they can practice the techniques sever times per week, then yeah, it can be effective. But for the one time seminars, no.

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

[Zorbasan]

some good points there steve. but i would still say that regardless of the system, a couple of hours worth of seminar self defence is not going to be enuf for people to have enough skills to help them.

i took a 4 hour seminar that had self defence, sticks and some BJJ in it, and i wouldnt even remember half the stuff we were taught, and im an Martial artist of 15 years.

[szorn]

some good points there steve. but i would still say that regardless of the system, a couple of hours worth of seminar self defence is not going to be enuf for people to have enough skills to help them.

i took a 4 hour seminar that had self defence, sticks and some BJJ in it, and i wouldnt even remember half the stuff we were taught, and im an Martial artist of 15 years.

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

[DancingSteve]

I actually teach a kids self defense/stranger danger class and also teach various classes to adult groups when needed.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree it requires repetition...you practice shooting baskets...you practice your clarinet....why not practice safety.

If its important..its worth doing more than once. Safety is important.

What I find while exploring self defense in general is a much better 'big picture' perspective on how my Shotokan techniques can be applied...and even equated to a self defense situation.

And i also WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree..you cannot quantify any system as the 'best' for real life situations. You never know what a real life situation is going to bring. Its fluid...it moves and lives just like you do. The only thing you can do is be mentally and physically prepared to do WHATEVER IT TAKES. To protect yourself. I think ANY MA training gets you there..some in different ways..but they all prepare you.

[szorn]

I actually teach a kids self defense/stranger danger class and also teach various classes to adult groups when needed.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree it requires repetition...you practice shooting baskets...you practice your clarinet....why not practice safety.

If its important..its worth doing more than once. Safety is important.

What I find while exploring self defense in general is a much better 'big picture' perspective on how my Shotokan techniques can be applied...and even equated to a self defense situation.

And i also WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree..you cannot quantify any system as the 'best' for real life situations. You never know what a real life situation is going to bring. Its fluid...it moves and lives just like you do. The only thing you can do is be mentally and physically prepared to do WHATEVER IT TAKES. To protect yourself. I think ANY MA training gets you there..some in different ways..but they all prepare you.

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

[Zorbasan]

im not saying that everyone should find the time to do martial arts for there own safety. my point is that doing a crash course in anything isnt really going to make you any good at it, and especially in something like self defence, its going to give people some false confidence.

[szorn]

im not saying that everyone should find the time to do martial arts for there own safety. my point is that doing a crash course in anything isnt really going to make you any good at it, and especially in something like self defence, its going to give people some false confidence.

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

[DancingSteve]

Your assuming you know what I teach as my 'Stranger Danger' curriculum. Thats a lot of assuming. I only use the term stranger danger because it makes parents say, "Oh yes. I would like my child to know some of this 'Stranger Danger'.

I know as well as you most likely do that "Don't talk to Strangers" doesnt work a lick anymore. So don't assume thats what I teach.

[DancingSteve]

A hearty pat on the back to you Steve for your program you have created though. I checked out your website and it looks as if you have created something that half the users of this forum would love to emulate.

My program touches on a lot of the same concepts you do regarding awareness issues. Abduction safety, Internet, Animal, etc. I have obviously not turned it into my living as you have. I get to stay at home and raise my own kids to be safe instead.

I didn't mean to strike back at your comment but I just wanted you to know that just because I use the term "Stranger Danger" doesnt mean I don't know the difference.

[szorn]

A hearty pat on the back to you Steve for your program you have created though. I checked out your website and it looks as if you have created something that half the users of this forum would love to emulate.

My program touches on a lot of the same concepts you do regarding awareness issues. Abduction safety, Internet, Animal, etc. I have obviously not turned it into my living as you have. I get to stay at home and raise my own kids to be safe instead.

I didn't mean to strike back at your comment but I just wanted you to know that just because I use the term "Stranger Danger" doesnt mean I don't know the difference.

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