Ungentlemanly like behavior

[MatsuShinshii]

They're desperation techniques used (not surprisingly) by desperate people.

Its not the technique your throwing so much as the position you're attempting to throw it from. Take a punch for example: Throw it from on top of someone it does damage. Throw it from the bottom and its laughably ineffective. The same goes for all these eye gouges and bites, throat rips, and what have you else. If you're not in a good position you don't have good leverage- therefore your attack is going to be quite weak.

Most of the people teaching them haven't even done them. What this is an attempt to do is make a claim unfalsifiable. For example, let me get out of a choke by biting or eye gouging- I promise you it wont work- I've lost count of people trying to do that to me when I choke them- the biggest concern is losing control because I'm laughing so hard. So when you ask these people to prove what they're showing they back track and say "oh this is for real stuff, not sport." This leaves them the perfect scenario where they can make a grand claim ("defend yourself from X!) and never have to back it up- and people still believe them....

So in short I'd pull people I cared about out of that class, and my response when asked would be "You don't seem to be educated enough to teach this stuff...."

Although I understand and sadly know where you are coming from due to those that do not understand how and when to use certain techniques I do not agree that, what most now days call self defense techniques, do not work.

It depends on your knowledge of the techniques, how to apply them, when to apply them and against what technique to apply them.

I have used what some would call dirty fighting techniques in real situations and I can promise you that they work. Back in my youthful rowdy Marine Corps days they have gotten me out of sticky situations in bar fights. And to your point there are things that work to get loose from a choke.

What you're speaking about is really a point of what the attackers pain tolerance is and how mentally intent he is on executing the technique. In this case a simple bite or eye gouge may not work but this is only listing the most basic dirty fighting tactics.

Not arguing with your point because I understand that their are less than qualified people teaching less than effective techniques but this does not encompass every teacher, art or technique.

Just my 2 cents.

I really need to try and train with you at some point Matsu. Because my experience has been similar to TJ's on this.

I don't think anyone is saying that such techniques don't/can't work, what we are saying is that:

1. Such techniques are not the world beating force multipliers that they are often made out to be by people who have never fought with contact before.

First off I would be honored to train with you or anyone here at KF. I love to cross train with others and with your grappling background I think I could learn a lot.

Now to your points;

I agree that what is taught as "self defense" techniques are not the end all to everything. However there are some techniques that work better than others and a few techniques that you can always count on to work, IF, you know how to use them, when to use them and to what you should use them against.

2. If you are in a bad position, particularly in grappling range, such techniques will not work as a substitute for a structural escape against anyone with even a modicum of training.

If I'm being tied into a pretzel knot I would use what ever I could. If opportunity presents itself you jump on it. For me and others like me that are well past the bell curve of the newest craze being grappling, you use what you know. I understand attacking the structure, I assume you mean a persons foundation, albeit I may attack it differently than you.

I think the overwhelming issue is, the guys that teach "self defense" use this as their answer to every situation when there are so many more tools in the arsenal that you can use and should use with a given situation.

Am I saying that me biting your arm to get out of a choke hold will work... NO I'm not. If you did this to me it would, well...I can't say that but suffice it to say getting hurt makes me want to hurt the other person worse. So I understand that a given technique may not be the right one for a given situation. However there is always a solution. You just have to know what that solution is.

It's not that, for example, if I am grabbed from behind, a groin strike absolutely WON't work, because of course it might, it's that my time to react is limited, and I would rather do something structural, that I have practiced thousands of times against real resistance, that I KNOW will work.

You speaking the gospel to the choir. You use what you have practiced 1000's of times. It's what works best for you.

I think we are saying the same thing. You are a grappler so using the techniques and applications you know makes the most sense to you. My response is based on what works best for me. It's logical that you and I would fall back on what we do best.

Most people vastly underestimate the effects of adrenal stress response on male combative ability, and they don't realize that someones response to a painful stimulus may not be to let go, it may be to squeeze harder.

I get this 100%. If struck it turns the switch on and it's go time. People are different. Some submit immediately to pain or even the threat of pain. Pain flips the fight switch in others.

Size has nothing to do with this response. We called it the fight or flight response in the military and I have witnessed this first hand. The guy that you think would be the one to run to danger cowers in a hole crying for mommy and the guy that you think will get the yellow spine award charges directly into dangers path without regard to themselves.

I truly believe it boils down to mentality. To keep this on track I'll use commonly used self defense techniques to make my point.

An eye gouge will not work well for someone that is not willing to take it to the level that is needed. Example; someone that is appalled at the thought of hurting another person. They will not execute a technique with the intent to maim or kill if needed and thus any technique executed will have minimum impact if any. Someone that is willing to do anything necessary and is fighting like their life depends on it will take it to that level and past if needed.

I am not saying that an eye gouge is the end all technique or that any technique for that matter is. However there is a time and a place to use techniques and if done correctly have devastating effects on the assailant no matter their background or skill.

If you strike someone in the brachial plexus correctly, I don't care how large or how skilled, they are face planting and eating pavement. It all boils down to knowledge and how far your willing to take it.

I think the over riding issue here is those that do not have an understanding of the human anatomy, cause and effect, and are teaching things based on little to no factual basis as self defense "sure things". I have sat through such seminars and walked away knowing that the techniques taught work but not the way they were presented. I think this is why so many say that some of it is useless. And to be honest, under this context, they are absolutely right.

The fact is if you understand the body and what certain techniques do to the body and more importantly how and when to do them, then the techniques work (on anyone).

If you attack a body builders gut you are essentially wasting your time however if you attack those area's that are vulnerable you do so with maximum effect. The is a right technique for a given situation. That might be to strike, throw, joint lock, grapple, etc. This comes with years of study to know what, when and where to use a given technique. If you do not have this knowledge then, yes your points are valid across the board.

So I don't disagree with either of you in terms of what you have seen and what you know. To the contrary I agree. However I agree based on the typical "self defense" techniques as taught by those without the first clue as to how to execute said techniques nor when and how to use them.

And to make it clear I do not pretend to have all of the answers nor to I profess to be the end all knowledgeable person to tell you or anyone what works and what doesn't. I just know what works or has worked for me. At 6'2" and 200 lbs I am anything but a menacing figure and without certain dirty techniques I would have been beaten to a pulp years ago when I was a hot headed bullet proof jar head talking smack in bars. Because I am definitely not as bad as I think I am. In fact there has been many a time that my mouth wrote checks my butt couldn't cash and I paid for it dearly.

But because these techniques have worked for me in times that were sketchy at best, I defend them and their use. However I do not dismiss your points as to there validity either. It's like I said before, we use what we know best and what we have trained to most.

[Trailer_Ape]

Kudos on holding back your opinion, I would not have been able to.

Just look at the word, itself - GENTLEman. Being gentle when someone is seriously trying to harm you isn't really a great idea.

I'd rather my kid be vicious than a victim. People do some really disturbing things to kids who fail at defending themselves. Sounds like he is skewing his child's priorities, the highest of which should be LIVE.

That said - I would steer away from any school that pitched these tactics as the end all be all ace in the hole.

In Kaj, I was taught - the time for de escalation or peaceful resolution is BEFORE they lay (or try to lay) hands on you. Once it reaches that point, it's time to do real work.

[Alan Armstrong]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

[Tempest]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

[JR 137]

Cobra Kai dojo kun:

We do not train to be merciful here.

Mercy is for the weak.

Here, in the streets, in competition.

A man confronts you, he is the enemy.

An enemy deserves no mercy.

:)

As crazy as Kreese was, he’s got somewhat of a point.

[MatsuShinshii]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

[Alan Armstrong]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

"The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.

If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back?

If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive.

[Tempest]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

"The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.

If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back?

If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive.

So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful.

Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P.

Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion

To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses.

Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses.

Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses.

Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses.

Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill.

[Alan Armstrong]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

"The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.

If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back?

If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive.

So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful.

Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P.

Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion

To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses.

Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses.

Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses.

Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses.

Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill.

A big thank you Tempest.

If someone throws a stone at me:

My reaction to it will depend on where I am situated, the country or territory or area, am I an intruder.

Who is throwing the stone, children, teens or adults.

To understand the apparent reason for the stone throwing, is this a riot or a street battle.

Were the stones being thrown intended for me or not on a personal level, or just target practice.

Am I responsible for the care and security of anyone with me, children, friends and family or VIP work related.

Do I recognize any of the stone throwers, that might have a personal grudge against me.

Would my aggresive or passive actions escalate or aggravate the situation or not.

Could this be part of a bigger plan, such chasing them and getting caught in an ambush.

First, safety comes to mind for myself and those with me.

Secondly, assess the situation.

Third, make a plan and implement it.

[bushido_man96]

Un-gentleman and un-ladylike behavior, this is 16th Century pompous verbiage, perhaps this was appropriate for those of royal blood and with titles, as dueling pistols and swords where used to settle their differences.

Those that do harm to others without cause, don't deserve anything but un-gentleman like behavior against them.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis.

But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter.

I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat.

As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer...

I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

"The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.

If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back?

If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive.

So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful.

Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P.

Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion

To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses.

Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses.

Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses.

Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses.

Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill.

Tempest, these are very good points. Use-of-force does apply to the civilian circles, and its important for instructors to teach their students how to assess situations to respond appropriately.

Shameless plug here: Force Continuum for the Civilian Martial Artist.