Martial Art Purely for Defense

Training
41

Agreed Ranzo. I like to throw the right hand out (not necessarily even looking to land it, sometimes I’ll trap the lead hand with it, sometimes I’ll use it to post, sometimes it’s just to make the opponent defend it, and immediately follow up with the right round kick. This works especially well on someone who likes to try to “run” use distance to avoid the right or shoulder roll the right as the kick will still land solid and they won’t be able to check/block it.

I also like to throw a more powerful rear leg round kick after I throw a left hook as my weight is already loaded up on my right leg (and thus I have more potential power). I will also step to the left/outside of the opponent’s right shoulder while I do this to add more mass transfer and also to take my head out of the opponent’s right hand’s alignment.

If you roll the hip and shoulder correctly, reach with the hips, position correctly with the kick, and set it up right you can safely pull/pendulum your right hand down and not get hit for doing so. If you stand in the guy’s wheel house, throw the kick without any kind of set up and drop your hands, then yeah, a good opponent is going to make you pay for it. That’s not really a limitation in the technique though and more of just poor understanding of correct mechanics and application.

42

InflamedJoints,

“In short, I am willing to practice a shitload.”

OK, based on your statement above my recommendation is Glock,Sig Sauer or FNH, then get your CCW, and find a range/club with a good “point-shooting” instructor.A good one.
This isn’t 1950,where you duked it out till someone called uncle, then you shake hands. Your lucky you didn’t wind up in the hospital or dirt napping.

I have fought and trained boxers for most of my adult life and the last thing i will do is take it outside the gym. All my reflexes are trained for looking only at your hands and upper body. I’m on the street and you kick me in the balls and my fighting reflexes do one thing…look for the referee and say (in a high voice)“Hey, he can’t do that” Only thing is, on the street theres no referee. Boxing is alot of fun…in the gym.

Outside the gym my american express is a Glock 30. I don’t leave home without it.
A .45 HP is a surprisingly effective de-methalator.
And for god’s sake don’t settle for a range where all you can do is stand in front of the same lane and shoot down it over and over. That’s as bad as boxing. You need to learn to pull your piece as quick as a right-hand lead and work with it. There will be NO benchrests or tables or lanes on the streets.

And its an excellent way to de-stress…putting big holes in stuff.

LB

43

[quote]LBramble wrote:
InflamedJoints,

“In short, I am willing to practice a shitload.”

OK, based on your statement above my recommendation is Glock,Sig Sauer or FNH, then get your CCW, and find a range/club with a good “point-shooting” instructor.A good one.
This isn’t 1950,where you duked it out till someone called uncle, then you shake hands. Your lucky you didn’t wind up in the hospital or dirt napping.

I have fought and trained boxers for most of my adult life and the last thing i will do is take it outside the gym. All my reflexes are trained for looking only at your hands and upper body. I’m on the street and you kick me in the balls and my fighting reflexes do one thing…look for the referee and say (in a high voice)“Hey, he can’t do that” Only thing is, on the street theres no referee. Boxing is alot of fun…in the gym.

Outside the gym my american express is a Glock 30. I don’t leave home without it.
A .45 HP is a surprisingly effective de-methalator.
And for god’s sake don’t settle for a range where all you can do is stand in front of the same lane and shoot down it over and over. That’s as bad as boxing. You need to learn to pull your piece as quick as a right-hand lead and work with it. There will be NO benchrests or tables or lanes on the streets.

And its an excellent way to de-stress…putting big holes in stuff.

LB [/quote]

This is all valid, but knowing your laws could be helpful, and given that the required escalation of force (for legal/necessary usage of a firearm) is high, I’d still say training on how to put someone on their ass is a valid effort. I don’t think a drunk guy wanting to fight you is justifiable means to put a cap in someone’s ass, yo.

44

Yeah, I’m all for training to use tools for self defense (firearms, blades, kubutons, etc…), but suggesting that a firearm is a cure all for self defense purposes is misguided and possibly even downright dangerous. As Blaze mentioned, there are very real use of force laws in most areas of the world. If you happen to live somewhere that it’s ok to just pull your firearm and shoot an unarmed person who gets in your face, then maybe it could be all you’d ever need (although even then you had better hope the gun doesn’t misfire, jam, get into the other guy’s hands, miss and kill an innocent, or any number of other equipment errors or operator errors that can occur when using a firearm for self defense). I wouldn’t want to live in such a place, but that’s neither here nor there.

And what if you happen to be somewhere that you cannot carry a firearm (airport, state/capital building, another state that prohibits concealed carry of firearms, most schools and universities, etc…)? I think anyone would agree that a trained individual with a weapon is exponentially more dangerous than an unarmed one, but I also think it’s foolish to bet the farm that any tool that can be taken away from you or that you weren’t born attached to is always going to be there to save your butt.

So I would encourage the OP to train with tools for self defense, learn as much as they can about the self defense and use of force laws in their area, but also train in unarmed combative skills in case those external tools are not available or appropriate for the situation at hand.

45

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Yeah, I’m all for training to use tools for self defense (firearms, blades, kubutons, etc…), but suggesting that a firearm is a cure all for self defense purposes is misguided and possibly even downright dangerous. As Blaze mentioned, there are very real use of force laws in most areas of the world. If you happen to live somewhere that it’s ok to just pull your firearm and shoot an unarmed person who gets in your face, then maybe it could be all you’d ever need (although even then you had better hope the gun doesn’t misfire, jam, get into the other guy’s hands, miss and kill an innocent, or any number of other equipment errors or operator errors that can occur when using a firearm for self defense). I wouldn’t want to live in such a place, but that’s neither here nor there.

And what if you happen to be somewhere that you cannot carry a firearm (airport, state/capital building, another state that prohibits concealed carry of firearms, most schools and universities, etc…)? I think anyone would agree that a trained individual with a weapon is exponentially more dangerous than an unarmed one, but I also think it’s foolish to bet the farm that any tool that can be taken away from you or that you weren’t born attached to is always going to be there to save your butt.

So I would encourage the OP to train with tools for self defense, learn as much as they can about the self defense and use of force laws in their area, but also train in unarmed combative skills in case those external tools are not available or appropriate for the situation at hand.[/quote]

Great Post…Totally agree.

OP,
to not hi-jack your inquiry, if you want to pursue further information on the subject armed/unarmed encounters, I would recommend the following for solid information on this forum:

Wrestling or Judo for law enforcement.

Situational Awareness.

Classic: surviving edged weapons.

Bad Ideas.

46

def go with jiu jitsu. if you can take someone down (90% of fights go to the ground anyway) and have any kind of grappling knowledge over you’re opponent, you’ll win. don’t even worry about being able to do submissions (although that would be ideal). the ability to wrestle, hold down, and control someone can go along way even if you are no good at striking.

47

Some great posts here and awesome karate history. Honestly though OP as long as you pick one that spends a lot of time sparring as realistically as possible you’re set. Boxing, Judo, BJJ, just about any kickboxing school, some Karate styles, etc.

You also want to think of training economy. I once attended a Kung fu seminar put on by an instructor who also taught out of my old Hapkido studio. Lucky for me he decided to use me as his demonstration dummy for the whole 3+hours. I kid you not, this guy could kick your ass with the “only works in movies” type of kung fu. I was a doubter of kung fu’s practicality but afterwards i was certainly convinced this guy is legit. He showed us animal style techniques, how to use tai chi principles in the clinch, he even had a palm strike that seemed to compress my chest and caused my heart to speed up. He was very fast and could hit hard. The thing is, none of his students could fight. They could all showcase flashy techniques but none of them knew how to respond to aggression or being hit. Sifu had spent 30+ years learning kung fu and bringing his skill to that level. OTOH, you could go learn boxing or Muay Thai and be reasonably proficient in 6 months to a year.

48

[quote]JWolfe wrote:
def go with jiu jitsu. if you can take someone down (90% of fights go to the ground anyway) and have any kind of grappling knowledge over you’re opponent, you’ll win. don’t even worry about being able to do submissions (although that would be ideal). the ability to wrestle, hold down, and control someone can go along way even if you are no good at striking. [/quote]

This has been argued a million times here, but that the statistic quoted is wrong and non-existent. 90 percent of fights do not go to the ground.

Most here would also argue that going to the ground in such situations is the absolute worst idea. I’m not saying this poster has to agree, I’m just saying most here think like that. Including me.

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]JWolfe wrote:
def go with jiu jitsu. if you can take someone down (90% of fights go to the ground anyway) and have any kind of grappling knowledge over you’re opponent, you’ll win. don’t even worry about being able to do submissions (although that would be ideal). the ability to wrestle, hold down, and control someone can go along way even if you are no good at striking. [/quote]

This has been argued a million times here, but that the statistic quoted is wrong and non-existent. 90 percent of fights do not go to the ground.

Most here would also argue that going to the ground in such situations is the absolute worst idea. I’m not saying this poster has to agree, I’m just saying most here think like that. Including me.[/quote]
I think it was based on FBI stats in regard to making arrests or something. Besides, even if true there is a difference between a fight (which can really mean many things) and a self-defense situation.

50

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]JWolfe wrote:
def go with jiu jitsu. if you can take someone down (90% of fights go to the ground anyway) and have any kind of grappling knowledge over you’re opponent, you’ll win. don’t even worry about being able to do submissions (although that would be ideal). the ability to wrestle, hold down, and control someone can go along way even if you are no good at striking. [/quote]

This has been argued a million times here, but that the statistic quoted is wrong and non-existent. 90 percent of fights do not go to the ground.

Most here would also argue that going to the ground in such situations is the absolute worst idea. I’m not saying this poster has to agree, I’m just saying most here think like that. Including me.[/quote]
I think it was based on FBI stats in regard to making arrests or something. Besides, even if true there is a difference between a fight (which can really mean many things) and a self-defense situation. [/quote]

It’s been documented in many books that the original statistic was one that found that 47 percent of arrests were made on the ground. The Gracies pretty much lied, commandeered that, and began repeating the mantra about “90 percent of streetfights going to the ground.”

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/grappling.html

“BTW, the 80% go to the ground slogan was a marketing spin. While there was a legitimate study by the LAPD’s Sgt.Greg Dossey on what happens during conflict, it was specifically for LEOs and pertaining to their operating conditions – namely arrest and control situations. Dossey’s study found that about 47% of arrests where the perp resisted ended up with one or both on the ground before cuffing. Realistically, as any officer can tell you, to cuff a resisting perp. You need to pin them against a base, either the ground, a car, the wall or even another officer. You have to do this before you can successfully cuff the perp. This is about as well known to officers as the fact that the sun comes up in the East. It’s a daily problem to them. As such, it not only meets, but often exceeds the 80% number. In fact, it could be summed up “As 95% all cuffing of resisting perps require use of some kind of base” and be totally accurate. Even at 47%, Dossey’s findings were enough to get grappling introduced into arrest and control tactic training. In fact, the man’s groundbreaking work totally changed the direction of training and arrest technique. He deserves great credit for a great advancements in officer safety and more humane arrest techniques. However the Gracies, their organizations and the grappling world expanded the original 47% of arrests where “one or both” go to the ground to “ALL” fights. This is simply NOT true. But a lie repeated enough is eventually believed as the truth. The number is not now, nor has it ever been valid across the board. Although I feel the reason Gracie trained players can make that claim with some level of accuracy is because they “take” their fights there. They make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. So in their training halls, the MMA ring and in their fights it is true. It is not, however, universally true.(3)”

51

I don’t even know how one could even come up with stats for what goes on in fights. How do you even research it? Rorion’s a lawyer so you have to take whatever he says with that in mind.

52

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t even know how one could even come up with stats for what goes on in fights. How do you even research it? Rorion’s a lawyer so you have to take whatever he says with that in mind. [/quote]

I don’t disagree. I have no idea how you might research it either, I was actually just thinking that after I made the last post. There’s no way it would be accurate.

The police records at least have some basis.

53

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t even know how one could even come up with stats for what goes on in fights. How do you even research it? Rorion’s a lawyer so you have to take whatever he says with that in mind. [/quote]

I don’t disagree. I have no idea how you might research it either, I was actually just thinking that after I made the last post. There’s no way it would be accurate.

The police records at least have some basis.[/quote]
The only thing that makes sense to me is the idea that, unless there is a significant gap in skill and/or size, there is a good possibility of a fight going to the ground if one or both parties wants it to go there. It can happen even when they don’t. Now, that doesn’t mean going to the ground is the right move at any given moment just that it can be hard to stop it from happening if the other person is determined.

Having said that, I don’t like to use fight and self-defense interchangeably. And when it comes to best MA for self-defense I tend to think more of circumstances (i.e., all the variables) and best tactics for those circumstances. I don’t know if any MA addresses them all for all people. What I can say is there are red flags when choosing a school. If, when asked about self-defense, they claim that although they don’t train self-defense specifically but focus more on sport the techniques can be applied in “reality” it’s not a good sign. If they respond to the self-defense question by saying they offer MMA classes it’s also not a good sign. If they say they do self-defense then ask about how they address certain situations and how they train for them. If they can’t give detailed explanations about how they train then that is a bad sign. Finally, you should be allowed to watch a class, or even several classes, to get an idea of what they really do and see if it makes any sort of sense or has any basis in whatever is your concept of reality.

54

Well even if you took the stance that 90% of fights went to the ground I would steer away from jyu jitsu in favor of submission wrestling, pancration or something like that. The thing that helps my ground fighting the most is wrestling. As the adage goes in Jitsu " position before submission" if you always flop to your back and start playing those games you are gonna get hit, A LOT.

You need to recognize the dangers, like oh shit he is charging me and trying to take me down or push me through a wall car etc. and be able to take an appropriate action, and just knowing how to armbar or kimura someone is not gonna get it. Also as an added bonus and swish of smartassness, your best chance to even get close to beating me is to get me on my back but doing so is gonna be real, real hard.

From my experience the most important things are learning when to leave. Sento is much better at identifying those areas than I.
Next would be spacing / range defending punches, takedowns and clinch work. Learn how to keep the guy on the end of your punches, what to do if he gets a hold of you(clinch) how to sprawl, reverse, control the head and how to run away.

That is just how I look at fighting some dumbass out on the street. If he really attacks me im going to try to pivot, sidestep or whatever to not be in front of him and hit his dumbass from being offline on the side. If he gets a grip on me im gonna make space anyway I can with cross face, basing my hips and Im gonna punch my way out of there if possible, if not im gonna grab an arm or ear or eyeball nutsack or whatever. and get the hell away back to my range of weapons.

You can train whatever “art” you want to as long as it teaches you how to really fight and allows you to spar. If you spend a bunch of time hitting pillows and waving in the air then you need to move on.

55

I just feel if I were in a street fight or a victim of an assault, I wouldn’t be anxious to go to the ground.

Assuming we are the innocent party being assaulted- it is very seldom there will be a solitary assailant.

One on one BJJ is really useful, I actually adore the sport.
But if you take a guy to the ground and even get him in a RNC, you’re still liable to get kicked in the teeth by his buddy around the corner.

56

[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
Assuming we are the innocent party being assaulted- it is very seldom there will be a solitary assailant.
[/quote]
Are there any sources for that? Sexual assault is more likely one on one. Then you have the Trayvon incident which was one on one, and went to the ground.

57

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
Assuming we are the innocent party being assaulted- it is very seldom there will be a solitary assailant.
[/quote]
Are there any sources for that? Sexual assault is more likely one on one. Then you have the Trayvon incident which was one on one, and went to the ground.

[/quote]

I’m not going to throw out numbers without looking them up, but a good number of crimes are committed by two people.

Most streetfights I have been involved in - actually, all of them, if you don’t count schoolyard shit - involved more than one person and sometimes dozens.

Going to the ground is suicide in that situation. Absolute suicide. I know it because I’ve done some pretty bad shit to people who WERE on the ground.

Allegedly.

58

[quote]Ranzo wrote:
Well even if you took the stance that 90% of fights went to the ground I would steer away from jyu jitsu in favor of submission wrestling, pancration or something like that. The thing that helps my ground fighting the most is wrestling. [/quote]
But would you tell a 40 year old woman who weighed 110 pounds to start wrestling for self-defense? The thing that needs to be remembered in regard to BJJ is that it was created for smaller, weaker people to survive against bigger, stronger people.

59

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t even know how one could even come up with stats for what goes on in fights. How do you even research it? Rorion’s a lawyer so you have to take whatever he says with that in mind. [/quote]

I don’t disagree. I have no idea how you might research it either, I was actually just thinking that after I made the last post. There’s no way it would be accurate.

The police records at least have some basis.[/quote]
The only thing that makes sense to me is the idea that, unless there is a significant gap in skill and/or size, there is a good possibility of a fight going to the ground if one or both parties wants it to go there. It can happen even when they don’t. Now, that doesn’t mean going to the ground is the right move at any given moment just that it can be hard to stop it from happening if the other person is determined.

Having said that, I don’t like to use fight and self-defense interchangeably. And when it comes to best MA for self-defense I tend to think more of circumstances (i.e., all the variables) and best tactics for those circumstances. I don’t know if any MA addresses them all for all people. What I can say is there are red flags when choosing a school. If, when asked about self-defense, they claim that although they don’t train self-defense specifically but focus more on sport the techniques can be applied in “reality” it’s not a good sign. If they respond to the self-defense question by saying they offer MMA classes it’s also not a good sign. If they say they do self-defense then ask about how they address certain situations and how they train for them. If they can’t give detailed explanations about how they train then that is a bad sign. Finally, you should be allowed to watch a class, or even several classes, to get an idea of what they really do and see if it makes any sort of sense or has any basis in whatever is your concept of reality. [/quote]

Don’t disagree with any of that.

Although I will say that in the open air, it’s hard to catch someone who DOESN’T want to go to the ground.

In a bar it might work, but good luck in a parking lot or outdoors. Or somewhere where the person gets propped up by a wall or whatever. Not as easy as you think.

60

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Ranzo wrote:
Well even if you took the stance that 90% of fights went to the ground I would steer away from jyu jitsu in favor of submission wrestling, pancration or something like that. The thing that helps my ground fighting the most is wrestling. [/quote]
But would you tell a 40 year old woman who weighed 110 pounds to start wrestling for self-defense? The thing that needs to be remembered in regard to BJJ is that it was created for smaller, weaker people to survive against bigger, stronger people. [/quote]

Oh man. Here he goes. Fuck it. I’m done.