Sunday, January 13, 2013
Self-Defense vs Boxing vs Control Holds vs...
12:23 AM | 
Posted by
szorn
Recently I stumbled upon the following description on a website and it honestly made me cringe. Why? Because it shows a true misunderstanding of the subject. I have changed the actual description using my own words because I have no interest in bringing negative attention directly to this school or their website. However, I do believe that if an instructor or a school doesn't truly understand the difference in training methodologies, they shouldn't be in this business. My objective is to help readers understand the difference between those instructors that actually care about the student's safety and those just looking to make a few dollars.
---------------------------------------------
Self-Defence / Mixed Martial Arts
Through the same training that law enforcement receive, learn how to protect yourself during real-life attacks.
Description:
Combining boxing, jujitsu, and law enforcement techniques to create a devastating street survival system useful by anyone regardless of size and strength. Learn how to protect yourself in real-life scenarios. Taught by a law enforcement officer using the same techniques he uses on the job.
----------------------------------------------
The title of the class should be the first warning sign. Self-defence and Mixed Martial Arts are two very different animals. One is used for surviving violent situations including unarmed assaults, weapon assaults, as well as multiple attacker situations. The other is used for winning tournaments. These are two separate and distinct objectives that require very different training methods. Anyone that claims otherwise truly doesn't understand the difference or just doesn't care.
Although the title claims it's self-defence and mixed martial arts the next sentence mentions "training that law enforcement receive". OK, now I am totally lost. Does the course teach self-defence or mixed martial arts or law enforcement techniques? Again, these are all different objectives and require different training. Law enforcement officers generally use control and containment strategies more so than defensive skills. When forced to protect themselves officers generally team up or escalate the level of force through weapon deployment in order to maintain control over a combative subject. In other words, they rely on weapons to defend themselves when the subject becomes too combative for control and containment techniques. This is obviously different than what is taught in mixed martial arts. It's also different than what is taught to civilians, because civilians have no true need for control and containment strategies. The goal of civilians should be to use the amount of force necessary to escape the situation. They should NOT be taught to stay with an attacker and attempt to control them, which is what is being taught by both law enforcement and mixed martial arts.
Now we move to the actual description which states that the system is a combination of boxing, jujitsu, and law enforcement techniques that make a devastating street survival system. Say what? Anyone that has read my previous posts will know my thoughts on "boxing" for self-defense. Again, I have nothing against boxing or MMA for what they are. They offer many benefits but realistic self-defense isn't one of them. Boxing is a sport that requires years to master. Even then, there are no guarantees that the skills learned in boxing will be applicable to self-defense. Jujitsu, especially old-school stand-up jujitsu is a great art that has many useful techniques and skill-building exercises. However, teaching a student to try to out-grapple an attacker is both futile and dangerous.
Then we learn that the instructor is a law enforcement officer. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing this doesn't guarantee that the material taught will be applicable to civilian self-defense. In fact, unless the officer has specialized training in civilian self-defense it's a safe bet that the material offered will be more geared to law enforcement than civilians.
All of this being the case, how can such a system prepare the student for "real-life scenarios" when most of the training seems to be based on sport fighting and law enforcement techniques? Statistically, we rarely see the same kind of attacks on the street during real assaults that are frequently seen in the ring. Even attacks on police officers are different than what civilians are forced to face. Again, the difference between sport, law enforcement, and civilians is obvious and the fact remains that each requires different types of training. Don't be fooled by these instructors claiming that they are one in the same. Generally, such claims are based on making money rather than keeping the student safe from crime and violence.
Steve Zorn, ICPS
www.personalsafetyunlimited.net
---------------------------------------------
Self-Defence / Mixed Martial Arts
Through the same training that law enforcement receive, learn how to protect yourself during real-life attacks.
Description:
Combining boxing, jujitsu, and law enforcement techniques to create a devastating street survival system useful by anyone regardless of size and strength. Learn how to protect yourself in real-life scenarios. Taught by a law enforcement officer using the same techniques he uses on the job.
----------------------------------------------
The title of the class should be the first warning sign. Self-defence and Mixed Martial Arts are two very different animals. One is used for surviving violent situations including unarmed assaults, weapon assaults, as well as multiple attacker situations. The other is used for winning tournaments. These are two separate and distinct objectives that require very different training methods. Anyone that claims otherwise truly doesn't understand the difference or just doesn't care.
Although the title claims it's self-defence and mixed martial arts the next sentence mentions "training that law enforcement receive". OK, now I am totally lost. Does the course teach self-defence or mixed martial arts or law enforcement techniques? Again, these are all different objectives and require different training. Law enforcement officers generally use control and containment strategies more so than defensive skills. When forced to protect themselves officers generally team up or escalate the level of force through weapon deployment in order to maintain control over a combative subject. In other words, they rely on weapons to defend themselves when the subject becomes too combative for control and containment techniques. This is obviously different than what is taught in mixed martial arts. It's also different than what is taught to civilians, because civilians have no true need for control and containment strategies. The goal of civilians should be to use the amount of force necessary to escape the situation. They should NOT be taught to stay with an attacker and attempt to control them, which is what is being taught by both law enforcement and mixed martial arts.
Now we move to the actual description which states that the system is a combination of boxing, jujitsu, and law enforcement techniques that make a devastating street survival system. Say what? Anyone that has read my previous posts will know my thoughts on "boxing" for self-defense. Again, I have nothing against boxing or MMA for what they are. They offer many benefits but realistic self-defense isn't one of them. Boxing is a sport that requires years to master. Even then, there are no guarantees that the skills learned in boxing will be applicable to self-defense. Jujitsu, especially old-school stand-up jujitsu is a great art that has many useful techniques and skill-building exercises. However, teaching a student to try to out-grapple an attacker is both futile and dangerous.
Then we learn that the instructor is a law enforcement officer. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing this doesn't guarantee that the material taught will be applicable to civilian self-defense. In fact, unless the officer has specialized training in civilian self-defense it's a safe bet that the material offered will be more geared to law enforcement than civilians.
All of this being the case, how can such a system prepare the student for "real-life scenarios" when most of the training seems to be based on sport fighting and law enforcement techniques? Statistically, we rarely see the same kind of attacks on the street during real assaults that are frequently seen in the ring. Even attacks on police officers are different than what civilians are forced to face. Again, the difference between sport, law enforcement, and civilians is obvious and the fact remains that each requires different types of training. Don't be fooled by these instructors claiming that they are one in the same. Generally, such claims are based on making money rather than keeping the student safe from crime and violence.
Steve Zorn, ICPS
www.personalsafetyunlimited.net
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Self-Defense Blunders #5- Use of Shoes for Self-Defense
I began my martial arts and
self-defense training over 23 years ago. Early in my journey I recall
reading about how to use shoes to defend against a knife attack. The
idea was simple...1) take off your shoes, 2) place them on your hands
like gloves , and 3) use them to block the knife attack and to
counter attack. I thought to myself...”could it really be that
simple?”. At that time I knew very little about real self-defense
so I thought this advice made sense. Obviously the shoes would
provide adequate protection for the hands to deflect or strike the
knife away without risking serious injury. That's a good thing,
right? The shoes would also reinforce the defender's strikes which
would result in more effective strikes with less effort. Another good
thing, right? While this all sounds good, the reality is that it's
all based on theory rather than practical application. While there
may have been someone somewhere in history that was able to
successfully pull their shoes off and use them to fend off a knife
attacker, I personally wouldn't bet my life on this actually working.
Unfortunately, there are instructors
out there that teach another use for shoes as self-defense tools.
Instead of promoting their use in knife defense as previously
described these careless instructors promote the idea of women using
their shoes as striking implements. This is particularly geared
toward women that wear high-heeled shoes. The idea is simple 1) take
off your high-heel shoes 2) strike out at vital areas of the
attacker's anatomy such as the eyes and 3) run away. Sounds like solid
advice, right? Wrong!
There are a number of reasons why the
above advice is not only wrong but just plain dangerous.
Not easily accessible-
While almost everyone can be found wearing shoes on a daily basis,
this doesn't mean they will instantly be available for use as
self-defense tools. The last time I checked, I wear my shoes on my
feet and since I use my feet to stand, walk, and run the of act of
removing my shoes while being attacked will be extremely difficult to
do. In order to remove my shoes I will have to perform one of two
actions- 1) I will either have to sit down in order to avoid falling
over or 2) I will have to maintain balance while trying to remove my
shoes from a standing position. Here's the catch, regardless of which
option I choose I will have to perform the action while someone is
brutally attacking me. Doesn't sound too smart, does it?
Clouds the mind-
Unfortunately, stupid tactics like removing shoes and trying to use
them for self-defense clouds the victim's mind and greatly increases
their risk of injury or death. How so? Simple...because tactics like
this are so esoteric or out of the norm that people will remember
them. This is far from a good thing because the last thing a person
should be thinking about is how they can get their shoes off while
they are in the midst of a real attack. While they are thinking about
how to get their shoes off (or actually trying to get their shoes off) the attacker is striking, kicking,
stabbing, or shooting them. The reality is that the only thing this
advice does is increase the dangers to the intended victim.
Not the ideal self-defense
option-
The truth is that shoes are designed to protect the feet while
walking, running, etc. This being the case we should use them to
quickly move away from the person or persons that intend to harm us,
rather than wasting valuable time trying to remove them for use in
self-defense. There are other tools out there that are better suited
for use in self-defense than shoes. Many of these items are of better
construction and more easily accessible for defensive purposes. One
such tool that quickly comes to mind is the standard ball-point pen.
Now,
all of this being said I am a big proponent of Improvised weapons,
which is the use of personal and environmental objects for
self-defense. Obviously shoes would fall under this category. To be
honest I have no objection of a shoe being used for self-defense if
it's the only thing available and IF it's not being worn at the time.
As an example, if someone is being attacked in their home and a shoe
is the only thing within immediate reach, by all means they should
use it to save their life. However, as I already pointed out there is
a good chance that other more suitable items will be readily
available in these cases. If nothing else, the aggressive use of the
hands to target weak spots on the attacker's anatomy will be a
better option. If someone really feels the need to use shoes for self-defense, my suggestion is to keep them on your feet and kick the attacker viciously and repeatedly until the threat is over. Ladies, if you are wearing high-heels feel free to kick your shoes off to aid in your escape but don't waste time trying to pick them up or use them to strike with, unless you are already on the ground and they are easily accessible without additional risk.
In
closing, I just read about the tip in question being taught to a
group of women less than two months ago which is what prompted this
posting. Unfortunately, the program was presented by a well-known
organization that truly believes they are providing life-saving
information to those that need it. I ask the reader to use logic and
common sense when trying to evaluate some of these tips and
techniques. Even if it makes sense on the surface, ponder it a little
while and you may just realize that it's nowhere near as sound as you
first thought. Keep in mind that there are many unsound and even
dangerous tips being taught out there. Some are being promoted by law
enforcement while others are being promoted by martial arts and
self-defense instructors. Regardless of an instructors background or
experience, they may not realize the danger in some of these
techniques. Unfortunately, if the instructor doesn't realize the
dangers how can the students be expected to?
This
is the very reason that I started the posts on Self-Defense
Blunders....
Take
care and stay safe!
Steve
Zorn, ICPS
www.personalsafetyunlimited.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- szorn
- -27 years training in personal safety -Multiple martial arts black belts -Multiple instructor certifications -Certified law enforcement trainer -Crime Prevention Specialist -Previous self-defense trainer for one of the country's largest airlines -Child safety specialist -Certified Fitness Trainer -TACTIX Fitness Trainer -High Intensity Training Specialist -FAST Defense Instructor -Kid Escape Instructor