Discussion on what makes a good seld defense cirriculum

[Sagacious Lu]

You're not going to find too much more "street smarts" beyond those points. There are finer points like recognizing the bulge of a gun or noticing a knife clipped to a pocket or belt, but aside from the points I mentioned its all common sense.

You really think so? What if staying in well-lit crowded areas just isn't an option? What if you have to walk? Do you think understanding the neighborhoods your in might be helpful? Wouldn't it take a little time to learn how the community your in works, and wouldn't that require first-hand knowledge of the area?

[Uke]

You really think so? What if staying in well-lit crowded areas just isn't an option? What if you have to walk? Do you think understanding the neighborhoods your in might be helpful? Wouldn't it take a little time to learn how the community your in works, and wouldn't that require first-hand knowledge of the area?

This wasn't advice for yuppies so that they too could walk the streets in the bad parts of town. I was simply sharing advice that's commonly understood in neighborhoods that are high in crime. People who live in these areas adapt a lot quicker than people who like stroll through like tourists.

Still, the advice I gave would hold well in most bad neighborhoods.

[Sagacious Lu]

This wasn't advice for yuppies so that they too could walk the streets in the bad parts of town.

That's funny, because your post sounded like it assumed the reader was a yuppie.

I was simply sharing advice that's commonly understood in neighborhoods that are high in crime.

Understood by whom?

People who live in these areas adapt a lot quicker than people who like stroll through like tourists.

What adaptations are you talking about?

Still, the advice I gave would hold well in most bad neighborhoods

.

Are you sure about that?

[jubaji]

Here we go...

[kingoftheforest]

Sag and Uke you guys are both making very valid points.

Just some ideas to consider.

Sag you're right sometimes well lit crowded areas are not always an option.

However as a counter point, and this may not be subject to everywhere, most places that aren't well lit in this day and age are either

1. Industrial areas where people usually work in groups or not at all at night.
2. Rural areas out away from everything.
3. Poorly maintained neighborhoods.

The first one most people who law abiding citizens don't go into at night unless it's work related. The ones around here are usually patrolled by local Law enforcement or hired security. Also you could get the fel for these places just by asking co-workers or your employer. There is usually no reason for someone to just be in a place like that hanging out.

2. The middle of nowhere. usually crime rates are low out in the stix but it does happen. Also vehicular transport is also necessary since things are usually real far apart out in the boonies. Also you can call the local police before moving into the area and get a report on the common crimes and frequency in that area.

3. Usually when you live in an area for a while you're right you get a feel for the place. If you drive around a new hood you moved or are planning to move into you can scope the area. Do the street lights work, is the area cleaned and the grounds around it keep trimmed down. Are there a lot of abandoned buildings or vacant houses. What does the populace look like?
And as above you can call LLE to find out a history of the area.

Uke, I don't believe you have to get out on "Da mean streets" to gain street smarts. You do however have to know what some things are to look for. When I go out as a game me and Boar like to see if we can spot anyone wearing a pocket knife. It trains your mind to scan people quickly and notice areas where weapons are usually carried.

Look for fanny packs as well. Those are great for concealing guns and other weapons.

If you walking around just on a stroll, keep an eye on the area around you. Once again are there a lot of over grown empty lots starting to appear? Are the street lights getting less and less. And honestly look to see if there is a lot of debris or trash strewn around. I have found these are good indicators you're approaching a shady 'hood.


I also agree that adapting the clothing worn in the area you are traveling in or at least attempting to be the "Grey Man" helps a lot. Not bringing attention to yourself and blending in with the locals is a good idea.

Good points and counter points guys. The more we put on the table the easier it is for other people to formulate their own thoughts and opinions on whats good SD teaching.

Everybody will definitely have a different perspective brought on from different life experiences, hopefully this advice will keep someone from going through one or more of those things, but still give them the knowledge they need to continue growing and learning.

KOTF

[Uke]

That's funny, because your post sounded like it assumed the reader was a yuppie.

How so? Did it sound that way or did you read it that way? When I used the term "yuppie" I only did so because that is the kind of person that would be the last kind of person found in a bad neighborhood. They trek in the city, or at least here in NYC, but not so much in the rough parts.

Understood by whom?

By the people who actually live and survive day to day in those areas where crimes happen all the time.

What adaptations are you talking about?

Many of the people who live in these areas have had to change with the times. Contrary to what some people believe, "bad neighborhoods" weren't created that way. The distribution of drugs, guns, and the rise of gangs in those areas had a lot to do with it. So yes ... the residents of those areas had to "adapt" in order to avoid trouble and conflicts to keep their families safe.

Are you sure about that?

Oh I'm sure, but I don't have a YouTube video to prove it to you though.

[jubaji]

Ugh. Why is it that some of the self-styled RBSD types cannot stand to be disagreed with in any way on any point to any degree whatsoever? Is it some need to believe that they and only they are the keepers of 'reality' and an understanding of 'da mean streets' that grants them (in their minds) absolute authority that must never be questioned? Come to think of it, maybe it's not just them.




Anyway, the point is that there may be room for both of you to be 'right' to a certain degree, as there are an awful lot of circumstances and environments out there.

[Uke]

Ugh. Why is it that some of the self-styled RBSD types cannot stand to be disagreed with in any way on any point to any degree whatsoever? Is it some need to believe that they and only they are the keepers of 'reality' and an understanding of 'da mean streets' that grants them (in their minds) absolute authority that must never be questioned? Come to think of it, maybe it's not just them.




Anyway, the point is that there may be room for both of you to be 'right' to a certain degree, as there are an awful lot of circumstances and environments out there.

To be fair jubaji, I don't think we disagreed anywhere. I just made my statements more clear because Sagacious Lu asked questions about some of them.

I understand and admit that it may appear at times that our stance is one of "keepers of reality", but it truly isn't. People have won fights using boxing more than any other method out there because boxing is probably the most widely used method in the world. It isn't wrestling as seen when the Gracies were able to easily dominate all comers due to the lack of ground grappling experience everyone else had. Still, wrestling occurs a hell of a lot more often than tae kwon do fights or sword duels. I know, I know ........

The point is that RBSD is method that was born from boxing, wrestling, karate, kung fu, FMA, judo, jujitsu and aikido. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. True? What we've been saying is that the methodology of RBSD, while being made up of singular parts from each discipline, is completely different than simply punching and kicking, wrestling and throwing in its approach and execution.

Punching and kicking is a competitive approach to a situation that shouldn't be competitive at all. No one should want to give a mugger a fair shot a hurting them, and the best way to make sure that can be accomplished is by pulling out all the stops. Throughout the years, pioneers actually tried to use boxing and wrestling. Those two together feel short of what they tried to accomplish for various reasons. They also tried judo and karate. Those too fell short. After trying several more disciplines, they realized that it was less about the system and more about how you go about approaching combat.

Some of the first and most important realizations were:

1. Never take a fighting stance. Pretend to yield. Then attack suddenly without warning.

2. Never go to the ground.

3. A man's legs are his foundation. Take the foundation out from under him and he cannot stand to fight.

4. An assailant's arms are like the tiller of a ship. Control his arm and you control the direction of his power and his ability to attack.

5. Never place a restraining hold on an attacker without striking him first. Use edge-of-hand, open hand, heel-of-palm strikes to soften him up before attempting a wristlock or armlock.

I'd go as far to say that no sport art adheres to those maxims. And these maxims are only the foundation of RBSD. There are many more. If you trained this way, would you be successful at wrestling, boxing or muay thai? Number 1 & 2 alone would greatly hinder your practice. So you won't practice that way because you don't want to execute while sticking to 1 & 2 on the mat or in the ring.

Sure, if a SD practitioner was stupid enough to square off against a professional athlete he would get beaten pretty badly if he chose to keep it fair. I don't doubt that at all. But why in the world would he keep it fair? The rules above were written by a man known for "gutterfighting", so the emphasis is on to do whatever you must.

Now that's not some lunatic creed that is implying knifing everyone you have words with. Of course not. It basically means respond in kind or use appropriate force.

In fact, when you think of sports like judo, muay thai, wrestling, and boxing they are hardly ever practiced in a defensive manner. There is very little self defense involved. And when you see people who want to show that those disciplines can be used as self defense, you see demonstrations of those arts fashioned in a way that the practitioners never use them in live settings like competition. What's the point of that?

The discussion here has revealed if nothing else that a lot of people don't even understand the difference between self defense and launching an offensive assault that amounts to punches and kicks just like in the ring because they're "fighting" now. I'm not even saying that those punches and kicks wouldn't be formidable. I am saying that punching and kicking is playing into the fair fight mindset, and if those first few punches and kicks don't land you've given your opponent a chance to regroup, reset and reach for something. It could be a knife. It could be pistol. It could even be just to yell and call for help to his buddies down the block.

RBSD is a means to overwhelm, neutralize and control and attacker. And as much as some sport combat advocates hate to hear it, I'm sure you can agree jubaji that they don't handle violent situations that involve weapons and group attacks nearly as well as RBSD because RBSD was created with that specific purpose in mind. Its a tool for a job. That's it.

Which is why I use examples like "I'm sure you can tame a tiger by blindsiding him with folding chair, but I'm sure you'd rather use a whip".

[jubaji]

Punching and kicking is a competitive approach to a situation that shouldn't be competitive at all.

So your 'system' teaches to never punch or kick? And punching or kicking equates to 'competition?'

[jubaji]

Some of the first and most important realizations were:

1. Never take a fighting stance. Pretend to yield. Then attack suddenly without warning.

Ok, but that's not going to apply to every possible situation, is it?

[jubaji]

2. Never go to the ground.

3. A man's legs are his foundation. Take the foundation out from under him and he cannot stand to fight.

#2 is too categorical, and 2 & 3 could contradict each other depending on the situation.

[jubaji]

5. Never place a restraining hold on an attacker without striking him first. Use edge-of-hand, open hand, heel-of-palm strikes to soften him up before attempting a wristlock or armlock.

Again, rather categorical.

[jubaji]

Sure, if a SD practitioner was stupid enough to square off against a professional athlete he would get beaten pretty badly if he chose to keep it fair. I don't doubt that at all. But why in the world would he keep it fair? The rules above were written by a man known for "gutterfighting", so the emphasis is on to do whatever you must.

This is a key area of contention. Who is in the better position to be 'unfair,' the person highly trained in, say, boxing, or the person who cannot box very well at all? Have you met many very experienced boxers who didn't know every 'dirty' boxing trick in the book? This is like the old "I want to eye gouge and fish hook but I don't want to grapple" nonsense. Without the fundamentals, practicing all the 'dirty tricks' you want still leaves you with the same basic weaknesses you had before and the same vulnerabilities. It's like buying fuzzy dice instead of a car.

[Uke]

I'm sure you believe what you wrote.

RBSD is hardly only dirty tricks. The foundation is the method, and the method doesn't exclude physical prowess or ability as you've expressed in the past. I think that you're perception of what I've said is based on your knowledge of RBSD "dirty tricks" which is limited to eye gouges, fish hooks, and hair pulling.

Those tactics are hardly what RBSD is predicated on and they aren't even what sets RSBD apart from sport combat. And the whole of grappling is hardly ground grappling. One aspect becomes the whole of a thing to one who is only familiar with that one aspect. Fortunately for the rest of us there is grappling beyond greco roman and collegiate style where you must resolve yourself to violate the second maxim. Its also apparent that you haven't seen the differences between going to the ground and being taken there.

I appreciate the time you took to reply, but unfortunately aside from your point about boxers knowing dirty tricks the bulk of your responses are leading us down a path of semantics. I have no interest there.

Nice speaking with you, jubaji.

[Garland]

I think it was Jim Grover who said that "(sport fighting) you do with somebody, combatives you do to somebody." That being said, I think that somebody with a good base in something like muay thai and jiujitsu using combatives principles is probably going to be a much more formidable opponent than just some shlub using the same principles in a fight. Not only do they have the RBSD type stuff, but they have a more than functional knowledge of other things to draw from and better foundation to launch things out of.

More is better.

I'm not trying to start an arguement...I'm honestly just trying to see if you think that knowing how to throw a punch or a kick effectively or get into superior positions via grappling to employ meaner tactics to their full potential or deploy a weapon is a wash??? Much less the conditioning...I mean...you already put up the article on why "sparring" is good for RBSD, right? (haven't read it yet, sorry...I will.)