With much thanks and respect to Don and other members who have contributed, I want to provide a few guidelines we can use when evaluating different self-defense programs. With so many "dojos" and strip mall karate centers abounding, how does one make an intelligent choice for training? Hopefully, we can establish a few basic criteria that will help narrow our choices.
I will first state that there is a strong tendency for one to say, "Hell, I'll just get a gun and shoot the guy! Karate doesn't stop a bullet!" While it's obvious that firearms are indeed efficient tools for self defense, the important aspect (often unexamined by those making that statement) is UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WILL I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF?
The literature is filled with reports of individuals "strapping on a gun" and immediately being transformed into invincible beings. The reality is that civilians are often ill-equipped to use a firearm in self defense. Consider the typical scenario:
The beggar comes toward you, asking for spare change. You refuse and attempt to back off to maintain a bit more distance. The beggar continues his approach. 99+% of folks will not shoot him, since he has not demonstrated any reason to do so.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SIDEBAR:*** The courts ask for "ability, opportunity, and motive" when assessing use of deadly force cases. In other words, when on trial for killing in self defense, they want to know:
1. if the bad guy had the ability to kill you (bigger than you, had weapons, etc.)
2. if the bad guy had the opportunity to kill you (proximity, you with low chance of escape, etc.)
3. if the bad guy had a reason to kill you (what made him decide to carry out the attack i.e. "he wanted my wallet")
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, we (as good people) don't just shoot someone who's annoying us! However, he is still close enough that there is almost zero chance that we would be able to draw our gun and shoot him before he could potentially kill us. Tough situation to be in, huh? It's been demonstrated that the average healthy male can cover 21 feet in 1.5-2.0 seconds, less time than it takes most people to draw a firearm and shoot. Since those figures come from police testing, with the gun/holster combination set up for good access, you can see how attempting to get a gun out of your pocket or out of a concealed holster under your clothing will slow you down even more. If the bad guy chooses to lunge at you, bare-handed or with a weapon, YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE SOME HAND-TO-HAND SKILLS IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.
Using this scenario as one example of a realistic need for self defense, we are now better prepared to evaluate self defense schools for their ability to provide us with RELEVANT training that will help us survive. There are other archetypal scenarios for criminal assault, but I believe I've made my point here. Understand what we are trying to achieve and choose the path that will get us there most efficiently.
So, we walk into a local school and observe a class. What do we look for?
1. Are there adult students, or does the instruction appear to be oriented toward kids? (Kid's classes are for a somewhat different purpose than what we're seeking. I do believe that kid's classes serve an excellent function, just not what we need.)
2. Are the techniques being practiced of a highly-athletic type? It's a plain fact that most folks will not put in the necessary amount of training time in order to develop and maintain highly-athletic fighting skills. Rather, we should be looking for practical movements that make immediate sense to us as we watch.
3. Is there a reasonable amount of force being used in the practice of the techniques? Unless you train to understand how it feels to engage an aggressive opponent, you will be a complete novice when it comes to the real thing. A good training facility will have a logical progression of force in training, with the necessary gear available to allow higher force levels without ridiculous chance of injury.
4. Does the curriculum contain tactics against knives, guns, and impact weapons? Certainly, criminals prefer to use a weapon rather than their bare hands.....
5. Does the curriculum contain a module on handling the pre-physical "talking/argument" portion of a confrontation?
These are a few considerations when choosing a self defense school.
If you are interested in a traditional martial art, it's best to choose one that allows you to practice against someone who uses all his strength to "win", so that you become more accustomed to the reality of a struggle.
Here's a few choices:
1. Brazilian Jiujitsu: the armed forces have adopted programs based on BJJ, because it allows a high degree of exertion during training, but offers a relatively low injury rate.
2. Wrestling: A foundational art for understanding the clash between two human bodies
3. Judo: develops balance and an understanding of leverage
4. Muay Thai: a striking art that develops your ability to hit with your knees and elbows, as well as fists and feet. Emphasis on physical conditioning.
There are other choices, but these are some good examples of traditional programs that can provide excellent base skills. If we enroll in a traditional school, we can certainly keep the "criminal paradigm" in mind as we train, so that we can orient our performance toward our desired self defense goals. For instance, as we wrestle, we can always think about "what if he reaches for his waist to get a knife?" or "how can I access my own weapon from this position?" With the proper mindset in place, we can maximize the self defense potential of any training!
I'll be glad to answer any questions with the resources at my disposal. I hope that this brief outline of thought helps you to decide what's right for you!
Lee
I will first state that there is a strong tendency for one to say, "Hell, I'll just get a gun and shoot the guy! Karate doesn't stop a bullet!" While it's obvious that firearms are indeed efficient tools for self defense, the important aspect (often unexamined by those making that statement) is UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WILL I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF?
The literature is filled with reports of individuals "strapping on a gun" and immediately being transformed into invincible beings. The reality is that civilians are often ill-equipped to use a firearm in self defense. Consider the typical scenario:
The beggar comes toward you, asking for spare change. You refuse and attempt to back off to maintain a bit more distance. The beggar continues his approach. 99+% of folks will not shoot him, since he has not demonstrated any reason to do so.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SIDEBAR:*** The courts ask for "ability, opportunity, and motive" when assessing use of deadly force cases. In other words, when on trial for killing in self defense, they want to know:
1. if the bad guy had the ability to kill you (bigger than you, had weapons, etc.)
2. if the bad guy had the opportunity to kill you (proximity, you with low chance of escape, etc.)
3. if the bad guy had a reason to kill you (what made him decide to carry out the attack i.e. "he wanted my wallet")
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, we (as good people) don't just shoot someone who's annoying us! However, he is still close enough that there is almost zero chance that we would be able to draw our gun and shoot him before he could potentially kill us. Tough situation to be in, huh? It's been demonstrated that the average healthy male can cover 21 feet in 1.5-2.0 seconds, less time than it takes most people to draw a firearm and shoot. Since those figures come from police testing, with the gun/holster combination set up for good access, you can see how attempting to get a gun out of your pocket or out of a concealed holster under your clothing will slow you down even more. If the bad guy chooses to lunge at you, bare-handed or with a weapon, YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE SOME HAND-TO-HAND SKILLS IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.
Using this scenario as one example of a realistic need for self defense, we are now better prepared to evaluate self defense schools for their ability to provide us with RELEVANT training that will help us survive. There are other archetypal scenarios for criminal assault, but I believe I've made my point here. Understand what we are trying to achieve and choose the path that will get us there most efficiently.
So, we walk into a local school and observe a class. What do we look for?
1. Are there adult students, or does the instruction appear to be oriented toward kids? (Kid's classes are for a somewhat different purpose than what we're seeking. I do believe that kid's classes serve an excellent function, just not what we need.)
2. Are the techniques being practiced of a highly-athletic type? It's a plain fact that most folks will not put in the necessary amount of training time in order to develop and maintain highly-athletic fighting skills. Rather, we should be looking for practical movements that make immediate sense to us as we watch.
3. Is there a reasonable amount of force being used in the practice of the techniques? Unless you train to understand how it feels to engage an aggressive opponent, you will be a complete novice when it comes to the real thing. A good training facility will have a logical progression of force in training, with the necessary gear available to allow higher force levels without ridiculous chance of injury.
4. Does the curriculum contain tactics against knives, guns, and impact weapons? Certainly, criminals prefer to use a weapon rather than their bare hands.....
5. Does the curriculum contain a module on handling the pre-physical "talking/argument" portion of a confrontation?
These are a few considerations when choosing a self defense school.
If you are interested in a traditional martial art, it's best to choose one that allows you to practice against someone who uses all his strength to "win", so that you become more accustomed to the reality of a struggle.
Here's a few choices:
1. Brazilian Jiujitsu: the armed forces have adopted programs based on BJJ, because it allows a high degree of exertion during training, but offers a relatively low injury rate.
2. Wrestling: A foundational art for understanding the clash between two human bodies
3. Judo: develops balance and an understanding of leverage
4. Muay Thai: a striking art that develops your ability to hit with your knees and elbows, as well as fists and feet. Emphasis on physical conditioning.
There are other choices, but these are some good examples of traditional programs that can provide excellent base skills. If we enroll in a traditional school, we can certainly keep the "criminal paradigm" in mind as we train, so that we can orient our performance toward our desired self defense goals. For instance, as we wrestle, we can always think about "what if he reaches for his waist to get a knife?" or "how can I access my own weapon from this position?" With the proper mindset in place, we can maximize the self defense potential of any training!
I'll be glad to answer any questions with the resources at my disposal. I hope that this brief outline of thought helps you to decide what's right for you!
Lee