Style based response... or situation based?

I've been pondering this for a couple of weeks and want some other perspectives.

It seems to me that self defense scenarios, if constructed like a flow chart, should have a basic FIRST question. The question is:

Does the situation demand ESCAPE or RESTRAINT?

An ESCAPE situation is one that you remain in increasing danger every moment that you linger. Your main objective is to flee, exit, leave, at the earliest possible moment. An example is a mugging, a barroom assualt, etc. Your response is basically whatever it takes to disable the assailant and make an exit. But putting the guy into a submission hold is not a good choice because you only have control of the bad guy. You don't have control of the situation around you.

A RESTRAINT situation is one where you are obligated (for whatever reason) to restrain the bad guy. Examples are often law enforcement related, such as a resisting prisoner. It could also be a drunk boss, friend or family member. The situation is that striking and disabling responses are not appropriate. But any submission technique probably is appropriate. You install it, he taps and you back off just a skosh. He's under control and help is there, or moments away.

My purpose in posing this is a suspicion that it may often be a question NOT asked in reality. In reality, I suspect that training style may simply over-ride, and the response becomes more of what you are familiar with than based on the situaition. This means if you are a grappler, your response is.... grappling. If you are a striker, your response is striking. Response from the style rather than the situation.

Still, I think striker based people will instinctively know that they should not "hurt" family and friends, and feel a strong aversion to doing so. The risk of misapplication might be quite small.

But what about grappling based people. Is there a significant risk of just being trapped in style "default" and pushing a grappling (RESTRAINT) response into an EXIT situation? If your most common sparring response to a striker is to shoot in and wrap him up, could this be a problem at the wrong time?

Our style is striker based with maybe 15% grappling. What got me thinking about this is that have often finished a throw with an arm lock - as a routine training procedure. We've done it so much that we find ourselves crouched there with the lock, even though the we just kicked the guy in the groin, busted his jaw and twisted his head off. That just didn't make sense and we've started eliminating the arm lock. The surprising thing is how hard it is to break that sequense.

you know the saynig "you fight how you train", i think a problem arises when you conclude that the basic slybus of a style must change to accomadate the reality that of self defence.

if you have enough influance to change teh way things are tought where you are then go for it, don't stay the same just cause teacher says so. and if its not posible , then a change of scenery may be in order.

i think you raise a good point as well. its something all self defence based styles should ask themselves "is this self defence? or filler to keep students paying dues?" the answer is your own to come up with. i do feel tho, that there is plenty of filler in our world today. i have almsot given up asking questions to some of the higher ranks. i often get somethign along the lins of "if you don't like it, then leave" and thats a fair answer...i guess, kinda stand off-ish though. HIDING SOMETHING SENSEI!!!

2 arms and 2 legs, and fully explained training practices that reflect the way it things are. however, i guess the ammount of bs floating around does reflect whats out there to.

My opinion is, it's relatively easy to escape. You do this by moving your feet and running away. That doesn't take striking to accomplish in the majority of cases (grappling either, for that matter). It often only takes the will to leave. In other words, before your opponent has engaged you (has a HOLD of you) you run while you can.

If you CAN'T run, it probably means that your opponent has a hold of you. In that case, you're already grappling. So have a grappling game to answer that.

If you need to RESTRAIN someone, you again need a grappling game.

Pretty simple, imo.


-John

Joss,
first of all, the best way to not need any response at all is to put distance between you and the situation. If you can escape without confrontation, do that first, and then worry about "responses".

Now, with "fighting" or "restraint" as the next options, you can understand why I picked jujutsu as my art. It has plenty of locks, pins, restraints, and other techniques that will disable or hold someone in a harmless position without necessarily putting them into intensive care. When good, old drunk "Uncle Harry" pinches one of the girls on the butt, I don't need him spending six days in the hospital , but need techniques that will "discourage" that behavior . "Stand up" jujutsu has plenty of those, along with the striking and restraining techniques you seek. You just need to find a style of jujutsu that suits you.

Years ago, I would have recommended Judo as that art, but it is now practiced so much as a wrestling sport that it's lost a lot of its "self defense" flavor, and most of the schools don't even teach the atemi (striking) side of it any more... which you still need as a self defense skill, regardless of how skilled you are in your pins and restraints.

How you fight is, indeed, how you will respond in a "fighting situation", but jujutsu allows a lot of different responses to the same "stimulus". While the "advertised" skills of stand up jujutsu are usually understood as "wrist grabs and collar grabs", most of the training I've done has been against punches, kicks, grabs, grips, and a dozen different other methods of attack. Many of the responses are benign as far as causing injury, but still diffuse the situation and restrain or pin the opponent in an untenable position.

By using different methods of restraint, off-balancing, pain, and "locked joints", it's not all that difficult to put someone into a position where they don't want to continue the fight, even when released. Like a bee-sting, if you sting someone doing the technique, they won't want to mess with the bee any further... By putting them into positions that hurt, leave them helplessly off balance, etc. you can "undo their will to fight" pretty quickly... and if necessary, you can step it up to the next level and actually do some damage.

I actively did judo for 35 years+, and absolutely loved doing groundwork, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you're on a gravel parking lot, it's not as soft as those mats you're used to working on... or that concrete sidewalk, which doesn't give like those mats... so "grappling" needs to be learned from the standing position as well as on the ground. Even grappling out in my yard was a lot more "stunning" to fall on than the dojo mats, so in self defense, you need to understand where the changes in your arts take place. Stand-up jujutsu is not affected by those things as much, so as a self defense, it has some advantages.

If you do "striking arts" (karate, boxing, kung fu, etc.) you can go directly into stand up jujutsu from your blocking and punching, and also utilize your pressure point training to distract and disable an attacker. If you make your "stand up" an aiki-style of jujutsu, you can turn the techniques into as dynamic a defense as you need.

I hate to hear you're getting rid of your arm locks... they're a good way to discourage somebody from hitting... especially if you've just done all those things you mentioned to them already. Usually, I stopped fighting after getting kicked in the cajones or having a neck twist applied and getting a broken jaw... I know, I'm just a wuss... ... but the armlock gives you "continuing control" of the situation... just make it hurt. Then, the attacker's mind goes to his elbow or wrist, rather than to his will to fight.

What you do isn't nearly as important as moving effectively, and smoothly... and keeping yourself in control of the situation. If you can smoothly move out the door, and leave the trouble behind, you've done well. If you have to hold the attacker and wait for the cops... that works too. It just takes more than one tool to fight, and if you have a well-filled toolbox, you can get the job done without getting yourself or anybody else killed in the process.

Quote:

---

You install it, he taps and you back off just a skosh. He's under control and help is there, or moments away.

---

I realize this is but a small part of your post, but what if "he" isn't trained and doesn't have a clue about the "tap out" we all use so often?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You install it, he taps and you back off just a skosh. He's under control and help is there, or moments away.

---

I realize this is but a small part of your post, but what if "he" isn't trained and doesn't have a clue about the "tap out" we all use so often?

---

Pretty much like Matt said. That was intended just as "lingo" to picture the situation. Squeals, whimpering, begging - all these would be accepted as well. My point was just that the joint would be restrained but not broken.

JKogas
"If you CAN'T run, it probably means that your opponent has a hold of you. In that case, you're already grappling. So have a grappling game to answer that."

This is a perfect example for what I'm getting at. Think of a lapel grab. For a grappler-heavy individual it may mean that you are now grappling, as you just said. For us, we're working responses to lapel grabs that give us disengagement and an option to exit. And I'm trying to exit - not reverse the hold. If I don't have control of the situation around me, this has to be done with smooth, rapid, efficience. In that situation time saved is safety gained.

Take a headlock and maybe I'm starting to better see where this goes. To me, a grappler, by nature, sort of "burrows on into the guy". That's how I see their strategy. To the extent that I grapple his jewels with one hand, twist his thumb with the other, break the hold and elbow him in the face - I'm grappling too. But, to the contrary, my goal is to break out/neutralize to the point I can exit.

Being on the bottom of a "straddle and pound" situation is similar. We focus on dumping the guy to one side and rolling out the other - then stand and exit. Yet I imagine a grappler would be trying to reverse the holds but remaining on the ground with the guy.

It could be that I just misunderstand grappling. My point is that these all show two entirely different courses to take - and it's the situation that says which is needed (restraint or exit), not the style you happen to prefer.

Wristtwister
Interesting that older jujitsu offered so much diversity of use. The bad behavior of "Uncle Harry" was just what I was getting at, where it might leave a pure striker sort of at a loss. Toss in some atemi and you're well ramped up for Bad Bad LeRoy Brown as well. If you put someone in ikkyo, what happens to the elbow depends a lot on whether the hand holds a box cutter - or only pinched sister Sue.

The problem comes if you train soooo much in the sister Sue mode that you find yourself automatically there with the box cutter too - and maybe another one coming out in the hand of the guy behind you. Not a good time to be doing a submission technique.

"I hate to hear you're getting rid of your arm locks... they're a good way to discourage somebody from hitting... especially if you've just done all those things you mentioned to them already (kicked the guy in the groin, busted his jaw and twisted his head off)."

We aren't getting rid of them. We're trying to balance when to apply them, and when not to. This is opposed to just letting this aspect be so MUCH of a single scenario training reflex. And that's the point I'm trying to make with all this. I feel there is a logic flaw in breaking someone down to the point of injury - and THEN restraining them. Or... restraining them, when you should have broken them down and got the hell out of the location.