Very good point and I do agree. I should have said risk and hazard.
There are two questions I ask about this in relation to the topic.
1)Do you believe that most people who begin training specifically for self defence have an accurate perception of risk and hazard?
No, I think most people either overestimate or underestimate the risk posed to them due to lack of information. Most people probably don't pay attention to things like what the major gangs are in your city, what neighborhoods they frequent, characteristic behaviors of predators, what it's like to try and move during an adrenaline dump, your local self defense laws, etc.
2)Do you believe they have a accurate perception of the effectiveness of their training?
Both difficult questions for anyone to answer.
I don't think that most people have an accurate perception of the effectiveness of their training until they try to use it against a genuinely resisting opponent. Suddenly all the theory gets thrown out the window and you struggle to keep a modicum of the skill you showed in drills. I suspect this gets worse with the effects of adrenaline but I haven't experienced the combination together before.
With regard to Hazard I was rather surprised by the statistics I found which shown that of violent crimes committed 64% end up with at most 'minor injuries' and about half with no injuries at all.
A reassuring statistic.
I know what you were referring to. Do you not see how the statement, (perhaps used on a self defence poster as I've seen in the past), might be misleading? It implies that strength, weight, power and size are unimportant. Re-read the statement you initially use it in and I believe it has that air.
Weight, power and size definitely make a difference (although speed and reaction times are even more important). However, technique can compensate for some of this and there's nothing we can do but compensate. Power and strength can be improved by lifting weights, etc. The goal is to improve on what's already there in the hopes that the improvement will be enough if the person has to defend themselves.
We can't very well expect small, weak individuals to throw up their hands and say "well, there's no hope for me if it comes down to physical violence". Especially when a defeatist attitude can be dangerous and forceful physical resistance is statistically effective self defense in many cases (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tellner/sd/Review.html).
I'm clearly not claiming techniques are harmless or useless in SD. Do you REALLY think that is my opinion?
I have heard this opinion expressed sincerely on this forum before.
My point is, and I keep making it, that everyone is not equal. My question is do places that teach self defence properly address this FACT?
Most martial arts will tailor techniques to the individual. For example, forward throws are typically easier to use on taller people (e.g. Morote Seoinage).
The reason many take self defence may be because they are the most vulnerable. Another issue that should be addressed.
The most vulnerable is a very broad term. If you mean physically small and weak, then they will learn much the same techniques and tactics as everyone else, they will just have to work harder on technique to make up for it. I don't really know of other things which can help the situation that wouldn't also help someone who's stronger or larger.
If you are talking about other situations, for example people who are involved in gang activity or people in abusive relationships, it's more complicated and probably shouldn't be dealt with in a MA school.
I didn't say they were myths. Reread what I said. They lend to the myths of MA and SD.
It takes a little force.......
Skip to about 2 minutes inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT6xOFXUE...e=results_video
It can also be very difficult to achieve.
All I'm saying is be realistic with statements like these. Especially as they encourage the little 90 year old undefeatable master type myth.
Your example demonstrates the effectiveness of many, many years of technical training in the face of a very complex series of attacks. He is able to avert the pressure to his carotid artery by pressing his elbow into his opponent's pelvis by anticipating the technique. He twists his head right to ensure that the pressure is directed to his larynx, reducing the choke's effectiveness (artery chokes are much quicker than air chokes) and starts bridging to reduce the tightness of his opponent's legs.
He is very flexible and I've seen someone resist an arm-bar like that in class but in fairness, his opponent should have moved his arm to his hips and pointed his thumb upwards instead of just leaning back and pulling. It was also a mistake to go for a kimura afterwards without securing him properly.
All this said, I wouldn't have been able to win against either of those two fighters. I just don't have the experience to stand a chance against them.
My point is, there are other factors at play here. Pit one of these guys against someone much bigger and stronger who doesn't know how to escape from a triangle choke and I bet the outcome will be different.
Also, you won't find that 90 year old master myth gets any credit on these forums. There is definitely respect for people who've dedicated their lives to MA but a lot of the older folks here can attest to the negative consequences of aging for both training and self defense.
Is your jujitsu instructor also a judo instructor?
Good points. So in part through experience of where one succeeds and fails in class.
Yes, understanding how to make a technique work against someone who wants it to fail is very
important for any martial artist and can only be learned through training against resisting partners. I also think that training in a stressful situation e.g. blindfolded or starting with your back turned to your opponent or vs multiple opponents is important. Unfortunately it's pretty rare to find both kinds of training in a single school. I'm focusing on the former by training a sport MA and you'll find the latter in RBSD schools, such as Krav Maga. Of course there's a mixture of both in most schools but this tends to be how the training is split generally.