Thanks for taking time to reply Leo.
What is a very personal decision?
The decision to spend time training for self defense.
Either you believe that the risk is there and fair enough. Or you overstate the risk which I be is unethical and deceitful.
It's not that simple. Even if I consider the risk to be low, I may be justified in preparing for it. If you don't consider utility theory, then there would be little value in preparing for any disaster. Probability alone is not sufficient to estimate the value of disaster preparation.
I dislike the "it takes very little force...." arguement because the following statement is equally true
"It is exceptionally difficult to render someone unconscious or break their limbs"
I was referring to force, as measured in Newtons, not ease of use.
and I would add especially if you are at a size/gender/aggression/alcohol consumption disadvantage.
I would like to know what other feel about such statements and their use to 'sell' self defence.
I would like to point out that I am not trying to sell anything. I do not gain financially from this discussion. I am simply giving my opinion on an open forum.
In training their is a need to understand how fragile the body can be especially when drilling to perfect technique etc. In training the statement holds true.
For SD it is misleading.
Why? Are you claiming that such techniques would be harmless or useless in SD? Perhaps your opinion is that these techniques pose no risk to an assailant (and thus pose no legal repercussions). Or that certain classes of individuals would be unable to perform them effectively? Please elaborate.
The vagueness I was referring to is in regard to 'facts' such as 'only a small amount of force is required', 'I've been thrown by a woman', 'Something is better than nothing' and 'apply force effectively, reducing the importance of physical size and strength' and so on.
These are the statements which are put out and lend to the MYTHS of self defence. Most are true and all are misleading.
How are these myths when many people have experienced them in training, and are based on classical Newtonian mechanics? Why are these statements misleading? If you can provide me with a good explanation, I will gladly avoid mentioning these in conversation with untrained individuals.
I understand why these are used. I understand "Slightly increase your chances of overcoming a larger, aggressive attacker" will not be the title of a best selling SD DVD series. But we should be able to talk honestly on a MA forum.
Again, I'm expressing my honest opinion and I acknowledge that I may be wrong about these issues. I am clearly not selling anything.
Your Judo club could be an exception.
Is the Jujitsu class part of the Judo club? Same instructors etc?
They are directed to either our own Jujitsu instructor who teaches a small class or the BJJ school nearby.
The RBSD school free course sounds like a great thing from what you describe. I don't see too much of that. I think that would be a good thing if more common.
Ask about classes at your local police department. Here in the California, it's not too difficult to find classes if you look.
Interesting. How do you think realistic expectations can be given? Especially to say a small woman?
I'm not an expert on self defense, but I do like the idea of talking to police officers regarding local gang activity, hazardous neighbourhoods, focusing on awareness and avoidance, getting the experience of adrenaline dump using pressure drills like in an RBSD class and finally training defenses against a resisting opponents of all shapes and sizes.
I personally think that these experiences are valuable for anyone who cares about self defense.