dave_rusin
08-27-2004, 06:20 AM
This was sent to me via email by one of my training partners.
It makes some good points that martial artists need to be aware of.
Sorry about all the ">"....
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from Real World chapter
>Below is an excerpt from an upcoming book on Error
><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592283705/qid=107601093
>7
>/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1913281-8054554?v=glance&s=books> Detection that
>we co-wrote with Tristan <http://www.silat-video.com> Sutrisno. In the
>Real World chapter the problems attempting to apply your martial arts
>training in a violent confrontation.
>
> _____
>
>Before you even think of using your martial art for self-defense you
>must be aware of two fundamental problems that you face. The first is:
>If it works. The second is: If it doesn't work.
>
>Unfortunately, we're not being flip that these are both major problems.
>
>Let's start out optimistically and assume that your martial arts
>training does work in a self-defense situation. On this subject we have
>some great news. Despite extensive argument on martial arts forums and
>sales pitches from instructors trying to get you to sign up for their
>school, one simple fact remains: Any martial art can be used for
>effective self-defense
>
>By this we mean to get yourself out of being attacked. You can use any
>style's block as a shield to protect yourself while you get away. A
>simple strategy of blocking and shooting an elbow as you run to safety
>can get you out of all kinds of trouble. It's called "Stun and Run."
>This non-macho/macha approach is not particularly glorious, nor does it
>gratify one's ego. It is, however, a very effective, and proven,
>self-defense strategy against a wide variety of threats.
>
>Having said they can be used for self-defense, martial arts are not
>good for fighting.
>
>On the internet, people are constantly arguing over which martial art
>style is best for fighting. What they fail to realize is it false
>argument. Starting from a misconception, people are now arguing over
>which is the best mistaken idea. They might as well be arguing over
>which style is the best for walking to the moon. Yet, misconceptions
>and fantasies about fighting are so well entrenched in the martial arts
>world that they are considered truths. The authors are constantly asked
>"which martial art style is best for fighting?"
>
>Our answer is: None.
>
>To start with, the martial arts are not fighting styles, they are
>training styles. They do not "teach you to fight" they train you how to
>move your body. Just because you know how to move your body doesn't
>mean you know how to fight. If that were true, then both ballerinas and
>football players would be great fighters. More to the point, sparring
>is not fighting. Nor is stepping into the sports ring. In a "real
>fight," there are no judges, juries, and rules to protect the
>participants. There are no disallowed moves. Whoever is still standing
>is the winner. The loser is probably hurt and doesn't remember a thing
>or dead!
>
>While this may sound all kinds of exciting and macho, remember, at
>least half of the people involved in fights lose. That means, despite
>all your training, there is a 50/50 chance that the person on the
>ground will be you. The reason is very simple, you aren't the only one
>who has stacked the deck. Your opponent has also put some tricks up his
>sleeve. Unfortunately, these tricks often include surviving multiple
>violent encounters previously. You may be trained, but he's
>experienced.
>
>Having said that, the real reason we say no martial art style is good
>for "fighting" is all fantasies about defeating a horde of attacking
>criminals in a blaze of martial art mastery aside, there is one
>undeniable fact that exists about using your martial arts training on
>another human being:
>
>Self-defense is legal, fighting is illegal.
>
>Self-defense is doing what you must do to prevent yourself from being
>harmed when unjustly attacked. For example, walking down the street and
>someone unexpectedly jumps out of the shadows to attack you, would be
>self-defense. Fighting, on the other hand, is you actively engaging in
>an extended, aggressive and most importantly, consensual altercation.
>For example, an argument that escalates into an exchange of blows is
>not self-defense, it's a fight - even though both participants will
>claim it was self-defense. This is why both are going to jail and both
>will end up in court.
>
>Now granted these are overly simplistic examples that are subject to
>many caveats, exceptions and extenuating circumstances that can only be
>sorted out in court, but they do show the basic difference between
>self-defense and fighting.
>
>This difference between fighting and self-defense is built into legal
>definitions in every state. Why is knowing this difference important?
>Because, violence always has an aftermath. And your actions before,
>during and after a violent episode will affect the aftermath.
>
>The bottomline is: If you are fighting, you are part of the problem.
>And during the aftermath you will be treated accordingly by the legal
>system. No matter what you thought you were doing, your behavior
>regarding the altercation will be considered and judged in this light.
>If you are found to have crossed certain lines, then even if you win
>the physical altercation, you will lose in these other ways.
>
>Unlike a criminal, in order for you to "win" a violent encounter you
>must come out ahead on four different levels. Not just one or two, but
>all four. 1) overcoming your fear and performing, 2) defeating the
>attacker, 3) not being criminally prosecuted and 4) winning in civil
>court when you are sued by your attacker for injuring him.
>
>Coming out ahead is a big enough challenge if you were defending
>yourself, if you were fighting it is impossible. What's more, passing
>these four criteria requires much more than just knowing a deadly
>fighting art. It requires self-control, knowledge and awareness of
>things beyond just the physical act of punching someone correctly. In
>these four areas there are a lot of ways you can lose - even if you win
>the fight.
>
>Here are a few very basic guidelines to tell when it crosses the line
>from self-defense into something illegal. You or your student become
>the aggressor if 1) you were an active participant in the creation and
>escalation of the conflict, (e.g. you were in an argument that turned
>into an extended punch out). 2) you did not stop attacking after the
>immediate threat had passed (e.g. he was trying to disengage or had
>fallen and you kept on attacking) or 3) your response was excessive
>beyond the threat offered to you (e.g. you knife someone who just
>punched you). These three standards are far more a reality than what
>you will hear discussed in martial arts circles about what works in a
>"real fight." Once these lines are crossed, it's not self-defense
>anymore - even if it started out as such
>
>Are you beginning see why we have such a problem about the very idea of
>a "best martial art for fighting?" That is a recipe for violating any
>and all of those three guidelines.
>
>A unifying concept of what has been discussed thus far is the
>unconscious assumption - by both the teacher and the student -- that
>the martial artist will always be right "if he ever had to use this."
>This assumption regarding innocence of participation and instigation is
>not shared by our legal system. Because quite simply an overwhelming
>amount of violence could be avoided if someone simply overrides ego,
>apologizes and walks away. As such, if the student's or martial
>artist's behavior does not conform to legal self-defense standards, he
>will be prosecuted as an aggressor and/or participant.
>
>The misconception that the student will always be legally defending
>him/herself is encouraged by everything being phrased in terms of
>self-defense in the school; when in fact, the actions being taught and
>encouraged are anything but, self-defense.
>
>One of the authors actually saw a neck break, from behind, being taught
>as self-defense. That is not self-defense move, it is a military
>technique for killing sentries. A combat level move that is
>indefensible in court. You can play all kinds of "what if" games, but
>you will be hard pressed to come up with a credible scenario where it
>is justified to snap someone's neck from behind while he was helpless
>on the ground.
>
>We should like to point out that the lack of credibility is not only
>from a legal standpoint, but that you would not be likely to survive
>performing that technique. Short of committing outright murder, the
>weapon in your opponent's hand (the one that would justify this move)
>would be used on you while both of your hands were up around his neck.
>You have to execute your victim before he gets that weapon up there. If
>you don't he kills you as you kill him.
>
>This is how out of touch with reality most "self-defense" training is.
>
>Unfortunately, the current emphasis on extreme training, reality based
>training, cross training, being able to fight at any range, weapon
>system training and countless other fads and marketing schemes
>encourage crossing the line between self-defense and fighting. They
>instill physical reactions that are not effective self-defense, but
>what would be viewed as fighting moves by the authorities. What's
>worse, what they encourage is not a self-defense attitude (i.e. block,
>strike and run), but rather the idea of staying there and engaging an
>opponent (a.k.a. fighting).
>
>The nature of this kind of training makes it far more likely the
>student will cross the lines into illegal behavior. We say this because
>often, error riddled systems try to patch their shortcomings with
>extreme aggressiveness. It is almost as though they are saying "Don't
>fix the holes in what you are doing, just do it harder!" Whether this
>extra force comes from an aggressive attitude, belief in the
>invincibility of the fighting style, an over-reliance on being in peak
>physical conditioning or a combination of all, depends on the system.
>What doesn't change is the grim reality that excessive use of force is
>often the result from attempting to force error riddled techniques to
>work.
>
>What is sad is that many of these schools are in fact, trying to do
>error detection on the traditional martial arts, but they ended up
>trying to fix problems that they didn't understand. As martial artists
>often patch techniques with muscle and speed, many "reality based
>fighting systems" try to patch errors in self-defense with
>aggressiveness, overkill and finding the most "deadly fighting moves."
>Unfortunately, many of the solutions that are currently being advocated
>not only fail to solve the errors, but will are flat out illegal.
>
>Unfortunately, self-defense is one of the cornerstones of martial arts
>marketing. You will be hard pressed to find a school that does not
>promote itself as being able to teach you self-defense. What's worse is
>how often schools that claim to focus on self-defense are, in fact,
>teaching fighting.
>
>Therefore, it is incumbent on martial arts instructors, especially
>those who claim to teach an art that is good for self-defense (or a
>weapon
>art) to take training in the legal use of force. Not just talk to a
>student who is a lawyer in the dressing room, but actually attend
>classes/seminars/training. Fortunately, classes on judicious use of
>lethal force do exist in the handgun/shooting world and are readily
>available. Take this information and review your program against the
>standards you learn there.
>
It makes some good points that martial artists need to be aware of.
Sorry about all the ">"....
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from Real World chapter
>Below is an excerpt from an upcoming book on Error
><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592283705/qid=107601093
>7
>/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1913281-8054554?v=glance&s=books> Detection that
>we co-wrote with Tristan <http://www.silat-video.com> Sutrisno. In the
>Real World chapter the problems attempting to apply your martial arts
>training in a violent confrontation.
>
> _____
>
>Before you even think of using your martial art for self-defense you
>must be aware of two fundamental problems that you face. The first is:
>If it works. The second is: If it doesn't work.
>
>Unfortunately, we're not being flip that these are both major problems.
>
>Let's start out optimistically and assume that your martial arts
>training does work in a self-defense situation. On this subject we have
>some great news. Despite extensive argument on martial arts forums and
>sales pitches from instructors trying to get you to sign up for their
>school, one simple fact remains: Any martial art can be used for
>effective self-defense
>
>By this we mean to get yourself out of being attacked. You can use any
>style's block as a shield to protect yourself while you get away. A
>simple strategy of blocking and shooting an elbow as you run to safety
>can get you out of all kinds of trouble. It's called "Stun and Run."
>This non-macho/macha approach is not particularly glorious, nor does it
>gratify one's ego. It is, however, a very effective, and proven,
>self-defense strategy against a wide variety of threats.
>
>Having said they can be used for self-defense, martial arts are not
>good for fighting.
>
>On the internet, people are constantly arguing over which martial art
>style is best for fighting. What they fail to realize is it false
>argument. Starting from a misconception, people are now arguing over
>which is the best mistaken idea. They might as well be arguing over
>which style is the best for walking to the moon. Yet, misconceptions
>and fantasies about fighting are so well entrenched in the martial arts
>world that they are considered truths. The authors are constantly asked
>"which martial art style is best for fighting?"
>
>Our answer is: None.
>
>To start with, the martial arts are not fighting styles, they are
>training styles. They do not "teach you to fight" they train you how to
>move your body. Just because you know how to move your body doesn't
>mean you know how to fight. If that were true, then both ballerinas and
>football players would be great fighters. More to the point, sparring
>is not fighting. Nor is stepping into the sports ring. In a "real
>fight," there are no judges, juries, and rules to protect the
>participants. There are no disallowed moves. Whoever is still standing
>is the winner. The loser is probably hurt and doesn't remember a thing
>or dead!
>
>While this may sound all kinds of exciting and macho, remember, at
>least half of the people involved in fights lose. That means, despite
>all your training, there is a 50/50 chance that the person on the
>ground will be you. The reason is very simple, you aren't the only one
>who has stacked the deck. Your opponent has also put some tricks up his
>sleeve. Unfortunately, these tricks often include surviving multiple
>violent encounters previously. You may be trained, but he's
>experienced.
>
>Having said that, the real reason we say no martial art style is good
>for "fighting" is all fantasies about defeating a horde of attacking
>criminals in a blaze of martial art mastery aside, there is one
>undeniable fact that exists about using your martial arts training on
>another human being:
>
>Self-defense is legal, fighting is illegal.
>
>Self-defense is doing what you must do to prevent yourself from being
>harmed when unjustly attacked. For example, walking down the street and
>someone unexpectedly jumps out of the shadows to attack you, would be
>self-defense. Fighting, on the other hand, is you actively engaging in
>an extended, aggressive and most importantly, consensual altercation.
>For example, an argument that escalates into an exchange of blows is
>not self-defense, it's a fight - even though both participants will
>claim it was self-defense. This is why both are going to jail and both
>will end up in court.
>
>Now granted these are overly simplistic examples that are subject to
>many caveats, exceptions and extenuating circumstances that can only be
>sorted out in court, but they do show the basic difference between
>self-defense and fighting.
>
>This difference between fighting and self-defense is built into legal
>definitions in every state. Why is knowing this difference important?
>Because, violence always has an aftermath. And your actions before,
>during and after a violent episode will affect the aftermath.
>
>The bottomline is: If you are fighting, you are part of the problem.
>And during the aftermath you will be treated accordingly by the legal
>system. No matter what you thought you were doing, your behavior
>regarding the altercation will be considered and judged in this light.
>If you are found to have crossed certain lines, then even if you win
>the physical altercation, you will lose in these other ways.
>
>Unlike a criminal, in order for you to "win" a violent encounter you
>must come out ahead on four different levels. Not just one or two, but
>all four. 1) overcoming your fear and performing, 2) defeating the
>attacker, 3) not being criminally prosecuted and 4) winning in civil
>court when you are sued by your attacker for injuring him.
>
>Coming out ahead is a big enough challenge if you were defending
>yourself, if you were fighting it is impossible. What's more, passing
>these four criteria requires much more than just knowing a deadly
>fighting art. It requires self-control, knowledge and awareness of
>things beyond just the physical act of punching someone correctly. In
>these four areas there are a lot of ways you can lose - even if you win
>the fight.
>
>Here are a few very basic guidelines to tell when it crosses the line
>from self-defense into something illegal. You or your student become
>the aggressor if 1) you were an active participant in the creation and
>escalation of the conflict, (e.g. you were in an argument that turned
>into an extended punch out). 2) you did not stop attacking after the
>immediate threat had passed (e.g. he was trying to disengage or had
>fallen and you kept on attacking) or 3) your response was excessive
>beyond the threat offered to you (e.g. you knife someone who just
>punched you). These three standards are far more a reality than what
>you will hear discussed in martial arts circles about what works in a
>"real fight." Once these lines are crossed, it's not self-defense
>anymore - even if it started out as such
>
>Are you beginning see why we have such a problem about the very idea of
>a "best martial art for fighting?" That is a recipe for violating any
>and all of those three guidelines.
>
>A unifying concept of what has been discussed thus far is the
>unconscious assumption - by both the teacher and the student -- that
>the martial artist will always be right "if he ever had to use this."
>This assumption regarding innocence of participation and instigation is
>not shared by our legal system. Because quite simply an overwhelming
>amount of violence could be avoided if someone simply overrides ego,
>apologizes and walks away. As such, if the student's or martial
>artist's behavior does not conform to legal self-defense standards, he
>will be prosecuted as an aggressor and/or participant.
>
>The misconception that the student will always be legally defending
>him/herself is encouraged by everything being phrased in terms of
>self-defense in the school; when in fact, the actions being taught and
>encouraged are anything but, self-defense.
>
>One of the authors actually saw a neck break, from behind, being taught
>as self-defense. That is not self-defense move, it is a military
>technique for killing sentries. A combat level move that is
>indefensible in court. You can play all kinds of "what if" games, but
>you will be hard pressed to come up with a credible scenario where it
>is justified to snap someone's neck from behind while he was helpless
>on the ground.
>
>We should like to point out that the lack of credibility is not only
>from a legal standpoint, but that you would not be likely to survive
>performing that technique. Short of committing outright murder, the
>weapon in your opponent's hand (the one that would justify this move)
>would be used on you while both of your hands were up around his neck.
>You have to execute your victim before he gets that weapon up there. If
>you don't he kills you as you kill him.
>
>This is how out of touch with reality most "self-defense" training is.
>
>Unfortunately, the current emphasis on extreme training, reality based
>training, cross training, being able to fight at any range, weapon
>system training and countless other fads and marketing schemes
>encourage crossing the line between self-defense and fighting. They
>instill physical reactions that are not effective self-defense, but
>what would be viewed as fighting moves by the authorities. What's
>worse, what they encourage is not a self-defense attitude (i.e. block,
>strike and run), but rather the idea of staying there and engaging an
>opponent (a.k.a. fighting).
>
>The nature of this kind of training makes it far more likely the
>student will cross the lines into illegal behavior. We say this because
>often, error riddled systems try to patch their shortcomings with
>extreme aggressiveness. It is almost as though they are saying "Don't
>fix the holes in what you are doing, just do it harder!" Whether this
>extra force comes from an aggressive attitude, belief in the
>invincibility of the fighting style, an over-reliance on being in peak
>physical conditioning or a combination of all, depends on the system.
>What doesn't change is the grim reality that excessive use of force is
>often the result from attempting to force error riddled techniques to
>work.
>
>What is sad is that many of these schools are in fact, trying to do
>error detection on the traditional martial arts, but they ended up
>trying to fix problems that they didn't understand. As martial artists
>often patch techniques with muscle and speed, many "reality based
>fighting systems" try to patch errors in self-defense with
>aggressiveness, overkill and finding the most "deadly fighting moves."
>Unfortunately, many of the solutions that are currently being advocated
>not only fail to solve the errors, but will are flat out illegal.
>
>Unfortunately, self-defense is one of the cornerstones of martial arts
>marketing. You will be hard pressed to find a school that does not
>promote itself as being able to teach you self-defense. What's worse is
>how often schools that claim to focus on self-defense are, in fact,
>teaching fighting.
>
>Therefore, it is incumbent on martial arts instructors, especially
>those who claim to teach an art that is good for self-defense (or a
>weapon
>art) to take training in the legal use of force. Not just talk to a
>student who is a lawyer in the dressing room, but actually attend
>classes/seminars/training. Fortunately, classes on judicious use of
>lethal force do exist in the handgun/shooting world and are readily
>available. Take this information and review your program against the
>standards you learn there.
>