There is no Martial Arts that Guarranty it is Very Effective in Self Defense.

[pluspinc]

StDilair: If you look at my web page there is a LONG list of FREE lessons. We know many can't get to us so we keep adding to that catagory. Also the photo gallery is FREE and very educational. Our web page is about a $20-$40,000 effort. (thanks goodness my wife is a master web page maker.)
As for Dwights comments he has it 100% right. His comments are pristine.
I have often wondered by women being raped don't take the eyes out of the attacker. We have told females to forget about kicking em where it hurts. That does NOT work. If it did, cops would be trained in its use. When you toss some scumbags eyes into the grass the attack stops. The eyes are easy to remove. Even in the most vicious fights I have seen, and I've seen many, the combatants don't go for the eyes. We must feel some sacred opinion on them or fear it be done to us.
If we really think death or serious injury is a reality, taking the thugs eyes out should be an easy option. If that was done a few times and word got out you could recognize the thugs by the heavy goggles. :-)

[stdalire]

pluspinc: Thanks for the comments, actually I have download the photos in your website and I am now trying to study them. The photos are not just ordinary but they depict real stories. Having you showed those pictures seems you have a very easy access to crime laboratories which sometimes control publishing such kinds.

Thanks again and am enjoy discussing to all of you.

[Ivanhoe]

pluspinc, its the old "code duello" crap. western society still has the remnant of the "fair fight" doctrine implicitly built into societal mores and law. as if we still believe in the chivalric code, and all conflicts can be solved with jousts and duels.

hypothetical example; some unknown *sshole walks up to me in my garage, says he's going to kick my ass, then begins his assault. the rational response would be to grab a crescent wrench or hammer and rearrange his thought precesses. Bzzt! can't do that, I can only respond with "equal force". the law says a non-LEO can only respond with equal force, and the unwritten rules of societal conduct say that "wouldn't be fair" thus things would get ugly at a jury trial.

any surprise that random crime is still a problem? think about the reaction from the legal system and general society 75 years ago, same hypothetical situation. local LE would fill out a short report, maybe, prosecutors wouldn't even have heard about it, and the local paper would run a short, complementary article. the American legal system only works as designed if there is a certain amount of "street justice". we don't allow that anymore, thus the crime rate.

[Skorzeny]

I am getting really tired of this misperception, but a BJJ stylist may or may not go to the ground in a real street encounter.

For NHB competitions and sports Jiu-Jitsu competitions, obviously takedowns and ground techniques are emphasized since these are the areas in which the presumable opponents (strikers) are deficient in.

For street self-defense, however, there is a range of throws and standup submissions in BJJ. One goes to the ground, sometimes, not because one wants to, but because one is FORCED to. Anyone who has been in lots of street fights and claims that he's never been taken down is either lying or an olympic-level wrestler. One can scream all day that one will never be taken down with superior striking or combat or balance skills, but the reality of fights is that many will go to the ground where if one does not know good ground skills, one will be beaten up seriously. Why not worry about not getting killed by one guy before one starts worrying about the second attacker?

It's interesting that people point out a handful of safety precautions in NHB events to deny the usefulness of NHB events as "labs" for testing fighting styles (mainly because their styles don't succeed). True, eye-gouging and fish-hooking are not allowed in any NHB events (some do allow strikes to the groin or neck), but if one suggests that his or her "system" can ONLY be effective IF AND ONLY IF eye-gouging and fish-hooking are allowed, then that system is "hanging on a pretty thin wire" so to speak.

So far, NHB events have been the only venue to simulate reality of a street fight. They are quite realistic (if not quite "real" street fights) and have helped demonstrate the ineffectiveness of many systems and arts. If someone is not satisfied, then show me a viable alternative. Practicing the one-blow death-touch on cooperating static opponents at schools or dojos may impress amateurs, but real professionals know that without dynamic, uncooperative, unpredictable, full-force training, one will never really learn to deal with how people really move in real fights. And, one cannot train dynamically AND RELATIVELY SAFELY at the same time without having a few precautions like no eye-gouging and no fish-hooking.

I have an interesting story to relate, by the way, about eye-gouging. Rickson Gracie, the Gracie family champ, was giving a seminar one time and a supposed "ground fighting" expert showed up to "spar" with Rickson. Now, this "expert" has been claiming that eye-gouging and other "dirty" techniques made ground grappling obsolete. Well, while they were sparring, the guy tried to eye-gouge Rickson a couple of times to get out of a bad position. Rickson, being in superior position through his superior grappling skills, simply slapped the attempts away and then applied a submission which made it impossible for the guy to even tap to submit. The "expert" who showed up to defeat Rickson through "dangerous, barred techniques" had to apologize verbally before Rickson let him go.

Eye-gouging and other "easy-to-learn, effective" techniques are all great and dandy, but in a fast and furious moving fight, it's very difficult to connect such a small target AND if you are in an inferior position on the ground, it is next to impossible to pull them off (actually, you often end up giving the guy in the superior position the idea to use those techniques since it is safer and easier for him).

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

[dwightvdb]

Interesting points you bring up, and valid ones. I don't know the weakness of the Filipino martial arts, but I do know that very few warriors use escrima alone, which supports your point.

I disagree (but not vehemently) with your assertion that all martial arts work well for the practioner expert in their application. I don't think that all are equal in effect; at least, not on the street. I would assert, for instance, that Gracie JJ would be uniformly superior to Tae Kwon Do in 95% of normally-encountered street situations. TKD emphasizes high kicks, which is great for sport, and for knocking government mercenaries off their horses (which is what it was designed for). But ... not so good on, say, ice and snow, when the kicker would probably fall on his ass. Often you have to deal with being tackled - the guy just tackles you and takes you to the ground. Of what use is Kung Fu when you're wrestling in the mud and the guy is on top of you? Much better to learn Judo and be able to choke the guy out, than know the Horse Stance and be clueless on the ground in the mud.

Also, it's been documented time and again that in a fight you will act as you've trained. Throw ten thousand punches in the air and stop them two inches in front of your opponent's chest and guess what. That's exactly what you'll do in a fight. I don't train with a partner, because my techniques are all lethal - every one. I have a SparPro dummy that I can gouge and throat chop to my heart's content (in a manner of speaking) and all my practice is full speed, full power. I actually beat the crap out of him, forcing my fingers into his eyes and hitting him as hard as I can in the Adam's apple, over and over and over. Put me in an alley in winter with a TKD black belt and he'd last about five seconds. As he would with you, if you trained like this.

I understand your concern about freedom of information, and the desire to get it all for free. There are plenty of books and videos on the subject, but they cost standard book/video prices. The problem with putting all the information on the web for free is that the bad guys will have equal access to it.

Here's an example. There's a knife stroke, very difficult to defend against, that causes almost certain death. In the old days, only the CQB guys knew about it, but the information got leaked out, and now it's passed by one convict to another word-of-mouth in the prison system. The stroke itself is very simple: you feint to he head, causing your opponent to raise his guard, then cut him where his leg joins his pelvic region. Strangely, this is one of the three most lethal cuts (the others being the neck, and the commando move of driving the long knife down just behind the collarbone and moving it laterally, which cuts the main vessel connected to the heart ... it was this cut, instantly lethal, that the British commando fighting knife was designed to optimally deliver).

The leg cut has an interesting, somewhat surprising, effect. Done correctly (it's quite easy, actually), the femoral artery is severed. Turns out that the blood flow through this channel is quite significant, and you bleed out in a few minutes. You're essentially a dead man walking if someone cuts your femoral artery. The guy cuts you, leaves for a while to talk to his buddies and has a smoke, comes back in a few minutes and you're dead in a huge pool of blood, takes your wallet and your weapon and goes home, mission accomplished.

Much time spent on this scenario in strip-mall studios? Don't think so. You'll be challenged with a thrust to the face and cover with a block and feel a slight pain in your groin, no big deal, and be dead a few minutes later.

What do you do about this attack? Simple. Carry two knives, one on each side, and a gun. Use the knives as weapon-retention devices (he tries to grab your gun from you, you clamp his hand to your side and grab the knife with the free hand and stab him in the arm and belly until he lets go of the gun; then you shoot him). A small gun is not much use, except as a really good knife. I carry a Colt Mustang .380 in my pocket, good enough to put a guy down, and a lot better than my Sig P229 sitting in the safe back home because it's too heavy and klunk to carry all the time. You see the creep coming at you with a knife, you scream "Hey! Stop, You Stop Right There, I don't want to hurt you!!!!" and draw and shoot him twice in the center of his body and once in the head if he keeps coming at you.

Is there a problem? Yes. Turns out that a guy can pull a knife and be right on top of you before you can draw your gun. Knives are more lethal than pistols at close range; strange but true. Try it: put your carry piece in your concealment holster and have a friend stand maybe 10 yards away, and tell him to wait, then run at you and draw his knife and jump you while you're watching. Don't start to draw until you see him start to run at you. The result will shock you: he'll have his knife at your throat before you've got your gun out of the holster. This has been demonstrated time and time again, and is the reason that you're justified (in some states) to shoot a knife-wielding bad guy even before he cuts you. He's actually got the upper hand. You see a knife and an attack, you draw and fire, dude. You'll be lucky to survive.

But I digress. American Combatives is not your average martial arts trip. CQB in general is not the same as other styles. The CQB schools teach you how to kill or severly disable an adversary in a few seconds, just like the Marine Corps taught me in 1966. It's not hard, and it has nothing to do with conditioning, style, or even (surprisingly) strength. The hard part is the mental attitude: you delay all action until the single blow which usually kills your opponent.

Why is strength not important? Because there's no way to build up the front of the eyes, the front of the throat, the testicles, the front of the knees, or the shins. Each of these critical areas is amazingly vulnerable to a strike. Take Arnold Swartzenegger - no matter what he does, his eyes and throat are vulnerable. If a 22-year-old coed knows how to hit him with her full force there, really lay her whole self into a single strike directly into his eyes or Adam's apple, he's toast. That's the principle of CQB, and why it worked for commandos in WWI who were often much slighter and less physical than their German adversaries. You can't strengthen your corneas. They're always going to be extremely vulnerable. Train to strike there, thousands of times the same way, over and over and over, and when the bad guy shows up with his knife and comes at you, you take the cut (you always get cut in a knife fight, get used to it, expect it, don't shy away from being cut) and you take him out by the eyes or throat or nuts.

Little-known fact: a small percentage of men can take a full-force hit in the nuts and carry on just fine. Most of us crumple over and whine and throw up and die a little, but some guys just play on as if nothing had happened (Mohammed Ali was one of these.) This is a "secret", but one I'm not worried about divulging: don't bet your life on a testicle hit. Yes, knee him in the balls if you're close, train for that, but only for softening him up and making him bend over forward to receive your real stroke. But depend on the full-force neck strike to end the fight ... and the man, most likely.

Getting kind of gruesome, so I'll sign off for now.

Take care,
Dwight

[dwightvdb]

Skorzeny: the expert who fought Rickson was a fool. BJJ is based on one-on-one combat, but that's never what happens on the street. The bad guy won't attack you unless he has an advantage, and that advantage is either firepower or allies. Usually allies. The actual encounter on the street would have been Rickson and the "expert", and the expert's friend(s) waiting in the shadows, or just down the block. As Rickson was asking for the apology, the ally would have stabbed him in the back.

It's never one-on-one. Walk down a city street at midnight and see how many solo, threatening dudes you see. Almost zero, right? Where is that in the BJJ system, or any other system, for that matter? Aikido trains in defense against multiple attackers, but they're all unarmed. Hello?

You've got to be able to take someone out immediately, end of story. Could I take out Rickson? No chance. If he's ready and waiting for me in his gi, and it's a match and there we are in the ring unarmed, he's going to clean my clock every time. But on the street, I'll be armed. He comes at me, I draw and fire, if I have time. If not, he wins. If he's the good guy and I'm the bad guy, then I have two or three friends walking with me, and when I see him I talk trash and them jump him. He's trained to grapple, so he'll grapple me to the ground, at which time my friends end the fight in my favor. No amount of grappling skill can overcome that.

If you go to the ground, no matter how skilled you are, you're a dead man. That's the rule in the military, and I think it's the rule on the street. I had a near encounter at a bus stop this evening. Was it me and him? Come on. It was me and him and his three friends in the car. Do you really think that Rickson would have stood a much better chance? I'd lay serious money that at least two of the friends were packing serious calibres. BJJ is a joke.

But that's just one man's opinion. I'm looking forward to your well-considered response.

Take care,
Dwight

[stdalire]

Dwight, it is a very realistic response from you. I have gone all over your posts, read and analyze it. I would like to say, you hit the point very well.

I agree with you of the effectiveness of a knife in a close range. I have posted some of my real experiences on using knife as basic defense in other pluspinc thread, and after reading your posts, you're the only man I have got affirmation or heard from commenting on the effectiveness of a knife in close range encounter against a revolver or pistol. For the discussion only, many cops in Philippines also that were stabed before they were able to fire their revolvers on the BG.

Yes, you're right that front of the throat, testicles and knee caps cannot be strengtened or hardended and these portions of the body is vulnerable and deadly to attack if we could hit them easily.

I have said that there is also weakness of Filipino Stick Fighting or Escrima, because learning on the movements and techniques of it especially the one "modern arnis" which is very much comercialized now, I see its big difference being practiced by our old folks in the province.

When I see a demonstration of the old people in remote areas, they strike with lightning speed and has no so much styles of being so sporty, that is why many Filipinos dislikes to learn real Arnis or Stick fighting because it is not that easy if is the real Stick fighting. The "Old Maestro" will really hit your hands when he is teaching, but now the modern arnis has many flaws as I have seen from those who have studied it (not from Presas brothers but from the students). To be honest, Modern Arnis is even more popularized in US Circle than in the Philippines. My understanding of the Sticks is just an extension of the hands, and once you have grabbed the stick wielder and get very closed to him and did not able to hit you on distant, the arnis will be inapplicable already. This is not to demean the Arnis player for I am arnis player of myself also and a former student of Ernesto Presas, but I am showing only the weakness and that is one way of re-thinking or reflect on what really we should pick up from the different school of martial arts to use in real defense. To have a stick is good to use if the opponent guy has a knife or bolo to hit you, then using the arnis (stick) as an extension is very much reliable to us, instead of parying with the barehand. Also, Arnis should not be taken as a good weapon for blocking, but use to extend your hands to hit the wrist or arms that holds the knife or sticks and the feet. It is a good extension to strikes any parts of the body, that you can hardly reach with your hands. Of course it is easier to hit a points if your hands has an extension. But if the arnis can be substituted with a bladed weapon (Bolo, Kampilan, or any form of long bladed weapon) then I could say it is really dangerous and I doubt if there is a barehand martial arts that could defend it. But if just a stick against another martial arts expert, it is not that much deadly.

Dwight, I understand that, giving so much easy access to free information would impair the easy transfer of techniques to BG's. But again, how can we differentiate and distinguish a BG and not.

On your honest opinion and perception, I would say that there are many BG's looking good guys hiding on their expensive coat and tie suit, good amount of money, and positions in the government. Well that is another topic but just an illustration on my part. The only BG usually pinpointed by many are those that intend to hurt one physical body (mostly from gangs on the street) or those having intention to get ones life driven by their petty crimes activities. But for me there are more big time BG's only they are more professional and refined and these are more dangerous if they will work with some people for money.

Thanks Dwight for the conversation. I've got good info from your comments.

Sonny

[Skorzeny]

Dwight:

From your post ("BJJ is a joke" ad naseum), it is clear to me that you don't really understand the purpose of any kind of unarmed self-defense.

Rickson would still kill you in the streets, because he would have 100 friends with him and many will be armed as well (ever see Rickson fighting Hugo Duarte at a beach in Rio in swimming trunks - he had lots of friends to make sure he wasn't going to be fighting more than one person).

Even though I am a grappler and hold very high regard for BJJ techniques, if I were attacked on the street, I would first try to run away and then if that were impossible, then try to use a knife or an improvised weapon (stick, baseball bat, bottle, keys etc. whatever is handy). I will use BJJ and other unarmed systems I train in IF I am unable to escape, unable to use or reach a weapon and particularly if some big guy tries to take me down (thinking that he can control and hurt me on the ground).

For that role of "last ditch" unarmed defense, I think that BJJ is without equal in that it truly allows a physically weaker person to overcome a strong fighter (especially a strong striker).

This is also especially good for women who may be in danger of being raped. When men attack women, they don't square off ("puts your hands up, lady, and let's fight") or allow the women to arm themselves first ("are you ready?") and then fight. Men, 9 times out of 10, suddenly tackle the women down, control them, and then rape them. BJJ is excellent for women in such cases.

This is completely anecdotal, but there was a brief article on the American Riflemen (on American Guardian as well) about a homeowner who went out of his bed, armed with a handgun, to investigate the "strange noise" (I understand house clearing should really be left to the police). He was tackled by the home intruder, the gun was dropped in the ensuing struggle and the homeowner had to fight the guy on the ground for several minutes before he was finally able to overpower the guy (with a choke) and then retrieve the gun. Now there is one person who could have benefitted from BJJ (or another similar grappling art). Now imagine if this were a small man or a woman (or the attacker was much stronger). The outcome would have been very different.

Clearly, it is a fool who shows up (regardless of skill) unarmed to a knife fight as it is a fool who shows up to a gun fight with a knife. BJJ is never claimed to be effective against an armed person or multiple attackers (which is very honest compared to virtually every other system out there). But it is claimed (with some justification) to be the most useful and effective means of defending oneself when all the other options have run out.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

[Byron Quick]

Skorzeny, I have nothing but respect for BJJ as I have mentioned before. I heartily agree that for one on one unarmed it is the best around. For me though, I have absolutely no faith in being able to arrange the one on one unarmed scenario with an opponent in a street fight.

Your signature line is the key for me. I have studied Sun Tzu's Art of War for twenty years now. Give us two opponents, one who is sixty years old, arthritic, weak, and a lifelong student of Sun Tzu. Another who is a world champion in NHB and a multiple black belt holder. I know who I'll bet on. I humiliated a TKD black belt once simply using terrain 'cuz he couldn't turn into an eggbeater in the sapling grove I retreated into. Some guy is the reincarnation of Elmer Keith with a pistol? Time to dust off the long range rifle. Victory in combat is defined as obtaining your objective. Your objective is to beat my butt. Mine is to possess an unbeaten butt. My parameters for victory are met by simply not being there.

There are unvoiced assumptions in much of the preceding dialogue. One is a duel mentality, i.e, I'm going to face him man to man and destroy him by virtue of my superior martial skills. Bull puckey! I'm more interested in
martial ways that will allow me to attain victory even though I am weaker, outnumbered, sick, and simply not as good at martial arts techniques as my opponent. Sun Tzu points the way to fulfill this goal. That is the beef I have with NHB type contests. Not that I can't eye gouge, nut bite, etc. But that the format does not allow the use of strategy. The last thing I'm looking for in a fight is a level playing field. It's going to be as unfair a fight as I can make it.

In other words, if the baddest guy who ever lived mastered the ultimate fighting art for one on one unarmed, and drools at the thought of pounding on me...my response will be to get a couple of buddies with our handguns and tell him,"hey, dude, let's get it on!"

I've been in about thirty fights and serious confrontations. I'm 27-3. In two of the three losses I was on the ground, concussed and semi-conscious before I knew I was in a fight. In the other loss I was fighting a guy when an onlooker gave me a haymaker from behind and then attacked my original opponent-me? I was on the ground semi-conscious and concussed...again. I pay a serious amount of attention to my six today. Four of the 27 wins were against mulitple opponents. 3 were with four and 1 was with eight. One of the four opponents episodes was suddenly stopped when I picked up an entrenchment tool and smiled as I asked,"Who dies first?" The possible consequences of the fight had escalated beyond the scope of their intention. They didn't want to fight as badly as they thought they did. The eight was a special case-they were unarmed and I had a big stick and darkness. Defense via pre-emptive strike. I not only won...I was not touched. The other two four on one cases did not use any special martial art techniques. I simply grabbed the most enthusiastic attacker with left hand while applying haymaker strikes with my right fist. (The haymaker is a very effective strike if you have a grip on your opponent or if striking from behind against an unknowing opponent.) After about two strikes, the guy was easy to jerk around so I used him as a shield to thwart the efforts of his buddies. After about four or five strikes I let go of him and grabbed the next most enthusiastic and continued the drill. In both cases, when I released victim #2, the third and fourth opponents decided to quit the field. Multiple attackers are really not very dangerous unless they have trained in group attacks together. Luckily, none of the groups I have faced had done so.

I never forget that my true opponent is the mind, spirit, will, heart, (call it what you will) of my opponent. I have had people decide that maybe they didn't want to fight after all simply because I was calmly agreeable to fighting. No trying to leave, trying to reason, trying to weasel out, just a quiet "Let's do it." Especially when you do it against a group, calm acceptance worries them.

------------------
Byron Quick

[Skorzeny]

Dwight:

A few more points...

1. TKD was not designed to "knock off goverment mercenaries on horseback." TKD evolved from Japanese Shotokan Karate. General Choi, the founder of TKD, was a student of Gichin Funakoshi (the founder of Shotokan) in Japan. When Choi returned to Korea, he evolved TKD to make a greater use of kicks because he wanted to distinguish TKD from Shotokan and to take advantage of the fact that Koreans were taller and longer-legged than the Japanese. So, in terms of age, TKD is not really a traditional art (neither is Shotokan, various Jujutus, Aikido and Judo - they are all relatively recent developments).

2. I agree with you that, even in practice, stopping the punch two inches from the target is very bad when it is applied in practice. But, your method of practicing against a dummy is highly ineffective as well, because you really need to train dynamically (with an opponent who moves unpredictably) to be effective. Boxers are some of the best strikers because they train dynamically (full-force sparring). It is really better to train dynamically (full-force and movement) with limited techniques (like boxing) than to practice lots of death-touch one-shot one-kill strikes to a dummy or a cooperative, static opponent.

3. "never one-on-one" in real life
I was in dozens and perhaps hundreds of fights when I was much younger. I'd say about 90% of the time, the fights were one-on-one (most of those fight went to the ground). Now I understand that things are very different with criminal attacks, but my point here is that criminal attacks are not the only kind of street encounters (I understand that legally, all attacks are criminal, more or less). People get into fights for all kinds of reasons, not just to rob or rape. So, while it is very possible to get into fights with more than one person, it is not impossible or unusual to fight with a single belligerent person (could be a criminal, a rowdy bar customer, an intruder, a neighbor, etc. etc.).

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

[dwightvdb]

To each his own.

I'm 51 and lazy and I don't like to fight, not even a little bit. I've spent a great deal of my life attempting to learn how to be a good husband and father, a good listener and lover and understander and nurturer of women and children. I cry at movies that aren't even all that sad. I play soft songs on my guitar and develop images from my black-and-white film in my modest darkroom and spend far too much time studying eastern philosophy and religion. I've spent two ten-day stretches meditating constantly at vipassana retreats, have sat zazen at Zen centers across the country, have learned sacred Hawaiian bodywork in Kauai. The list goes on.

I wish only to protect the life and limb of myself and other weak, good people who are under assault by strong, hostile people. I would rather spend my remaining hours on the planet in the joy of deep conversation and intimate relationship with a woman filled with love than doing pushups and hitting heavy bags at the dojo. The laughter of my granddaughter means more to me than the grunt of my opponent hitting the floor.

I reserve one evening a week with my son Ben for "Junto", which has exactly one rule: each of us must create something original, from scratch, and present it to the other. Often it's a four or five page writing; sometimes a poem, sometimes a photograph, sometimes a song. The minimum acceptable offering is a haiku, a short poem in the Japanese style that has three lines, seventeen syllables, with an indirect reference to the seasons.

I could spend that time in my gi, doing shoulder rolls and sweeps and strikes.

But I don't. I've found that it helps me get clear on priorities if I ask myself this question: when I'm 77 and on my deathbed, only a few days left, and am thinking back over my life, and I sigh, what will I be thinking? From most reports of those those who work with the dying, the usual statement of men at the very end of their lives goes something like this: "I had a good career, raised a good family, but ..... Looking back on it all, I really wish that I had spent more time doing X."

What will X be, for you?

For me, this is certain: X will not be "pushups" or "throwing opponents to the ground" or "hitting heavy bags." X, for me, has to do with relationships. Time with my sons, important time where we share with each other our hopes and dreams and truth. Time with my wife, swimming in her love, giving her the sea of my love, no agenda, nothing about her that I want to change. Time with my grandkids, sparkling and full of energy and hope, not yet disillusioned about what can and cannot be accomplished.

That's why CQB works for me, and not BJJ or TKD or Arnis or JKD. I am not a fighter, not a competitor, and I don't like to hit people. Hurting someone else, dominating him, gives me no joy. I avoid it at all costs.

With one exception. If he should physically attack me or one close to me with lethal force, I will put him down.

Dwight

[Gwinnydapooh]

Man, have I learned a ton from this thread. A few points summarized:

1. Don't even bring a gun to a gun fight. If there's going to be a fight, don't friggin' show up!!

2. I will not call Spartacus insane, but I WILL leave the fighting of multiple opponents to him since he finds them so un-dangerous--me, no thanks.

3. Art seems to matter little. Everyone has given good reasons why their art works as well as all the others, IF they have the givens:
a. enough practice!
b. conditioning!
c. intelligent strategy! (range, terrain, etc.)

4. Nothing works well against multiple opponents except being a badass in the first place.

5. Nothing beats everything. Like someone said way back, combat is apparently a lot like rock-paper-scissors.

[Skorzeny]

Oh, Dwight:

That was just beautiful. You could have saved your breath and said "I am not a fighter, I am a lover" instead of launching into a lecture about how polished a human being you are.

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I sense a little bit of condescension in your message.

One minute we are discussing best techniques for self-defense and the next minute you are talking about what a humane lover you are, but how you are going to "put down" anyone who gets in your face!

Just because I like to spend some of my time learning BJJ, Shooto and Muay Thai does not make me any less sophisticated, humane or creative than someone who does not. I am Ivy League-educated and hold advanced degrees in international relations and economics. My wife, who by the way, also trains in grappling, is a medical student and will soon be a healer of people.

Perhaps we should save the poetry and "I-am-a-better-human-being-than-you-because-I -don't-fight" routine for another site since this is "AF/CQC: Alternative Force/Close Quarters COMBAT" (emphasis mine) site.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

[pluspinc]

I have been fascinated by this thread. It is shocking the difference of attitude here from the gun types. Here the attitude is one of realistic expectations. The first is to avoid the problem, the second is to be realistic about the ability of any training to work, and the distinct potential for loss or failure, thus back to avoiding the problem etc. Shooters think they hold magic powers and will perform like superman and use every ounce of anything they ever learned and prevail. Wish the real world worked like that. This thread is far more realistic and logical. Pat yourselves on the back please.

[stdalire]

Thank you very much to all of you for the very well taken comments and opinions from defense instructors as well as practicioner.

You have shown, when to employ a surgical strikes to a BG when necessary and when to reflect the oneself to accepts the reality of a fight in self defense situation.

Love, harmony, force and anger are elements that envelope a man's personality.

In my reading of many topics especially in self defense, mostly just think that arming oneself with the best kind of guns and bullets are just the main factors in escaping death from BG's or criminals.

Like what pluspinc said "The first is to avoid the problem, the second is to be realistic about the ability of any training to work, and the distinct potential for loss or failure, thus back to avoiding the problem etc. Shooters think they hold magic powers and will perform like superman and use every ounce of anything they ever learned and prevail".

+P has a good and realistic points to reflect from his statements.

Giving a good analysis to what +p have said, to my own understanding only, many gun owners or shooters disregard the reality in a gun encounter or in a real fight using pistol or any form of barehand/weapon martial arts.

One thing I have realized. The more I have studied martial arts, the more I feel I get away from trouble. Why? I am afraid that if I used what I have studied to a normal trouble or to the extent to defend myself being hit or scratch against a punks, or for my self defense. Still, I will face alot of trouble after a fight. Firstly, the legal problems aside of the aftermath vengeance of the other party. I hate and 'don't like of being charge or even step upon the door of a jail. Thus, if I get into trouble even on the protection of my honor, family or my life, I always see to it that I am on the favor side if it comes to legality.

Proving oneself innocense is the hardest thing to do in court, even you're innocent if the other party is more moneyed, influential, or person in authority - it will take time and money to prove your guiltless.

Some said, it is better to be alive rather then being a victim. Yes, it is true, that is every one motto or principle. But the point is, whatever encounter we are in self defense, always and always there must be good explanation why we employ such deadly force to an opponent. Even the guy whom we strike suffers the lightest injury, we are still subject to trouble or legal problems.

So now, here comes the ideas of many who have posted in many threads who said, that they don't like to be in a fight, that if possible they will get away from it always. But again, even how good man we are, there is always unexpected moments where we become victims of harrasment, holdup, framed up and many evil works in a society and it causes us to act irrational human being.

So, if we talk self defense of ourselves, we are not only talking the self defense of our physical body, but self defense or protecting your personality of not being tag as trouble maker, protecting your small savings to be drained by just being into a fight (for self defense purpose), to save a family of being away from them if you are jailed because the legal systems was blind to see the truth that you acted in self defense.

In conclusion, self defense incorporates many elements that we defend in our life not only to defend our physical body but all things that is related to our vey existence. Thus, employing the deadly defense knowhow we have is only a last resort to do.

Thank you for the time in presenting my own ideas.

[This message has been edited by stdalire (edited March 08, 2000).]

[.]

Closed due to length, start part-II.