Models of attacks

[JusticeZero]

In another thread, CMcK was discussing the feasibility of certain techniques and in fact the practicability of them; it sounded to me as though he was dismissing a number of attacks as frivolous because they did not particularly mesh with his objectives in a fight. I noticed, however, that he appeared to be defining a fight in a different way than I have always built MY tactics around.

In MY model, a defender is attacked suddenly or with little warning, under adverse conditions; escape is at the moment of the attack a low-percentage possibility. The purpose of combat techniques are to disable, reposition, and space the attacker(s) for the purpose of increasing the viability of escape, so that the defender can more confidently and securely flee from the scene. It is also desired that the defender be unambiguously innocent; if a situation ends up in court, the defender is still being damaged and may in fact still be beaten by their assailant's army of lawyers. Carrying a weapon is a matter which can weaken one's stance in a court battle, and I don't want to go into a fight that I don't know for certain that I will win.
I do not, though, presume how committed the attack is. Murder and assault with a deadly are scary enough that many attackers might forego those in favor of lesser methods that you still do not want to calmly receive in hopes that their plans are not serious.

Because my goals are based around mobility and positioning, assuming superior force on the side of the attackers, my tactics are affected. I use thrust kicks to create space, I go to the floor a lot to be prepared to be mobile on slippery surfaces or if the fight starts with me being thrown or pushed, I do not even attempt to control an attacker who is going to the ground, and I really don't much bother with weapons.

Chris's model, however, seemed to me from the description given to be preceded with a negotiation phase, and in failure, shifts to a committed, two sided combat; this may in fact be a reasonable model given different circumstances, but it still would be that; a model of a fight.

...I believe that nearly all fights where a weapon is not justified in self-defense can be completely avoided.
.. I'm not interested in engaging in fights where I'm not truly forced to defend myself or a protective charge. In situations where I am forced to do that, a weapon is now justified (..and..) automatically justify the use of weapons and also of lethal force, legally speaking.
The idea of choosing to remain unarmed in circumstances where lethal force is justified is pure Darwinian stupidity to me. For anything less than those circumstances, I won't be fighting anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether I'm armed or not.

He seemed to be discussing how these considerations had changed what weapons he was training. Certainly the LEO's seem to prefer grappling and the like which helps them to restrain a target in an environment favoring them, so that they can make an arrest; this affects what they train.

Can anyone else think of what sort of model they work with, and how that affects their training goals?

[BruceP]

Bouncers/doormen and other unarmed security - Teamwork is essential, but there are times when an individual doesn't have immediate support and must deal solo.

NIght clerk, servers, and other service industry jobs - Folks are told to comply with robbers but sometimes robbers aren't satisfied with a clean 'transaction', and compliance may be viewed as an invitation to other acts of badness.

Any situation occuring in a public place - bus stop, park, concert, pub, lrt station, mall.
You may have family with you, a group of friends, maybe you're alone. Shit happens at the most unexpected times.

Lone women in elevators, hallways, underground parking, mall parking lots, etc, etc.
In group training with women I mostly just listen to what they say first, and then help them work through their concerns about particular situations. We come up with strategies and tools to deal with their concerns before we launch into any kind of 'standard' self-defense. I've found that this allows women to approach the training with much more confidence and alacrity. I've done 'tai chi bang study groups' that turned out really well. "oh no officer, this is just my tai chi ruler"

I don't think it's a good idea to get too specific or narrow in training. There are common aspects to violence in general which can be applied to many different situations, but an individual's personal combat should take precedence. In fact, it should be the first thing an instructor addresses before they presume to know anything about fighting and/or self-defense.

It's irresponsible to advise anyone to carry a weapon, and it's something they should carefully consider themself. Aside from guns and knives, perps have tasers and mace and all that good stuff these days - non-lethal means of incapacitating their prey.

[Chris McKinley]

JZ,

While your assumptions/conclusions/whatever about my "model" of combat are inaccurate, you still bring up a worthwhile topic for discussion nonetheless. For clarity, I'll touch on a couple of things first.

RE: "In MY model, a defender is attacked suddenly or with little warning, under adverse conditions...". I've argued that very scenario as perhaps the most likely to be faced for many years now. I've even started numerous threads to that effect.

RE: "Chris's model, however, seemed to me from the description given to be preceded with a negotiation phase, and in failure, shifts to a committed, two sided combat...". As I referred to in the Open Palm Strikes thread, that scenario does happen. Not every hostile confrontation begins with a surprise assault. Again, though, as I've preached for many years now, my belief is that most such encounters are entirely avoidable. It's rare that an assailant will engage a victim in verbal escalation/negotiations while also preventing all possible egress, Hollywood movies aside. Typically, if the assailant(s) is going to prevent egress altogether, he will keep the verbal banter to a minimum and make any demands for belongings quickly. If he intends to seriously injure or kill you, once egress has been cut off, the physical assault typically begins immediately.

Even with surprise assaults, it is still likely that some form of egress is possible, even if the initial assault must be dealt with first. Skills for quickly identifying just such routes of escape are truly life-saving, regardless of one's other martial preferences.

RE: "Carrying a weapon is a matter which can weaken one's stance in a court battle, and I don't want to go into a fight that I don't know for certain that I will win.". This is indeed a possibility, depending on what exact actions are taken and the specific circumstances of each unique situation. However, and to be blunt, I couldn't give two shits what the courts think if life is truly on the line, especially the life of a protective charge such as a loved one. I'll happily do the time for eliminating three or four thugs in the process of defending my family if the alternative means that one or more of my loved ones would have died.

RE: "He seemed to be discussing how these considerations had changed what weapons he was training.". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by weapons here, but that statement is certainly true regardless of the definition. As to empty hand weapons, I give some of my reasoning in the Open Palm Strikes thread. As to man-made weapons, I'm also fairly particular. While I have certain sentimental attachments to some kinds of weapons from various periods of history, I'm a pure pragmatist when it comes to real self-defense.

[johnrieber]

nice thread. all the way around.

i think shooter cuts to a really fine point in the context of the 'model'. in training, we do some modeling as drill/situation work. but the kind of modeling that's the likeliest to make that stuff either work or not is based on the individual.

response to a no-negotiation attack--which has limited options--or a negotiable scenario--which has dozens: either way, the best thing you can possibly do is be in some sort of comfortable discomfort zone.

see it coming. and use what you've got. what you've got depends on who you are. smart training starts with that as a foundation, and makes the most of it.

[chimerical tortoise]

As a youngling without LEO/security/military experience but plenty of university foolishness, here's my thoughts:

My sifu says that anything from behind, multiple attackers, weapons, those are unfair factors to a fight. A one to one empty hand fight, this is not fair either. No two people are the same; A might outweigh B, out-train, out-reach... inherent differences cannot be accounted for. My sifu stresses that it is a one to one comparison that can be accurately studied; it may or may not prepare you from said unfair factors, but to say anything more is dangerous because it makes you think that you can be superman and overcome unfair factors. If the situation exists then you deal as you can deal; running is advocated. Also taught as a general rule of thumb that two steps is good ranging. If someone intends to engage you, it gives you a step's worth of time to engage or escape. It goes along well with straight punch, sticky hands drill, and an opponent forward of you. Your aim is to develop the shenfa, that you can neutralise opponents with, it is not only to neutralise opponents.

Now as mentioned I don't work in a high risk, weaponised environment. I've also been able to get myself out of nasty situations but none where someone's (in my opinion) really decided to absolutely run me into the ground. Sneak attacks and group disorder I've experienced somewhat, but no bottles or knives. And so far what I've learned has worked although I've been terrified as shit at some points over silly incidents that more fistical people would probably have laughed at, and have "froze" at points, that is likewise laughable. I think there are shortcomings with crowds and weapons in the Ving Tsun system, but the mentality that my sifu advocated has strangely enough started to make sense; it's not that this approach cannot apply to "unfair" circumstances (where do you have a choice to stop and say it's unfair?), the situation is simply not in your favour.

Systema addresses many of the ground, group and weapon issues I have with ving tsun; also I am sure (though I haven't experienced) there's CMA that deals with these models of attacks. But ving tsun does not claim the technical expertise of knife disarm and group attack, for instance, and these are limitations I am at this point comfortable with.

Re: Chris' ideas
Vancouver is not a particularly violent city; there are parts that might be seen as unclean, drug-infested... the list of negative and fearful terms used to describe the DTES (Downtown Eastside, biggest drugstore in North America) fiasco is helped by actual incidents, no matter how isolated, of violence (and targeted gang violence). We are interested in the worst of the worst, or models previously unanticipated, but in a place such as Vancouver (or Hong Kong) where violence is not widespread, how effectively can you really train? Can you produce a super ninja warrior from a after-work-hours fitness centre? Is it (for everyday purposes, civilian life) necessary? Or does it just put poor ideas in your head?

I ask this because I'm very confused about what level of training is optimum. I go to school and am expected to be normal. But too much training and I wear a tin foil hat. Too little and I don't feel solid. But I have to explain sometimes stupid little things like "the guy was squaring off five metres away, so I walked" or I see people doing what I consider risky or dangerous social/spatial things that noone else seems to be able to object to, sometimes I'm seeing things, other times shit happens. But if nothing happens because I change tact, then I'm wrong because, nothing happened. And it gets kind of confusing.

Am I making some sense?

[JusticeZero]

in a place such as Vancouver (or Hong Kong) where violence is not widespread, how effectively can you really train? Can you produce a super ninja warrior from a after-work-hours fitness centre? Is it (for everyday purposes, civilian life) necessary? Or does it just put poor ideas in your head?

I don't see that it's necessarily worthwhile. Seriously, we spend so much time trying to train for a battle that we, in all likelyhood, isn't going to happen, and if it does, won't be anywhere near the intensity we are preparing for. There's got to be something else there, really; the personal combat skill is only one of a number of things that's there for us.

[everything]

I think the likelihood depends mostly on the individuals' lifestyle, etc., but the rate of death by assault among young males in the U.S. is surprisingly high. In particular, it's surprisingly high for white males and alarmingly high for black males. For example:

Among white males, ages 25-29, it's the third leading cause of death, 8.8% of total deaths.
Among black males, ages 25-29, it's THE leading cause of death, 41.2% of total deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2005.pdf

This data does not detail type of assault (which is what this thread is after), but dang. I think given the rate goes way down among older groups, it's clear young males are just doing more stupid things and in more stupid situations, rather than some explanation like "older people are stronger, faster, and have better MA, train like ninjas, etc.". You are probably better served avoiding and trying to get out of certain situations than you are in training all the time under these different models. The data doesn't look at location afaik, and obviously does not cover Canada, but you are probably relatively safe in Vancouver.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

I think the likelihood depends mostly on the individuals' lifestyle, etc., but the rate of death by assault among young males in the U.S. is surprisingly high. In particular, it's surprisingly high for white males and alarmingly high for black males. For example:

Among white males, ages 25-29, it's the third leading cause of death, 8.8% of total deaths.
Among black males, ages 25-29, it's THE leading cause of death, 41.2% of total deaths.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2005.pdf

This data does not detail type of assault (which is what this thread is after), but dang. I think given the rate goes way down among older groups, it's clear young males are just doing more stupid things and in more stupid situations, rather than some explanation like "older people are stronger, faster, and have better MA, train like ninjas, etc.". You are probably better served avoiding and trying to get out of certain situations than you are in training all the time under these different models. The data doesn't look at location afaik, and obviously does not cover Canada, but you are probably relatively safe in Vancouver.

Statistics have always shown that young men of any race creed or colour are rash and quick to become violent. So it only stands to reason that they are involved in virtually ALL of the violent crime and all of the statistical episodes of violence.

It's a natural trait for young men. Apparently

[everything]

so the solution for chimerical is simple. get older. may not even require hard training.

haha, just kidding, but seriously, his awareness and pre-emptive avoidance sounds like it's working

[BruceP]

Seriously, we spend so much time trying to train for a battle that we, in all likelyhood, isn't going to happen, and if it does, won't be anywhere near the intensity we are preparing for

I've done training with lots of civilians, community living advocates, nurses, orderlies, security, paliative and elderly care people, etc, who all say that on-the-job attacks are becoming more frequent. Intensity is a matter of perspective and relative to the individual. From what I've been told, the relative intensity of their experience(s) ranks as high as anything I've ever experienced.

[BruceP]

johnrieber, it's good to know that other folks are accounting for the means of the individual before prescribing methodology.

I've been meaning to start a thread on that topic.

Master-"Well you see, in our style, we don't do this or that> In our style we do it like this"
Student-"I'm having a hard time getting the movement right"
Master-"Yeah, you're not doing it right because you don't have the skills yet...keep practicing"
Student-"What should I do in the meantime, if I need to actually fight someone?"
Master-You're not ready to fight anyone yet...keep practicing"

[JusticeZero]

Lately I find that i'm working (both of) my students on hand techniques while I try to develop their ability to post on their hands and kick more. The hand techniques are really rather minor compared to the kicks, and in practice, they aren't played with so much; they are important in self defence and for structure. After they can post, the focus is going to shift there more. (they can't even DO a lot of bread and butter movements right now for lack of shoulder strength.) So in our case it's more like "We do it THIS way, you aren't anywhere near ready. But just in case, if you use these drills that i'm using to GET you to be ready, you can break their jaw with a girlie slap or throw them on the ground like so."

[I-mon]

some good topics coming out recently. thanks guys.

good job representing capoeira too man.

that's all.

[chimerical tortoise]

everyday: i'm growing older every day but with each day i find that age doesn't transmit to wisdom. though there's this scroll i found in a statue...

Master-"Well you see, in our style, we don't do this or that> In our style we do it like this"
Student-"I'm having a hard time getting the movement right"
Master-"Yeah, you're not doing it right because you don't have the skills yet...keep practicing"
Student-"What should I do in the meantime, if I need to actually fight someone?"
Master-You're not ready to fight anyone yet...keep practicing"

a punch is a punch, you don't need to learn gongfu to fight... but when i get told the above it can be somewhat discouraging. still i remember a horrid wushu qiang performance that i watched last year: if one can't stand on one leg properly, then one has even less business standing on one leg twirling a spear around their neck.

justicezero:
certainly the level of training might be appropriate to what/where you are doing. what i have a difficult time understanding is this rationale allows people to develop egos that may be unrealistic, and allows for training that is not 'solid'. there has to be somehow this delusional capacity can be kept in check?

i was asked once how many forms i knew, and i said one, the other person kind of laughed and said "i know [double-digit] forms". but i felt that their ability to use their learned framework was limited and could have been much more efficient (the approaches to form vary with each teacher anyways). maybe in that case my limited form was a better method of training than a diverse selection of forms for fighting. that person probably knew alot more about what x movement is called, what y saying from z teacher is, and all the cultural appropriate things like lion dance, drums, that i don't study. all i know is that the person had the shapes, but had trouble applying the shapes... seems maybe the progression you're mentioning to being able to execute properly wasn't as 'there' because there were always newer shapes. (in a cma context) 武術 and 舞術 are not the same...

one more thing, if someone says they do 'taijiquan', shouldn't the -quan imply martial study (as opposed to, 'taiji', for health)?

[JusticeZero]

justicezero:
certainly the level of training might be appropriate to what/where you are doing. what i have a difficult time understanding is this rationale allows people to develop egos that may be unrealistic, and allows for training that is not 'solid'. there has to be somehow this delusional capacity can be kept in check?

Hmmm. How do you mean, exactly? I'll admit that I don't really understand the question you're asking. I have to teach the skeleton before I can get people to start really feeling into things. Some of the exercizes I have to use to teach the skeleton have easy martial applications. For example, I try to get them to internalize the coiling sort of force needed for correct stance with negaca. But there's a test of force there that if you put your arm out, correct form will generate a lot of speed and impact with a slap. It's easy to teach the slap as part of the drill; they can usually tell when they have it right because they hit the bag much harder than they planned and are immediately sore, in spite of doing at reduced speed and power.
If they need to defend themselves on the way home though, it's an extremely solid slap which comes up from an odd angle that easily chains into one or two other techniques of the same sort. As they build the ability to drop low and use kicks, i'll shift the focus there, and the improvisational work we will be doing will concentrate on legs and low and tempo and dialogue instead of basic framebuilding. Need a skeleton to work with before they can start to own the movements really; the skeleton isn't necessarily horribly detailed and there's a lot that they have to solve for themselves, slowing things down and working through the problems; the skeleton does need a certain level of physical ability to be able to first adopt it; in time the ability becomes more and more balance and the like.