Physical self-protection is not fighting
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2023
- www.iainabernethy.co.uk/ In this video I discuss why the physical aspect of self-protection is very different to fighting. True self-protection is a much wider field of study than most martial artists appreciate; which is why martial artists are often very poor at teaching self-protection. Self-protection training will include such vitally important topics as the nature of criminal behaviour, crime statistics, personal risk assessments, de-escalation, boundary setting, home security, travel security, law, etc. These vital elements are ignored while the physical aspect tends to get overemphasised.
Even when it does dome to the physical aspects, they are very different to they way two martial artists will fight each other in a consensual exchange. Again, most martial artists don’t appreciate this and wrongly assume the methodology associated with consensual violence is a good fit for non-consensual criminal violence. Both are valuable studies, but they are very different; and not for the reason most martial artists state (assuming they get they are not the same in the first place).
Physical self-protection is NOT a “street fight” (a term often used to wrongly conflate “no rules consensual fighting” with self-protection). The goals of all kinds of fighting (consensual violence) and self-protection (non-consensual violence) are NOT the same. Change the goal and the associated strategies, tactics and choice of techniques used to achieve also change. Whether people want to believe it or not, physical self-protection and fighting are radically different. This video covers the core reasons why.
NOTE: It has sadly been my experience that many comment on videos without actually watching them. They base their comments on what they ASSUME the video states as opposed to what is actually said. Those reading the comments, who also haven’t watched, therefore wrongly assume I have said things I most definitely have not. If you haven’t got the time, attention span or patience to watch the video, then your comments are sure to be ill informed and of no value. Please watch first so you know what you are commenting on. Fair enough, right?
This video also covers what many wrongly assume results in the differences between self-protection and fighting. It’s NOT primarily about what rules allow or don’t. It’s NOT about wrongly assuming combat sports are the only form of live practice. It’s also NOT about avoiding live practise on the grounds that self-protection methods are “too dangerous” to drill live (both consensual and non-consensual violence require live practise). It’s also NOT about the relative value of physical self-protection and fighting skills (both have their own inherent value), but it is about appropriate vs. inappropriate and optimal vs. suboptimal within the strict confines of seeking a well-defined outcome within a specific context.
The video covers the above and more falsehoods. You can be sure those making comments for or against on the basis of the above points have not watched the video. These are NOT the reasons I give for the fundamental differences between fighting and criminal violence. It’s more fundamental and significant than that.
Thanks for reading and watching!
All the best,
Iain
My App: iainabernethy.co.uk/iain-aber...
Shop: iainabernethy.co.uk/shop/
My Newsletter: www.iainabernethy.co.uk/join-... 
Спорт
I would really like to see you explore how context creates goals.
I believe this is a really important part of avoiding harm, because it informs what other parties' goals might be, what goals make sense for oneself, and whatall strategies might facilitate or inhibit those goals.
E.g. from my life, I've successfully avoided a fight with a stranger I unintentionally upset in a public place, by identifying what it was he wanted to achieve--to feel safe--which let me short-circuit the violence out by soliciting instructions from him. Way better than letting him stick to the strategy of beating me into compliance. I ended up doing what I was already about doing anyway--leaving--and no one was hurt over it.
YOU WROTE: “I would really like to see you explore how context creates goals.”
Providing we are talking about self-protection then the goal is always the same i.e., avoid harm. The way in which we avoid harm (strategies and below) would be where we factor in the specifics of the situation. It is at that level where the specific aims of the assailant, the numbers, the environment, whether you are alone or have others to protect, etc would impact the strategy, tactics, etc. The goal is, therefore not impacted by the context (it’s the top of the whole hierarchy), but the things below that would be. In the example from your own life (well done by the way!) your goal was to avoid harm (physical, legal, emotional, etc) and you successfully employed what looks to be the optimum strategy for avoiding harm in that circumstance. If the guy had charged at you and attacked you, then your goal would still be to avoid harm, but de-escalation would be an inappropriate strategy at that point. The goal is the same though. So, context does not create goals, but it must inform strategy and tactics. That’s why I have the goal at the very top. I hope that helps clarify my thinking.
@@practicalkatabunkai I had to think about it a little more, but yes, that does help clear things up a bit.
I keep approaching matters of violence from a lens of conflict resolution and therapies as my default, because I have a bit of that in my background and I find it rather useful.
But that approach by me creates a slightly different goal for me: something like "resolve the conflict without losing anyone participating in it" instead of "avoid harm".
The former, fuzzier goal requires the ability to name any kind of goal that might define a side coming into conflict; in practice, it would have looked like both myself and the other person being able to just do what we were about without conflict at all. Or, if that conflict were inevitable, I'd have had some certainty of that beforehand and sureness of myself after, and neither of those things exactly did.
That said, the goal of "avoid harm" is really good for being clear and simple as a principle to organize what one trains for and how, and I think it will be my measure for any other training principle I might consider.
Edit: thank you for your time, and all the work you put into all this. It's good stuff, and none of what I've said here should be taken otherwise
@@dobo9150 YOU WROTE: “I keep approaching matters of violence from a lens of conflict resolution and therapies as my default, because I have a bit of that in my background and I find it rather useful.”
100% agree. It’s often one of the most effective ways of avoiding harm. It does not work 100% of the time (nothing does), but it should be a key part of the self-protection toolkit. Unfortunately, when people wrongly conflate fighting/street fighting with self-protection that gets totally overlooked (resolution and de-escalation are not part of fighting). It’s one of those, “If all you have is a hammer then every problem is a nail” things. People wrongly assume that a physical response is the only option when it could be ineffective and problematic and can result in other forms of harm.
YOU WROTE: “But that approach by me creates a slightly different goal for me: something like "resolve the conflict without losing anyone participating in it" instead of "avoid harm".”
I would say that you are using conflict resolution to avoid harm. The goal remains being “avoid harm” and you are using conflict resolution strategies, tactic and methods (techniques) to achieve that goal. If we make “resolve the conflict without anyone participating in it" the goal, then we have issues when that is not possible. You can’t reason with the unreasonable and some people won’t be de-escalated (they are fully committed to carrying out the criminal violence) or can’t be de-escalated (drink, drugs, mental health, etc). In those situations, a physical action to facilitate escape may be needed. The goal of “resolve the conflict without anyone participating in it" excludes physical action whereas the goal of “avoid harm” does not. That’s why I think it is a better goal because it is relevant to all self-protection situations. How we most effectively achieve that goal in any given circumstance is a strategic decision.
YOU WROTE: “The former, fuzzier goal requires the ability to name any kind of goal that might define a side coming into conflict …”
I wouldn’t say it a fuzzy goal. It’s clear and universal when it comes to self-protection. I would also say that it is the strategy level where we assess how to best achieve that goal within a given set of circumstances. It’s not a different goal - that remains the same across the piece - it’s a differing strategy.
As per the video, the goal of boxing is always to win the bout. That never changes. However, the way a given fighter will achieve that goal will be dependent on their opponent’s characteristics (abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc). It’s the strategic level and below that one will determine what is best in given situation. It’s very similar for self-protection. It is at the strategic level that we will consider the other person’s motivations, capabilities, etc when determining the optimum strategy to achieve the goal of avoiding harm.
It seems we agree on the key issue i.e. resolution / de-escalation is vital skill and often one of the best options. We would also seem to agree that a fighting methodology is a bad fit for self-protection because that option is ignored / excluded. The difference seems to come from the way we use the word “goal” within a self-protection context (and possibly how we consider strategies).
As discussed, I see the goal as being universal and overarching. I also think it is helpful to have such a universal goal because that ensures the strategies are trying to achieve the right thing. It’s also why “harm” is not further defined so it covers all harm i.e. not just physical harm, but also emotional harm, legal harm, etc. I could punch a guy’s lights out when de-escalation was an option, but such a strategic choice could result in legal harm (outside of what self-defence laws permit), emotional harm (living with the knowledge I may have permanently harmed someone when it was unnecessary), etc. That strategic choice would be the wrong one in those circumstances because it resulted in harm and hence is counter to the goal. It’s the strategic level and below where the specifics of the situation are factored in.
YOU WROTE: “thank you for your time, and all the work you put into all this. It's good stuff, and none of what I've said here should be taken otherwise”
Likewise! I appreciate the comments because it allows me to expand on my thinking and may help clarify things for others who read this post. They don’t have to agree with me, but it is important that I adequately express my position. I appreciate your help with that.
All the best,
Iain
Excellent points. It’s good to see someone gets it.
Your material is always first class and incredibly valuable, please keep them coming.
Brilliant video, thank you Iain!
I first heard the goal > strategy > tactics > technique paradigm several years ago, in one of Rory Miller's books, if I recall correctly. It's always stuck with me and has profoundly influenced the way I think about martial arts.
The same book introduced me to the idea of social versus antisocial violence, but I really like the way you frame it as consensual versus nonconsensual violence, with the participants having either the same or different goals. Love the way you presented these concepts!
I do think that participating in combat sports is invaluable training for a martial artist, and can be beneficial for self protection. Not that violent crime resembles a combat sports match, but playing the game of combat sports is a tremendous opportunity to develop skill in technique and practice applying that technique against resistance. What may be even more important are the mental, physical, and emotional attributes developed through competition.
Love what you said about "partial arts". Personally I deeply believe in the value and importance of all aspects of martial art; practical personal protection, combat sports competition, and personal growth. I really think these all reinforce one another and it's a shame to neglect any of them.
Thanks again and I look forward to your next presentation!
I agree. I had years of competitive boxing before I began training in other martial arts, and I can say from experience that sparring against a non compliant partner is invaluable for self defense. Not even in regard to technique, but more so for the attributes it develops:
1. It increases your ability to see, sense, and/or recognize an attack.
2. It allows you to shorten your reaction time to an attack
3. It develops your ability to judge distance
4. It sharpens your timing by developing the ability to see the gaps between techniques where your opponent is most vulnerable, and you can then unleash your attacks in such a way that your counters hit him as he is moving into your attack, thereby doubling the impact. If timed correctly, you can knock someone clean out with what seems like a weak jab.
Another awesome video Iain! I will definitely adopt this training method.
Mr. Ian. Your explanation and message is practical, useful, direct and I think is excellent and generous to give your kwowledge to us. Thank you very much for your effort and work in educating in how to save your life, when is danger coming.
Good advice!!! :)
thanks Iain
Thanks for discussing how people move and act differently in non consensual violence.
Some of the movements I see in actual altercations caught on camera look so much different than what I've seen in the dojo. Makes me think we are missing opportunities to learn how to read telegraphs we don't see martial artists making.
Wisdom in t=9:55 avoid harm is the way to go.
Thanks Sir
Watched the video, read the description. Most important take away is street fight != self defense.
"Best of luck with that sunshine..." yep, heh, funny...
Anytime I hear the phrase, " I'd just..." followed by some variation of eye gouging, groin kicking, drive nose into brain etc. I just shake my head and remove myself from the conversation. They obviously have little to no fighting or serious sparing experience.
Be a martial artist, not a partial artist 😂 love it
Great presentation. At times we be separated by a our common language🤗
As Musashi wrote: „You fight like you train.“
I'm right there with you: if you don't know what you're training for, it's simply physical exercise. 👍🏻
Yeah, I miss spelling errors myself. I have learning disabilities. If I could? I think, you meant, "you fight like you train"? Right?
Excellent. Something that might precede goal would be Environment/Scenario. Ultimately goal drives everything but goal might change say if you are with your family or if you are at your place of employment.
I don’t think that would precede the goal of self-protection. The goal remains “avoid harm” and protecting others would be included in that (it would harm me if my loved ones were harmed). It would impact on tactical and technical choices (ruclips.net/video/RWYOwdbe4CI/видео.html). As regards place of employment, that would depend if the nature of the employment meant the goal is no longer self-protection i.e. eject trouble maker (bouncer) arrest suspect (police), prevent prisoner escaping (prison officer), kill enemy solider (solider), etc. Their goals are definitely different; which is why the mythology of those forms of employment can’t also be cut and pasted to self-protection (it’s not self-protection). However, an employee of most form of businesses would still be engaged in self-protection if they found themselves the potential victim of criminal violence during the course of their work (note: employment contracts can’t take away the legal right to protect oneself).
Correct, awareness of the situation & adapting to its conditions matters way more than having a chess match with a guy playing hopscotch.
Or 一、敵に因って轉化せよ
(Hitotsu, teki ni yotte tenka seyo),
Make adjustments according to your opponent.
Another great video as always! Your enthusiasm and caring are on display for all to see and is contagious. While I agree with your overall message (all of them) I somewhat hesitating would like to offer some additional thoughts. Firstly, I think the single most misunderstood concept is the difference between “street fighting” and “self defense”; and as you said the viable crossover of skill sets. Having never been in either, I have only recently come to understand the difference. Street fighting is, as you said, for the most part consensual in nature, a battle for social hierarchy, and most likely follows unwritten rules. The goal is not to break him apart, but to have him back off(give up) and signal the social status of the other. I don’t have a good definition for “self defense” so I will call it assault. You are suddenly assaulted for the assailant to gain something and what happens to you is not of importance. It may be a knife to the back, it may be a bat swung across your head, who knows. Because of the suddenness, brutality and lack of any consideration for the victim (us), training for this, as you said, must be highly specific. If we use this as our definition of self defense or non consensual violence, then I believe the goal switches to first, survive, then if you have the luxury, minimize harm. The training and strategy must focus on an immediate brutal response calculated to deliver enough damage to allow escape in most situations whether it be a baseball bat or knife and it must be trained to reflex. I do not believe this is a box that can be checked off to allow focus on other things. Any practice not delivering full force may result in a less than all out response when attacked with no time to assess anything. Perhaps I’m wrong and perhaps that level of training is simply not practical or perhaps attaining that level and type of proficiency is not what most people want. But I think the difference between this goal and all others needs to be made clear the same way you presented your thoughts in this video. I personally believe full force, in the fight, kata practice along with specific reflex technique training on some training dummy, ideally a Vs. BOB, are valuable training methods. Either way, I am not criticizing your video, I thought it great, I just believe further delineation assault survival and everything else would be useful and perhaps some vision as to what that training looks like. I believe your kata based training for typical acts of violence is just so enlightening, I have never been the same after reading your (now out of print😕) bunkai book. It should be required reading. Sorry for such a long response, but I’m passionate too and believe most martial artists think they are much more prepared for an assault than they actually are. Could end badly.
Thanks for the kind words! YOU WROTE: “I believe the goal switches to first, survive, then if you have the luxury, minimize harm”
I’m not sure if we are talking at crossed purposes or not, but, for the sake of clarity, the harm I was referring was the harm the criminal is seeking to do to us (not the harm we may do to the criminal). The aim of self-protection is therefore to avoid the harm the criminal is seeking to cause (physically, emotionally, mentally, legally, etc). Depending on circumstance, this can be done through avoidance, escape, de-escalation, pre-emption, disabling the criminal via our own justified used of violence, etc.
We only won’t survive when the criminal causes a huge amount of harm i.e. kills us. I therefore do feel “avoid harm” is a better goal that “survivs” because it seeks to ensure we avoid ALL harm, not just a life ending amount of harm. As I say in the video, if we end up on life support or in jail, we survived, but it that desirable outcome? I would say not, which is why I go for “avoid harm” as the stated goal for self-protection.
Thank you so much for taking time to answer my reply. Your words mean a lot to me and I can only imagine how busy you must be. Still, a dialog, wow! No we are not at cross purposes and what you said, as always, was very well thought out. It’s just wordplay, but a goal of minimizing harm implies to me making a choice as to what technique to perform to minimize harm. I’m just not so sure in a true assault where you are nothing more than a resource, you have any time to think at all. Knifes coming at me and I’ll probably get stabbed. I got one shot at making sure I do not get stabbed again and no time to think about whether I end up in legal trouble because of the response. Probably, I am too black and white in my thinking, but I already do all the stuff to prevent being in the situation, but sometimes you still get fooled. Just because it is my concern in training (other than personal growth) is to minimize harm, let’s say, it may not be of concern to others. I look forward to your next presentation. Any chance you plan to reissue your books?🙂
Hello Iain, I agree with the theory behind those videos but you have created a lot of content about this, e.g. the martial map, the karate 3.0 podcast and others and they are really great, helpful in discussions and informative and they link together etc - but please don't get carried away by that. Wouldn't it be better to leave those people behind who STILL don't get it after decades of work and public information? I like your training and seminars and would like to see more from there , or from other topics like mental strength or history. And as a trainer I'd be also interested about teaching approaches, belt exams and such, not only about application.
Thanks for the long and continued support! Much appreciated! There’s always someone hearing things for the first time, and I like to mix the topics I discusses. I tend to decide what to talk about based on what I am seeing and hearing within the community. It seemed that this topic needed revisited. Plenty more on other topics to come though :-) Next one I have in the pipeline is on combinations from my syllabus. I hope you enjoy it!
@@practicalkatabunkai Sounds great, thank you 🙂
All your videos have great content.. however the audio could be improved some parts of the videos its sounds like you are in a tunnel. Other than that keep up the great work.
Thanks for the kind words! Many of the videos are filmed in my dojo or at seminars. The acoustics of the room are not always ideal (my dojo is particularly bad and does give the “in the tunnel” sound you describe), but it would be too distributive to the session taking place to get the radio mics on and off. I also can’t wear one for normal teaching as the nature of martial contact would mean the mics would get damaged and they could be potentially dangerous to the uke in some situations. The priority is those there at the time, with any resulting footage being a “bonus” I can share with those not there. It’s not that I don’t care about the sound, it’s just that I care more about the people in the room. The videos are, therefore, what they are. I’m not a “youtuber”, but a martial arts instructor. The technical footage is all filmed on the fly when teaching. I don't have the time to film extra stuff specifically for RUclips. I can share what I film for what it is. If I wasn’t to share this ad hoc imperfect footage, I wouldn’t be sharing very much. I nevertheless hope the imperfect videos I do share here remain of interest to people despite the occasional sound issues. It’s different when I have professional team filming, or when I am specifically filming for DVD etc, but that’s expensive and can’t be done for free content. I appreciate your support of the videos and I hope this explains why things are as they are. All the best, Iain
“tHerE’S nO ruLeS In a sTrEeT fiGHt.” Favorite part of the video. Hilarious.
Great stuff Iain. I’ve been out of the martial arts space for awhile. This was a great video to come back to.
You could make a short format video with that content … I was sure you already had authored this topic but could not find it 🧐
Great video! Your view on (non)consential violence is incredibly helpful for the way I should design my training. I can imagen though that there is some point in which non-consential violence changes into consential violence if you fail to escape. I'm curious of your view on that matter and possible solutions.
YOU WROTE: “I can imagen though that there is some point in which non-consensual violence changes into consensual violence if you fail to escape. I'm curious of your view on that matter and possible solutions.”
It’s remains forever non-consensual (you didn’t want to be part of that violence). Even when you can’t effectively escape in a given moment, the goal of the criminal(s) and yourself have not changed (so everything that flows from that, as discussed in the video, also does not change). It therefore doesn’t morph into consensual violence in which both parties agree to be involved, have symmetrical goals, and have a mutually agreed and defined “win”.
@practicalkatabunkai thanks for the quick response. It actually makes a lot of sense that your goal doesn't change even if you can't escape. This helps me a lot, much appreciated!
@@G0ld3n_F3nd3r Glad that helped! You posted just as I was checking youtube. Timing is so important :-)
these discussions always make me wish my country had self-defence laws.
Where do you live?
@@practicalkatabunkai singapore
@@Emcron I have quickly Googled self-defence law in your part of the world and this article may be useful (it has links to government websites where the law can be read firsthand): singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/what-can-i-do-to-protect-myself-in-self-defence-in-singapore/
Do you have any seminars planned on this subject?
It’s part of every seminar I do :-) The theme can very, but the need to ensure everyone understands the context is always there.
What I mean is I’d like to try your kata based sparing, escape skills and the soft skill stuff de-escalation ect, I’ve attended 2 of your seminars and the were fantastic definitely plan on attending more in the future
@@freelancerblitz2579 Thanks for clarifying! Escape, protecting others, and kata based sparring are topics I regularly cover at seminars. I would suggest keeping an eye on the seminars within a reasonable distance from you and checking the theme. The most recent karat based sparring seminar in the UK was in Reading. I also did one in Stuttgart a few weeks ago on that topic. I am certain there will be others :-) De-escalation is more in-depth and is something I most often cover as part of the Combat Coach programme. These online resources may help:
De-escalation: iainabernethy.co.uk/content/verbal-de-escalation-podcast
Protecting others: ruclips.net/video/RWYOwdbe4CI/видео.html
Kata Based Sparring: ruclips.net/video/wA3ZLONLq50/видео.html
My app also contains a lot more information on these topics: iainabernethy.co.uk/iain-abernethys-applied-karate-kata-bunkai-app
All the best,
Iain
i saw a "self defense" championship video where different martial artists put on protective gear and fought in alleys and hallways..im thinking consensual fights between martial artists in protective gear in in alleys isnt self defense...so many folk still dont understand
They "put on protective gear"?
The notion that you train for the specific problem makes a lot of sense. What is less clear is how karate training including kata bunkai prepares you for that non-consensual violence you speak of. MMA may not be perfect but it does offer a number of solution against resisting opponents as consensual as it may be and it appears to me that this is more valuable then simulating non,-consensual violence via choreographed training against opponents who aren't really trying to hurt you.
YOU WROTE: “it appears to me that this is more valuable then simulating non,-consensual violence via choreographed training against opponents who aren't really trying to hurt you.”
Can I ask if you have watched the video? In it I made the point that live training is a must no matter if one is training for consensual violence or non-consensual violence. The difference will be the type of live training i.e. does it have the option to escape, involve more that two people (not always one-on-one), having others to protect, consider how witnesses will perceive the actions taken and other legal issues, etc. The point is made quite forcefully in the video that focussed live practise is vital. I’m therefore confused by the “choregraphed” vs “live” comment when that was specifically explained in the video and wasn’t something I argued? I’m guessing you assumed what I would say and haven’t watched the video in full? If so, the note added to the text accompanying the video would seem relevant. All the best, Iain
@@practicalkatabunkai I did watch your video and enjoyed it a lot. I gather from your response that I may have not been able to get my point across as clearly as I had intended. I did not mean to imply that you were not advocating for live and realistic training. My commentary and question were specific to how karate fits into this narrative. I wanted you to elaborate on how you specifically incorporate realistic training with a resisting opponent into your routine karate training regiment. Most of the karate training I am exposed to (shotokan) only trains semi-realistic fighting in a point system limited kumite context which as you clearly agree is not self defense. I don't think it's much different in other styles either. So to be more explicit and precise: How does one train realistic self defense in karate using kata Bunkai or else?
@@sidmanazebo Thanks for clarifying.
YOU WROTE: “My commentary and question were specific to how karate fits into this narrative.”
It probably comes down to what kind of karate is being practised. Most of those in the community in which I operate do include scenario based live drills which include dialogue, escape, multiples, protecting others, etc. There’s historical precedence for this with Motobu, Funakoshi, etc describing sparring using kata methods, escaping groups, etc. It’s something I have covered, to various degrees, in all my books, at seminars on those topics, and in my app. “Karate” is now a term like “athletics” in that it covers a lot disparate activities. Marathon runners and shot-putters are both practitioners of athletics, but they are quite different pursuits.
YOU WROTE: “I wanted you to elaborate on how you specifically incorporate realistic training with a resisting opponent into your routine karate training regimen.”
We have a whole host of live drills to develop differing skillsets, and which depend on the level and experience of the student. It would be too lengthy to go into here, but the following links would give an introduction:
iainabernethy.co.uk/article/kata-based-sparring
iainabernethy.co.uk/article/four-stages-kata-practise
ruclips.net/video/y02d-QU_aoE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/wA3ZLONLq50/видео.html
iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-1-iain-abernethy
iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-2-iain-abernethy
iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-3-iain-abernethy
The aforementioned books, DVDs and the app give more detailed information.
YOU WROTE: “Most of the karate training I am exposed to (shotokan) only trains semi-realistic fighting in a point system limited kumite context which as you clearly agree is not self defense. I don't think it's much different in other styles either.”
I think it’s something of a myth - albeit a common one - to think that karate is universally practised across styles. I know of Shotokan people who practise it as art, others as a points-based sport, others who compete in alternative formats, others who practise for exercise and culture, and others who practise it with an emphasis on self-protection. It would seem your experience to date has been with those who primarily spar in a points format; as opposed to those who spar as described above. Same for all the other styles too. There’s a lot of different “karates” out there. More on that here:
ruclips.net/video/22K-M7YxwYc/видео.html
It’s a legitimate question, but I’ve spent over twenty-years detailing the a more traditional and practical approach and it would be difficult to write a meaningful answer in the RUclips comment. The above links would be a good place to start though. I hope they are of some use.
All the best,
Iain
@@practicalkatabunkai thanks
so much for the additional information. Looking forward to going through all the articles.
Cheers
@@sidmanazebo My pleasure!
Agreed. I alway felt that self protection is someone jumping you on your way to your car and fighting is two guys facing off man to man. Totally different situations.
I’ve never been in a street fight for example but I’ve seen plenty, and I cannot recall one where violent was necessary. They were all tough talking until someone threw a punch.
I had a case where someone tried to stab me in the stomach with a knife and I had to use a wrist lock. I couldn’t run because I had something behind me.
This was in a house believe it or not.
Yeah, self protection and fighting are 100% different.
You were in the Military? Reach out to Rokus, PLEASE!,. He's still is trying "to make Aikido funktional"
I have never been in the military. I don’t think Rokas needs my help as he seems to fully get this distinction. He did a video a while back on my Martial Map in which he explained the idea very well: ruclips.net/video/ErGMW4kIITE/видео.html
@@practicalkatabunkai Good message.
Oss! 🥋✌️👌😂😅😊❤
The POINT missed by all the experts. Especially the bjj guy's. 👍