Why I Don't Like Your Self-Defence
Postmaster
blog. You can read the whole post here:
http://sooshimkwan.blogspot.com/2010/07/i-dont-like-your-self-defence.html
One of the first self-defence requirements in the syllabi of most
Taekwon-Do and other martial art schools is a release from a wrist
grab. One has to wonder why this is so? Surely this is not the most
common attack, is it? Ask ten people who have been in physical
confrontations and see how many of them were actually grabbed by the
wrist. Of all the students I’ve taught, only one has told me of having
been grabbed by the wrist. Maybe another reason for this self-defence
technique being taught for a beginning martial artist is because it is
such a simple manoeuvre? Merely pull the arm free at the grip's
weakest point, namely the thumb. Even so, the simple wrist grab
scenario is never that simple.
In a real life situation, the wrist grab is usually just a set-up for
a more serious self-defence scenario. If an attacker grabs your
wrist / arm / clothing, it is usually a setup for another attack. At
least three scenarios come to mind: (1) the attacker grabs you to keep
you close so that he can pummel you with his free fist; (2) the
attacker has another weapon, probably a knife, pressed against you and
has taken hold of you so that you cannot easily move away from the
weapon; (3) the attacker has taken hold of you in order to pull you
away for better positioning, so that he can continue his assault
somewhere else. In only one of these three scenarios is the wrist grab
release the first priority. In scenario #1 the first priority is not
escaping from the grab, but defending against the attacker’s free
fist. In the second scenario the first priority is the weapon in your
side. And even in scenario three, where a release from his grip is
priority, the type of self-defence technique taught in most schools
are not taught against an opponent that is forcefully pulling you,
with you most likely being off-balance. I’m not saying that students
should not learn how to escape from a wrist grab; what I am saying is
that the actual wrist grab is seldom the most pressing issue when the
arm is grabbed. It is the rest of the attack, the associated punch,
the weapon by the side, the pull, which are the more important
problems and unfortunately these are seldom considered.
Carl Joubert
|
Thank you for the interesting article Sabum Sanko. What I found particularly interesting was the description of the difference between 'self defence' and 'model sparring'. I believe that 'model sparring' has value when used as a way to teach students certain principles, but just like no real fight will ever look exactly like a Taekwon-do pattern, this ‘model sparring’ should not be considered a realistic representation of an actual self defence situation. A few nights ago I was teaching these exact techniques to some white belt students, and was asked about a release to a lapel grab that I had not yet encountered before. None the less I was able to apply the same principles to easily release myself from the hold. I told the students that they should not be too concerned with specific techniques but should rather use the training to gain understanding about the mechanics involved. Once you understand why the release from a wrist grabs works, it is fairly simple adapting the technique to other situations. This highly controlled form of ‘model sparring’ can also be an effective way of learning good habits, like the classic distract, release, and counter routine. Off course it is also important for students to be subjected to a more dynamic form of self defence training where there are more variables and the students has to ‘play the situation’ as much as apply specific techniques. Where I train (ATC), this form of self defence forms part of the grading syllabus for senior colour belts. At what stage of their training a student should move on to this is up to the instructor I suppose. I would like to use the opportunity to touch on another related subject; that of the tournament self defence routine. Although these are usually fun to train and entertaining to watch, I have always considered the term to be a bit of a misnomer. Surely this is more an exercise in choreography than true display of Taekwon-do’s practical applications? Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards Carl Joubert --- On Sun, 7/25/10, Postmaster <sanko...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Postmaster
Good to hear from you. Thank you for your response. And I agree with
what you said, especially that training in self-defence based on Model
Sparring has value, since it teaches certain principles and help with
instilling certain good habits, such as the distract-release-counter
routine that you mentioned.
In my initial post (http://sooshimkwan.blogspot.com/2010/07/i-dont-
like-your-self-defence.html) I mentioned how I started to teach two
types of self-defence exercises, the first based on Model Sparring and
the second based on more real life scenarios. Well, actually there was
a time that I did not teach the Model Sparring method at all. What I
found was something quite interesting: some of the students, even
though they understood the principles, when suddenly confronted with
the real life scenarios only, without the Model Sparring as a prelude,
did not know how to react.
This made me realise a number of things: Merely understanding the
principles is not enough as many students (especially beginners), do
not know how to manifest those principles in practical ways. Or
rather, they have the head knowledge, but this does not naturally come
out as reflexive responses. They first have to think about the
principles. What Model Sparring teach them, as you pointed out, are
certain habits, certain stock responses that they do not have to think
about – mere reflexive motions that occurs because of the good habits
that were instilled in them through Model Sparring practise.
I really appreciate your reply to my post because it brings to light a
possible error in what I wrote. I focussed so much on the fact that
Model Sparring is *not* Self Defence that I lacked to mention the ways
in which it is a crucial part of Self-Defence training. It gives the
lower level student, whose arsenal of techniques is still quite skimpy
and non-reflexive, a valuable set of effective stock techniques that
can be trained repetitively until they become reflexive.
Regarding tournament Self-Defence Demonstration Routines:
I completely agree with you and was just talking to another instructor
about it this past Saturday night. As you pointed out, the real thing
tested here is choreography, putting on an entertaining fight sequence
reminiscent of what one would see in a martial art action film, which
we all know is quite far removed from reality. It is a valuable new
addition to Taekwon-Do as it shows off Taekwon-Do, and gives
spectators an opportunity to see a large variety of Taekwon-Do
techniques that they would not otherwise get to see during tournaments
(because of the sparring rule restrictions).
My friend, on Saturday, pointed out that these Self-Defence
Demonstration Routines seem to clash with one of the Taekwon-Do ideals
and the reason we tie the belt around our waist only once; that is,
one counter blow should be enough. It is for this reason why One Step
Sparring has often been considered the epitome of Taekwon-Do self-
defence. While the Self-Defence Demonstration Routines are probably
more realistic than the one counter attack ideal, I’m not sure how
these two (one counter attack versus 60 seconds of choreographed
sparring) are reconciled.
Like you, I also hope that some of the other members on eSAITF would
jump in here and tell us what they think about the Self-Defence
Demonstration Routines.
Regards,
Sanko
> From: Postmaster <sankole...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [eSAITF:103] Why I Don't Like Your Self-Defence
> To: "eSAITF" <esa...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 12:51 PM
>
> The following is an accerpt from a recent post at the Soo Shim Kwan
> blog. You can read the whole post here:
>
Garnet Ronander
Thank you for this interesting discussion. I love self defense training.
I have often thought that the first reflexive response to any grab or attack
should be direct attack to vital spot. So teaching even a beginning student
a release from a wrist grab would always start off with:
1. direct attack to vital spot, usually head (eyes, throat etc) - Aim to
disrupt the attack, and off balance if possible.
2. repositioning, to move off line again breaking the flow of the attack.
3. attacking the vital spots on the grabbing limb of the attacker if still
attached.
4. Finally a release/joint lock if it is practical and available.
5. Escape
On consideration you probably try and do all these things in one smooth
action and a direct attack while executing the release will increase your
chances of success but I agree it should be secondary to an initial cover
and counter attack and even basic white belt techniques should not be taught
without this.
What you all think should be the ideal order for most self defense practice?
Regards
Garnet
Postmaster
I agree with your instinct to make your first reaction an aggressive
and offensive one. As the saying goes: “A good defence is a good
offence.” However, taking the wrist grab as an example again, the grab
is almost never the actual attack. The grab is a set-up for something
else, probably a punch with the other fist. (On a side note: I
recently read that the most common grab attack is not to the wrist but
to the upper arm.)
Let’s continue the discussion by looking at a specific attack
combination: The attacker grabs you (your wrist, arm, lapel) with his
left hand and then swings at your head with his right fist.
While a direct attack to a vital spot is ideal, I’m just wondering if
beginner students will be fast enough (both in actual speed and at
assessing the situation) to hit the attacker (and so disrupt his
attack) before the attacker’s actual attack, the other fist, connects?
Maybe a general guard should be taught to beginners to precede their
direct attack. Such a guard should be based on our innate reflex to
raise our arms to protect our heads. It could be something like a
boxer’s face guard where they bring the elbow up to cover the face, or
it could just be raising the forearm towards the attack (a type of
informal and reflexive fore-arm rising block).
In ITF Taekwon-Do we actually see the highest level of “defence” in
One-Step Sparring. The defender does a simultaneous defence and
offence, a block and a strike. I wander if our “defence sequence” (the
numbered list you provided) shouldn’t somehow reflect this idea of
guarding and attacking at the same time. So for your #1 that states
“Direct attack to vital spot” may be evolved to “Guarding against the
attack and simultaneously do a direct attack to vital spot.”
For the scenario we are looking at (the grab and swinging punch), such
a #1 could be raising your arm to stifle the blunt of the swinging
punch and then from there a palm heel strike to the face. Although set
out here as two things, a block and a strike – it should be considered
as one step. Or one could combine your #1 and #2 so that you guard
against the swinging punch by stepping of the line. A defence in this
situation could be stepping to the side or straight in (to avoid the
swinging punch) while at the same time going for an elbow strike to
the face.
What do you (and the other readers) think?
Sanko
On Jul 28, 3:12 pm, "Garnet Ronander" <Ronan...@prosperity.me.uk>
wrote:
>
> read more »