In my self defense training, Israeli Krav Maga, they promote staying on your feet as much as possible, but train us in ground work as well because in this day and age, you are likely to end up there. Everyone is watching MMA on TV these days and thinks they know how to win over someone on the ground. But it was already mentioned here, the threat of "friends" jumping in while your on the ground. Not a good position to be in.
As long as your standing, you can usually use the opponent as a shield, and be able to see others coming. But as also mentioned, there is always the chance of that sucker punch catching you unawares and past that, nothing else will matter.
Best advice is also reiterated – don't get in that circumstance in the first place.
I know in the UK you are allowed to use force to defend yourself, even a pre-emptive strike if you believe you are in serious danger, though I think the onus would be on you to prove that is was justified.
The perceptions of witnesses should always be considered. If you are menaced in public make it clear that you are not the aggressor by shouting something like 'Leave me alone!' (rather than something like 'Come on if you think you're hard enough!', which would probably not sound so good when you're being cross-examined...)
If it comes to the crunch and you DO have to hit someone in self defence, it is much better to hit him once, as hard as you can, rather than repeatedly. The former is more preferable not only from a practical point of view, but also from a legal one. In the latter case it is easier for someone to claim you have stepped beyond 'reasonable' force.
Like you said, prevention is the best way to deal with these situations. Both striking and grappling have their advantages.
Even though I'm a grappler, I must admit striking is a lot more effective if your purpose is to escape the situation in a safe manner. If someone is assaulting you on the street, there is a high chance that he either has a weapon or has friends around, so taking someone to the ground will leave you in a vulnerable situation.
The only problem I can think of with striking is that a lot of countries have stupid "excesive use of forcce" laws which means that even if some a**hole is assauling or trying to stab you, by law you are still expected to "treat him with care" (yes, thats the PC world we live in). So if in your self defence you end up knocking someone out and on the fall he cracks his skull on the pavement, you are in big trouble in pretty much any western country.
Again, there is no easy way out. The best method for escaping these situations is by not getting involved in them in the first place
People do martial arts/combat sports for many different reasons, but self defence is probably the most popular. With this in mind, the question that is often raised is: Which style is the best for protecting yourself and others in a Real Life Situation? Would it be a striking style or a grappling style?
To put it another way: How useful is the style you train in?
When people talk about this, the context is usually something along the lines of being able to fend off random attacks (ie: drunken louts, muggers, rapists, etc.), so we are looking at something which can be applied quickly and effectively at very short notice.
A boxer may say - That's easy, you just have to hit them once, fast, hard and in the right place and BANG! - it's game over. Plus, having a boxer's reflexes and defensive moves will guard against you being the one who gets KO'd.
A wrestler may say: The majority of fights end up on the ground, so you really need to have some grappling skills.
Of course nowadays we have mixed martial artists who are prepared for any eventuality!
Have you ever used your training to defend yourself "On The Street"? How well did it work for you?
If not, have you ever thought about what you would do in such a situation?
I once used a karate sweep to deal with an obnoxious guy on a dancefloor (Don't try this at home, kids; I was young and foolish), and at work once I restrained an aggressive drunken guy with aikido.
These days I feel fairly confident that, having the experience of being hit - intentionally or otherwise! - during sparring, I won't crumple if some average thug lashes out at me. I would probably have the presence of mind to not panic, and to take him down and control him on the ground. This is all assuming he's not so skilled a puncher (or just a plain strong, hard hitter) that I'm seeing Tweetie Pies before I even know what's happening!
PLEASE NOTE: I am in no way suggesting that ANY combat style makes you invulnerable, and people should always take sensible precautions with their safety and security. Prevention is much preferable to cure in this type of scenario ...
Sturdy (31)
2012-08-17 23:32OK, the consensus of opinion so far seems to be striking is good, grappling is good, but the best form of self defence is running like the clappers!
Guysmiley (41 )
2012-08-17 21:10In my self defense training, Israeli Krav Maga, they promote staying on your feet as much as possible, but train us in ground work as well because in this day and age, you are likely to end up there. Everyone is watching MMA on TV these days and thinks they know how to win over someone on the ground. But it was already mentioned here, the threat of "friends" jumping in while your on the ground. Not a good position to be in.
As long as your standing, you can usually use the opponent as a shield, and be able to see others coming. But as also mentioned, there is always the chance of that sucker punch catching you unawares and past that, nothing else will matter.
Best advice is also reiterated – don't get in that circumstance in the first place.
FIGHTFUK (1)
2012-09-12 02:42(Som svar till detta)
SUCKER PUNCH STINGS GET YOUR ADRENLINE GOING GIVES A REASON TO FIGHT
Sturdy (31)
2012-08-16 22:34I know in the UK you are allowed to use force to defend yourself, even a pre-emptive strike if you believe you are in serious danger, though I think the onus would be on you to prove that is was justified.
The perceptions of witnesses should always be considered. If you are menaced in public make it clear that you are not the aggressor by shouting something like 'Leave me alone!' (rather than something like 'Come on if you think you're hard enough!', which would probably not sound so good when you're being cross-examined...)
If it comes to the crunch and you DO have to hit someone in self defence, it is much better to hit him once, as hard as you can, rather than repeatedly. The former is more preferable not only from a practical point of view, but also from a legal one. In the latter case it is easier for someone to claim you have stepped beyond 'reasonable' force.
But, again, the best policy is avoidance! ...
jiujiteiro (0)
2012-08-16 13:52Like you said, prevention is the best way to deal with these situations. Both striking and grappling have their advantages.
Even though I'm a grappler, I must admit striking is a lot more effective if your purpose is to escape the situation in a safe manner. If someone is assaulting you on the street, there is a high chance that he either has a weapon or has friends around, so taking someone to the ground will leave you in a vulnerable situation.
The only problem I can think of with striking is that a lot of countries have stupid "excesive use of forcce" laws which means that even if some a**hole is assauling or trying to stab you, by law you are still expected to "treat him with care" (yes, thats the PC world we live in). So if in your self defence you end up knocking someone out and on the fall he cracks his skull on the pavement, you are in big trouble in pretty much any western country.
Again, there is no easy way out. The best method for escaping these situations is by not getting involved in them in the first place
Sturdy (31)
2012-07-17 20:38People do martial arts/combat sports for many different reasons, but self defence is probably the most popular. With this in mind, the question that is often raised is: Which style is the best for protecting yourself and others in a Real Life Situation? Would it be a striking style or a grappling style?
To put it another way: How useful is the style you train in?
When people talk about this, the context is usually something along the lines of being able to fend off random attacks (ie: drunken louts, muggers, rapists, etc.), so we are looking at something which can be applied quickly and effectively at very short notice.
A boxer may say - That's easy, you just have to hit them once, fast, hard and in the right place and BANG! - it's game over. Plus, having a boxer's reflexes and defensive moves will guard against you being the one who gets KO'd.
A wrestler may say: The majority of fights end up on the ground, so you really need to have some grappling skills.
Of course nowadays we have mixed martial artists who are prepared for any eventuality!
Have you ever used your training to defend yourself "On The Street"? How well did it work for you?
If not, have you ever thought about what you would do in such a situation?
I once used a karate sweep to deal with an obnoxious guy on a dancefloor (Don't try this at home, kids; I was young and foolish), and at work once I restrained an aggressive drunken guy with aikido.
These days I feel fairly confident that, having the experience of being hit - intentionally or otherwise! - during sparring, I won't crumple if some average thug lashes out at me. I would probably have the presence of mind to not panic, and to take him down and control him on the ground. This is all assuming he's not so skilled a puncher (or just a plain strong, hard hitter) that I'm seeing Tweetie Pies before I even know what's happening!
PLEASE NOTE: I am in no way suggesting that ANY combat style makes you invulnerable, and people should always take sensible precautions with their safety and security. Prevention is much preferable to cure in this type of scenario ...