Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Some thoughts on unarmed self-defense

  1. #1

    Some thoughts on unarmed self-defense

    I've been binging on YT self-defense videos lately. I get into this phase it seems once every few years. Anyway, there's lots of "bullshido" out there and it's made me think that it's worthwhile to jot down some basic thoughts regarding unarmed self-defense.

    In the post-UFC era, there's a new martial arts myth that has become widespread and it is this: traditional martial arts are useless and the only way to learn practical self-defense is to join an MMA gym. Now, there's no denying that many of the traditional martial arts had become (and still are, in many ways) loaded under pointless and useless "forms", the stuff that Bruce Lee often decried. But the counter-point to this true observation is that (a) it's not completely true of virtually any traditional martial art (there are real insights in most of them) and (b) there are martial arts that have retained an almost completely practical orientation -- two obvious examples are traditional boxing and Judo, just to name two that should be fairly uncontroversial.

    Part of the problem is that we often don't apply reasonable criteria when evaluating a martial art. The traditional Japanese martial arts are an excellent case-study because they have this enormous corpus of obviously practical and effective techniques, but often mixed with inexplicably elaborate and "flowery" motions and kata. Why are they so weird, why can't they just, you know, stand up and fight, like men? As with all such questions, the truth is usually subtler than any answer that can be given in the 5-10 second average attention span of the American TV watcher.

    As an external observer, one of the most infuriating martial arts to me is Aikido. I desperately want to love this martial art. It's so beautiful. Its practical applications are obvious... it shares in common almost all of the traditional jiu-jutsu throws you will find in the Judo canon. Of course, a given throwing technique in Judo will be much sharper, tighter, and more athletic than its counterpart in Aikido practice. This is a result of the pedagogical differences between Judo and Aikido. In Judo, techniques are canonized and perfected through kata but students learn to apply them realistically in more-or-less "all-out" sparring sessions (randori). Aikido also has randori but it is a "black-tie affair" compared to Judo's intense scrapping sessions that share more in common with a round of boxing sparring than with the dance-like movements of Aikido.

    Notably, both of these arts trace their roots back to traditional Japanese martial arts. I am not a historian of Japanese martial arts (or any other tradition of martial arts) but I do understand that the Samurai were the primary "consumers" of martial training in Samurai-era Japan. The Samurai bear more than a passing resemblance to the medieval knights of feudal Europe who were, of course, a professional military class. A common misconception is that there are no European martial arts. This is a silly popular American notion that arose in the post-TV martial arts movies era. Asian martial arts evolved a certain kind of "flourish" that, perhaps, is not present as much in the European styles of fighting (whether armed or unarmed). But that's not the result of any lack of sophistication in fighting arts, it's the result of very practical factors. A cannon with a harder barrel could fire a projectile at higher velocity and demolish thicker castle walls. Arms market investment in Europe was driven less by how much more effective the common fighter could be made than by advancements in materials science and other technological factors that would result in victory at the points where victory mattered most. By contrast, in Japan, the pace of technological advancement in the Samurai era was much slower than in Europe during its feudal era. Investment in making better fighting men, therefore, made a lot more sense.

    And this insight, I think, solves part of the mystery of the sometimes highly floral nature of certain Asian martial arts as against their European counterparts which seem stolid and grossly understated by comparison. Did the Europeans have punches? Kicks? Basic throws/sweeps? Chokes? Locks? Yes to all of these, and they elaborately developed the arts of unarmed techniques, especially for dealing with the problems of disarms, avoiding disarms and recovering from accidental disarms (there are even colored medieval picture-books illustrating various moves that were in practice at the time... very practical and effective stuff!) But if they were so good at this stuff, why didn't it turn into an artsy-art as it did in Asia? The answer (IMO)? Marketing and advertising.

    One of the reasons I find Aikido (and/or Wing Chun) so irresistibly fascinating from the armchair is that it's just beautiful. It's like dancing... but where the other guy gets his arm broken in the end. Amazing to watch. But why did these arts become so visually appealing in the first place? Well, think about this from the point-of-view of a flourishing market for combat training for the Samurai class. You not only had to be effective, you also needed to pay the light bill (candle bill? lantern bill?). One way to do that was through competitions (which were more like showdowns, in those days, than like sports) and the other way to do that was through walk-ins. You know the old joke that starts, "A Samurai walks into a dojo..." ... actually, I don't know any joke that starts like that, but you get the picture. If your training was visually appealing, there's a good chance you would attract walk-ins to join and learn. Being a competitive market, these effective marketing techniques would tend to spread, as well as the effective combat techniques.

    But this still doesn't quite get us all the way to explaining why Europeans -- who also had a flourishing market in combat training to the nobility and their fighters -- don't have the Asian "flourish" in their martial arts. The second puzzle piece -- once again, IMO -- is the difference in the European and Asian views of the human body. For most Europeans in the Christian era (until the development of modern medicine), the body was this terrifying blob of mystery and weakness, prone to sudden failure without explanation or cause. Some Europeans rarely, if ever, practiced basic hygiene or bathing during these times. The Asian view of the body, however, was much more advanced in that era. Eastern medicine was certainly not as capable as modern Western medicine, but it was light-years more advanced than Western medicine at that time. The body was viewed as a wholesome and integral part of the self, not as "the enemy of the Spirit", "the playground of the Devil" and so on, as devout European Catholics would tend to view "the flesh." Thus, adding flourish to a martial art would have tended to act as the opposite of good advertising in that era, in Europe. It would have been seen as childish or silly. In fact, the only place that a European would likely have had any exposure to Eastern style of fighting would have been in the traveling circus / carnival. Foreign stunt performers capable of bizarre feats (such as flips, high kicks, and so on) were featured in such shows precisely because they were for entertainment value only. Perhaps the single best illustration of this conflict is the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones watches as a Muslim swordsman flashes his scimitar this way and that way. After a brief pause, Indiana draws his pistol and fires, instantly killing the swordsman. Silly flourish versus practical combat.

    Returning to the disdain that is heaped on traditional martial arts by many a smug YouTube MMA commentator (instructor?), the question is whether this difference between European style and Asian style in martial arts is really so irreconcilable as it might seem at first blush. I think the answer is that martial arts must be understood in the context of their origins and this means that you really do have to understand the "tradition" aspect in order to really understand the "martial" aspect of these arts. Mindless rote is, of course, always just mindless rote. But I think a lot of people misinterpret their own lack of understanding of an art they have tried as a flaw in the art itself. I think there is some bullshido in Aikido (at least, certain strains/schools). But if you think Aikido is only bullshido, well, you're ignorant, arrogant or both. You're stuck in a certain mindset regarding the body. It seems to you that body motions are all "obvious" and you confuse refinement with "useless flourish." The key to understanding Aikido or even Judo, to some extent, is to realize that they originate from a jiu-jutsu that was practiced in a market for combat training sold to the Samurai class between competing instructors and schools. Bullshido was weeded out in the way that the market weeds out any kind of bull$#@! ... the instructors selling snake-oil were eventually recognized as frauds and went bankrupt. It is from this corpus that both Aikido and Judo draw, both arts being simplifications of the old jiu-jutsu for a new era, an era where the katana was no longer the premier weapon.

    Here, finally, we find the unification of all things into one: the sword. Applied European fighting arts all centered around the use of the sword, just as the Japanese martial arts did. The solution to being unarmed, in either case, was to become armed. Either get a sword or other weapon from a compatriot or manually disarm an enemy in the worst-case. But the condition of not having a sword was not something that was elaborately studied because... that's ridiculous[1]. That would be like a special forces unit training for months for the situation of being in the battlefield and having no weapons available. Sure, they do train a little for these kinds of situations but it's more of a survival exercise than it is primary battle training. The fact is, the probability that a SOF operator will have a weapon in hand during any live engagement with the enemy is approximately 100%. Avoiding disarms or recovering from accidental disarms, however, is heavily trained, just as Europeans have been training for centuries.

    When you look at the old jiu-jutsu from which both Aikido and Judo derive, you will find that all of the techniques derive from battlefield scenarios involving the katana. Some of the techniques were concerned with how to handle disarms or how to perform disarms. Some of them had to do with how to efficiently finish multiple attackers, a situation that really would have been common on the battlefield. For example, the ability to perform an effective Kosoto Gari was not just some kind of showy-flashy kung fu suitable only for carnival acts, it was vital to handling CQB at knife-range (a long weapon like a katana is ineffective once the attacker gets too close). But Kosoto Gari has been taught (though not by that name, usually called a "foot sweep") in European martial arts going back at least to the Roman times. In fact, all the main techniques in Judo can be found in one form or another in historical European martial arts, such as pancrase or even wrestling.

    Once again, the difference between East and West is not due to the practical applications; in both cases, the practical application is virtually identical since practical outcomes are checked by the laws of physics and the merciless selection process of battlefield success/loss. Rather, the difference is in the view of the body. And I think this is where Westerners still have a tremendous amount to learn from their Eastern counterparts. The revolution in unarmed, all-force fighting (vale tudo) instigated by Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu[2] through the auspices of the UFC has resulted in a great advancement in the practice of unarmed combat. But we still have a lot to learn. The human body is a marvel of physics and deeply understanding how it works is a lifelong journey for anyone who cares to embark on it. Unarmed combat instruction and combat sports will always be somewhat romanticized and freakish due to the artificial constraints created by the contradiction of fighting while trying not to injure each other too much. But I think it still has great social value (and individual value). We are standing on the shoulders of giants and, if we try, we can see a bright future ahead.

    [1] - The subject of underground development of unarmed combat / improvised arms under conditions of colonization and oppression is another topic for another time...

    [2] - Little known fact: BJJ is actually a descendant of Judo. From Wiki: "Brazilian jiu-jitsu was developed from Kodokan judo ground fighting (newaza) fundamentals that were taught by a number of Japanese individuals including Takeo Yano, Mitsuyo Maeda, Soshihiro Satake, and Isao Okano. Brazilian jiu-jitsu eventually came to be its own defined combat sport through the innovations, practices, and adaptation of judo." Maeda was a direct student of Jigoro Kano.
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 12-28-2019 at 02:14 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Was the ClaytonB account hacked or sold to SEO marketers? That is a tl;Dr blog post with one anchor text link if I ever saw one.
    I compiled a "brief" history of events since October 2008 that are defining the global currency war and the role that gold is playing:

    Tin Foil Hats, Economic Reality and the Total Perspective Vortex

    Also, have you contacted your Congressional Rep and asked them co-sponsor Ron Paul's Rep. Paul Broun Jr.'s HR 1098 77: Free Competition in Currencies Act?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    But the gun equalizes my stature to the most highly trained martial artist, both offensively and defensively.
    While I think everyone should be trained on the use of a gun; there will usually be instances where you don't have one available or where using it isn't the best choice. Which is why I think everyone (especially males) should also have some type of martial arts training. I took karate for 6 years as a youth and the handful of times when I needed it as an adult, the training I received enabled me to end an interaction quickly and leave it behind. Sure we learned many dozens the katas/forms/techniques; but it was the 30 minute sparring practice we did a couple times a week that really gave me the confidence later in life -- 5 minute rounds against all ages/sizes, none of this point scoring stuff.

    My boy is on his 3rd year taking karate/taekwondo. He loves it and the master of his studio is simply amazing with little kids -- and he is a world champion. My son doesn't have the disposition of a fighter -- he is nice to everybody -- but I think the basic skills he is learning will prepare him for when he inevitably needs it later in life.

  6. #5
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ N
    IƎ⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Bern View Post
    Was the ClaytonB account hacked or sold to SEO marketers? That is a tl;Dr blog post with one anchor text link if I ever saw one.
    Oh dear, no. The link to judoinfo is not for any kind of SEO or promotional purpose. I like the site because they provide those little animated GIFs that make a throw perfectly clear in a way that even YT demonstration videos sometimes fail to do. But yeah, I understand that reading some guy on the Internet blabbering about martial arts is not everybody's cup of tea...
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 12-28-2019 at 10:30 AM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    While I think everyone should be trained on the use of a gun; there will usually be instances where you don't have one available or where using it isn't the best choice. Which is why I think everyone (especially males) should also have some type of martial arts training. I took karate for 6 years as a youth and the handful of times when I needed it as an adult, the training I received enabled me to end an interaction quickly and leave it behind. Sure we learned many dozens the katas/forms/techniques; but it was the 30 minute sparring practice we did a couple times a week that really gave me the confidence later in life -- 5 minute rounds against all ages/sizes, none of this point scoring stuff.

    My boy is on his 3rd year taking karate/taekwondo. He loves it and the master of his studio is simply amazing with little kids -- and he is a world champion. My son doesn't have the disposition of a fighter -- he is nice to everybody -- but I think the basic skills he is learning will prepare him for when he inevitably needs it later in life.
    It's valuable training even to realize how reluctant (most) humans really are to fight. I don't roll nowadays but whenever I do interact with people about subjects related fighting, I am often amazed at how foreign even the simple motion of a punch or kick is to them. They extend their arm and place it on your skin. No, that is not a punch, that is practicing for a massage or something.

    Firearm training is obviously valuable since the firearm is the premier personal weapon in the modern age. But your firearm could become your worst enemy if an attacker is able to wrest it from your hand and turn it on you. "I wouldn't miss." Those are the famous last words of pretty much every statistic, ever. And once you start training weapon retention and disarms, you're right back to traditional martial arts (or MMA, if you "don't believe in that flowery stuff").

  9. #8
    Your main weapon is between your ears,,

    Everything else is a tool.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Some thoughts on unarmed self defense? Grow up with three brothers.
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  12. #10
    I would think attacks on individuals is more prevalent in lower income areas. I think most people go thru life without ever having a physical altercation with another person. I always thought a good knife would be a good tool to carry. I was told many years ago that it is harder to defend yourself in court for stabbing someone rather than shooting them. Over the years I have grown tired of wearing a tool belt while working. Soon I plan to sew a utility vest that I would plan to wear most days. This vest would have many pockets. I would carry pliers, multi use screw driver with attachments, zip ties, utility knife, tape measure, cell phone, keys, wallet.... whatever else I think I often use. I think having a space for a good defensive knife would be incorporated. If someone is going to attack you with threat of bodily harm, stab the mother fucher as your first move.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    I would think attacks on individuals is more prevalent in lower income areas.
    Only because the wealthy can afford thugs to do their violence for them,,
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Thus, the equalizing simplicity of the gun.

    In the words of Jeremy Clarkson: "I'm an old man and not a fit man".

    But the gun equalizes my stature to the most highly trained martial artist, both offensively and defensively.
    Yeah....but there are so many "victim disarmament zones" these days. Side note, steel toes shoes seem to be allowed everywhere. You just have to take them off and let them run through a scanner. This is from the jmdrake's upcoming book of "Everything I needed to know about self defense I learned in kindergarten." We didn't have steel toed boots. We didn't think of that. We wore pointed cowboy boots.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #13
    Great blog post! I"m a fellow martial arts nerd. I'll respond later when I have time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    I've been binging on YT self-defense videos lately. I get into this phase it seems once every few years. Anyway, there's lots of "bullshido" out there and it's made me think that it's worthwhile to jot down some basic thoughts regarding unarmed self-defense.

    In the post-UFC era, there's a new martial arts myth that has become widespread and it is this: traditional martial arts are useless and the only way to learn practical self-defense is to join an MMA gym. Now, there's no denying that many of the traditional martial arts had become (and still are, in many ways) loaded under pointless and useless "forms", the stuff that Bruce Lee often decried. But the counter-point to this true observation is that (a) it's not completely true of virtually any traditional martial art (there are real insights in most of them) and (b) there are martial arts that have retained an almost completely practical orientation -- two obvious examples are traditional boxing and Judo, just to name two that should be fairly uncontroversial.

    Part of the problem is that we often don't apply reasonable criteria when evaluating a martial art. The traditional Japanese martial arts are an excellent case-study because they have this enormous corpus of obviously practical and effective techniques, but often mixed with inexplicably elaborate and "flowery" motions and kata. Why are they so weird, why can't they just, you know, stand up and fight, like men? As with all such questions, the truth is usually subtler than any answer that can be given in the 5-10 second average attention span of the American TV watcher.

    As an external observer, one of the most infuriating martial arts to me is Aikido. I desperately want to love this martial art. It's so beautiful. Its practical applications are obvious... it shares in common almost all of the traditional jiu-jutsu throws you will find in the Judo canon. Of course, a given throwing technique in Judo will be much sharper, tighter, and more athletic than its counterpart in Aikido practice. This is a result of the pedagogical differences between Judo and Aikido. In Judo, techniques are canonized and perfected through kata but students learn to apply them realistically in more-or-less "all-out" sparring sessions (randori). Aikido also has randori but it is a "black-tie affair" compared to Judo's intense scrapping sessions that share more in common with a round of boxing sparring than with the dance-like movements of Aikido.

    Notably, both of these arts trace their roots back to traditional Japanese martial arts. I am not a historian of Japanese martial arts (or any other tradition of martial arts) but I do understand that the Samurai were the primary "consumers" of martial training in Samurai-era Japan. The Samurai bear more than a passing resemblance to the medieval knights of feudal Europe who were, of course, a professional military class. A common misconception is that there are no European martial arts. This is a silly popular American notion that arose in the post-TV martial arts movies era. Asian martial arts evolved a certain kind of "flourish" that, perhaps, is not present as much in the European styles of fighting (whether armed or unarmed). But that's not the result of any lack of sophistication in fighting arts, it's the result of very practical factors. A cannon with a harder barrel could fire a projectile at higher velocity and demolish thicker castle walls. Arms market investment in Europe was driven less by how much more effective the common fighter could be made than by advancements in materials science and other technological factors that would result in victory at the points where victory mattered most. By contrast, in Japan, the pace of technological advancement in the Samurai era was much slower than in Europe during its feudal era. Investment in making better fighting men, therefore, made a lot more sense.

    And this insight, I think, solves part of the mystery of the sometimes highly floral nature of certain Asian martial arts as against their European counterparts which seem stolid and grossly understated by comparison. Did the Europeans have punches? Kicks? Basic throws/sweeps? Chokes? Locks? Yes to all of these, and they elaborately developed the arts of unarmed techniques, especially for dealing with the problems of disarms, avoiding disarms and recovering from accidental disarms (there are even colored medieval picture-books illustrating various moves that were in practice at the time... very practical and effective stuff!) But if they were so good at this stuff, why didn't it turn into an artsy-art as it did in Asia? The answer (IMO)? Marketing and advertising.

    One of the reasons I find Aikido (and/or Wing Chun) so irresistibly fascinating from the armchair is that it's just beautiful. It's like dancing... but where the other guy gets his arm broken in the end. Amazing to watch. But why did these arts become so visually appealing in the first place? Well, think about this from the point-of-view of a flourishing market for combat training for the Samurai class. You not only had to be effective, you also needed to pay the light bill (candle bill? lantern bill?). One way to do that was through competitions (which were more like showdowns, in those days, than like sports) and the other way to do that was through walk-ins. You know the old joke that starts, "A Samurai walks into a dojo..." ... actually, I don't know any joke that starts like that, but you get the picture. If your training was visually appealing, there's a good chance you would attract walk-ins to join and learn. Being a competitive market, these effective marketing techniques would tend to spread, as well as the effective combat techniques.

    But this still doesn't quite get us all the way to explaining why Europeans -- who also had a flourishing market in combat training to the nobility and their fighters -- don't have the Asian "flourish" in their martial arts. The second puzzle piece -- once again, IMO -- is the difference in the European and Asian views of the human body. For most Europeans in the Christian era (until the development of modern medicine), the body was this terrifying blob of mystery and weakness, prone to sudden failure without explanation or cause. Some Europeans rarely, if ever, practiced basic hygiene or bathing during these times. The Asian view of the body, however, was much more advanced in that era. Eastern medicine was certainly not as capable as modern Western medicine, but it was light-years more advanced than Western medicine at that time. The body was viewed as a wholesome and integral part of the self, not as "the enemy of the Spirit", "the playground of the Devil" and so on, as devout European Catholics would tend to view "the flesh." Thus, adding flourish to a martial art would have tended to act as the opposite of good advertising in that era, in Europe. It would have been seen as childish or silly. In fact, the only place that a European would likely have had any exposure to Eastern style of fighting would have been in the traveling circus / carnival. Foreign stunt performers capable of bizarre feats (such as flips, high kicks, and so on) were featured in such shows precisely because they were for entertainment value only. Perhaps the single best illustration of this conflict is the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones watches as a Muslim swordsman flashes his scimitar this way and that way. After a brief pause, Indiana draws his pistol and fires, instantly killing the swordsman. Silly flourish versus practical combat.

    Returning to the disdain that is heaped on traditional martial arts by many a smug YouTube MMA commentator (instructor?), the question is whether this difference between European style and Asian style in martial arts is really so irreconcilable as it might seem at first blush. I think the answer is that martial arts must be understood in the context of their origins and this means that you really do have to understand the "tradition" aspect in order to really understand the "martial" aspect of these arts. Mindless rote is, of course, always just mindless rote. But I think a lot of people misinterpret their own lack of understanding of an art they have tried as a flaw in the art itself. I think there is some bullshido in Aikido (at least, certain strains/schools). But if you think Aikido is only bullshido, well, you're ignorant, arrogant or both. You're stuck in a certain mindset regarding the body. It seems to you that body motions are all "obvious" and you confuse refinement with "useless flourish." The key to understanding Aikido or even Judo, to some extent, is to realize that they originate from a jiu-jutsu that was practiced in a market for combat training sold to the Samurai class between competing instructors and schools. Bullshido was weeded out in the way that the market weeds out any kind of bull$#@! ... the instructors selling snake-oil were eventually recognized as frauds and went bankrupt. It is from this corpus that both Aikido and Judo draw, both arts being simplifications of the old jiu-jutsu for a new era, an era where the katana was no longer the premier weapon.

    Here, finally, we find the unification of all things into one: the sword. Applied European fighting arts all centered around the use of the sword, just as the Japanese martial arts did. The solution to being unarmed, in either case, was to become armed. Either get a sword or other weapon from a compatriot or manually disarm an enemy in the worst-case. But the condition of not having a sword was not something that was elaborately studied because... that's ridiculous[1]. That would be like a special forces unit training for months for the situation of being in the battlefield and having no weapons available. Sure, they do train a little for these kinds of situations but it's more of a survival exercise than it is primary battle training. The fact is, the probability that a SOF operator will have a weapon in hand during any live engagement with the enemy is approximately 100%. Avoiding disarms or recovering from accidental disarms, however, is heavily trained, just as Europeans have been training for centuries.

    When you look at the old jiu-jutsu from which both Aikido and Judo derive, you will find that all of the techniques derive from battlefield scenarios involving the katana. Some of the techniques were concerned with how to handle disarms or how to perform disarms. Some of them had to do with how to efficiently finish multiple attackers, a situation that really would have been common on the battlefield. For example, the ability to perform an effective Kosoto Gari was not just some kind of showy-flashy kung fu suitable only for carnival acts, it was vital to handling CQB at knife-range (a long weapon like a katana is ineffective once the attacker gets too close). But Kosoto Gari has been taught (though not by that name, usually called a "foot sweep") in European martial arts going back at least to the Roman times. In fact, all the main techniques in Judo can be found in one form or another in historical European martial arts, such as pancrase or even wrestling.

    Once again, the difference between East and West is not due to the practical applications; in both cases, the practical application is virtually identical since practical outcomes are checked by the laws of physics and the merciless selection process of battlefield success/loss. Rather, the difference is in the view of the body. And I think this is where Westerners still have a tremendous amount to learn from their Eastern counterparts. The revolution in unarmed, all-force fighting (vale tudo) instigated by Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu[2] through the auspices of the UFC has resulted in a great advancement in the practice of unarmed combat. But we still have a lot to learn. The human body is a marvel of physics and deeply understanding how it works is a lifelong journey for anyone who cares to embark on it. Unarmed combat instruction and combat sports will always be somewhat romanticized and freakish due to the artificial constraints created by the contradiction of fighting while trying not to injure each other too much. But I think it still has great social value (and individual value). We are standing on the shoulders of giants and, if we try, we can see a bright future ahead.

    [1] - The subject of underground development of unarmed combat / improvised arms under conditions of colonization and oppression is another topic for another time...

    [2] - Little known fact: BJJ is actually a descendant of Judo. From Wiki: "Brazilian jiu-jitsu was developed from Kodokan judo ground fighting (newaza) fundamentals that were taught by a number of Japanese individuals including Takeo Yano, Mitsuyo Maeda, Soshihiro Satake, and Isao Okano. Brazilian jiu-jitsu eventually came to be its own defined combat sport through the innovations, practices, and adaptation of judo." Maeda was a direct student of Jigoro Kano.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yeah....but there are so many "victim disarmament zones" these days. Side note, steel toes shoes seem to be allowed everywhere. You just have to take them off and let them run through a scanner. This is from the jmdrake's upcoming book of "Everything I needed to know about self defense I learned in kindergarten." We didn't have steel toed boots. We didn't think of that. We wore pointed cowboy boots.
    Victim disarmament zone... ? (my world)

    This Prohibited Person commonly wears Steel Toe Boots.

    wanna dance?

    anything within reach is also a potential weapon..

    hint to friends,, don't ever let your weapon get within reach.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-22-2014, 02:11 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-26-2012, 10:13 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2011, 06:25 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2011, 03:33 PM
  5. Thoughts on Nelson Mandela? Thoughts on the movie?
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 08:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •