In this duology I take a look at what the concept “self-defense” can entail, and what assuming different definitions can mean for your training. In the first part, I defined three types of violence, only to pointedly ignore the first one. I then elaborated on the second one, in the context of technical choice and performance.
In this article I will elaborate on the third type, being a situation in which you are at a great disadvantage right from the start, here represented by the “ambush-archetype”, and what it can mean for one’s training to assume this kind of attack.
My point in the first article is that escalated violence rarely sees one of the participants starting out from a position of great disadvantage, and that this results in technical choices, as well as a technical performance that, while perfectly valid in its context, does not necessarily prepare a person for fighting on someone else’s terms.
Of course “escalated” violence is also something that can occur for example between a group of bullies and a bullied individual, in which the disadvantage can be significant and the mid-fighting techniques very much those of a self-defense situation, by any standard.
Exceptions like this we will simply ignore, because they are not relevant to the discussion, which at its core is not about the relationship between how a fight starts and what it turns into, but about the different kinds of fights, and how to prepare for them.
Self-Defense
Similarly to what we did with “Streetfighting”, we will start by identifying some traits common to self-defense situations:
I. You have no, or extremely little, time to prepare for the attack.
II. Your opponent is either bigger, armed, trained or backed up by friends.
III. You enter the fight in a very vulnerable state, lying down, with your hands somehow tied up, with your back turned… and often also dazed, blinded, in pain or even injured from your opponent’s first attack.
Below is a good example of what as soon as the attack begins becomes a self-defense situation:
So What Does This Mean?
Where in a streetfight, and in competition, you can make pretty much anything work, such as this, but need to worry about things like not causing unnecessary harm to your opponent, in a situation in which the above criteria are true, your options are limited, but your boundaries none. You can’t do much, but you’ll do everything you can.
In this way, a streetfight and a self-defense situation are so vastly different they become nearly opposites, something which is even more true for the relationship between a self-defense situation and a professional fight.
The techniques used in self-defense situations will often be simpler than in a professional fight, but more complex than in a streetfight, because all the strength, speed and aggression you possess will always be matched and overcome by your opponent(s), leaving you only with technique to bridge the gap.
I’ve already discussed technical training in a previous article, and biased by my own “principalist” background, which no doubt shines through in it, my answer to the question of overcoming near-insurmountable disadvantage is, in one word, enhancements and back-up plans.
With this approach, self-defense becomes, to a great extent, the art of using as many of your resources as possible, taking away as many of your opponent’s resources as possible, to then use your resources against his, and when you still fail, to have options to quickly move on to.
All the while you’re trying to survive the onslaught of an opponent with whom you’re lucky to get a first chance of defending yourself.
Needless to say, there is no such thing as an easy, or fail-safe solution to a situation of that kind, something that’s dangerously easy to forget.
Leave a Reply