Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://ellegon.com/forum/

Extraordinarily stupid "self defense" advice
http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4893		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  1911fan [ Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
at least he did not quote Bobby Knight.
Author:  Greg M [ Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Massad Ayoob advises aiming for the groin. It gets the bad guy's attention and gives you a clear view of his hands.
Author:  Tick Slayer [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:03 am ]
Post subject: 
AGoodDay wrote:
The ears I hear good things about, but I've never been willing to have my ears boxed firmly. I hear bad things about the results. Can anyone comment on the ears?


If you're able to strike to the ear in such a way as to rupture the eardrum (cupped hand, must be precisely placed...this takes practice), you can produce a significant amount of pain and some balance problems.
Author:  someone1980 [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
AGoodDay wrote:
I really don't like the groin shot advice. Guys protect them, and if they're hit it tends to piss guys off. Don't waste your time, but the knee's, as Tick said, I agree with completely. Good target.

Cut off the ability to breath, see, move or remain conscious and you have a pretty effective defense. Eyes, nose and throat sound good. The ears I hear good things about, but I've never been willing to have my ears boxed firmly. I hear bad things about the results. Can anyone comment on the ears?


Would one try to kick an attacker in the knee? Strait on or try to hit the side of it?

I don't like the face/neck area. That means you have to get close. Whose arms are longer mens or womens? That and who is stronger? You don't want to get into a wrestling match with a crack head.
Author:  BigRobT [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
a blow to the knee can and has put people down for good. The tactic would be from a frontal attack, pushing the knee in the opposite direction it's supposed to go. A blow from the side might put them down, but usually not. It kind of depends on the stance that the attacker is using.
Author:  1911fan [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
eons ago, I was a baseball catcher and hockey goalie, and I have been hit pretty hard where most men really do not want to get hit. Yeah it hurts, but it does not put you out, I have taken a bad bounce on a pitch and still made the throw to get a guy trying to steal on the pitch, likewise I have taken pucks there and still made the save on the rebound. Once you get over that initial panic, you find you can function quite normal for a bit. When I was bouncing, I got kicked there by a young woman who was very, very surprised that despite the no warning kick, I was still able to grab her hair and pull her out of the building. She was more surprised by the Man-rule she was never told about, kicking a guy in the wedding tackle removes the never-hit-a-girl rule.
Author:  Selurcspi [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tick Slayer wrote:
AGoodDay wrote:
The ears I hear good things about, but I've never been willing to have my ears boxed firmly. I hear bad things about the results. Can anyone comment on the ears?


If you're able to strike to the ear in such a way as to rupture the eardrum (cupped hand, must be precisely placed...this takes practice), you can produce a significant amount of pain and some balance problems.


Tic,
I disagree with this part, I may be an anomaly, but I burst an eardrum 10 minutes into a rugby game in a tackle, no pain after the loud pop, no balance problems. I played the remaining 70 minutes of the game with the only treatment being a cotton ball taped into the ear to calm down the roaring of the wind.
:) :( :) :( :) :( :) :(
Author:  Tick Slayer [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Selurcspi wrote:
Tic,
I disagree with this part, I may be an anomaly, but I burst an eardrum 10 minutes into a rugby game in a tackle, no pain after the loud pop, no balance problems. I played the remaining 70 minutes of the game with the only treatment being a cotton ball taped into the ear to calm down the roaring of the wind.
:) :( :) :( :) :( :) :(


I haven't ruptured my own eardrum or anyone else's, so all I can go on is what I've been told. DH, who has ruptured his own eardrum (scuba diving), says it is very painful. The instructor who taught it to me has used the technique more than once. However, it's not meant to be used alone. Also, as you've pointed out, people react differently to different techniques.
***
On the knee thing, my knee strikes come from the side, either as a sort of inward and downward step-like kick or a roundhouse kick.
Author:  A Brit in MN [ Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Its Spring......................lets talk about bollock bashing .........AGAIN :shock:
Author:  DeanC [ Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:31 am ]
Post subject: 
A Brit in MN wrote:
Its Spring......................lets talk about bollock bashing .........AGAIN :shock:
The Electra complex is in bloom!
Author:  AGoodDay [ Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
someone1980 wrote:
Would one try to kick an attacker in the knee? Strait on or try to hit the side of it?


Yes. Straight on or the side. I learned straight on because it's more likely to cause damage to the knee than the side. Like Tick described, kind of an in/backward and downward step type of kick. You step in and kick through the knee, like you're trying to stomp it into the floor behind them. I was also taught to kick for grabs from behind. When you're doing that, it's just straight back as far as you can.

The knee, while I haven't tested this and really hope not to, apparently dislocates reasonably easily.

Regarding the face/neck, each person develops their own personal preferences. Not everything works for everyone. You are very right on the arm length. Depending on size issues, you may not want to go that route. For myself, I like that route if I have to be close.
Author:  Tick Slayer [ Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
someone1980 wrote:
I don't like the face/neck area. That means you have to get close. Whose arms are longer mens or womens? That and who is stronger? You don't want to get into a wrestling match with a crack head.


I don't like being close enough for the attacker to reach me. I would like to be in separate states.

To effectively strike to the eyes and throat of a tall man, I have to be in his Zone 1 (too close for punches, but no large areas of body contact). Not a place I want to be if I can help it.
Author:  Macx [ Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
I like that this topic is extraordinarily stupid Self Defense advice. I'll posit that there is no one “do all” in self defense. It is best to learn a system or some complimentary systems . . . options such as Aikido, Tai Ji, or some variants of Kung Fu, all emphasize redirection of force, rather than force on force.

One of the most supremely BAD ideas that can be proliferated, is that one attack or strategy is universally effective . . . heck, even a .45 ACP or a .308 Win can’t guarantee that. . . yet so many one afternoon self defense classes attended by sheeple type women create the illusion that “these three easy steps . . . blah, blah, blah” (something like scream, kick in the nads, and run) are surefire self defense. When an assailant isn’t stopped, the victims often freeze in terror & aren’t equipped to follow up with additional defense. A complete system or a mix of systems is really the way to go. To those couple of postees who mentioned not wanting to get in close, I’d encourage you to put aside the distaste and look into martial arts which specifically address or include close and ground fighting. It is nice to be able to avoid a specific venue of fighting, but nicer not to have to.
Author:  AGoodDay [ Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Macx, excellent post.
Author:  Tick Slayer [ Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Macx wrote:
To those couple of postees who mentioned not wanting to get in close, I’d encourage you to put aside the distaste and look into martial arts which specifically address or include close and ground fighting. It is nice to be able to avoid a specific venue of fighting, but nicer not to have to.


I completely agree. As my master instructor used to say, "Avoid going to the ground at all costs... Now, when you're on the ground..." ;)

There's a difference between being skilled in close combat and thinking it's the best idea to let a larger, stronger, possibly drugged attacker get close enough to grapple. Just as we train for the worst-case shooting scenario and then try very, very, very hard to avoid a worst-case shooting scenario, it is wise to train for a worst-case "unarmed" defense scenario and then try very, very, very hard to avoid it. Being mentally and physically prepared and willing to defend yourself needn't translate to being eager to leap in front of the oncoming train.
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/