Moderator: Van Canna
Although I do agree that we as instructors should be focusing our training at the development of automatic responses to a specific threat stimulus, what happens if those trained responses are not congruent with the bodies hardwired response during an unexpected spontaneous assault? Does it not make logical sense that we as trainers should teach a physical response that would be congruent with what the brain has preprogrammed itself to do through millions of years of evolution?
Once an emotion has been turned on, it is difficult to exert conscious control over it at will. What this means to me is that in an unexpected spontaneous attack, if you are training motor skills that are not congruent with what the amygdala will cause the body to do, more specifically the "Somatic Reflex Potentiation" no matter how well trained the response, it will be overridden.
_ TFTSo many of the questions we receive here at TFT revolve around what to do about an attacker who does this or that, sometimes pointing to videos of the incident in question, seeking clarification on just what the victim could have done in the face of such brutality.
Nobody wants to hear what I really have to say: That the victim should have done the exact opposite of what they did, that they should have done all the things the attacker got right. It's not about defense or fighting back, it's about being the one doing the injuring. It's about being the attacker.
_TFT"Attacker" is wolf-speak, and what we really mean is "criminal" and "bad guy." It has a distinct negative connotation, so much so that while everyone can agree that "self-defense training" is a Good Thing far fewer people would want to study "attack mechanics" where all we practice is putting people down so they can't get back up again.
And yet... the worst people out there, the ones who use violence as an everyday tool to get what they want, never ever see themselves in the role of the defender or the victim.
This is telling. This is everything. This is the hard light that boils away the labyrinthine logical constructs we try to use to distance ourselves from the endpoint of all violence: You, hurting another person.
Another example: the seisan jump sequence against a 'stick' attack...
Now imagine you cutting someone off and getting into an accident, you get out of your car, mentally upset, and realize the other driver, six feet four, 240 lbs, is coming at you with a baseball bat aiming for the side of your head.
One point though, I should've clarified my clip a bit: It is a modification of the typical Bongai therefore still follows (or has to follow) the kata movement somewhat, otherwise someone will quite rightfully say it isn't Seisan.
Angles are integral to doing this. They are exactly what an older, slower, creakier person (or smaller) can use, with very little physical exertion, to easily defeat a younger, faster, stronger and bigger opponent. And do so without getting torn up in the process (Important because as you get older, you heal slower).
Angles allow a smaller, weaker person to defeat a larger, stronger, charging opponent. This is because the person using angles is not contesting the larger person's advantages. It's rendering those advantages meaningless. It isn't just refusing to play the larger person's game, it's taking away those advantages.
Researching how to render your opponent incapable of resisting before you find yourself in a situation requiring control and restraint techniques, will save you massive amounts of hard work, frustration, fear and -- most importantly -- injury. And by this we mean injury both to you and to the perp.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests