- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Okay, don’t want to get all heavy here, but the discussion about the stick pinned against a wall made me wonder: Do KM techniques, first and foremost, always have to adhere to the principle of being instinctive, even if that meant selecting the weaker of two techniques? Or would it be okay to select a less instinctive technique, if that one would seem to be the stronger of the two?
For example in the pinned stick discussion the assumption is that the headlock style defense would be the most instinctive one, but then there is the problem of ending up in a bad position. Another type of technique, twisting the stick up and down for example, might work just as well, or even better, plus it might leave you in a better position, yet because it is less instinctive the headlock one seems to be favored.
There do seem to be examples in KM where the less instinctive defense has been chosen over the more instinctive one, for example choke against a wall, where the turning defense is used instead of the plucking one, even though a pluck is more instinctive and may still work (although not as strongly).
So, I guess I’m wondering, how much weight is given or should be given to a motion being instinctive when selecting an \”official\” KM technique? If there are only slight differences in effectiveness, it makes sense to use the more instinctive one, because, under stress, that is the one you are most likely to remember. But what if there are great differences in effectiveness? It’s certainly possible to learn to do a certain technique, even if it’s not instinctive from the onset and if it’s a lot more effective than the instinctive version, wouldn’t it make more sense to incorporate that one instead? I’m not just talking about the pinned against the wall one here, but I mean in general.
Any thoughts?
_________________
GiantkillerMy only thought is to stick to the principles …
In my training (which is much shorther than yours at this point) and in the book, it is epmhasized, at least in my understanding, that there is not necessarily any specific \”correct\” technique in any given situation (when there are options). Rather, you want to go from a position of disadvantage to a position of advantage, utilizing appropriate economy of motion.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, and I know you’re well aware, every situation is different. The fluidity of an attack or a fight dictates that you don’t become stagnant, or corralled into using a specific technique – the dynamics are just too great. Instead of thinking about what defense to empoly, your full understanding of the principles of KM, your training and your fighting spirit will carry the day.
Yes, hopefully i’ll be able to come up with something if I should ever be attacked in a way that we have not specifically trained for in KM. I may just use KM principles without even being aware and hopefully they will protect me or even save my life.
This question just occurred to me, because we worked with John on the pinned stick thing on Tuesday and him being one of the people who could probably officially pick a new technique, it was sort of like being in the middle of the creative process. We tried out a few different things, most of them generally working, but all having pros and cons. That the motion should be instinctive seemed to be an important aspect in the selection of the technique. Then the discussion continued on the forum and it just made me wonder how much weight should and would be generally given to a technique being instinctive. Nowadays, as well as historically (the techniques Imi originally created).
I actually really like the idea of basing the defensive techniques on instinct, as you don’t have to learn how to recognize a certain motion and then practice reacting a certain way. Using instinct, you just react, lightning fast, and then the KM technique \”improves\” on that instinctive motion by adding very slight movements to it that make it a better defense.
So, this works well in most cases, however, on occasion, the most instinctive motion may not always be the best, even if you improve upon it by adding further defensive motions. In those cases, should a less instinctive defense be selected instead? If it’s 50/50, makes sense to pick the instinctive motion, 40/60 in favor of the instinctive motion, maybe still pick that one, but what about 20/80, 10/90, meaning the instinctive defense has much less chance of success than the non-instinctive one? Which one would typically be picked in those cases and why?
Sorry, I suppose I was just feeling philosophical, with the full moon and everything… 🙂
_________________
Giantkiller+1 what Jeff said.
GK I see your point though about a stronger technique over what is instinctive. Gun to the back….instinct…either freeze and do nothing or to run. Neither deal with the threat and both can get you hurt. I definately prefer the Krav Maga alternative…lol
Ultimately, you have to consider the difference between a systemic approach and an individual approach.
The job of the SYSTEM is to deliver a coherent and cohesive set of movements to large groups of people. Especially in military and law enforcement units, these groups of people must often work together and have at least some sense of what their fellow operatives are doing (I guarantee you there are some LE guys reading this post who have either been injured or know a colleague who’s been injured while subduing a suspect because his partners weren’t on the same page). For this reason, the system (at least our system) applies a set of principles and tries to remain consistent to them so that the approach carries the same logic and allows the student to grasp new techniques easily
The job of the INDIVIDUAL is to learn a set of techniques that work for him or her, period. Now, if the system is good, it has already created a pathway for the student to learn those techniques quickly. But along the way, the student will find variations of his own that he likes.
If you read the book, I mention a discussion with some LEOs while developing weapon retention techniques that worked inside their other training. Darren was there, and we were playing around with various movements. At one point, someone said they liked a movement Darren was doing, but he shook his head and said, \”It works, but it’s random. I have complete confidence that I would keep the gun if someone grabbed it from me, but the question is how to present it as a system so people can learn it.\”
Does that make sense? From a teacher’s point of view, a self defense program isn’t just a list of techniques, its a system for delivering information to students in a clear and concise way.
That’s why, during the stick across the throat thing, I stick to the basic principles. It’s not about having slavish loyalty to a principle. If the principle is correct, it will be a factor in the fight, period. So I acknowledge it.
In the example GK brings up of choke against a wall, we don’t just opt for the rotational defense because it is \”better\” than the pluck. The rotational defense is ALWAYS a stronger defense than the pluck. We do the rotational defense because the pluck doesn’t work against the wall.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
