Tous ces liens offrent des voies de réflexion, et ne sont
pas, à mon sens, des conclusions et des aboutissements de celles-ci, en ce qui
nous concerne, nous, civils, citoyens.
Bradley Steiner représente une face dure, old school, de ce que l'on nomme aujourd'hui le courant
combatives.
Personnellement, je le trouve trop détaché d'une approche globale de la protection personnelle. Néanmoins, il reste souvent pertinent dans sa perception.
Mike Janich offre une vision plus circonstanciée, largement plus liée au respect légal de la défense personnelle, ainsi qu'une pédagogie plus développée ( trop ? ) et plus analytique.
Richard Grannon est un oscillateur, balançant entre diverses perceptions, au gré de son développement personnel.
En ce qui
me concerne, je me sens toujours et encore proche des voies dégagées par
Cestari, Mc Cann et
Kasper.
Voici l'approche de
Nick Hugues :
http://charlotteselfdefense.blogspot.com/2009/11/danger-of-sporting-mindset.htmlThe Danger of the Sporting Mindset
I was surfing a friend's forum and they were talking about a DVD by a noted self protection instructor on the subject of defeating an MMA trained adversary. He points out in the DVD that with the popularity of MMA training it's becoming more and more likely that you'll end up scrapping with someone who's had such training.
Of course the MMA forums are denigrating the DVD saying that the only way an MMA fighter can be beaten is (and I quote)
a "seasoned" (read truly skilled ) MMA practitioner can only be countered by 1. Luck; 2. Equal or greater skill; or 3. A massive size/strength/injury disparity.
This is an absolutely perfect example of the danger of training in a sporting discipline. Notice the angle they come at it with i.e. from an entirely sporting context.
From my perspective, that of someone dealing with the real world and not the ring I'd be thinking of things such as...
A martial artist should be concerned about...1. A guy with a gun; 2. A guy with a knife; 3. A group of guys; 4. A group of guys with weapons; 5. A sucker punch; 6. A pre-emptive strike; 7. An ambush; 8. A mob kicking the crap out of me while I'm rolling round on the ground with someone trying to put them in a cool triangle choke etc.
At first blush this might seem like a criticism of MMA guys and it's not. I admire anyone who trains hard and puts it on the line, no matter what discipline that is. It is however a criticism of the dangers of a sporting mindset and it is also a criticism of guys who play in the ring thinking they are automatically now qualified to talk about self defense.
That's a little like paint-ballers telling Special Forces guys how to conduct themselves in a firefight.
Self defense/protection training requires a certain mind-set, don't confuse it with the mindset you'll develop in a club that concentrates on sport.
Les techniques de contrôle peuvent-elles être parfaitement intégrées à un système purement offensif ?
Qu'en pensez-vous ?
Sumitomo Arima Sensei ( Judo: Japanese Physical Culturer - 1906 ) sur ce sujet :
Arima Sensei's "third" rule : " According to circumstances, atewaza (art of striking vital points) is preferable to nagewaza ( the art of throwing ) and katamewaza ( the art of grappling ), especially when you are confronted by a number of antagonists ".
Ceci dit, shimewaza ( the art of choking ) est un excellent complément de l'atewaza, et il fait pourtant partie intégrante de katamewaza.
En ce qui me concerne, il vaut mieux que le citoyen s'abstienne de vouloir exercer un contrôle, et s'assure plutôt de son extraction rapide d'un conflit physique.
Tenter d'assurer, seul, un contrôle, tend à accroître les probabilités de connaître l'échec et, donc, des dommages corporels plus ou moins importants.