Nos Partenaires

Auteur Sujet: Arts martiaux/RBSD qui a vraiment raison?  (Lu 20680 fois)

05 août 2010 à 10:39:53
Réponse #100

Adonf


J'ai un peu de mal avec ce concept, dans la mesure un nombre non négligeable d'agressions finissent mal malgré le fait que la victime ait accéder à une "demande raisonnable".
T'as des statistiques précises sur le sujet?
Parce que maintenant qu'on y est il y a une statistique intéressante sur le sujet qui est sortie il y a peu:
http://www.rue89.com/2010/02/04/delinquance-lhomicide-un-crime-en-voie-de-disparition-136716
Et dans deux tiers des cas l'auteur est une connaissance de la victime.
Evidemment ça ne compte pas les blessés mais ça donne quand même une indication sur le sujet.

Citer
On peut se baser sur des probabilités de réaction ayant le moins de chance d'entraîner le pire. Et on ne peut jamais être sûr de rien. y a bien des gens qui jouent au loto et qui gagnent…
Il y a aussi certains lotos auxquels ont a plus de chance de gagner quand on est un ancien SAS, mais qu'on ne peut pas conseiller à tout le monde.

J'avais cru lire quelquepart mais je ne suis pas un spécialiste, que la position officielle de l'ACDS sur le sujet, c'est que tant qu'on en reste au matériel vaut mieux donner accéder à la demande que de tenter directement la "bagarre".
Mais je peux me tromper, j'ai la flemme de retrouver le passage exact et puis il y a parait-il quelques différences entre les conseils officiels et les conseils officieux.

05 août 2010 à 11:33:55
Réponse #101

bison solitaire




J'avais cru lire quelquepart mais je ne suis pas un spécialiste, que la position officielle de l'ACDS sur le sujet, c'est que tant qu'on en reste au matériel vaut mieux donner accéder à la demande que de tenter directement la "bagarre".
Mais je peux me tromper, j'ai la flemme de retrouver le passage exact et puis il y a parait-il quelques différences entre les conseils officiels et les conseils officieux.

C'est en substance ce qu'écrivait noir sur blanc Henry Plée, l'importateur du karaté en France, dans une de ses chroniques il y a plus de quinze ans; vous êtes agressé, on vous demande votre portefeuille, vous êtes né avec, non? bon alors donnez le. Pourquoi risquez sa vie pour quelque chose d'aussi bêtement matériel?
Maintenant il n'y a pas vraiment de différence entre conseils officiels et officieux, on va plutôt dire qu'il y a des jours sans et des jours avec; des jours où on veut être conciliant et d'autres pas; et des jours où on sent qu'il faut être conciliant... ;D

05 août 2010 à 12:30:19
Réponse #102

lawrence


je ne suis pas un spécialiste
idem

Citer
que la position officielle de l'ACDS sur le sujet, c'est que tant qu'on en reste au matériel vaut mieux donner accéder à la demande que de tenter directement la "bagarre".

Bein c'est la position du bon sens, également celle de la préfecture de police.

Citer
il y a parait-il quelques différences entre les conseils officiels et les conseils officieux.
Faudrait voir ça au cas par cas...Il est vrai que de façon général, les conseils donnés sur ce forum correspondent à des modèles de pédagogie, ce forum est lu par des milliers de personnes, un certains nombres d'entre elles cherchent consciemment ou inconsciemment dans les textes une confirmation pour faire n'importe quoi. Cad que si demain, le grand manitou sous entend qu'il transporte un 9 parabellum dans le slip, tu auras une masse de lecteurs qui saisiront l'occasion, telle une "autorisation consensuel" pour faire la même chose car il en rêve secrètement mais se sentait tout seul jusqu'à ce moment la.

Il est donc coutume ici d'indiquer automatiquement, la voie de la prévention, de l'évitement, etc la ou sur la plupart des autres médias, la ligne conductrice des débats sera sur le matériel de défense et la castagne, on le voit par ex. sur les débats concernant la protection du domicile ou nous conseillons ici une conscience aiguë de l'environnement lors de l'entrée/sortie du bâtiment + serrure dans les chambres intérieures et "ne pas patrouiller"; alors que partout ailleurs tu trouveras 15pages sur la configuration idéal d'un fusil à pompe.

Je préfère notre façon de faire, toutefois il y a un revers à la médaille car "à force" et conjugué à une non participation aux stages ou à un manque de réflexion personnelle, on  "configure" des gens à rejeter les phases d'actions pour les remplacer entièrement par un comportement prévenant. Ou à penser qu'un faux portefeuille évite d'avoir à se défendre, en faite cela peut te sortir d'affaire contextuellement ou pas du tout, c'est juste une carte à jouer parmi d'autres.

Attention donc à bien discerner la pédagogie qui se cache dans de nombreux sujet...

Lawrence

« Modifié: 05 août 2010 à 12:36:41 par lawrence »
"La sécurité trop parfaite des habitants du monde supérieur les avait amenés insensiblement à la dégénérescence, à un amoindrissement général de stature, de force et d'intelligence." - The Time Machine ; H. G. Wells

05 août 2010 à 12:50:58
Réponse #103

zamzam


+1000!!

Lis un de mes messages plus haut où je dis la même chose!!.......Désescalade etc c'est peut etre utile mais faut savoir comment passer à l'action!!!!

05 août 2010 à 19:02:25
Réponse #104

mrmagoo


Citer
T'as des statistiques précises sur le sujet?
Citer

Non, les statistiques ne sont pas assez pointues pour prendre ce type de déroulement des agressions en compte. Cependant certains faits divers indiquent qu'il a y a une possibilité non nulle de quand même se faire bourrer la tronche après avoir obtempérer à ses agresseurs.
En outre, suivant le contexte, il peut être par exemple de mauvaise politique de le faire, vis à vis de sa réputation, et des inconvénients qu'il pourra y avoir à être catalogué comme une baltringue par quelqu'un qui cherche à tester jusqu'à ou il peut aller(et qui s'empressera de prévenir tous ses potes du bon pigeon qu'il a découvert).
Bref tout ceci me semble dépendre du contexte et je ne crois pas qu'on puisse affirmer qu'il faille toujours obtempérer ou ne jamais le faire.
« Modifié: 06 août 2010 à 13:09:50 par mrmagoo »
Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat ?

06 août 2010 à 10:07:53
Réponse #105

** Serge **


Citer
My KUNG-FU is Better Than Your KUNG-FU !
By Carl Cestari



I imagine it first started many, many moons ago when some unknown combat aficionado first posed the question: “which is BETTER, pugilism or wrasslin’ ?”

Since that time comparisons of combat skills and methods have become legion. Boxing vs. Wrestling. Jujutsu vs. Boxing OR Wrestling. Karate vs. Judo. Karate vs. Boxing. Striking vs. Grappling. Swahili Toe Fighting vs. Peruvian Nostril Boxing……………..ad infinitum. AD NAUSEUM!

The latest “Battle of BS” centers around……………..”COMBATIVES” versus _________________________(you can fill in the blank).

UTTER NONSENSE! Actually the entire “debate” over what is BETTER than whatever is TOTAL NONSENSE and a real waste of time, especially for those who consider time a precious commodity. However, arguing the merits of so-called Combatives in regards to comparison fighting skills is absolutely BASELESS and denotes a true lack of understanding in what Combatives is really all about (and maybe life in general as well).

Personally I don’t LIKE the term COMBATIVES. But I also fully realize that it is the undeniable STAMP of human nature to LABEL things. Without LABELS who would we HATE, who would we KILL, how could we stereotype, what basis would there be for religious, ethnic or racial BIGOTRY. So in order for the world to work as it does, LABELS are a foregone conclusion. When labels become a tool or device for divisiveness and enmity we really fall into a trap that should be avoided at all costs. The root problem here is the very same fundamental problem that is the wellspring for most, if not all of mankind’s ills. The EGO. The absolute need for self-validation at all cost. ANYONE who engenders all or most of their feelings of self-worth and validation from their TRAINING ALONE(or even in major part) needs to immediately CANCEL their registration at all forthcoming seminars on the latest evolution of NHB holds from the mount or the latest innovations in submission “whatever” imported directly from the planet Venus (or perhaps more accurately Uranus) AND SEEK PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING! And do it QUICKLY!

Let’s try this simple experiment: Go into your kitchen draw and find the BEST steak knife. Sharpest, keenest edge. Now place it on the counter or breakfast table. NOW…………….find the BEST fork with the SHARPEST POINTIEST tines and lay that right next to the steak knife. Okay?

Step back and WATCH the FUN begin! We’ll SETTLE once and for all time the universal query of which is BETTER…………….THE steak knife or THE pointy fork! HOT DAMN this going to be exciting! A real BLOOD BATH so to speak.

Hhhhmmmmmmmmmm…………………………………..seems nothing is really happening here does it? Well, that’s the EXACT problem with debating “technique”, or “system”, or “method” or “style”. It is all an exercise in FUTILITY without the all important factor of the PERSONS INVOLVED. It is NOT the “TECHNIQUE”………………………IT’S THE MAN(or woman-PC ALERT)! Until human hands pick up the knife and the fork NOTHING will EVER HAPPEN! The method DOESN’T work for the MAN. IT IS THE MAN who MAKES the METHOD WORK!

It’s NEVER the merits of “just” Boxing vs. Wrestling or Muay Thai vs. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. It IS the individual MERITS of the men involved and those merits are RARELY if EVER “equal”. Since we are all HUMAN and NOT machines, those “merits” actually fluctuate on an almost daily BASIS! Even for those possessed of seemingly superhuman qualities, Father Time, Uncle Murphy and Mr. G. Reaper will WITHOUT QUESTION sooner or later destroy that.

Further still, this mindless need to debate ONLY applies in terms of SPORTING COMPETITIONS! Sporting competitions by their VERY nature are STRUCTURED EVENTS. They are planned for, they are TRAINED for, and they encompass well defined rules and regulations. So good natured speculation on the merits of one participant or team pitted against another certainly has some substance. Even extending to the COMPETITIVE merits of one combat sport against another there is some basis in logic. But extending these diatribes into the realm of real world violence and individual survival is POINTLESS! NHB means “No holds Barred”. The real world is NFB. NOTHING F@#$%ING BARRED!

If we MUST use the term “COMBATIVES” then it is ONLY proper that we define EXACTLY what we mean by the use of that terminology.

"The quality of your life is a direct reflection of the quality of your communication with yourself and others." - Anthony Robbins
http://jahozafat.com/0029585851/MP3S/Movies/Pulp_Fiction/dicks.mp3
"Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." ~ Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC

06 août 2010 à 14:29:15
Réponse #106

** Mathieu **


Merci Serge pour ce morceau de bon sens  :up:

Question de traduction :

Comment traduirais-tu ce passage : « NHB means “No holds Barred”. The real world is NFB. NOTHING F@#$%ING BARRED! »

NHB = tous les coups sont permis. Le monde réel c'est NFB : pas de put**n de limites !

Dans le sens : en termes sportifs on raisonne en terme de coups, et donc encore une fois en terme de techniques, d'efficacité technique, bref ça délimite un champs de possible assez restreint qui correspond bien à l'espace du ring.
Alors que dans la rue, il n'y a tout simplement plus de limites, ni de repères : du coup cela montre tout le non-sens d'essayer d'évaluer ce qui s'y passe à la lumière du combat sportif. Et par extension de son discours marketing ?

Qui est « Mr. G » ?


06 août 2010 à 19:38:37
Réponse #107

** Serge **


Alors que dans la rue, il n'y a tout simplement plus de limites, ni de repères : du coup cela montre tout le non-sens d'essayer d'évaluer ce qui s'y passe à la lumière du combat sportif.

C'est assez cela. On pourrait dit : it's pointless. Cela n'a aucun sens.

Qui est « Mr. G » ?

C'est la mascotte, la représentation de la mort.
On la voit de deux manières : soit, un guide qui te mène vers l'autre rive; soit, comme étant la mort elle-même, qui te touchant, met fin à tes jours.

Donc, l'image de Mr. G. Reaper ( the Grim Reaper ), c'est le squelette à la faux, drapé d'un linceul noir, ou l'espèce de cavalier de l'Apocalypse qui précède le fléau ( peste, etc ... ).

Par extension, dans certains coins, on dit également the great reaper.

"The quality of your life is a direct reflection of the quality of your communication with yourself and others." - Anthony Robbins
http://jahozafat.com/0029585851/MP3S/Movies/Pulp_Fiction/dicks.mp3
"Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." ~ Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC

07 août 2010 à 12:21:28
Réponse #108

** Serge **


« Modifié: 07 août 2010 à 13:29:29 par ** Serge ** »
"The quality of your life is a direct reflection of the quality of your communication with yourself and others." - Anthony Robbins
http://jahozafat.com/0029585851/MP3S/Movies/Pulp_Fiction/dicks.mp3
"Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." ~ Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC

07 août 2010 à 13:02:37
Réponse #109

zamzam


Arretes de venir poster alors! :lol:

Tiens j'y vais de mon conseil aussi : dis nous ce que toi tu penses précisément plutot que de poster sans cesse un lien/une interview/....ou bien tu n'existes que via tout ces cadors de la self..................

07 août 2010 à 13:14:20
Réponse #110

zamzam


1585??.........purée tu dois en savoir des choses dis!

07 août 2010 à 13:25:59
Réponse #111

zamzam


Et une citation pour la table 3 s'il vous plait!.......... :doubleup:

"j'arrete car tu vas croire que je t'en veux" MOI MEME

07 août 2010 à 13:49:19
Réponse #112

** Serge **


Une récente réflexion, sur une partie du sujet, par Michael D. Janich, sur son blog :

http://martialbladeconcepts.blogspot.com/2010/08/martial-analysis-learning-at-all-costs.html

Citer

Thursday, August 5, 2010
Martial Analysis: Learning at All Costs


One of the unfortunate phenomena that have plagued the traditional martial arts has been the obsession with secrecy. I understand and appreciate the need to present sensitive, potentially deadly information to students in a responsible manner. If a student is not mature enough to be trusted with certain information because he might use it without proper restraint, that makes perfect sense.
I also understand that historically many techniques were kept secret to preserve the tactical advantage (real or perceived) of one art over a rival system. That also makes sense.

However, passing on a system—or a purposeful subset of a system—and leading a student to believe that he has received the entire package when he really hasn’t doesn’t make sense. And when that “tradition” is formalized, you’ve got a recipe for misunderstanding and misinformation.

The process of withholding information has, over time, seriously diluted some martial arts. In simple terms, the arts were passed down without the “secrets,” so the knowledge base of the senior practitioners and legacy holders of the systems has become institutionally incomplete. Even though they might be performing the physical techniques of the system properly, the deeper meaning, underlying structure, and core concepts that power those techniques has been lost. In many cases, instructors will “parrot” key phrases that they heard during their training without having the ability to explain the meaning of those phrases. These phrases hint at the deeper understanding that should be part of the system, but when the students press for an explanation, there is no substance to deliver.

One excellent example of this is the triangular footwork of Indonesian pencak silat. When I first saw really good silat in action, I was blown away by the dynamic use of angles and leverages. Skilled practitioners—even those of smaller stature—used their power and the drive of their entire bodies, as well as a highly tuned sense of angles, to quickly off-balance their opponents in ways that seemed magical.

As I looked deeper into silat and had the opportunity to befriend a number of senior practitioners, I asked them about the angles and leverages of the systems and the concepts behind them. I also began compiling a library of instructional videos on the silat family of arts to try to quantify the principles that made them so effective. Despite my efforts to understand what made silat’s angles “tick,” I could not find a clear, logical explanation.

I had noticed a phenomenon in the silat community that, in many cases, its best instructors were not the senior lineage holders from the art’s motherland, but the second-generation Americans who had invested years of study to codify the non-linear teachings of their instructors. I had the good fortune of working with people like Stevan Plinck, Bob Orlando, and, most closely, Joseph Simonet, and seeing how they had absorbed, distilled, and organized the material they had learned. Over time, I also had the ability to compare their teaching methodology with that of their traditional instructors—mostly through Joseph Simonet’s extensive video library of “closed door” silat training sessions. Although it was clear that these highly skilled second-generation practitioners had achieved a quantum leap in the organization of their teaching, the real details of the silat triangle, or tiga, still were not clear.

During my military career, I worked in the signals intelligence field as a linguist and transcriber. I also earned a secondary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) as an intelligence analyst and worked in that capacity for several years at the National Security Agency (NSA). That experience taught me a lot about the analytical process—how to take seemingly disjointed and unrelated bits of information and correlate them. Over time, that process allows you to identify patterns and relationships. And ultimately, it enables you to identify organizational structures, understand how and why things really work, and project that understanding into something useful.

Since my ability to learn what I wanted from the teaching of others had hit a wall, I decided it was time to learn by analysis of what they were doing. I began with my best resource, Joseph Simonet, with whom I worked closely when I served as Paladin Press’ Video Production Manager. In Joseph’s expression of silat, he used a footwork platform called a pantjar that consisted of a series of geometric patterns characterized by 45 and 90-degree angles. The pantjar also had an equilateral triangle with bisecting lines (tiga) attached to one end and a square (sliwa) at the other end. Joseph explained that the pantjar was the foundation of all silat footwork and angles and the secret of its effectiveness. However, he also faithfully repeated a key phrase taught by his instructor: that “everything learned on the pantjar ultimately ended up on the tiga. The triangle was the secret of silat footwork.”

Joseph is incredibly talented and physically very strong. When he demonstrated techniques using the angles of the pantjar for reference, he had no problem making them “work.” However, when his partner Addy Hernandez, who is also extremely skilled but had less physical strength, tried the same techniques with the same angles, they were much less effective.

When I compared the angles of the pantjar to the angles of movement of other skilled silat practitioners—particularly Paul deThouars and the legendary Dan Inosanto—I noticed a subtle but very significant difference. Rather than 45 and 90-degree angles, their movements seemed to follow more acute angles—like 30s and 60’s. Their techniques were extremely polished and appeared almost effortless. Although much of that was certainly due to the masterful levels of skill they developed over a lifetime of practice, I was convinced that a significant part of their ability was also based on the fact that their methods—based on their angles—were structurally superior. They were fighting smarter because they were applying the “secrets” and, in the process, lending credence to the phrase that the tiga was the key to silat.

I shared some of my insights with Joseph and he was surprised that I was able to draw so much from my observations and analysis. Intrigued by my analytical process, Joseph gave me access to his entire silat video collection, which included dozens of tapes containing rare archival footage and obscure video of noted silat players. Ultimately, I made copies of all the videos for myself and numbered the titles for reference. Every week for nearly a year, Joseph and I would each watch one of the videos, analyze it, and take notes (actually, I did all the note taking; Joseph mostly offered his comments). Every Sunday morning, I called him and we “debriefed” the video. He shared his comments and I offered my analysis. After about a year, we had worked our way through his entire library and the other silat videos I had purchased. Through that process, I formulated my personal analysis of silat’s triangular footwork and the principles that powered it.

Based on my analysis, I debunked the commonly taught concept of off-balancing a person by simply drawing a line between his feet and applying pressure on a vector that is perpendicular to that line. Although he will lose his balance, he will not fall down. Instead, he steps to compensate and “catch” his balance. I refer to this as “putting your opponent on the triangle.” There are several other ways of doing this, including weighting him, spreading his base, and applying foot traps.

Understanding where your opponent’s feet will end up once he’s “on the triangle,” learning how to put him there effectively, and having technique that immediately takes advantage of that weakness collectively constitute half the secret of the secret of the silat triangle.

The other half of the equation is “using the triangle,” which is a logical, quantifiable process of using angles, vectors, and footwork to off-balance and throw an opponent with great force, while ensuring the opportunity for an immediate and fight-ending follow-up on the ground. This process also reveals the principles of using the tiga on a vertical plane as a template for applying pressure in three dimensions to decisively control and throw an opponent.

Whether my analytical process “rediscovered” any secrets of traditional silat or not is a matter of opinion. Traditional silat stylists will claim that it’s been there all along (I agree) and that they’ve been teaching it that way forever (not so much). Others will simply dismiss my approach as uninformed conjecture. That’s fine too. Now that I’ve had the opportunity to apply the concepts identified in my analysis over several years of training, I know that when I do it properly, people fall down. When I teach it logically, my students understand it and they make people fall down. If someone doesn’t believe our approach is valid, ask the guys on the ground.

The best way to learn is obviously with the guidance of a skilled instructor who has thorough knowledge and understanding of the topic and the ability to present that information in a logical, progressive manner. Sadly, the structure of the traditional martial arts and the egos of some instructors do not always support that process. When that happens, the power to learn lies in your desire to learn and your willingness to analyze and make sense of what you see.

For those curious about learning more about the silat triangle and my “take” on it, I have quantified the information gained through my analysis and documented it in my instructional DVD Practical Unarmed Combatives: Volume 3 from Stay Safe Media. That DVD has already found an audience with silat practitioners around the world and the feedback I have received on it has been overwhelmingly positive. Does that DVD teach “secrets?” That’s a matter of opinion. What it does do is teach and demonstrate extremely effectively, sharing information openly and allowing the viewer to learn and understand the material very readily—just the way a good instructor should.

Stay safe,

Mike
"The quality of your life is a direct reflection of the quality of your communication with yourself and others." - Anthony Robbins
http://jahozafat.com/0029585851/MP3S/Movies/Pulp_Fiction/dicks.mp3
"Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." ~ Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC

07 août 2010 à 14:13:23
Réponse #113

bison solitaire


Arretes de venir poster alors! :lol:

Tiens j'y vais de mon conseil aussi : dis nous ce que toi tu penses précisément plutot que de poster sans cesse un lien/une interview/....ou bien tu n'existes que via tout ces cadors de la self..................

Hello zamzam,
je ne pense pas que Serge ait besoin de qui que ce soit, mais je mon côté j'aime beaucoup les liens qu'il a la gentillesse de nous filer; et j'apprécie aussi le fait qu'il nous laisse notre réflexion sans l'influence des siennes. Cela étant je peux me tromper mais j'ai l'impression qu'il nous laisse faire les premières réflexions pour ensuite nous apporter les siennes.
Par ailleurs, je te trouve parfois un peu cavalier avec nos ainés du forum, même si tes posts sont plutôt intéressants... mais le côté cavalier est peut-être du à l'écran interposé, c'est vrai que parfois ce n'est pas vraiment conforme à l'humour qu'on veut rendre...

07 août 2010 à 14:31:20
Réponse #114

** Serge **


Et, synchronicité oblige, encore une autre vision argumentée et discutable de Bradley Steiner ( http://seattlecombatives.com/ ) :

Citer
The Enormous Error Of Defensive Self-Defense

WHEN a violent offender attacks you there is no question about the fact that what he is doing he is doing by deliberate intent. He wants to injure or perhaps even kill you. Why he wishes to do this is irrelevant — at least for the time being. There should be only one single overriding mandate driving you, the very second that you realize that you are under attack: STOP THE ASSAILANT!

A violent attacker has two immense advantages — initially — that absolutely must be overcome decisively and immediately: 1. He is in action first, prompted by a mind that has been set to attack you.  2. His abilities, his ultimate objective in attacking you, his past history, his physical strength, whether he is or is not armed, how determined he is to carry out his objective, etc. are ALL unknown factors to you. For all you know you may be under attack by a hardened, experienced killer whose purpose is to take your life right now. In fact, if you are wise, you WILL ASSUME JUST THAT!

Unfortunately, the situation of being under attack by a dangerous and determined individual does not leave you the luxury of being a gentleman, of striving to be “humane”, of attempting to handle the onslaught against you by not injuring your attacker, or by indulging in the qualities of compassion, forbearance, restraint, and sportsmanship, that are implicit in all too many “self-defense” techniques and methods that are popularly taught in so-called “martial arts classes”. The underlying philosophy in all of these methods is that you do not wish to be barbaric, aggressive, or as vicious and cruel as a violent offender. Yet, I am telling you that that is exactly what you DO want to be, In fact, that is what you MUST be, or stop allowing yourself to think that you are prepared to handle a genuine attack.

Not only are defensive techniques that fall short of seriously injuring the attacker technically ineffective and all but impossible to apply against a really dangerous assailant, the entire MINDSET of “defensiveness” is woefully inadequate to deal with the savagery of a violent attack. That which works against a cooperative training partner in the dojo is hardly therefore acceptable when a life-threatening emergency strikes, and the opponent is a lunatic bent upon killing you — as opposed to being a friendly practice partner!

If, God forbid, serious danger ever comes your way the proper way to handle it will be anything but pleasant. You will need to reach deep within yourself and draw out your most primitive, vicious, inhuman, murderous drives — and direct them in one great explosion against your enemy. It’s that — or lose.

Many martial arts teachers do not know this. Others might be aware of it, but for commercial reasons refrain from saying it and advocating it. After all, the typical individual who wishes to enroll for self-defense training is doing so because he is afraid of being injured, is intimidated by violence, and wants a means of protecting himself that will keep him relatively free of the need for immersing himself in the brutality of a genuine hand-to-hand battle. This accounts for the popularity of “humane self-defense” courses, for the popularity of such arts as “aikido”, and for the reason why every effort is made to focus on DEFENSE ONLY when learning self-defense; despite the fact that “defense only” constitutes a philosophy and technical ability geared to FANTASY, not reality.

But if any study requires REALITY — the most undiluted, unvarnished, hard-nosed reality possible — it is close combat and self-defense. Without it, no worthwhile training or individual development of a practical kind results.

DEFENSE IS THE PROPER MOTIVE FOR TRAINING AND FOR DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SKILLS. BUT OFFENSE IS THE ONLY MEANS OF ITS ATTAINMENT.

If you are serious about self-defense — really serious — then drop all of the “compassion” nonsense. Forget about “you don’t want to hurt anyone”. Stop believing that some fantasy skills from some mountaintop in Asia can equip you to stop anyone without resorting to outright savagery, yourself. Self-defense is WAR in microcosm. Wars are won by attacking and destroying the enemy. Period.

You do not like violence? Neither do I. However, when you find yourself in a situation that is being foisted upon you by one or more others who do not care in the least what the hell you like or don’t like, and who intend to cripple or to kill you, or to savage your loved ones, then you do not have the luxury of behaving in a manner that you’d “prefer”. It is an emergency and you now must act in a manner that the emergency requires. You must get tough, brutal, remorselessly savage, and you must completely disregard anything and everything except dropping your foe, lest you be dropped by him.

Train yourself to ATTACK when you are attacked. Forget about your shirt or your jacket. Let the assailant rip and tear it. Forget about what he is now attempting to do to you. Concentrate immediately upon what YOU can do to HIM — and do not be influenced in the least by the idea that maiming your attacker might be “too harsh”.  Hopefully, it will be harsh enough!

Don’t get fancy, and don’t try to be acrobatic or impressive. If you’re a judo man don’t be so foolish as to risk your life by trying tomoenage. That’s for the mat! Besides, if you can place your foot in his stomach for the throw, why not just kick him in the testicles as hard as you can? You can always strike or kick a man faster and more safely than you can move in, off-balance him, and go for a throw.

If you’re a karate man do not wait to block. Get those OPEN hand strikes more highly polished, and train to kick the testicles and the knees the very second you see an adversary begin his onslaught.

Yell. Throw dirt. Use a fork or a table knife. Pick up a small chair or stool. NEVER fight fair. Never think fair! This is WAR.

The person who thinks “defense” is only trying to avoid injury, he is not trying to inflict it. The person who is attack minded knows and strives to apply force, and to cripple and maim his attacker. This carries a morale edge to the fight that is of incalculable value to the defender who employs it.

No, this is not pleasant, and it isn’t “artsy”. But it works.

The second that you perceive aggression being directed against you, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!

Neither I nor anyone else can offer you a guarantee of victory. Neither my System nor any other in the world is foolproof or perfect. However, when you use the right principles, possess the right attitude, and employ the best techniques, the odds favor you, immensely. And it’s the right principles, attitude, and techniques that we offer you. Your responsibility is to understand, accept, and develop them.
"The quality of your life is a direct reflection of the quality of your communication with yourself and others." - Anthony Robbins
http://jahozafat.com/0029585851/MP3S/Movies/Pulp_Fiction/dicks.mp3
"Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." ~ Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC

07 août 2010 à 18:35:37
Réponse #115

** Mathieu **


Combative Psychology "cold aggression" vs "going berserk"

L'intervention de Richard Grannon est excellente comme souvent. Du réalisme bien comme on l'aime, facilement assimilable, et qui parle tout de suite.

Il insiste notamment sur la nécessité de lever les interdits pour laisser s'exprimer les acquis de l'espèce.

Citation de: streetfightsecrets.com
"Survival means desperate struggle for survival!"

____________________

Martial Analysis: Learning at All Costs

Ce texte est très intéressant, et la démarche de démystification, d'analyse et de formalisation qui le sous-tend aussi.

Cela dit, à sa lecture je ne peux m'empêcher d'avoir un a priori négatif - peut-être tout à fait injustifié  :-[

Martial Analysis: Learning at All Costs est construit comme un syllogisme : donc très convaincant.

En même temps, quand tu as bossé à la NSA tu sais comment présenter avantageusement tes idées...

Quoiqu'il en dise, sa présentation fait un peu genre « Moi j'ai tout compris aux secrets du Silat, et avec mon DVD tu vas pouvoir maitriser rapidement toutes les techniques, et mieux même que certains spécialistes qui ne comprenaient pas réellement ce qu'ils faisaient... »

Est-ce que quelqu'un a vu le DVD Practical Unarmed Combatives: Volume 3 ou testé ces techniques du Triangle ?

Le résultat est-il à la hauteur de la démonstration ? ou est-ce un énième emballage marketing pour vendre du vieux en en faisant du neuf ?

Concrètement je n'ai rien vu de neuf dans l'extrait qui suit, mais si cet outil du triangle est utile pour une assimilation plus rapide et effective des techniques alors pourquoi pas ?

ça fait un peu « noeuds au cerveau » tout de même ces histoires de vecteurs et de bissectrices lol

Un extrait sur YouTube : Practical Unarmed Combatives Volume 3: Low-Line Destructions And Secrets Of The Silat Triangle - la partie sur le Triangle débute à 5:42



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfmZcz3z-r4

____________________

L'article The Enormous Error Of Defensive Self-Defense de seattlecombatives.com est également très intéressant.

Citation de: seattlecombatives.com
DEFENSE IS THE PROPER MOTIVE FOR TRAINING AND FOR DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE SKILLS. BUT OFFENSE IS THE ONLY MEANS OF ITS ATTAINMENT.

If you are serious about self-defense — really serious — then drop all of the “compassion” nonsense. Forget about “you don’t want to hurt anyone”. Stop believing that some fantasy skills from some mountaintop in Asia can equip you to stop anyone without resorting to outright savagery, yourself. Self-defense is WAR in microcosm. Wars are won by attacking and destroying the enemy.

J'adhère complètement à cette idée.
L'argumentaire développé dans ce texte est utile pour représenter correctement les points cruciaux et permettre à chacun de réévaluer ses croyances pour peut-être changer et évoluer vers plus de réalisme, ce qui est très bon en soi.


Les techniques de contrôle peuvent-elles être parfaitement intégrées à un système purement offensif ?

Qu'en pensez-vous ?


____________________

Merci Serge pour tous ces liens  :up:



« Modifié: 08 août 2010 à 18:55:30 par Mathieu »

07 août 2010 à 21:10:01
Réponse #116

** Serge **


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.html

Citer
The 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  :


Citer
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.
« Modifié: 07 août 2010 à 21:40:42 par ** Serge ** »
"The quality of your life is a direct reflection of the quality of your communication with yourself and others." - Anthony Robbins
http://jahozafat.com/0029585851/MP3S/Movies/Pulp_Fiction/dicks.mp3
"Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." ~ Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC

08 août 2010 à 18:15:39
Réponse #117

Kilbith


Citation de: serge
Sumitomo Arima Sensei ( Judo: Japanese Physical Culturer - 1906 ) sur ce sujet  :


Citation
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.

Perso, kansetzuwaza, à coté que shimewaza, me semble aussi fondamental. Je ne distingue pas obligatoirement ces deux techniques des techniques d'atewaza. Le problème vient du fait que l'on pense exclusivement à ces deux techniques quand elles sont exécutées lentement, alors qu'on peut tout a fait les exécuter rapidement (comme une frappe), c'est d'ailleurs assez explicite comme mode d'exécution dans les koshiki katas. Dans ce cas kantsetzuwaza et shimewaza deviennent de bons guides de travail allant dans le sens de la destruction efficiente (efficiency) de (V)RM. On retrouve l'esprit "atewaza".

Un bon article sur les effets létaux de shimewaza : http://judoinfo.com/chokes6.htm
« Modifié: 08 août 2010 à 19:20:49 par kilbith »
"Vim vi repellere omnia jura legesque permittunt"

08 août 2010 à 18:52:59
Réponse #118

** Mathieu **


Citation de: Nick Hughes
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.

Certes c'est un discours discriminant. Et ça va pas faire plaisir à ceux qui sont comparés à des paintballers...

Mais en même temps quand il est question de situations de survie peut-on laisser les disciplines sportives prétendre à quelque légitimité ?


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.

Je suis tout à fait d'accord - je me suis mal exprimé.
Effectivement le contrôle est spécifique aux forces de l'ordre ou autres.

Et même les étranglements cela ne va pas dans le sens d'une extraction rapide...

Maintenant que j'y repense, ça tombe sous le sens : c'est effectivement totalement « pointless ».

08 août 2010 à 19:04:07
Réponse #119

Lemuel



Effectivement le contrôle est spécifique aux forces de l'ordre ou autres.

Et même les étranglements cela ne va pas dans le sens d'une extraction rapide...

Maintenant que j'y repense, ça tombe sous le sens : c'est effectivement totalement « pointless ».

Le contrôle c'est aussi le mec qui te ceinture, ou t'étrangles pendant que son collègue arrive pour avoiner non ?
À intégrer à un système offensif, je ne vois pas trop non plus. Mais si certaines écoles préconisent la connaissance d couteau pour mieux s'en prémunir, qu'en est-il des ces techniques là ?
Don't watch the tool, the work it can do
Watch the man that's behind, yeah !


http://natureandforcefield.tumblr.com

21 juillet 2018 à 20:29:41
Réponse #120

Hurgoz


"Considérant qu'il est essentiel que les droits de l'homme soient protégés par un régime de droit pour que l'homme ne soit pas contraint, en suprême recours, à la révolte contre la tyrannie et l'oppression." DUDH

21 juillet 2018 à 21:38:43
Réponse #121

mrfroggy


La vache tu as sortis la pelle Cold Steel , pour remonter à la surface ce post la  ;#
Les Hommes qui sont nés pour jouir véritablement de la vie font ce qui leur plaît, à l’heure où cela leur plaît, et ne perdent pas leur temps à prévoir l’avenir, à se garer de catastrophes imaginaires. (Alfred Capus)

21 juillet 2018 à 23:14:21
Réponse #122

Sou


Plutôt intéressante comme interview.

Personnellement j'ai un peu de mal avec ce genre de discours qui semblent un peu approximatif (faute à sa brièveté probablement), mais il en ressort l'essentiel: savoir s'adapter tout en ayant une base solide de drill.

Citer
l’opinion d’un combattant professionnel appartenant en plus à une unité d’élite
Il est dans quelle unité ce monsieur?

Sou.
"La dissidence n'est pas une fin, mais seulement un moyen, celui de faire à sa façon."

 


Keep in mind

Bienveillance, n.f. : disposition affective d'une volonté qui vise le bien et le bonheur d'autrui. (Wikipedia).

« [...] ce qui devrait toujours nous éveiller quant à l'obligation de s'adresser à l'autre comme l'on voudrait que l'on s'adresse à nous :
avec bienveillance, curiosité et un appétit pour le dialogue et la réflexion que l'interlocuteur peut susciter. »


Soutenez le Forum

Les dons se font sur une base totalement libre. Les infos du forum sont, ont toujours été, et resteront toujours accessibles gratuitement.
Discussion relative au financement du forum ici.


Publicité