She was an experienced hiker and accomplished martial arts student described by her self-defense instructor as "120 pounds of pure tough."No you haven't, Ken, not in a real fight, against a man whose intent is to kill. Those don't take place on mats, wearing protective gear, and with a sensei enforcing rules of engagement, including when to break off. And I don't know of too many dojos where full contact between men and women is allowed--or too may insurance carriers that would underwrite such an operation.
"I've seen her take down men twice her size," said Ken Blumreich.
Look at the specs on the alleged assailant: He's 60 years old, 5/10", 160 lbs., bad teeth...doesn't sound like the most formidable of opponents, does he?
She was less than half his age, in the prime of health and strength and endurance...
We touched on this here. Life just isn't like the movies, where dashing heroines employ their fighting skills to dispatch multiple hulking killers with skill, and most of all, style. The simple fact is, except for extremely rare anomalies, a woman stands no chance against a man in a mortal physical confrontation.
I truly don't mean to disparage martial arts--they have their place in the toolkit. But ultimately, when confronted by a man intent on doing her vicious harm, a woman needs the ability to respond with lethal force, meaning she needs training, she needs the mindset, and she needs an equalizer.
15 comments:
David,
Speaking as someone with experience as both a martial artist and a self-defense instructor, I both agree and disagree. Is it possible for a 120# woman to take down a male opponent who outweighs her by 40+ lbs? Absolutely yes, unarmed even. However, it takes a true combat midset and what used to be referred to as 'pure meanness'. Most people have been socialised out of that mindset and that meanness. I know a couple of former students who could prevail in such a situation. They don't do well in the ring since the techniques that they are most practiced in are not techniques that translate well to that environment. It is difficult, if not impossible, to free spar with the quick and dirty deadly force techniques. The other side of the equation is that many instructors are not willing to teach truly effective techniques since they are ugly and brutal. Finally, few students and few instructrs are willing to work on the perfect repetition that builds muscle memory to the point where the actions are well-nigh instinctual. All of the above is necessary for truly effective unarmed self-defense. There is no magic pill, and no magic system.
That being said, situational awareness, the ability to utilise ones environment, and the items therein, as force multipliers are tools that greatly increase ones darwinian score. Carrying a firearm that one has trained with extensively is another great force multiplier. However, without situational awareness it is just another useless gadget. If you do not recognize that you are in danger then all of your self-defense tools are useless.
No, my wife, or daughter (if I end up having one) will not be running in the woods unarmed with a 60-80lb black lb. If they choose to run in the woods they will do so armed as well as the situation allows in company with 1 or more 200#+ English Mastiffs and all of the mental tools I am able to instill in them.
If you allow someone to get the drop on you, you may be doomed no matter what tools or training you have. Training should always include staying aware of your surroundings and listening to your inner voice that warns if something doesn't seem quite right. The news mentioned that she was alive for 3 days after she went missing. It is horribly tragic that she wasn't able to get away during that time.
I gotta agree, a person who is unwilling to maim or kill an assailant will, no matter how well trained, lose the fight. When I need to find a new Sensei (due to relocation), I find the ones that teach a martial art as a self defense, not as exercise. I learn the same moves but they try to instill the survival mindset.
I recall my first Tae Kwon Do Instructor would dedicate one class a month to teaching and practicing the most brutal of techniques. The one I recall the most was that they did not bother to teach how to disarm an opponent, but rather that if at all humanly possible, get inside the opponents reach, knock the weapon aside, grap their hair (this was back in the 80's when bald men were rare) and drive your knee into their face with all the speed and strength you had.
As as martial artist I can only say two things - she was a blue belt. . . in my school that is still a low level student, she was still learning so probably could not react as well as people think. and two, if she got wacked in the head from behind there is damn little anyone could do to stop things from there. . . .
Gregg, I have no disagreement with anything you said. I qualified my argument by acknowledging "extremely rare anomalies," and you have basically confirmed that out of all the women you have known in your life, even while being steeped in a martial arts environment, that you personally have known in all that time only "a couple former students who could prevail."
I believe we're on the same page here.
That said, there is one other side to the equation that has not been addressed--even for these remarkable women you know: You've expressed confidence in how well they can dish it out. How well can they take it, which is the flip side, particularly from a person who is more powerful? That's something that only makes itself known with experience--you really need to feel the impact and see your own blood to know what that does to your fighting spirit.
Tough isn't how well you can dish it out or how hard you can hit or kick, it is how much can you take, how hard can you be hit or kicked and keep coming until you prevail.
And no matter how tough you are, if the other person is just as tough and has all the advantages you can be taken. The true survivor never lets them have all the advantages.
Martial arts is useless in a fight for survival unless the other person knows all the steps to the dance and cooperates. Been there, on the untrained martial arts side and have always prevailed.
There may be some instructors somewhere teaching true martial arts techniques, but from what I have experienced most are just choreographers.
My last sensei was an RN who I think had seen just a few too many victims of violence. She taught Tae Kwon Do per "The Book" in order to build discipline and focus, but also spent as much time as she could, both with her adult and her youth (under 15) classes, teaching dirty tricks (don't knock the knife away, if you can, grab the hand, break the wrist, and stick the blade in their ribs), situational awareness, and common sense. And she taught at the YMCA down the street.
When it comes to Martial Arts, you need to actually shop around for an instructor, sit in on a few classes, and don't be afraid to find a new instructor if the teaching is not adequate.
I've practiced martial arts for over fifteen years. I've fought black belts that I could wipe the mat with and I've had my head handed to me twice. I can state without any hesitation that I'd rather have a gun in my holster than all those years of fighting. In fact, that's why I've been less active for a while.
Hand-to-hand combat is mean, dirty, vicious, and extremely unpredictable. Very little of that reality is taught today. The only exception I can think of is in the special forces. Even there they don't go into dangerous situations without a rifle, a pistol, and a combat knife. Any guesses why?
"Even there they don't go into dangerous situations without a rifle, a pistol, and a combat knife. Any guesses why?"
Because the bad guys have rifles, pistols, and knives too?
DO I get a cookie?
I think people need to remember that the origins of martial arts date back to a time long before the gun appeared. While weapons were preferred, hand-to-hand combat was not uncommon on the battlefield. Martial arts was also not just about combat and self-defense using one's body; it was part of larger philosopy in living a harmonious life.
That said, martials arts seem to have transformed more into a sport nowadays. Many of the techniques you see in kickboxing, judo, and tae kwon do can be used in self-defense. But again, their original purpose was for defense against unarmed attacks (or if your opponent was armed, it was with a sword, dagger, bo, or similar weapon).
For those who think unarmed martials arts are useless for self-defense, go read about Krav Maga (Israeli). It's about pure survival. Or step into the ring with a true Muay Thai fighter. Those guys are some of best conditioned fighters in the world and they can take punishment like you wouldn't believe.
In the end, when fighting for your life, use your gun. No gun? Use your other weapon (mine is a knife). No knife? Improvise and find an object nearby. No time? Then all you've got is your body, and just pray your martials arts training and instincts can save you.
I have to agree that most male are stronger and will be hard to defend against. By all means carry and learn to use improvise weapons for an equalizer. Theres no such thing as a fair fight, even against mano mano.
Women Self Defense
Ken Blumreich here. I just wanted to take a moment to set the record straight regarding the quote that was attributed to me. I did not claim that I had seen Ms. Emerson take down men twice her size. What I actually said (in response to being asked about her level of skill) was that I had seen her fight to a standstill guys half again her size (with the implication being, of course, that I have seen this in the context of a carefully controlled environment in the dojang).
Even as a martial arts instructor in a school and art that stresses practical application and legitimate self defense, I harbor no illusions about the efficacy of traditional martial arts in a situation where the attacker is substantially larger, stronger or better armed than the defender. Martial arts and self defense training are valuable tools that add to your likelihood of success in such situations, but they are hardly a guarantee of safety. And of course, no amount of training or skill will protect you if you are caught unawares (which, sadly, is what appears to have been the case in Ms. Emerson's abduction).
In any event, I stand by my initial statement; Ms. Emerson was tough as nails. She was far stronger and far more proficient of a fighter than one would expect from someone of her size and build. Saying that, however, is not the same as saying that her martial arts training qualified her to defend herself against any attacker in any circumstance.
Ken,
Thanks for taking the time to clear that up. Getting misquoted like that must be frustrating.
Yes, thanks, Mr. Blumreich--I'll do a post tomorrow to call attention to your clarification.
MadRocketScientist, yes, that was frustrating. Again, I was very impressed with Ms. Emerson's skill and ability on the mats, but I certainly didn't appreciate the press altering my original quote for sensationalist impact.
Mr. Codrea, I certainly appreciate your graciousness in this matter. Thank you.
Post a Comment