5 ms·

I'm curious: is it actually rational to use more harmful techniques against someone significantly larger than yourself, someone armed, or a group of people? It

I'm curious: is it actually rational to use more harmful techniques against someone significantly larger than yourself, someone armed, or a group of people? It seems as likely as not to be perceived as an escalation, and in those types of situations an escalation is likelier to mean you get permanently injured or killed. Of course, the best martial art is de-escalation and the next cross-country, but if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do.

jedimastert 6y ago
Generally, in self defense the idea is to do as little possible up until it's decided that the assailant intends harm no matter what, which is when the goal is to incapacitate as quickly as possible. The example I was given by a friend who is well versed in martial arts: > You are threatened by someone for your wallet. First and foremost, place your wallet on the ground, and run like hell when they bend over to pick it up. If they step over the wallet, incapacitate then run like hell. The "step over the wallet" moment is when the decision is made that if you don't do something, you're probably going to be killed. > if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do. This is where martial arts and self defense come it in. No matter how big the other person is, it's really hard to catch up to someone running away with a broken knee.
klyrs 6y ago
Fun thing about classes. I've had the opportunity to spar with people twice my size. I bounce off them. No, it is not rational to put hope in a method that has no chance of success, unless failure is certain death. Sometimes, the best that training can do is teach you when to accept defeat if that will minimize harm.

5 ms·

I'm curious: is it actually rational to use more harmful techniques against someone significantly larger than yourself, someone armed, or a group of people? It

by scarmig 6y ago

jedimastert 6y ago
Generally, in self defense the idea is to do as little possible up until it's decided that the assailant intends harm no matter what, which is when the goal is to incapacitate as quickly as possible. The example I was given by a friend who is well versed in martial arts: > You are threatened by someone for your wallet. First and foremost, place your wallet on the ground, and run like hell when they bend over to pick it up. If they step over the wallet, incapacitate then run like hell. The "step over the wallet" moment is when the decision is made that if you don't do something, you're probably going to be killed. > if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do. This is where martial arts and self defense come it in. No matter how big the other person is, it's really hard to catch up to someone running away with a broken knee.
klyrs 6y ago
Fun thing about classes. I've had the opportunity to spar with people twice my size. I bounce off them. No, it is not rational to put hope in a method that has no chance of success, unless failure is certain death. Sometimes, the best that training can do is teach you when to accept defeat if that will minimize harm.