For many years I have seen students being taught, self-defense techniques that just won't work. This is the second greatest sin, next to not teaching self-defense against common attacks at all.

I attended a self-defense seminar held by a very well known Karate instructor I know. He was a well known karate Sensei (teacher) but he was teaching a jiu-jitsu technique: how to defend against an attacker who grabs your lapel with one hand.

I had to restrain myself from screaming out at what was being demonstrated, "that won't work." I wanted to get out of my seat and show the participants the error in what was being taught and how to really defend against this assault.

The instructor was teaching the students just to reach up and grab and then turn and bend the attacker’s wrist to create a "nikyo", a term used in jiu-jitsu to signify a potentially powerful and painful wrist immobilization technique.

Everyone was being nice and co-operative, so all the defendants were able to apply this technique, a great way to learn the basics. But did they believe it would work against a strong, determined attacker? (1)

The problem with this and so many other techniques often taught in self-defense and in various martial arts is that they only work in the dojo and when others go along with you. If the attacker resists, fights back or counters, suddenly there is a struggle, an awkward strength against strength encounter. When this happens, normally the bigger and stronger person will win and at best all they do is mess up the effectiveness of the defenders poor technique and confidence.

To make this particular technique work the teacher of this seminar needed to teach the defender how to first distract or shock the attacker and then add an off-balancing technique to weaken any resistance. Only then might the technique have been truly effective.

But, if the students tried to use the newly trained self-defense technique they had just learned on the street the attacker would most likely just look at them and smile at the futile attempt to twist their wrist and move their arm into position for this technique. Thus what they were being taught was a real disservice to them. It could get them hurt, or even killed.

To be effective any self-defense technique should:

·         Be effective even if the attacker resists.

·         Allow a weaker defender to defeat a stronger aggressor.

·         Include a distraction, strike and/or unbalance if the technique is a throw or joint manipulation.

·         Be quick and effective -- taking seconds at most.

·         Not be overly complicated in execution-- simple to apply.

·         Minimize the danger of counter attacks and/or the reversal of the techniques.

·         Be able to render the assailant unconscious, incapacitated or in great pain (immobilization).

·         Be learned within a reasonable amount of practice.

In short, the self-defense techniques should be effective in real life, on street situations against aggressive attackers who intend you harm and will fight back.

Footnote:

(1)   When properly done the attacker is first distracted (or hit) while also being unbalanced. This allows the back of the assailants hand (the "V" area of the back of the thumb and first finger) to be easily turned (since concentration and balance is lost) into the defenders chest and the arm is manipulated into an "S" position (starting with the hand, wrist bent with forearm going the opposite direction with a bend in the elbow) so the wrist and forearm can be rotated in opposite directions while the body leans in to compress the physical structure.