One of the prime (and undertaught) principles of self defense is the self defense triangle. The concept is as follows, for those unfamiliar with it.
Self defense is composed of three elements: 1) Mindset, 2) Tactics and 3) Technique.
Mindset comprises a wide range of items, but can perhaps be best descriped as the defender’s overall mental disposition under the stress and chemical dump of an attack.
Tactics is the general actions that the defender will take during a particular self defense action. For example, taking out the perceived leader first in a multiple opponent situation (mind you this tactics is debatable itself).
Technique is the particular actions that the defender will take during a self defense action. For example, two arm deflect, elbow, escape.
So, what’s the debate?
In self defense discussions, the topic comes up often what percentage of importance would you apply to each?
Many self defense experts rank it Mindset (90%), Tactics (5%), Technique (5%).
So, what do you think? Give percentages, and preferably also your reasoning why. If this is a completely new concept for you and have any more questions about it, just let me know.
I’ve read your prior posts regarding self defense and found them very enlightening. Makes me want to go out and try taking a martial arts class. It would be great mind/body exercise for me, and my wife would get a kick out of seeing my 35-year-old ass get whupped by pre-teens on the practice mat.
But I digress…
From my uninformed perspective, I would skew the percentages as follows:
Mindset: 85%
Technique: 10%
Tactics: 5%
My reasoning here (and I know that this has no bearing in reality) is that mindset allows you to apply the technique which will then give you the latitude to utilize the tactics.
What do you think of my reasoning? Seems kind of wishy-washy now that I look at it, especially since I didn’t really deviate that much from the breakdown that you gave.
Some debater I am, eh?
“It’s only common sense,
There are no accidents 'round here.”
Well, I’m far from an expert in these matters. I won’t tell you my philosophy, because I don’t have one. I’ll tell you my attitudes, because I do have them.
I wouldn’t put mindset so highly, for two reasons. The bad reason is that mindset is less interesting than tactics and technique. I simply get bored listening to experts talking incessantly about tough-mindedness, alertness, searching in your soul for the right path, etc. This is a bad reason because a real self-defense student would study it whether or not it was boring; it’s the teacher’s job to teach important stuff, not fun stuff. So I’m not really looking at it with a practical mindset.
The point is, instructors tend to repeat the same “mindset” platitudes over and over. “Best way to avoid punch is not be there.” Are you going to teach us to dodge punches, or how to get the other guy not to throw the punch? “Don’t point your gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.” Well, I’m not willing to destroy my car, how can I transport my gun without pointing it at some part of my car?
I respect the importance of mindset, but I’m doubtful that the message always gets through.
Any similarity in the above text to an English word or phrase is purely coincidental.
Depends on the circumstances. In a battle of equals, Mindset is 100%
On the other hand, there just ain’t no way a wimp on the order of Gary Coleman or some such is gonna defend himself against George Foreman no matter how good Gary’s feeling, and no matter how many Big Macs George just ate. Mindset, tactics, technique, it doesn’t matter, if George suddenly decides he wants to eat a Gary Burger, Coleman’s meat.
In my experience, which is not slight, luck is always a factor.
Overrall, to try to answer your question fairly, I would agree that mindset is the most necessary factor in a self-defense situation. I don’t think you can apply percentages to it, because it’s a prerequisite. If you don’t have it the technique and tactics are completely worthless.
I would look at it this way as about average. If you have a degree of competence than mindset is like putting on a sock. You can do it at any time, under any circumstances, and it should be instinctual. It shouldn’t come into play. But Hey, everybody has a bad day, and it can be a big factor so what the hell 50%.
Tactics are probably the next 40%. Making the right decisons quickly are a big factor. If you got the first two squared away then merely competent technique, call it 10% should carry you through.
I have generally heard this problem presented as a tripod rather than a triangle, and I favor that conception because I feel it leads the student toward the answer I feel is correct: no element is sufficient; no element can be disgarded.
Mindset without technique and tactics is not helpful. You are clear and able to act/react, but you lack the knowledge and ability to lack effectively.
Tactics without mindset and technique is only frustrating. You know what you should do, but not how to do it. Also, your panic/nervousness/underconfidence paralyze you.
Technique by itself is haphazard. Repetitious training may carry you through a basic situation, but you are just as likely to misjudge the proper response and make th situation more dangerous rather than controlling it.
A couple of caveats: the above pretty much assumes a situation is going to become physical. I have found much more value in learning how to control situations to minimize the chances of violence. In that context, mindset is by far the most important, though it is always necessary to have the tactics & techniques prepared should the situation expand unexpectedly.
I think the ranking that you (Glitch) gave reflects that element as well as the physical. I think it also recognizes the traditional path in which the martial arts are tought:
physical repetition --> technique
analysis of technique --> tactics
meditation/focus/kumite/testing --> mindset
The first level is easy to obtain, representing simple physical investment. The second level requires competent instruction and internalization of technique. It implies both a mental openness and a level of dedication. The third level is gained only through long and arduous mental and physical trials. It requires a level of dedication and training far beyond tactical insight.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I think Spiritus hit the nail on the head - take away any one of these elements and you have collapse.
My mindset is my strong point. I am very confident and always try to win the battle before it is fought. Usually I do. Sometimes it comes to blows. And sometimes I must walk away. Or run. I would say that 45% of the battle is mindset. Lack this and the true enemy is yourself.
I have the tactical weakness of overestimating my opponents. I tend to exert myself greatly and go for pain over a quick victory. I would say that 35% of the battle is tactics.
My technique is the weakest, I lack disciplined repetition and proper guidance, but try to compensate with the other two factors. I usually find this works so I say that the remaining 20% is technique.
Now, what I have a problem with is how you apply percentages before the fight. If your opponent throws a tactical surprise at you, you’ll probably have to counter that with an extra tactical effort yourself, in reality leading ressources away from the two other elements - or am I completely wrong ?
Of course, if you are very well-trained, you can handle any technical or tactical challenge as a matter of course - and then the 90-5-5 perceantage sounds ideal to me.
If I may digress, another area where I’ve heard this discussed is motorcycle racing, of all things. The idea is the same: You only have a certain amount of concentration at any given moment. By endless, intelligent practice you are enabled to apply more and more concentration to riding competitively and less and less to the mundane tasks of actually handling the bike - and handling your fear, of course. Oh, and if you screw up, it hurts.
Glitch, if you could spare a word of advice: Are there any particular form of self-defense that are preferable for an uncoordinated beginner in his mid-thirties ? And are there any variants that one should stay clear of ?
I agree with the opinion of most self-defense experts that mindset is the most important factor of all. My particular reasoning is this. The human body is extremely frail. When you want to hurt someone, you can easily do so without much effort. A punch on the head or a kick in the groin will put * anyone * down for good. We humans, however, are not killing machines by nature. When faced with a dangerous situation, we often panic and lose our ability to assess our situation with logic. Even in the cases where we do stay cool, we often keep compassion in mind which may not always be the best thing. Tactics and techniques can all be drilled into you with practice, but the mindset is hard to change.
As a side note, similar reasoning resides in the military as well. Anyone can pull a trigger, but not everyone can kill…
When I put the percentages depends on my mood. Like when the students are getting lazy then technique suddenly jumps up to somewhere close to 100% importance.
I typically put the importance at:
75% mindset, 15% tactics, 10% technique.
The reason why I don’t give mindset a higher score like some of my colleagues is because as Syclla put it, if George Foreman wants a Coleman burger now amount of defensive mindset alone is going to save him.
But I do score it high. My reasoning is this. When you get into a serious fight your mind & body are going to do a couple of things.
First, it is going to dump a massive amount of chemicals into your body. This prepares you to either flee quickly or fight and sustain damage.
Second, your brain is going to revert to an animal instinctive self.
If you haven’t trained you mind to cope with the chemical dump. If you haven’t trained your mind to retain and use instinctively your tactics and techniques, you may as well not have bothered to learn them in the first place.
However, my colleagues argue that even the simplest of techniques and tactics are more than sufficient. Peyton Quinn, easily a bona fide expert, says all you need is the “Come and see the stars” technique (backfist/hammerfist to the head). I marginally agree, but I feel that advanced tactics and techniques can tip the scales even more in your favor once you have the defensive mindset down.
Mindset allows tactics to be used, tactics allow technique to be applied effectively for the big picture (escape or disabling of your assailant), technique needs to be simple and strong.
And now for some replies:
Boris, I hear you about the “platitudes”. This is not an effective way to teach mindset. This is where Scenario Based Training comes in.
Scylla said:
Very well put.
Spiny Norman:
That is a very interesting way to look at the problem. I would say you are entirely correct, except that martial arts training isn’t broken into distinct segments. All training should be improving all three elements all the time. Even when you throw technique at the air, you should be visualizing (mindset) and thinking about when this technique is good or bad (tactics).
A very clever thought, and an excellent point.
Always willing to spare advice… hey, just try to make me shut up.
My advice is don’t worry about anything except the following:
Find a good instructor.
Find a style that looks like fun.
Okay, that is the simple version. Clearly, I can’t help you with #2. That’s personal preference.
But for #1, ask lots of questions. How long did he train? In what style(s) (watch out for multi-black belts)? How effective does he think martial arts really is on the street? How much sparring does his school do? Continuous or point sparring? How much kata (kata is good, don’t let anybody tell you otherwise)? Does he focus a lot on competition? What does he think about competition? Does he focus more on kids or adults? Does he require a long-term contract? Does he make silly promises (I promise you will have you black belt in 4 years)? How often does he test? What does he think about testing? How do his tests work? Does he sell lots of badges, special clubs, etc?
After you ask/observe all that you’ll have a good idea on what kind of instructor he is. If it sounds like he is good, serious and fun, sign up!
Don’t worry about being older (you aren’t but thats for any older folks who might be listening), out of shape, or uncoordinated. That’s what you’re going to martial arts for. You’ll pick that stuff up.
Best of luck!
OSU!
Zor:
I disagree entirely. The human body is remarkably resilient, especially to blunt damage, like a fist or foot. Yes, a well placed strike can put somebody down, it does happen, but it isn’t typical. A typical street fight is an very bloody affair with both people being struck many times.
Glitch,
As usual, I find you and I are in broad agreement in our approach to the martial arts. I must disagree, with all due respect, with Mr Quinn’s position. The world is far too braod to imagine that a single technique will be applicable to all situations. For a trivial example: I have at times been forced to restrain friends who were out of control. It is difficult to do this without injuring them if all you have to call upon is a backfist-hammerfist. Confrontations take place in a myriad of environments, ranges, situations, etc. Minimizing techniques means minimizing options, both at the physical level and the tactical level. Sometimes the proper response is to inflict pain, sometimes it is to inflict harm, sometimes it is to control, sometimes it is to kill. You need the mindset to uderstand teh difference and the tactics to formulate your response. And you had better have the techniques available to make that response effective.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Oh, I almost forgot. Excellent list of things to look for in an instructor, though I would add that belts in multiple styles are a problem nly if they indicate a lack of commitment, fortitude or attitude in fllowing a particular path (disclaimer – my rank spans 3 distinct styles). Two things to add for any who might be considering beginning training: be wary of instructor who will not allow you a trial period before demanding money (at least one class, sometimes a week or more); and always try to at least watch 3 classes before making a decision (many schools shift emphasis from class to class. What you saw the first day may not be a good example of what the training is like generally).
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Have you read “Real Fighting” or “A Bouncer’s Guide” by Peyton Quinn? I really cannot do the books justice in the space here. Quinn’s point is that the single technique is sufficient (also, he feels that it is the single technique that gives the biggest bang for the buck, taking into account simplicity, speed, power, etc), not necessarily that more technique isn’t good. For example, he teaches mainly that technique (but also a few knees and elbow strikes) in his SBT classes and then focuses on the tactics and mindset, especially mindset, of applying it, as opposed to forcing students to study years of technique before they are deemed able to defend themselves.
I don’t totally agree with Peyton Quinn either, but the guy sure does have one hell of a lot of experience. And a nice guy too. I have chatted with him online. Real good spirit. I really want to meet him someday.
IIRC, as he puts it, if you are going to get real good at one technique and only one technique, make it the “come see the stars”.
“Real Fighting” doesn’t really make that claim. Quinn is talking about purely serious fights. Again, I cannot do the book justice, because I would have to c&p the whole book. If you have the time and money I would extremely recommend it. It is a great book.
I think it depends on highly the context - for instance in a stalker type situation mindset is going to be extremely important to firstly avoid any confrontation and second to steal momentum if there is a physical confrontation. In a street fight however, you have to assume that you are both ready to go - and that your opponent has not only done this before but quite possibly has some formal training as well. In this case you are coming much closer to a competition scenario (minus the safety of a ref and gloves) and the percentages will get a lot closer…maybe 30-35-25 (Mindset,Tactics, Technique). In an actual ring I’d give Technique and Tactics both 30 (or possibly both higher and mindset lower, see below), but a street fight has more variables and requires more thought.
In no case is any enough by itself - you are required to be ready to hurt your opponent and accept the risk of action, to plan an effective attack, and execute it with sufficient speed and power.
I myself found in competition that no matter how keyed up or ‘unready’ I felt before the bout - once I was hit I broke through the ‘ice’ so to speak and was operating optimally - it always became a contest of tactics and technique. The more bouting you do the more your mindset is neutral before the start. I was never in a street fight after I started taking Taekwondo - so I don’t really know how well that experience translates.
Glitch,
I have not read the book in question, so I will not tkae this too far, but even in teh “serious fight” category reliance upon a single technique against a trained opponent is a good way to get hurt, IMO. Every technique has a counter, and a skilled opponent can manipulate distance, timing and the external environment to shape any conflict in a direction that may not favor your single tool. As to the specific technique in question, as a trapper/grappler I find the traditional hammerfist one of the easiest techniques to enter against. Even a shortened hammerfist is easier to parry/slide/trap than a reverse punch or a boxing cross. I keep my eyes open for the book, though.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Very interesting topic, guys. Having almost no formal training in the martial arts, I probably shouldn’t say anything, but I’ll throw my $0.02 worth in anyway.
I think that mindset is up at about 90% and tactics another 7%. Now I say it’s that high because of how much of your life experiences involve using the mindset to avoid situations in which tactics or techniques become relevant. That is, having the appropriate mindset to avoid a self-defense situation, or (if it becomes inescapable) and having the tactics to withdraw rapidly and avoid having to use your techniques.
Being 5’ tall and having some minor physical disabilities, I recognize that there are relatively few techniques which will enable me to physically prevail over an assailant. If I get into a fight, I’m going to get hurt. Therefore, my mindset is geared towards (a) avoiding fights and (b) if I have to fight - which I have done- tactically addressing the situation by doing as much damage as possible, as fast as possible, in order to withdraw. Not a lot of technique in there.
I’d generally agree with Glitch. Personally, I think I’d put tactics a little higher, and technique a bit lower, but thats probably becuase I study an art (aikido) that has maybe ten techniques that would actually come in handy in a real fight. We just learn the rest so that we learn tactics and mindset. And cause they look pretty.
The best tactic I am aware of is to do something “out of sequence.”
Any fight or dangerous situation I’ve witnessed or been, seems to follow a set format, with all the players knowing their roles and following them.
There’s always the aggressive build up to a fight or, the stalk and intimidate lead-in to an attack. This is the time to do something out of sequence.
If you’re sure it’s going to happen, skip the foreplay.
The one time I exercised this tactic, my opponent was so confused and shocked that he later tried to set me straight about my “overreaction,” because he “hadn’t done anything yet.”
He was so confused and concerned about it that he wasn’t even angry.
That was in College, and the “fight” hadn’t even reached the pushing stage yet.
Scylla, not one but now two outstanding posts! I would love to give you a medal!
Boy, did you hit an excellent tactic and part of the defensive mindset on the head. Attack first, attack hard, attack again (that third one often gets missed). Don’t stop until you escape or your opponent goes down.
Hunsecker, I spent years sharing a dojo with an aikido instructor, and I gained a great respect for his art and his students. However, I think you and I are discussing technique in a different manner. True, there is an aspect of having a technique appropriate to the situation, but far more important is the ability to execute the technique you do use (whether determined by tactical choice or blind reaction) effectively. That ability, once the confrontation has degraded to the point where violence is inevitable, is one I would not underestimate. If you expect to lock me with nikyu then you had better know how to work the technique well.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Scylla, my previous post may come off as surprise that you could have two outstanding posts. This isn’t my feelings at all. I get very “giddy” when I read posts from people who seem to get it. I get very excited!
I would say that 45% of the battle is mindset. Lack this and the true enemy is yourself.