One of the single best tests of effectiveness is the pad test: if a technique can defeat the will power of a partner holding a shield, it is generally effective for self defense. For appropriateness, the uncomfortable consequence criterion is helpful: if one would dislike the personal or social consequences of using a technique, they should select another.
Without further ado, these are some of the worst possible martial arts techniques for self defense.
The Crescent Kick
A martial technique is most effective as either a circular or linear attack. Circular attacks gain power through momentum. Linear attacks gain power through speed of delivery. The crescent kick attempts to do both, yet accomplishes neither.
Whether it is an outside to inside, inside to outside, or reverse crescent kick, this author has severe doubts that any variation could be trained to the point of actually incapacitating an attacker. In fact, this kicking variation demonstrates so few principles of effective striking that it is practically harmless to a committed opponent. Any reader who disagrees is challenged to attempt bag work or pad work with this kick and post their training publicly. This author reserves the right to chuckle at the results. If the unfortunate proponent of this kick even manages to remain standing, they will find their target of aggression peacefully undisturbed, as though no kick was ever thrown. Therefore, this kick is best suited for self defense by self abnegating pacifists, masochists, and cowards who will throw a kick, but not to save their lives.
The ineffectiveness of this technique derives from the anatomy and physics of its execution. The smallest muscles of the hip (the hip flexors) are used to launch the kick in a narrow arc which disperses all its power by reversing the direction of the initial kick just prior to impact. Any power this kick might have delivered is wasted before impact in the execution of a foolish, ostentatious crescent which may provide some aesthetic appeal to audiences, but will be pure comedy at best to an opponent.I've actually seen this technique recommended as a gun/knife disarm, which should demonstrate that many martial artists will teach techniques without actually using them in training.
Why is it trained?
Despite the almost complete ineffectiveness of this kick, it provides great benefit as a training aid to the actual power kicks: front, side, roundhouse, and back kicks. It does this by training the flexibility of the hips, legs, and back while also training balance and accuracy. In this capacity, the crescent kick can be useful for board breaks and pad work as a way of training the transmission of power from an unusual, purposefully restricted angle. Despite its training benefits, this technique is as much a replacement for the other kicks as pushups are a replacement for palm heel strikes.
Alternatives
Pretty much any kick is preferable to the crescent kick in a self defense situation. The front kick or side kick could be used more quickly and effectively in nearly every situation a crescent kick could be used. For the reverse crescent kick, the hook kick or back kick would be superior alternatives.
The Hollywood Backfist
In similar form to the crescent kick, the hollywood backfist is depressingly ineffective, anatomically/physically inappropriate, and yet, remains a photogenic technique that must be explicitly trained out of the younger generation. Check out the TKD black belt (who should know better) demonstrating it below.
Why is it trained?
Unlike the crescent kick in its variations, the hollywood backfist confers no training benefit and does not directly or indirectly benefit any other upper body strike. If you ever encounter a martial arts school advocating this technique for self defense or even training, immediately leave. They are misguided at best.
I would carefully teach this technique to someone who I hated so much that I was teaching him to perform martial arts techniques wrong so he would get his ass kicked. I would use this technique if I was cast for lead in a low budget 80's action film parody as the final climactic finishing blow against the evil villain with the eye patch and mullet. I would use this technique in a street fight if I was hoping my opponent would step out of range, grab my wrist, and dislocate my shoulder. Never use the hollywood backfist under any circumstance.
Alternatives
When striking to the rear, use a proper back fist instead, as pictured:
Other alternatives when striking to the rear are the rear elbow strike and reverse elbow strike, both of which can be used at the same range as the hollywood backfist with exponentially more power. A proper reverse elbow strike can break ribs and rupture internal organs. A "proper" hollywood backfist can dislocate a shoulder (your own).
The Headbutt
A favorite of bullies, martially naive macho men, and cinemaphiles, the headbutt is a technique that seemingly transcends common sense. It is a literally bull headed approach to self defense.
The average person, if you told them how hard you can hit, would want to see evidence in the form of punching bag training, or some kind of accelerometer. For whatever reason, the headbutt is immune to this standard of proof. Perhaps it owes to the sheer hardness of the human skull. Perhaps it impresses the untrained to see a display of confidence like seizing an opponent and attempting to smash their face with your head. Regardless of the reasons for its uncritical adoption, the headbutt remains an awful technique.
The headbutt is awful because it is both ineffective and inappropriate for the majority of situations. To test effectiveness, go right ahead and attempt to repeatedly smack a 100 pound punching bag as hard as you can with your skull for 30 seconds. Go ahead, I'll wait. *Jeopardy Theme* All right, now throw an elbow strike into the back as hard as you can for 30 seconds. Which one smacked the bag harder? For the appropriateness test, which one makes you dizzy and sore? I rest my case.
Why is it trained?
A better question might be why the headbutt isn't trained. In every school I've taught and participated in, none of them have actually prompted us to train the headbutt as an actual technique on actual pads. Rather, its mentioned as a kind of stand alone fight ender with an aura of respect, as though a good solid head butt can maim, knockout, and kill on contact. These beliefs, if tested on actual equipment and fully resisting opponents, are swiftly refuted. A full force headbutt, though using a much larger surface area is about half as powerful as a punch from the same person. The technique is also jarring to the trainee and may cause injury. A lose lose proposition.
Alternatives
Most upper body strikes can surpass the power of the headbutt with a mere couple months of practice. The forward elbow can be used as a replacement for the headbutt in nearly any situation and can cause much more damage to the opponent's face with proper technique. To throw a headbutt usually requires one to grab the opponent's head first, so throwing an elbow instead of a skull is hardly an unreasonable replacement and will almost always result in more damage to one's opponent.
The Knife Disarm
Few martial techniques do so much to assuage one's fears yet provide so little actual protection as the knife disarm. The knife disarm is a martial pipe dream held by those who long for an imaginary back alley brawl where they smoothly disarm a knife wielding attacker and bask in the glory of their nonviolent conflict resolution while the attacker is arrested to burn with shame for their poor life decisions. The only problem with this fantasy is that knife defenses are rarely ever that effective. The reasons for the inefficacy of knife defense originate in the physical properties of all knives: they are small, very sharp, and concealable. A tool that can bleed you out ON ACCIDENT should certainly be very low on the list of weapons one would like to confront. The great fallacy inherent in the concept of a knife disarm is the notion that an opponent will not slash wildly as soon as they sense their weapon being taken or any sign of resistance. Simply slashing at someone wildly is nearly as effective as any "legitimate" knife techniques being taught and practiced in martial arts settings. Therefore, DISARMING knives is a false focus of self defense with potentially deadly ramifications. Rather, NEUTRALIZING one's attacker should always take priority. An unconscious, crippled, or dead opponent cannot cut you anymore. Therefore, learn knockout blows, bone breaks, and killing techniques. These will protect you better than years of knife defense focusing on mere disarmament. Those who pull knives deserve what happens to them, so it is important to reject the tactic of gently disarming those who think assault with a deadly weapon is a valid method of resolving grievances.
Why is it trained?
In an educational sense, learning knife techniques on nonresisting opponents can be a way of demonstrating principles of knife defense (offsetting, joint locks, strikes, distance, blade safety) in the absence of mortal terror. For this reason, there is a place for controlled knife defense training. The problem is when trainees leave the dojo pumped full of false confidence and stop practicing these techniques on resisting opponents.
Alternatives
The best defenses against a knife wielding opponent endorsed on this blog, in order of preference, are: 1. shoot the opponent from distance if you see they are armed and angry, 2. block the deployment of the knife and knockout the opponent if they are unarmed, close, and angry, 3. run for your life and don't stop, 4. knockout the opponent before they have decided to use their deployed knife, and 5. pull out a knife of your own for mutually assured mutilation. These options all assume that the opponent has been seen and has shown intent to harm. Invisible, calm attackers are unlikely to be detected and defended against. This author wishes there were better options to recommend, but knife fighting is a disadvantageous situation by design, and those who claim better tactics than those listed here are likely selling false comfort.
Most self defense experts focus on #4 of this blog's recommendations and skip the first 3. For discussion's sake, if you're stupid enough to skip the first 3 recommendations, this author's advice and typical advice look something like the following diagram with the exception that this blog states unequivocally that step 3 should be a knockout blow, and step 4 should be an arm break:
The problem with the above situation is with the attacker. The "sewing machine" is a more common attack style, where the attacker keeps the knife in the rear hand, grabs with the front hand, and stabs repeatedly. Your best bet against such an attack is to knock out the opponent before they can grab you, or run away. Those who focus on escapes and knockouts have better chances of survival. Those expecting the above scenario are likely to be filleted before they are ever positioned for the disarm. Most won't be fast or lucky enough to execute the above technique without incurring severe wounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment