How would you define "Effectiveness" in Self-Protection

Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)

A violence professional, uses a triangle to explain effectiveness, i.e., 

• Mechanics (I refer to this as Physiokinetic's);
• Knowledge of how to apply (the vastness of this part literally astounds me even today); 
• Ability to apply in a situation (ahh, the situation that is not taught in defense training, etc.). 

He tells us that to take away any one of these three is similar to a three legged chair where one leg gone and chair falls or your effectiveness collapses. (my words paraphrasing)

Now, I shift things a might from this point on to try and connect the dots of what Mr. M writes to what I use, i.e., good physiokinetic's, principles, are required to generate energy so one can receive and deliver force and power;

Also, you must have created, trained and encoded into conditioned memory the strategies and tactics that will make use of principles in methodologies and force levels to achieve your objective. The objective is important in both mind and application given any situation in which you become involved. My objective, for example, would be to stop the damage and escape and evade to safety. 

Finally, it comes down to a reality check, i.e., training and practice to encode conditioned responses to stimuli so that you can create ad-hoc methods and force requirements in chaos while receiving damage resulting in on-the-fly problem solving.  

MKA are a collective meaning if one or more are missing in training and applications it means bad news for the person trying to apply his or her effective application of methods meant for self-protection. When it comes to martial arts and karate self-protection efforts often one or two of these three are missing. Not good!

I would also add that using a term or phase without adequate understanding of what the phrase or term are meant to convey such as body mechanics can leave a practitioner missing the very three legs of a triangle to make it whole or to stand as a stool solid and firm on the ground, so to speak. 

For instance, to have the "ability to apply in situations" when taught in karate self-defense through technique-based models often lacking any creative side means a lot of what may be required to apply in a predatory situation unknown and not taught through a technique-based model would cause a freeze and failure to get-r-done. Technique-based training has a purpose but that purpose is not to teach self-defense or self-protection but to get a novice to learn, understand and apply principles through multiple methodologies rather than tie them down to specific, often static and lacking creativity, technique based drills, i.e., he punches this way and you block this way to defend, etc. 

There are dynamics involved in real, realistic, attacks both social and asocial that are not taught in martial arts or karate defense lessons. It comes down to not knowing what you don't know and especially not knowing yet what you don't know you don't know. A good reason many in the know people in martial arts and karate do such extensive research of stuff and exchange ideas, theories, and experiences with group members, call it group dynamics of learning and understanding. 

Finding out you can't go the distance in the mix of an attack is a bit late so trying to find and encoded conditioned responses with a good plan along with tactics and strategies that manifest conditioned creative actions under the stressors of violence seems a bit more productive let alone avoiding ramifications that are not nice because you failed to go the distance. 

Note: As I continue to contemplate effectiveness I thought this, “Your effectiveness in research, reality based training and practice and, especially, your understanding of all facets to the process of human violence is especially important, make sure you don’t neglect it.” 

Note: part of the first part are from Marc MacYoung’s article in FB on the subject, the rest is my interpretations. 

Bibliography (Click the link)