Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by tellner, Jan 22, 2009.
It's short enough not to need a summary. Take a look at the original.
It's a very good article, I'll moan about the couple of bits I don't like...
This is a great idea but simply not practical unless you are willing to be injured or maimed or killed in PRACTICE - a real attack may occur at a level of intensity WAY beyond anything any sensible person would try and rehearse.
I really doubt that there is any evidence to show that 'modern' predators are any different psychologically than predators 100, 200 or 500+ years ago.
Other than the above, everyone should read and consider the merit of what Scott Sonnon says.
All the best.
This is bad. This is very bad.
Though we usually see this sort of BS in traditional martial arts trying to claim exaggerated historical lineages (see: Ninjutsu, most Korean martial arts), bad historicity seems to be working it's into the RBSD community now.
Now, we have to ask: what ancient training methods is he referring to? What ancient times are in reference; Ancient Egypt? Babylon? The Trojan War? Spring and Autumn China? How does he know how people trained for hand to hand combat in these times? Where is he getting this information from? What oppressive rulers is he referring to? How did they restrict possession of weapons?
From where is he identifying this new felon? How does he know that the "new" felon" is different from the "old" felon? How does he know his modus operandi? Why are we to assume that all self-defense altercations will involve a person of the exact same mindset?
Now that I think of it, the same sort of criticism could be made of the entire article, and not just that bullet point; almost nothing he says has any kind of citation attached to it. No statistics, no legal/medical cases, not even any personal anecdotes. He just makes points without backing any of them up.
I have some of Scott Sonnon's DVDs on leglocks, and I quite like them, but this article is awful. Not even in terms of the attitude or ideas it's trying to put forth, it's just badly written and completely lacking in citation.
In spite of the 'Claw's' criticism, Mr. Sonnen is spot on. He might not have cited his references, but then if he's writing his opinion, he doesn't have to. Overall: good read.
Great article-love Scott Sonnon he's a real battler,he's overcome so much in his life if anyone can talk about fighting,he can.
He does if he wants to be taken seriously. Or pass a high school English class.
Anyone who calls himself a "Doctor"* should understand how to use a footnote.
*Like this one.
In general I thought the article was OK, he didnt say anything others haven't said. It read like an infomericial. A few things really bother me.
"Martial sports have nothing to do with physical violence".WTF The US military recognizes the value of martial sports in preparing our troups for battle. It doesnt get more violent than combat!
"Ancient training methods are superior". What is he selling here?
Separate names with a comma.