The answer to this question is probably obvious, but I'd like to get a range of opinions. 1) Train for the worst case scenario, then anything less than that will be easy. 2) Train for what is likely to happen. Both arguements have pro's and con's. 1) is indeed a sound theory as techniques and combinations used against your worst nightmare should work against a "lesser" oponent. I would ask the question, do these "nightmare oponents" move and attack in a completly different way to "lesser oponents"? Studies perhaps would show that they don't (habitual acts of violence), but then studies would also show that the likelyhood of being attacked by your brickouthouse MMA expert is unlikely. Certainly within sexual attacks, it could be shown that the attack and motives are far more psychological than physical. So which is better? Training for the worst case scenario or the most likely?
I think this is a very good question, and is at the heart of most arguments round here about how to train self-defense. First, I'd like to point out some difficulties with training for the most likely attack. 1. How likely is "most likely"? I'm always a little dubious when I hear this phrase. If 51% of men wear purple socks, 48% wear puce and the rest wear other colors, then the "most likely" sock color to encounter on a man is purple, but not by a terribly large margin. (Ignore the puce-sock-wearers at your own peril.) How small does a group have to be that you can justify ignoring them? 2. Do the statistics apply to you? Statistics are wonderful things, but what may be true overall for inner-city New York may be utterly different for your little corner of rural Moldavia. And getting statistics that do apply to people just like you may be a little difficult. 3. What if it's your lucky day? Well, it's always possible that some vicious MMA champion will appear out of nowhere and terrorize your sleepy country village. And if you haven't trained for this possibility, you're likely to be a bit demoralized. On the other hand, there are equivalent difficulties with training for the "worst-case scenario". 1. The mythical opponent What, exactly, is the worst case? Surely this varies from person to person, and even for a given person, from day to day. Is the teleporting MMA-champion-turned-rapist more to be feared than a druglord's hitman? Or the acid-throwing loanshark your husband owes money to? Or the squadron of soldiers with rifles on a house-to-house search for revenge? 2. Tunnel vision Does training to take on the MMA champion make you less efficient at handling that weird perv who keeps following you around? Maybe, if you forget that that they probably think in different ways, have different resources at their disposal, and are vulnerable to different things. 3. Seven kids to feed Not everyone has the time, money and/or ability to train to a high enough level that they can feel any sort of confidence against their "worst-case" opponent. In many cases it may be practically impossible. I'd be interested to know whether people think there is an obvious answer to this question.
Mine is more of a question than a comment to the original post. When I think of 'worse-case scenario' training, the video of the Russian women defending themselves come to mind. http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14435 If repetition and practice is what helps us learn and perfect our techniques, can the body sustain that much physical 'trauma' from constantly training this way. Even in sparring sessions, you're suppose to vary your routine so that your body doesn't burn out and have sufficient time to heal from any injuries sustained.
