From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Model Mugging (long)
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:13:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: craycos.1992Sep13.161340.11119
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <BuH9pE.5yM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.165701.6027@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>
>>Dakin, from your previous posts I've inferred that you're a pretty big guy
>>(~200 lbs) and pretty strong. Even if you hadn't trained, do you *really*
>>think you'd have much difficulty overpowering a 105lb woman unless she
>>had a *lot* of training? Especially if you were *really* determined to hurt
>>her and hurt her badly? I don't think so...
>
>Well, my wife weighs 115 lbs, exactly half my weight, and I try to use
>only techniques that she (and the 12 year olds in my Kids Karate
>class) use successfully on me.  Now, if I wanted to, yes I could
>overpower her pretty easily.  But I hope she would manage to crunch my
>testicles, or break my foot, or poke me in the eye, or scratch arm, or
>SOMETHING.  Like I said, if I'm attacked by 5 guys, I'm going down,
>but I intend to leave my attackers with something to remember me
>by.

>>Size and strength are tremendous advantages. It takes a *lot* of training
>>to be able to deal effectively with someone twice your size - whether he
>>has any real knowledge or not. You're just not going to attain that level
>>of capability from *any* short course. You *may* get lucky, your attacker
>>*may* be stupid, incompetent, or easily intimidated. Do you really want
>>to trust your life to luck? Gimmicks and motivational pitches are
>>no substitute for sweat. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
>
>Ok, so full-time martial arts training is better than MM.  But MM
>teaches aggression, and I think that is more important in the short
>run than is the techniques used.

The problem is that MM *claims* implicitly that it is sufficient for a woman's
self-defense needs. It also implicitly claims that a few MM sessions are
superior to full-time MA training. I think that's fraud. I think it's a
vile exploitation of the legitimate fears of a lot of women in this
society. Maybe MM *classes* don't promulgate this view, but their advertising
hype sure as hell does. I don't object to them teaching women to respond
aggressively to an assault - I *do* object to them doing so without 
encouraging their students to acquire the strength and skill which will
increase their chances of success. A little knowledge really *is* a dangerous
thing. MM is very quick to cite anecdotal "evidence" of the success of their
program...they also cite anonymous anecdotes of women MAs who have
been attacked. None of this proves their claims.

>PS:  I may have overreacted to Andy's post, but it seemed to me that
>he was saying that untrained women didn't have a chance against an
>attacker.  I don't think martial artists should think that.

I don't think he *was* saying that, but Andy can (and usually *does* ;-) )
speak for himself. I think a lot of the things MM teaches are very good.
However, I have to question their promotional tactics. Inflated claims
are bad enough when you're selling toothpaste - when you're dealing 
with people's safety I think it's downright criminal. I have the same
objections to so-called martial arts schools which claim to be able
to make their students "experts" in a year or two. I'm an equal-opportunity
skeptic ;-).


Steve