From: tmoody@sju.edu (T. Moody)
Subject: Self-Defense Books
Organization: St. Joseph's University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:52:31 GMT


A perennial theme of discussion here is about the link between martial
arts training and self-defense.  Some people apparently receive solid
instruction in self-defense, but many of us do not.  I happen to agree
with the suggestion that martial arts training can be effectively
complemented, in most cases, with self-defense training.  I believe--but
can't prove--that the end result of this complementary training should
be more successful (in self-defense terms) than "pure" martial arts or
self-defense training.  Trained martial artists are likely to know a
great deal about delivery of power, timing, and distancing.  They may
not know so much about patterns of attack/assault, targets, and
confrontations. 

Again, some arts *do* claim to integrate all of the above--Kung Fu San
Soo and Krav Maga come to mind--but many don't.

One way to do complementary self-defense training is to form a small
group of interested people, a book to use as a text, and begin
practicing.  What I'd like to do here is start a discussion on books
that people would or would not recommend as texts for this purpose.

I'll start with a couple that I have.

ANYTHING GOES, by Loren Christiansen.  The author is a martial arts
instructor (style not named) and career police officer, former military
policeman in Vietnam.  A good deal of rhetoric is used to defend the
thesis that "How you train is how you'll react," and he has a number of
stories of trained martial artists whose tournament training worked
against them in the street.

There is some good discussion of targets and how to hit them.  Although
it should be obvious that forefist punches to various parts of the head
are risky for the person doing the punching (unless he/she has iron
fists), I know that in Shotokan karate we practice head level punches
all the time, without a word of caution.  He also points out that
mid-level punches may not be as effective against a man wearing a heavy
coat, and that kicks to the inner thigh can be devastating.  As I say,
much of it is obvious--*when you think about it*--but often not taught.

He also emphasizes the need to practice multiple counters, something
that many "ippon"-oriented karate shools do not emphasize.  There is a
section that covers various sorts of drills that might be practiced.

In a sense, this book is ideal for complementary self-defense training,
since that is precisely what it is written for.  The author presupposes
that the reader has some training in a martial of the "kicky-punchy"
sort.  What it does not have much of is treatment of realistic patterns
of attack, however.

Rating: B.

THE COMPLETE SELF-DEFENCE COURSE, by David Mitchell.  Endorsed by the
Martial Arts Commission of Great Britain.

I picked this one up while in London.  I note that the author has a
number of martial arts books in print.  This book is intended for a
reader with little or no martial arts training.  It blends techniques
from a number of different styles.

What's good about this book is its attempt to keep things simple.  A
small number of versatile techniques are introduced and then elaborated
into a small number of practical combinations.  The combinations follow
the pattern block/evade--first echelon response--second echelon
response.  A first echelon response is a technique intended to stun the
attacker, possibly to discourage him from continuing the attack. 
Examples are a quick clawing strike to the face/eyes or a wrist/arm
lock.  Wrist and arm locks are taught as followups to the overhead X
block, where indeed they make a certain amount of sense.  The second
echelon response is the series of focused high-energy blows intended to
sufficiently incapacitate the attacker so that the defender can escape.
Some simple trips and throws are also covered.

Unfortunately, the book uses diagrams instead of photographs.

There is some useful discussion of types of attacks and levels of
response.  Also, at several points the author makes use of the claim
that before someone makes a committed attack, his/her eyes narrow
slightly.  I haven't noticed this to be true.

Rating: B

-- 
Todd Moody * tmoody@sju.edu  (That's St. Joseph's Univ., Philosophy Dept.)
            "In what furnace was thy brain?"  -- William Blake