The definition of 'Valid' in the context of the fight

This is a discussion on The definition of 'Valid' in the context of the fight within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin How does one define proper?? Matthew asked this question in this thread. He went on to provide a personal example ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59
Like Tree87Likes

Thread: The definition of 'Valid' in the context of the fight

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array CR Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    641

    The definition of 'Valid' in the context of the fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Temkin View Post
    How does one define proper??
    Matthew asked this question in this thread. He went on to provide a personal example of something that was considered proper/valid/good practice...I will use the term 'valid' from now on as in the title...in WWII but that some of his friends in the martial arts world later said were not.

    It is an excellent question given that we have different systems offered to us for our study and use, and different people with different backgrounds offering those systems. So let's consider this for a moment. I propose the following series of questions to start the ball rolling, and will throw in an opinion of some possible answers.

    Who defines 'Valid'?


    The winners. Those who have, over time, succeeded, won, survived, been victorious in violent encounters. Winners write history, winners tell us what wins more than loses, so winners determine validity of techniques or systems.

    Note, though, that I use the plural, and I use it deliberately. If something works once, if something works only under narrow or specific conditions, what they do should not be considered as valid in general, at least for a time. Like scientific theories, there must be testing and review by others. This leads to my attempt to define Valid which follows:

    What is the definition of 'Valid' in this context?

    It has to be successful more often than not. (It doesn't have to be successful every time; that's too much to ask of something developed by humans.) It has to be successful for more than one person. It has to be successful over a fairly wide range of situations and circumstances.

    Optional: Can't rely on some specific attribute or talent. (You have to be really fast or really flexible or especially strong to do it.) It has to be teachable. (Others need to be able to understand and apply it.) It has to have a history. (Repeatable results across a range of conditions and situations.)

    What I've got here feels lacking somehow. I think this is a reasonable start, however.

    Note some things about Validity, whether of systems or techniques. As I've noted previously, there can be more than one Valid technique, system, tactic, strategy. Some things are more Valid in some circumstances than others. (Team tactics vs. tactics used when alone are a prime example.) Just because something works, it doesn't make it Valid, even if it works repeatedly. (That one is going to make some of the consideration of Validity problematic, methinks. Fact is, positive outcomes do reinforce bad tactics sometimes.)

    Sure, people win by 'winging it'. They do that all the time. Doesn't mean they can keep doing it, though. And doesn't mean that codified and organized systems are useless. Obviously not. I believe a lot of people that are dead now would be alive if they had not decided to or had to wing it. Training beats not in the majority of cases. Question is, what kind training? How do we judge whether something, some technique, some tactic, some system, is going to be significantly better than working it out on the fly?

    How do we define Valid?

    That's the question. Anybody want to throw in an answer?
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    "Oh, bother," said Pooh as he rocked another mag into the 556R...

    www.inshadowinlight.com

    http://inshadowinlight.wordpress.com

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,857
    Valid, in both contexts put forth here mean something that works from a basic starting point, and evolves. But regardless of how a defensive technique works, the first thing it must do, and do every time, to be considered valid, is neutralize or diminish the threat, period. This is the starting foundation of a defensive technique.
    It apples to all defensive training. If a technique or system does not do this from the onset, with the most efficient movements, that can quickly evolve from defense to offense, it is not valid.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,800
    As some of us are professionals, and practice our subject every day, some of us are teachers who teach the subject, some of us (like myself) are has beens who used both older and newer technique, there are spanking new shooters. I believe the closest we can get to a valid technique is a concensus.
    redmc, gatorbait51 and Bad Bob like this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,857
    I'll give two examples; if you grab me by the shirt collar, is that a threat to me?
    No. It's the punch that is coming. My reaction must no focus on the hand or hands on my collar, but what is imminent, a punch.
    Immediately I must place my body in a position that negates a fist or knee strike.

    In the open, someone is drawing or have drawn on me. The technique here calls for two things; first minimize my target size and protect vital organs, and secondly, be able to return fire.
    By dropping into a bladed body position down to one knee, I have made his target smaller, and by using a weaver hold, have placed the bones of my support arm over my vital organs, maintaining the ability to return fire from the beginning to end, while negating his advantage.
    gatorbait51 and CommonCents like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,112
    How do we define Valid?
    In the context of the thread mentioned...

    Credibility....

    There are a lot of techniques all around the world, but does that make them valid. Is the WW2 era training still valid, considering the evolution of training? I would say yes to a very small point. So would it be proper to teach our soldiers today the WW2 training? IMO no.....
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,222
    Here is why I prefer a squared up stance more than a bladed stance.

    When startled: Humans have a tendency to naturally square to sound and light. Shoulders, Hips, and toes square to target rather than going into a bladed stance.

    IF you are taking incoming fire taking a round under the arm pit will likely affect many vital organs. I was speaking to a with a combat medic and he stated that it was much easier to plug someone up and their chances for survivability where increase if they had taken a frontal hit, vs someone who had taken one from the side.

    I personally have found my chances for mechanical over sway were increased when my support arm was bent in more of a weaver style grip vs. extended out in a isosceles style grip.


    Weaver is actually not different than and Isosceles stance (feet shoulder width squared to target) the only difference is bending your elbows and using isometric tension to hold the gun. The weaver stance was originally developed as nothing more than a competition stance used by Jack weaver in the old Leather slap competitions. My Co-worker uses a more of a weaver style grip and is vey good at so i'm not trying to trash it or bad mouth it. For me personally the Weaver stance works much better for clearing rooms or having to hold your gun for long periods of time, but for fast reactive shooting I have found a an iscoceles is faster and allows you to shoot from your core more .

    For me blading away from the target, limits you on movement and faster target acquisition. Anyway thats my .02 cents.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,636
    Asking as a question. Are rounds actually that likely to be stopped by radial, ulnar or humerus bones?
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,222
    Quote Originally Posted by tdave View Post
    Asking as a question. Are rounds actually that likely to be stopped by radial, ulnar or humerus bones?
    A bone is probably going to shatter or fragment from the energy from a a modern defense handgun round. A hard object like a bone would be more likely to deflect the bullet vs. stop one cold.
    AzQkr, gatorbait51, tdave and 1 others like this.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post
    A bone is probably going to shatter or fragment from the energy from a a modern defense handgun round. A hard object like a bone would be more likely to deflect the bullet vs. stop one cold.
    It takes a lot of energy to shatter a major bone, which means less penetration if the bullet then traverses the limb and strikes the torso.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    "Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way... The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way."

  11. #10
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post
    A bone is probably going to shatter or fragment from the energy from a a modern defense handgun round. A hard object like a bone would be more likely to deflect the bullet vs. stop one cold.

    ^this
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,222
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    It takes a lot of energy to shatter a major bone, which means less penetration if the bullet then traverses the limb and strikes the torso.

    Not as much as you think!

    The effect of pistol bullets on bone. Important or moot?
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

  13. #12
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,709
    Valid is whatever works/worked in any given situation to keep one up and viable vs cold forever. Hence the reason I've trained in modern technique, threat focused, different shooting stances, stand and deliver or move and shoot skills, H2h in a few disciplines, knives, sticks, yawaras, etc. The more well rounded you are in your approach to SD in general the better chance of picking a skill that will validate you're not having to take that long dirt nap.
    Secret Spuk and gatorbait51 like this.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post
    Here is why I prefer a squared up stance more than a bladed stance.

    When startled: Humans have a tendency to naturally square to sound and light. Shoulders, Hips, and toes square to target rather than going into a bladed stance.

    IF you are taking incoming fire taking a round under the arm pit will likely affect many vital organs. I was speaking to a with a combat medic and he stated that it was much easier to plug someone up and their chances for survivability where increase if they had taken a frontal hit, vs someone who had taken one from the side.

    I personally have found my chances for mechanical over sway were increased when my support arm was bent in more of a weaver style grip vs. extended out in a isosceles style grip.


    Weaver is actually not different than and Isosceles stance (feet shoulder width squared to target) the only difference is bending your elbows and using isometric tension to hold the gun. The weaver stance was originally developed as nothing more than a competition stance used by Jack weaver in the old Leather slap competitions. My Co-worker uses a more of a weaver style grip and is vey good at so i'm not trying to trash it or bad mouth it. For me personally the Weaver stance works much better for clearing rooms or having to hold your gun for long periods of time, but for fast reactive shooting I have found a an iscoceles is faster and allows you to shoot from your core more .

    For me blading away from the target, limits you on movement and faster target acquisition. Anyway thats my .02 cents.
    I understand where you are coming from. But, my reaction has been changed over the years to the point I cannot react as a normal person. But, then again, that is the point of training. I'm 48 years old and have been into martial arts for 28 or so of those years, starting off initially in Akido, and then Chinese Kenpo where I stayed.
    Even though they are different disciplines, they both take the defender out of the line of attack, with oblique movement.
    Strangely enough, this translates well in to footwork and angle for the Weaver stance.

    Someone else recognized this ; Jeff Cooper, who incorporated it into his philosophy at Gunsite when he was still active.

    It is a fallacy that blading is slower than facing a target.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,222
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I understand where you are coming from. But, my reaction has been changed over the years to the point I cannot react as a normal person. But, then again, that is the point of training. I'm 48 years old and have been into martial arts for 28 or so of those years, starting off initially in Akido, and then Chinese Kenpo where I stayed.
    Even though they are different disciplines, they both take the defender out of the line of attack, with oblique movement.
    Strangely enough, this translates well in to footwork and angle for the Weaver stance.

    Someone else recognized this ; Jeff Cooper, who incorporated it into his philosophy at Gunsite when he was still active.

    It is a fallacy that blading is slower than facing a target.
    I guess I'm confused, a true Weaver stance is not a bladed stance.



    This is Weaver stance that I learned when I was at GUNSITE, This stance was taught to us by the late great Mike Hughes who perished at gun site last year in a plane crash at Gunsite.

    The dance is no different from an Isosceles stance, the biggest difference is dropping the weak side elbow. The feet, toes, belly button nose all are indexed to target just like the Isosceles
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,112
    It is a fallacy that blading is slower than facing a target.
    Jerry Miculek would disagree with you..... I do to, but it is what it is....
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •