Gauging “Success” of a Technique

A frequent source of online martial arts debates (as these questions could be easily resolved in person) is on whether or not a particular technique or even whole style “works.”

That the functionality of any endeavor ultimately rests in the effort of the individual notwithstanding (because who wants to take responsibility for their actions), these arguments are often plagued by fundamental logical flaws.

Namely, what constitutes, “success?”

It is interesting, because the efficacy of a technique or style is not always gauged by a specific measuring stick.

Let’s have a clear example from a debate I’ve seen multiple times so we have specific subjects to chew on.

Here is a classic: When training for self defense are eye attacks more effective than punches?  Bear in mind variations on this question often become sub debates in the endless “(insert style) vs MMA” and “(insert historical martial arts figure) vs (modern competitive fighter).”

At first blush this seems like a reasonable question.  But what do people mean by “self defense?”  A mugging?  A drunken monkey dance between young men at a bar?  A bouncer trying to break up said bar fight?  A cop trying to retain/access his/her weapon when a suspect suddenly turns violent?  Or a soldier responding to ambush?  Bruce Lee vs Jon Jones?

Each one of these hypotheticals, while violent, are different scenarios in the eyes of the law and thus constitute different accepted standards of force, which means any physical training for any specific scenario above necessitates specificity to said scenario.

So already we are down a rabbit hole of context.

Next, what effect of either a punch or a finger to the eye would earn the decision of “successful?”  An interesting point I saw in a YouTube video by an ex-Navy Seal turned self defense teacher was that combat sports techniques are the only reliable moves for real conflict as we have thousands of hours of footage and pro fight results to validate them, whereas so called “deadly” or “banned” moves like eye pokes and groin blows are theoretical or based on anecdotal evidence (“my master told me that his teacher once…”)

Sounds scientific and reasonable right?

At least until I thought about it a minute and realized that this instructor’s own evidence base actually contradicts his reasoning.  Go back through the archives of the UFC to its origins in 1993.  Count the number of punches thrown.  Compare that to the number of punches landed.  And then count the percentage of punches that ended the fight via KO or TKO.  Now go back through the same archive, and note every incident of an eye poke or groin strike wherein the referee stopped the fight and gave the recipient of such an “illegal” maneuver time to recover.

If a technique results in a fighter needing recovery time to “successfully defend him/herself” is that not by definition an effective move?

But on the other hand, since the action was paused, we can’t say whether the fighter who delivered the “banned” movement would have been able to capitalize and finish off the fight, as a person defending him or herself in desperation can flail wildly and be quite dangerous.  By comparison, a fight stopping punch leaves a definite punctuation on the situation.

Yet the woman being assaulted in the parking garage does not need to “defeat” her attacker; she just needs to create an opportunity to escape.  The fighter who needs recovery time from a shot to the jewels would likely not chase the kicker, allowing for escape an the end to a mugging.  But a soldier or a cop may not be “allowed” to run.

Where I agree with the former SEAL mentioned above is that many unscrupulous, or perhaps just ignorant, instructors tell students that they do not need to be physically fit or technically proficient if they have a few special “deadly moves.”

Because the unfortunate truth seems to be that there are no guarantees, especially when it comes to physical violence.  So while a certain strategy or technique may be effective against most people, no technique is going to be effective against  everyone.  I had a Red Beret tell me a graphic story about experience he had wherein an individual was shot in the head, but the bullet ricocheted off his forehead and surfed through his scalp, leaving him bloody but combat effective.

Getting kicked in the testicles is not fun.  But I can say from experience that while under adrenaline, it might not even register for several seconds.  Except when it hurts so bad that you drop to your knees and try not to puke.

Its is frustrating but important to admit: there are no “guarantees” or ”sure things” when it comes to the chaos of a violent incident.  This is why the best approach is avoidance whenever possible.  All of the training is an attempt to stack the odds in our favor, but do not let anyone convince you otherwise.

And make sure to specify what you are trying to achieve when you discuss the “effectiveness “ of a technique.

Dr. Jon