You wouldn't really kick someone in the groin..., would you???

He is a  great guy and a good master  look some of his advices and his website



There's No Such Thing As a Fair Fight:
Several Dirty Tactics

by Keith Pascal http://www.advantagemartialarts.com/contact_us.html

"You wouldn't really kick someone in the groin,
would you?"

I am occasionally asked that question by some of
my novice students. I think that they feel it would
be dishonorable to use "unfair" tactics and techniques
in a fight.

"You wouldn't really kick someone in the groin,
would you?"

First, let me emphasize, there is a difference between
sparring and an actual self-defense situation. In a
classroom session, you may have to set up guidelines
or rules, in order to keep everyone safe. On the street,
you are defending yourself, to stay alive.

Don't treat the two situations as though they were
the same "animal."

They aren't.

Many of the best martial artists are honorable
people. Some even have a gentle nature about them, as
a result of gaining confidence, while disciplining
the mind.

This gentle nature develops with years of constant
training. The "best" of these gentle folk would still
do what it takes to survive in a real encounter.

So, what kinds of techniques would be considered unfair?
Before we get down to specifics, let me give you
some general advice:


* Any move that is illegal in competition, should be
  considered fair game on the street. Maybe the reason
  it was made illegal is just what you need to really
  defend yourself.


* Anything that could be labeled as a "cheap shot."
  Taking advantage of your opponent's weakness, injury,
  or disability is considered a cheap shot. So is
  catching your opponent off guard. And "faking"
  or feinting is definitely cheap. USE THEM ALL!


* Taking advantage of your environment is both cheap
  and 'unfair.' That's why 'I' wouldn't hesitate to use
  anything available to stay safe. Dirt or gravel
  in the face sounds effective. Sticks, canes, and even
  umbrellas can be used as bludgeons to pound on
  an attacker. Get the idea?


Recently, I examined some of the tactics and
techniques I use that might be considered unfair.

There were too many to name.

I realized that a fair bit of my system is based on
taking advantage of the immediate situation any way I
can.

"Any way I can" translates to a lot of unfair tactics.
A few of the tactics that I consider basic, yet
super essential are:

  *Obviously, go for the groin. Just think how
    awesome you'd be if your goal were to plaster the
    crotch, no matter what else happened in the fight.
    You might get tagged, but you would reach your goal--
    and probably defend yourself in the long run.

   
  *I would head for the eyes with an almost equal intensity
    as I would to the groin. Eye jabs are great. You extend
    your distance a bit. They are fast. If you actually
    succeeded with an eye jab against a serious assailant,
    would you have anything more to worry about (except
    being sued by the criminal or put in jail for
    excessive violence)?


  *I step on feet. If I have my foot firmly planted on
    the lead foot of my opponent, I know that at
    least the front foot won't be kicking at me.
    Enough said.

You do realize that whenever you go into "unfair mode,"
you are probably increasing the potential legal damage.

In today's society, throwing "any sort" of kick or
punch will probably attract some sort of legal repercussion,
let alone an "unfair" technique.

Just keep in mind that a lot of times you can't plead
minimal force in the eyes of the court ... if you do
something that seems unjust. I am not the first to
notice that justice in the courts can easily
be skewed by perception.

Be careful.
Bonus Unfair Tactic:


    *Use a control maneuver in between two series
        of damaging blows. Huh?

        Here's what I mean: Usually, a wrist lock
        or an arm bar would be thought of as a
        controlling move to bring a sequence to a
        controlled close.

        Instead, I continue wailing on my opponent
        "after" I gain control.

        I have my initial strikes -- after all, I
        wouldn't try to respond to my opponent's
        attack with a lock before I countered with
        strikes of my own.

        After doing some initial damage to my attacker,
        I am ready to try some sort of joint lock. OK,
        I lock my attacker. Am I done? Not a chance.

        Now that I have some more control, I can
        really start to defend myself. I don't even
        pause between the lock and when I start to
        pound,in theory....

***Caution***

Yep, this is an unfair move. And you might be
in real trouble with the law.

You went beyond minimum force, and not only that, but
the attack might have been considered over, if you
stopped after you got control, and then started
a  "new attack," (in the eyes of the law).


be pushed, before you'd "do whatever it takes to survive."

Avoid conflict at "almost" all costs. Take responsibility
for your actions. Be ethical. Be moral. Yet survive.



            And     Have a nice day :-)



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-