Thanks Volund - Great contributions! I'm going to add some of that carl cestari stuff. Why do you say the new stuff is BS?
By the way, here are some of my thoughts on SD:
Don't just think about hurting your opponent.
Someone attacking you is probably a criminal. As such, they probably have some extensive experience with violence and therefore have a relatively high threshold for pain.
So if hurting an attacker is not the way to go, what is? Each technique used should be designed to produce a physical result (IBM for those familiar with Marc MacYoung). You should see these results as problems, roadblock or obstacles you are piling up between your attacker and you, with the ultimate goal of rendering him uncapable or unwilling to pursue attacking you any more.
What are some of these problems?
1. Difficulty seeing (eye attacks)
2. Disorientation (ear slaps)
3. Full or partial loss of consciousness (sucker punches to the jaw)
4. Difficulty breathing (throat attacks/solar plexus attacks)
5. Difficulty maintaining balance (foot sweeps/ pushes and pulls)
6. Pain (knee to the testicles, headbutt, leg kick, short elbow strike, etc.)
These are the problems or difficulties you want to pile up on your attacker, and you NEED to do them in combination, one after another, so that before he has time to recover (and get mad) about one, he is being overwhelmed by the next.
Therefore, according to Marc MacYoung, each of your attacks needs to do 3 things
1. Protect your perimeter
2. Cause one of the above problems for your opponent
3. Move you into position to immediately create another one of the above problems for your opponent.
The anaology McYoung constantly uses is that of a pool shark "running the table."
One of the reasons it is possible to do this is because many people think of "fighting" only in terms of "impact" (#3 on the above list - Causing full or partial loss of consciousness). MMA has only enforced this limited thinking because of the restrictive rules (rules that are used to make MMA a sport instead of a slaughter).
Another terminology from Marc MacYoung - the distinction between "limited offense" (MMA, TMA, Muy Thai, Kickboxing, etc.), "unlimited offense" (tooth and nail fight for immediate survival), and "total offense" (one sided assault aimed at killing, maiming and destroying as quickly, totally, and efficiently as possible - Atomic bomb, sniper shooting, etc.).
With all of the above being said, here is LuckyShot's rule of thumb (pun definitely intended).
If you are in a physical encounter where you would be hesitant or feel badly about sticking your thumb as deeply and violently as possible into your opponents eye ball, you are in a fight ("limited offense"), you are not being attacked ("unlimited offense") and I will be you dimes to doughnuts that the reason you are in the situation can be summed up in 3 big letters E-G-O. The difference between a fight and an attack:
-In a fight, your actions and words played some role in the escalation of the situation into a physical encounter. This includes the choice not to leave a situation once an obviously hostile intent was made know to you (Ego).
-In an attack, the above factors are absent.
BTW, the above information is NOT only of ethical concern, it is also of legal concern. If you hurt somebody badly, you will very likely be sued and prosocuted for battery at least. If you plead self-defense, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you were being attacked and were not a willing participant in a street fight (yes, streetfighting is illegal). The law will consider your actions and choices, both physical and verbal, escalating up to the physical confrontation in making that distinction. The law will not look only at your actions after the first blow has been thrown, which is what most people think self-defence refers to. Self-defense is a legal plea, and proving self-defense is not nearly as easy as people think. Furthermore, if you know any cop, ask him and he will tell you that in 99.9% of fights both parties are quick to claim self-defense.
Obviously, a modified model is needed for security and law enforcement professionals who cannot simply leave a situation once hostile intent becomes noticeable. If I have one gripe with Geoff Thompson it is that he doesn't differentiate nearly enough between his situation working as a bouncer and the tactics that were appropriate there and the situation of the average citizen concerned purely with SD, not ego-based street fights.
That being said, here is the syllabus at the LuckyShot school of self defense.
1. Get your ego in check. If you get crippled or killed in a fight you didn't have to be in (and these sort of things happen ALL the time), it's your own damn fault. Not saying you deserve what you got, but it's your own fault. It's been almost a year since I was in a fight I didn't have to be in, and before that it had been nearly 5 years (I was doing good). I hope I've grown up enough to NEVER be in another unnecessary fight. (P.S. For many people -and you know who you are- getting your ego in check means controlling your alcohol consumption in certain situations and settings. "I was drunk," is not a valid excuse in a court of law or in life. End of essay.)
2. On the coat-tails of #1 and of equally valid importance: Situational awareness, common sense and listening to your instincts. This includes moving away from that obnoxious (and drunk and immature) group of frat boys at a concert, crossing the street instead of walking by the shady looking bunch of kids, and leaving the bar when you are being mean-mugged by some thug in the corner. (Which also has to do with controlling EGO.) Geoff Thompson's physical concept of The Fence also plays here when you are protecting your immediate physical boundaries from a person of unknown intent.
3. The physical tools mentioned above.
And whenever possible and practical, carry a knife or pepper spray.
