First the 70% statistic may or may not be accurate. I got it from a trusted source, and when I asked him for his source – he had legitimately lost his notes – but pointed me in to a couple of places where it may have come from. I’m still looking. That number includes blades carried for work purposes, multi-tools, and pocket knives. It seems like a reasonable number in my experience. A recent Gallup poll said that 11% of Americans responded that they carried knives for self defense, and that number was higher among men than women.

I was using the statistic the way statistics are often used – to convince people to take action. That action was to get some training in how to handle edged weapon assault. Attacks with edged weapons are fairly frequent in the U.S. and that includes the use of swords and machetes. Knives are very common. Let’s be clear that I am not selling training at this point, and am not using that statistic to scare people for my own personal gain. The real question about the value of the number is this – would following the interpretation of the statistic and getting some training be a good thing? I believe it would.

There are two potentially big issues with the use of statistics: 1. bad data, and 2. flawed interpretation.

Bad data can mean that the statistic is totally false – that  the resulting data is just made up. This is frequently the case, and I’ll talk about a pervasive lie about self defense in a minute.

With statistics generated from studies or surveys, errors in data can creep in from sampling or how questions are posed. There are mathematical formulas that tell researchers how large a random sample  of a population they must survey or test before their results cannot be attributed merely to chance. If you interview one guy in the United States and that guy happens to be Charles Manson – your data set isn’t going to represent the attitudes of the general population very well. The issue here is getting a truly random sample. Political polls aren’t random, they only poll people who are willing to answer polls – not necessarily those who may vote.

The other issue comes from the way questions are asked in surveys and polls. Look at these two questions: 1. Do you carry a knife? and 2. Do you ever carry edged tools for work or for other reasons including box cutters, knives, multi-tools, or the like? – People are likely to answer those two questions differently. People may be more likely to lie when there is a social stigma attached to the question. I’m aware of a survey done about butter consumption where rephrasing a question swung the results by around 15%.

In my opinion, one of the most commonly held misconceptions in self defense or martial arts is that all fights wind up on the ground, or 95%, or 80% or whatever number you’ve heard. Any number you hear in this regard is most likely completely made up (in other words – crap). This number has been actively promoted by people selling ground fighting systems. It sounds very authoritative, logical, and gives you something actionable to do.

There are only two studies that I am aware of. One study conducted by the LAPD before they designed their newest defensive tactics curriculum showed that in around 60% of hands-on use of force incidents, both the officer and suspect wound up on the ground. This is not only far less than 90%, but if you interpret use of force as an officer trying to take a suspect to the ground to facilitate cuffing – this sheds even more light.

Another study analyzed “street fight” videos uploaded to Youtube – which is not an analysis of all street fights – merely of the ones uploaded to Youtube. The results of this study showed that far less than 50% of fights analyzed wound up with both opponents on the ground. It also showed that the first person to go to the ground nearly always fared worse. Regardless, the term “street fight” does not imply self defense to me – just unsanctioned mutual combat.

So, let’s weigh the statistic on the scale of more good than harm. If you were to believe that all fights (100%) wound up on the ground, and so that you only learned ground fighting for self defense would that be a good thing or a bad thing?  If the statistic is wrong, and you faced an opponent who knew how to keep off the ground, or multiple opponents, or someone with a weapon – that could be a very very bad thing.

So let’s say that we have a rigorously controlled study with good data, and we generate some statistics from that, what could go wrong? Well, even more insidious is the misinterpretation, or deliberately false interpretation of what the data represents. Misuse of statistics in this way is rampant in media and politics..

I once read an article on a newspaper’s web site that had the headline, “study shows that people who own guns are more likely to be murdered.” Really? No. The paper quoted a study that showed that the rate of gun ownership was higher in areas with a high murder rate. To even approach this interpretation, the study would have had to compare gun ownership amongst murder victims – it did not. Just as easily it could have been interpreted as people living in high crime areas feel the need to arm themselves for self-protection, but this would also be false as the study didn’t look at motivation for gun ownership.

So what is a good way to look at statistics?

Let’s take a statistic about sexual assault among college-aged women in the U.S. In some studies it is shown that there is alcohol consumption by either the assaulted or the criminal or both in 70% of reported cases of sexual assault. Without getting into the validity of the statistic, could we safely assume that it’s a good idea for young women to be careful both about their own alcohol consumption as well as being cautious about others around them who are consuming alcohol? Seems pretty reasonable. Could we assume that women who don’t drink have nothing to be concerned about? No, absolutlely not.

Universally, police and self defense experts warn people never to let a criminal take you to a second crime scene. After an abduction, the chances of an abductee surviving drop to almost zero. I do not believe this is in any way an urban myth and I believe the advice to be sound. We don’t know how many of the people who go missing every year are abducted, or how many survive that abduction. From the crimes we know about over time – this advice stands up.

Look to statistics in self defense with an air of skepticism, and think about the consequences of their interpretation.

Here’s the real secret: There isn’t one. The technique, strategy, or mindset you need is the one that’s appropriate for the situation. Everything depends. This may sound like a cop-out, but it isn’t – let me explain:

As a rule, I try my best not to denigrate other systems or instructors. Everything is valuable, and there are many good systems out there. It can be tough to make sense of the sometimes contradictory information out there. At this point I will not comment on some of the marketing practices of some of my colleagues other than to say there is a lot of hype out there – you need to learn to spot it.

In my 3 decades of experience trying just about everything out there, there is no instruction which is going to turn you into Rambo in 48 hours. There is no systems that will give you imperishable hand to hand combat skills in a weekend seminar.

Combative skills are no different than any other skills. You will not become a trumpet virtuoso by taking a single class with a master performer. You won’t join the big leagues after a weekend in the batting cages. You must practice, refine, practice, refine, then practice. You must move your skills into muscle memory and keep them there.

I’m a firm believer in cross-training, having trained in an eclectic style of jujutsu, several styles of karate, arnis, silat, and studied everything I can get my hands on related to martial arts and self defense. I try to find holes in what I do, fill them, simplify, and go again.

If I knew in advance that I was going to be the victim of a violent attack, when it would happen, at what range, what weapons would be used, the number of attackers, my exits, the environment etc… I could focus on certain strategies and tactics in my practice. But the truth is, I’ll have no idea if I’ll need to grapple, run, strike, kick.

Many teachers advocate teaching killing and highly destructive movements in order for civilians to defend themselves. There is nothing wrong with that, unless it is your only option. Most jurisdictions allow for reasonable force to defend yourself. If you kill a guy for throwing a punch at you, you may very well wind up in prison.

Speaking of prison, do you know who practices violence regularly? Criminals. There are even prison-specific martial arts and conditioning programs spread from prisoner to prisoner. I’ve seen video of prisoners practicing edged weapon attacks. Gang-bangers have been known to practice arnis, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and even to join the military to learn combat tactics. Some Central-American gangs recruit from the military of their respective countries.

To become good at self-defense, you have to become good at self defense. That means practice. You can learn a lot in a 2 day seminar, or taking lessons, but knowledge doesn’t make you good. You must practice and practice and practice. You have to internalize skills.

You should learn to kill, cripple, and control so that you can use appropriate force when necessary. Your first line of defense is always awareness, and your second is escape, and your last line is physical self defense.

Avoid -> Evade -> Invade™ is a shortcut for remembering strategic preference. Learn to avoid trouble, when you spot trouble look to escape, if you can’t escape – attack until you can.

One of the signs that a person is not going to last long in the art is their level of frustration or boredom with practicing the basics (Kihon Waza). I remember demonstrating a fairly complex drill one time, watching a pair of beginners do it exactly twice, and having one of them say, “ok I got that, can we do something different now?” My jaw must have dropped. Here’s a beginner who believes he can master the martial arts by practicing each drill or technique once or twice – best of luck.

If you’ve ever been to a pro basketball game, what happens before the game? The teams come out on the court and warm up by practicing shooting baskets, they practice passing and throwing free-throws. The best skilled athletes in the world practice their basics daily. Professional boxers still jump rope, hit the heavy bag and speed bag every day. Even if you have gotten to a level of relative mastery – practice of basics is necessary to keep your skills.

At the risk of sounding like my grandfather who tells stories of walking to school in 9 feet of snow: When I was coming up in jujutsu, my teacher would sometimes have us practice the same 10 basic movements for 3 solid hours with no breaks. A lot of people dropped out, they didn’t have the mental fortitude to keep training like that. Those who stuck with it got very good very fast. The movements became second nature. Their body alignments and kinesthetic awareness grew quickly. Advanced techniques became easier to learn. They moved like jujutsuka.

One day, I spotted a man walking about 1/2 mile down a busy street. I couldn’t see who he was, but could tell by how he moved that he was one of my training partners. He spotted me walking towards him at the same time and his hand went up in a wave. I waved back. When I got closer,  sure enough, it was a buddy of mine from the dojo.

It is very difficult to practice basics too much. What you are doing with repetition is building efficient neural pathways and “muscle memory”. By practicing properly, and getting adjusted by an instructor with a keen eye, you will instinctively form proper body alignment when executing under stress.

In Japanese, there are 3 almost interchangeable terms which are used to mean “martial arts” – Budo, Bugei, and Bujutsu. Understanding the subtle differences can lend insight into the arts themselves.

First, the character for Bu (武) means war, or military (martial), or having to do with warfare. Bujin, for example, combines the symbols for war and man to mean “warrior”.

Bugei – 武芸, is probably the best literal translation for the term “martial arts.” Budo – 武道 can be translated as the martial way, or path. Bujutsu – 武術 can’t be literally translated, but basically means, “martial science”.

The interesting distinction here is between the characters which are pronounced “do” and “jutsu”. “Do,” meaning path or way, holds the implication of a way of life or path for personal and spiritual perfection. “Jutsu,” in contrast, carries the connotation of a battlefield art.

In Japanese martial arts, there are “do” arts and “jutsu” arts. The do arts place less emphasis on battlefield preparation and more emphasis on personal development. From jujutsu, judo was developed as a way to train the mind and body of young men. From Aikijujutsu, Aikido was developed as a way of pursuing peace through martial arts. From Kenjutsu, Kendo was developed as a method of personal development. These are very simplified distinctions, but they hold truth.

I actually believe it is unfortunate that the Gracies call their art Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, it should probably be called Brazilian Judo. It’s origin is from Kodokan Judo. Nowadays, because of the UFC, every time I tell someone I practice jujutsu, they think I focus on mat wrestling. This is not to denigrate Brazilian Jui-jitsu, it’s  just not what I do.