HARD vs SOFT SELF-DEFENCE

In a workshop recently, I had to make a distinction as to when I would hit someone versus using a joint-lock or pressure point against a person, or what I called hard self-defence and soft self-defence.

I boiled it down to what the immediate situation called for.

I would employ hard self-defence techniques when I am physically attacked by one or more aggressors. The tools I would use will include kicking and punching and any other bodily tools that I have trained to use, as well as "unattached" weapons such as firearms, knives, batons and improvised weapons.

However, there are some scenarios where a broken bone or two, may not necessarily be the most  ideal way to deal with an harasser.  It may be “too much force” that could result in me being liable for his/her injuries. This is when I would employ a more subtle form of "soft" self-defence such as joint-locks and pressure points, which may be enough to subdue or deter a harasser.

Note also that I have used different terms, aggressor and harasser, to describe the “bad guy” when I use either hard or soft self-defence. I have done this deliberately so as to act as a trigger as to when I should employ the appropriate techniques.

Which is better? 

My suggestion would be to combine both these 'forms' of self-defence and use what is appropriate at the time.  

For example in the case of suddenly being physically attacked by an aggressor, the immediate response would be to deal with that situation with some "hard' self-defence techniques (block the aggressor's strike; counter strike; create distance and access own weapons (if any); move in to attack aggressor again). Only once the aggressor is subdued and has not fled, would I employ some "soft" self-defence to either restrain the aggressor with a joint-lock, or cause him to become unconscious while I get help or restrain him.

In another example, if I was a female employee and was getting some unwanted attention from a male colleague at work, I would employ some "soft" self-defence techniques such as a finger-lock or pain-inducing pressure point technique so as to deter the harasser from proceeding any further. It should be noted that in this situation, I would also have to re-enforce my position of not wanting any of the harasser’s attention by using strong verbal commands and posturing - more tools and techniques that fall in the "soft" self-defence category. If however, my attempts are not successful and the harasser decides to use more force against me (making him now an aggressor) , I would revert back to "hard' self-defence and strike him hard.

It is important to note that a person's heart-rate and ability to control his or her fine motor skills under a high-pressure scenario is also key as to whether they should employ hard or soft self-defence. Fine motor skills are vital when trying to employ joint-locks or pressure-point techniques (soft self-defence) and will deteriorate as one's heart rate increases.

A person is able to condition themselves to better operate their fine-motor skills under hear-rate increasing scenarios, with the correct training. 

With the correct training, both hard and soft self-defence techniques should be employed to potentially hazardous incidents. Furthermore, one’s ability to be able to distinguish between these types of incidents become important too, as the age old saying of "one size fits all" would not work in a court of law if you are found to be using excessive force in an incident.

To conclude, as your journey in becoming a safety-conscious member of society who studies practical self-defence techniques to empower yourself, you must always keep in mind that as you become more proficient in self-defence, you need to exercise greater self-control when handling an incident and never abuse your skills and knowledge. If you do, you become no better than the criminals we wish to weed out of society.

Till next time.

Get EDUCATED. Feel EMPOWERED. Live a FULLY-ENGAGED life.