The Startle/Flinch Response

Cuddly Werewolf wrote:Tommy_P
I just told my story, because you mentioned drowning, and I am able to recall what one feels like while drowning. The conclusions, if you draw any conclusions from it, are up to you. I'm not in either camp, as I don't have enough experience to back up or reject either theory.
And if you don't find it useful, well, I at least tried telling it in an entertaining manner .
Asen

I understood that.....but it did give me an opportunity to add a comment.....can't pass that up you know

Tommy_P wrote:I understood that.....but it did give me an opportunity to add a comment.....can't pass that up you know

Ah, so I'm not the only one to have the Compulsive Posting Disorder? Thank you for sharing it, it makes things easier to bear !
A.

Nick Hughes wrote:
Wheeling out a photo like that makes as much sense to me (as a trainer) to wheeling out one of someone on fire running around screaming which is what untrained people do when alight and saying "Look, see, they're running round screaming so we should all train to do the same." How about someone not trained to swim...let's find clips of people drowning and use that as a method of justifying that we teach people to flail and sink because look, these people in the picture do.

My argument, and I stand behind it, is that trained responses are invariably better than untrained ones...

.......As for the debate re flinching/not flinching etc...as previously mentioned, I leave all that stuff for the boffins. I know what I do - and to answer your question of specifically it's typically one hand up in front of my face and one hand back to punch with which has been the form for thousands of years in many systems, including those guys holding shields and swords whether they were spartans, zulus, huns, chinese, Greeks, Romans, Africans et al.

If it is truly involuntary, as some claim, then by its very nature there isn't anyway to train it out of us...if, on the other hand, it is trainable then I'd argue come up with a better postion than almost all the natural versions. I've seen.......

Nick,

There are plenty of instinctive responses to danger that are just as effective as anything trained and deliberate, and my point is that they should be left untouched at least, or preferably enhanced - not overwritten for the sake of it. Putting your arms in the way of a fast moving incoming object, or avoiding it altogether, isn't generally something I'd want to train out of my system - if I actually could - as I can't really think of a better option, same as pulling my hand away from something hot as quickly and directly as possible - should I train a better response than that perhaps?

In the main, the basic position seen in that infamous baseball bat vs. crowd photo is a good starting point to refine and develop further, and this is how I view such material - not as the 'Holy Grail' of protective tactics that some might.

For the record mate, one hand up in front and the other to punch with? Ouch! Get a good dentist.....!

Mick

For the record mate, one hand up in front and the other to punch with? Ouch! Get a good dentist.....!

Gee Mick, thanks for the advice...but I'll stick with what's worked for me for the past thirty years if that's ok.

Nick

Don't get your pants on back to front big fella, I was referring to the incoming bat scenario, where you might want more cover seeing how there is nothing to punch!

This could in fact highlight a problem with certain trained responses however, against certain threats such a position would be less effective and highly reliant upon diagnostics that require possibly more input than is available in such a spotaneous and sudden situation.

One arm up wouldn't be as effective against that spinning chunk of wood as two, so should it really be a default response position?

Personally, as I've said several times already, I'd go with a more refined version of what the spectators are using as my reactive posture - better to act as if every vine is a snake, than to mistake just one snake for a vine...

Mick

But mate...there isn't one clear flinch in the picture so what exactly are you going to refine.

Also, the one hand will work fine as the bat isn't being swung in an arc is it? It may be spinning, but it's travelling in a straight line so my one hand will suffice.

Also, where I work - and isn't it you that's always going on about highest probability to keep things simple (and I don't disagree by the way ) - we don't have many broken bats flying into our midst...it's usually punters throwing punches that I'm worried about and I need something chambered to start punching back asap.

As for throwing both arms up to defend as opposed to only one...did you not say in your section earlier today...

As an aside, if we consider what is 'high-percentage' as being where we want to focus our efforts - you have more chance of having just one arm available to use, than both, so this is a big factor that supports the default unilateral option.

Lastly...everyone talked at length about the photos being poor choices due to us not knowing what happened next and were some of those positions going to improve over the next few nano-seconds. Nobody mentioned the video clip of the kid startled by the guy in the trash can who demonstrated no appreciable flinch I could see. Just a straight out riposte with a right to the head.

Any thoughts?

Nick

Nick,

First off mate, the Youtube clip you posted doesn't 'prove' much in my opinion - if you're buyng that as genuine, maybe you'd also buy a big bridge from someone I know in London! If it was set up to the point of having a man wearing a gorilla suit hiding in a dumpster, what else was set up?

I won't discount such acts however - as I will happily affirm anything and everything is possible and have been in reactive situations personally where someone got hit for their actions in such a fashion - but also where I have covered up first on occasion, which leads me to ask - if the clip actually was legit - what would the guy have done if it had been a physical attack and not a fake monkey just going 'Boo!' and then standing still to take a deliberately thrown punch?

Regarding a single arm guard vs. bat - actually if it was swung you'd have a better chance of obstructing it with just one arm, as being fixed at one end by the holder it can't rotate around your single arm like a free-spinning bat could and probably would - two arms would prevent this to a degree, and yet again there was nothing to retaliate against so why not use the extra cover? I'm fairly certain, with as much of an educated guess as I can muster anyhow, that all the ancient warriors you quoted above would go with the sensible option too - as would a crowd full of boxers, kickboxers and MMA fighters.

As for assuming that everyone in the crowd is untrained - how do you know? Just because they have not adopted a recognised fighting position? The reason I put the ZDK clip on earlier is because I recalled the included footage of semi-contact sparring having plenty of less than optimal defensive movement - and this is between two apparently highly trained individuals, each wearng a black belt and gi, both letting easy punches and kicks slip through unchecked. The 'trained' defensive positions they were attempting obviously needed a lot more training, whereas standard boxing/Thai boxing covers would have arguably served them much better without so much work, being more naturally - read 'ergonomically' - based.

I seem to remember that you are not a fan of unilateral tactics, but here you are trying to use such a concept to prove your point! The difference here is the context mate, being reactive to such general stimuli in such a situation and position isn't quite the same as being active in close proximity and specifically targeting something in altogether seperate circumstances.

Yet again, there isn't an either/or scenario and if I'm up close and punching both arms will be employed if possible, maybe not both will be hitting but doing something in support at least.

In a similar vein, if I had to protect my head with just one arm I would do the best job that I can with what I had available - not just doggedly stick with one pre-trained response. By advocating this you seem to be countering your own argument regarding instinctive vs. trained response - surely you used to have a diagnostic 'pick the best tool out of many' type of viewpoint?

I'd submit that even though the bat scenario certainly would have unfolded quickly, it would have been by no means truly spontaneous like a punch to the head at close-quarters would have been, so there would have been time enough to recognise and pick a better course of action than just adopt a sparring stance designed for people up close throwing punches not baseball bats - no?

As for the people in the photo not displaying a common position - if you are being pedantic (perish the thought!) then yes, my technical protractor does indeed show that the angle of their arms varies by whole degrees between person to person..... Come off it big fella, there is a huge amount of workable material there that is the same in as many respects as it needs to be, person to person, for the task in hand and would be a great starter for ten at least!

Mick

I have almost forgotten what the question was!

I think the original question was asking Nick if the flinch response was 'hard-wired'...

Nick was saying that regardless of whether it was or wasn't, it could be trained out (or maybe trained IN) to become lees flinch and more an actual defence...

Tommy reckons he'd work more FROM the flinch than to USE the flinch...

Mick said he'd hit much the same 'shape' as the flinchers...

Hmmmm...

They way I see it, most of you are actually saying the same things...!

Personally, I drill a two-handed response to my beginning students. It looks a bit like an aikido exercise in the beginning; I'll try to get a clip up when I have done moving house (and countries!) as it's a bit of a biotch to explain...

It makes the flinch more a defence, but working 'from' it rather than 'using' it, but at the end of the day, it's much the same 'shape' as the flinch response... ;-)

That's about the shape of it mate, just remember that Nick and myself just like disagreeing with each other! In fact I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with Nick, so long as he ultimately accepts that he's wrong and I'm right....

Tee hee...

Hi guys,

The reason I've been so quiet since posting this thread is that others have put forward the same arguments as what I would've done, but worded it far better than I ever could ('cos I'm dim!).

I'm like Tommy and work off the S/F Response with various drills from varying positions and with varying responses. From me knowing me, there's no way my reactions would ever be quicker than my S/F Response, regardless of how many repetitions of certain defensive stances/techiniques/concepts I did. Now, my reaction time from my S/F Response to actually doing something is where I'd want it. Ok, there'll always be room for improvement, but then that's why I continue to train.

To be honest, I've never tried to 'train out' my S/F Response, not only because I'd never be any quicker, but because I've always believed the S/F Response to be 'hard-wired', so what was the point anyway.

Obviously being aware of your environment and the probable dangers within it will give give you a head start when it comes to reacting to something unfolding in-front of you, especially over others around you who are totally oblivious. Take me and the missus chatting together on the side-line of my son's footie (soccer) game as an example..... it's always me that spots the ball heading towards my missus' face and reacts to it, while she cowers and screams. However, creep up behind the two of us and fire a starting pistol and I'm sure both my missus and I would perform the standard default Startle/Flinch Response (hopefully I won't scream like a girl though! ).

One thing that hasn't been considered with these photos and is something that happens all the time is people flinching only because everyone else is. Many times something (such as an unknown object headed into a crowd) isn't seen by everyone. All they know is that people around them are reacting to something and ducking for cover. They then try to cover (usually the head) still unsure of the direction of the incoming or sometimes even why. I think if you screamed "look out" to a person walking down the street, most people might duck their head and throw their arms up to protect it not even knowing why.

As far as blocking with one hand or two, for me it is highly situational. One thing I had to train to avoid being ingrained in me was karate's "one-two" type of, at times staccato, block and counter. Fighting has no such count. Block and counter training leaves a space, I prefer a flow.

I may be just misinterpreting....I just woke up! One hand or two to block a bat that someone is swinging at you? That usually isn't a surprise as a bat isn't an easily concealable weapon. Here I prefer going in toward the source...the hands and the handle of the bat (or the shoulder). Preferably one hand there and one at the head; at the same time. So it is kind of in the vein of flinching as far as shape goes except I'm moving "in" and not stuttering in my movement as an actual flinch would (by just throwing the arms up). This way I prevent any more swings. However I have been caught by a bat at a time that I was a little less prepared skill wise and used my arms ala karate high blocks and saved my ass.....well my head actually

Tommy

Bryson,

Of course we're saying the same thing...Coup is a bulli (see bullying thread...you'll understand ) and likes to pick on me...he even threatened me for my lunch money once.

Nick

PS: Tommy...

Many times something (such as an unknown object headed into a crowd) isn't seen by everyone. All they know is that people around them are reacting to something and ducking for cover. They then try to cover (usually the head) still unsure of the direction of the incoming or sometimes even why. I think if you screamed "look out" to a person walking down the street, most people might duck their head and throw their arms up to protect it not even knowing why.

Good point

Mick,

Forgot to mention...

The clip is real as far as we know...it appeared here on "America's funniest home videos" and they're heavily scrutinized to make sure they're not setups due to prize money being involved. They had an episode one night how they determine whether or not something is/was set up - interesting stuff.

Nick

Nick

About the clip: (I do piss myself laughing every time I watch it mind you.)

Even assuming the black dude had not had a sly tip off regarding what was in store for him, to compare the baseball bat picture where there is a foreign body hurtling at the crowd to the clip where there is no immediate impactive threat does not make for a fair comparison.

Do I believe people can adopt stances when taken by suprise- you bet, as I still adopt a boxing type stance when I get an audio based suprise- my mates used to love driving past me while beeping the horn and screaming to watch me jumping into a stance!
No doubt there are elements related to both training and the inbuilt startle reflex working in synergy.

If I have been slow off the mark or taken by complete ambush and initial covering is my objective then using the compounded effect of inbuilt flinch and training to achieve a workable cover position seems logical to me and actually seems to be the consensus here!

Jon

There is always the chance of being caught completely off guard for whatever reason. During these times you may instinctively duck or flinch or any number of involuntary movements. IMO what is more important than what you do at that moment is what you do right after.

Tommy