A Proposed Framework for the American Self Defense Federation
by Sensei Dan Gilbert | Shunpookan Aikido USA
Editor’s Note
The American Self Defense Federation brings together practitioners from diverse
martial traditions. Differences in style, emphasis, and training methods are
inevitable—and valuable. This article proposes a shared framework and vocabulary for
comparing self-defense systems without defensiveness, allowing us to focus on real-world
constraints rather than stylistic identity.
The Problem with “What Works”
Ask a room full of experienced practitioners what “works” in self-defense, and you will get confident answers—and conflicting ones. The problem is not ego. The problem is the evaluation criteria.
Most disagreements arise because systems are compared using assumptions they were never designed to meet.
Self-Defense Is a Constraint Problem
In professional contexts—military, law enforcement, protective services—solutions are
evaluated based on constraints, not ideals.
Violence imposes predictable limits:
- Stress and cognitive degradation.
- Nneven footing and movement.
- Injury and fatigue.
- Environmental obstacles.
- Multiple unknown variables.
Every self-defense system addresses these constraints differently. None eliminates them.
The Cartridge Analogy
Firearms professionals understand this instinctively.
There is no perfect duty cartridge—only tradeoffs:
- Recoil vs controllability
- Terminal performance vs capacity.
- Theoretical effectiveness vs performance under stress.
- Comfort (willingness to train) vs maximum impact.
Martial systems function the same way.
- A system optimized for peak output may sacrifice adaptability.
- A system optimized for control may sacrifice maximum force.
Neither choice is inherently wrong.
Replacing Style Labels with Functional Language
Debates stall when discussions rely on identity-based terms. A few examples:
- Hard vs soft.
- Traditional vs modern.
- Effective vs ineffective.
A more useful vocabulary evaluates function. Here are a few examples:
- Controllability — Can it be managed under stress?
- Scalability — Can force be adjusted appropriately?
- Resistance tolerance — Does it hold up when the opponent resists?
- Environmental robustness — Does it function when conditions degrade?
- Training sustainability — Can practitioners maintain skill over time?
These terms apply across systems.
The Myth of the Decisive Technique
Every system produces stories of decisive moments: one strike, one throw, one perfect
response. Professionals know better.
Rare outcomes do not make reliable strategies. Self-defense favors what works most often, not what works once under ideal conditions.
This applies equally to striking, grappling, weapons, and control-based systems.
Why Media Distorts Perception
Modern perceptions of martial arts are heavily shaped by video. Unfortunately, the most reliable training is often simple and unremarkable, while complex or choreographed material attracts attention.
This distorts evaluation across all systems. Flash is rewarded; function is overlooked. Professionals must resist this distortion.
What ASDF Gains from This Framework
A shared framework allows ASDF members to discuss effectiveness without attacking identity, recognize strengths and limitations honestly, and learn across systems without defensiveness.
Self-defense is not a competition between styles. It is a shared problem approached from different angles. This framework lets us compare self-defense systems without defensiveness.
Closing
The strength of the American Self Defense Federation lies in its diversity of experience and seriousness of purpose. When systems are evaluated by how they solve real constraints—rather than how they
are branded—everyone benefits.
Great post!