You Can't Tap Out In The Street

[Coach]

Well, I do need to learn to how to create Euler diagrams. But the big circle is wrestling and then Shuia Jiao, DTQNS, Juijitsu, Judo, BJJ, wrestling and rasslin' are all smaller circles within the big circle of wrestling.

I can go along with the fact they are all some form of grappling which is what I suspect you meant. But they are vastly different. Even freestyle, folkstyle and greco wrestling are fairly different. Your circle reference just screws with my mind. The mat and ring are square and then the octagon thing. Forget the diagrams just speak louder and slower for the prosecutor/admin types.

******

Someone else said they mesh fairly well. I am sure that an accomplished wrestler or BJJ guy could switch and switch pretty easily. I am sure elements of both could be blended very usefully for use on the street. I don't know enough about anything other than wrestling (folkstyle,freestyle and Greco) to speak intelligently. But I think one on one the style does not matter so much. I am not sure how useful in a pure form any of them are going to be 2 on 1.

If I can get someone on the ground and then apply a headlock. They are going out. They won't tap for long. If there is more than one it is not going to be a prudent tactic. If I cannot get them down and the lock applied in 30-40 seconds then I need to go another direction as well because I don't have the wind to go seven hard minutes any more. But there was a time.

My understanding, limited as it is, about BJJ is that chokes and locks and things that get called illegal in wrestling are allowed and more common place. Handy one on one, but again I doubt so much 2 on 1 either. Plus in BJJ those guys are so comfortable on the ground and on their back, but if it becomes clear the grappling is not going well cutting and running from on your back is a *****.

I think anyone who trains in these ways and styles are way better off than people who don't. Man or woman. But I also think there is a huge lack of understanding how much size and strength matter. A certain amount of ass will not be over come by technique. I think that strength and size matter even more for women. I think there should be careful consideration before spending large amounts of time and money on something that may not pay off the way you want it to pay off.

 

[rhino]

Probably makes sense that the less capable you are physically, the more important it is for you know how and when to use a blade as a defensive tool (not necessary "knife fighting" or defending against someone with a knife) when you're too close to access your firearm effectively. A sharp claw is a good complement to anything else you can do, especially if the first knowledge the attacker had is when everything in his forearm is severed down to the bone.

That of course includes knowledge of anatomy, having a blade accessible, and having the will necessary to really use it.

 

[szorn]

What percentage of men who would have the disposition to attack women can be defeated by a well trained women in martial arts?

This is why martial arts isn't a reliable source for realistic personal safety and self-defense. Statistically-speaking the majority of bad situations even sexual assaults can be dealt with in a non-physical manner via proper Mind-Set, awareness, verbal self-defense / boundary-setting, etc. Remember that predators seek out victims they assume won't provide resistance. Any inclination that their chosen victim will resist and they typically move on. Of course there are no guarantees but this has been show to be true more often than not. How many of these martial arts spend any amount of quality time teaching boundary-setting / verbal self-defense? How many spend any amount of time addressing the adrenal response and how to work with it rather than against it? How many delve deep into Mind-Set / mental preparation? How many of these martial arts teach skills that have been shown to work for the majority of students, the majority of the time, for the majority of the situations that they may be forced to face?

Having been at it for 27 years I can tell you sadly and without hesitation that few martial arts address all of these topics and especially in regards to their application to women...


Steve

 

[szorn]

I am not looking for a teacher. I am looking to further the discussion on how well martial arts works out for combating violent crime and especially for women. Because I think there is a disservice done for women in this area as far as building false confidence. I think there are many viable reasons for this type of training but I think any belief that it is equipping women to fight and save themselves is unfortunate.

For example,I have a colleague that believe she could take me in a fight. She is wrong.

I couldn't agree more. The disservice comes from martial artists that believe martial arts and self-defense are one and the same. While martial arts can assist in ones ability to protect him/herself, that usually comes from building of attributes rather than providing pure self-defense and personal safety skills. The real problem is that most traditionalist devote so much of their life to their martial arts they refuse to take a look out in the real world to see what real people WITHOUT any training are doing to protect themselves. Those innate skills that people often use don't include joint-locks, straight punches, formal stances, unnatural movement patterns, or any of the things frequently taught under the guise of "self-defense".

With the prevalence of CCTV footage, cell phone videos, criminal interviews, victim interviews, statistical data, crime reports, modern pressure testing of techniques and skills, current legitimate reality-based instructors, etc. there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to teach traditional or overly complex physical skills as viable self-defense options, regardless of whether teaching men or women. Anyone wanting to teach realistic self-defense should be willing to seek out specialized training, outside their current understanding. As I am fond of pointing out a black belt in any specific martial art, even several different black belts doesn't qualify anyone to teach self-defense. It only qualifies them to teach those specific martial arts. The same applies to law enforcement and military personnel. A DT instructor isn't automatically qualified to teach civilian self-defense. Unfortunately a soldier trained to teach MCMAP isn't qualified to teach civilians either. These all include different and specialized training geared toward specific and specialized objectives. The disservice comes about when instructors from any of these fields or disciplines think they they can transition into another field or discipline without training specific for that field or discipline.

If someone wanted to prepare for an MMA fight should they go sign up at their local Tae Kwon Do school? Of course not! To look at it from another perspective- if we are hungry for a good ol American cheeseburger do we go to an Italian Restaurant? I sure wouldn't! Do we take our car to a doctor's office for engine repair? This list goes on... The point is that if someone is interested in learning martial arts and they have years to invest then they should seek out those that specialize in martial arts and specifically in the style or system that they have interest in. If they interest in learning how to survive explosive violence then they should seek out instructors that specialize in that as well. While there are many traditional martial arts instructors that have also invested time, money, and research into self-defense specialization unfortunately they are far and few in comparison to the amount of martial arts schools and instructors that exist. Sad but true...

Steve

 

[Jackson]

All of that said I personally feel that the SAID (Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands) principle applies here. If someone wants to become proefficient at sport fighting that's how they should train. If they want to be able to survive explosive violence their training should be geared toward that specific objective.

Steve

Without giving away all of your trade secrets, what are the primary keys to training to "survive explosive violence"? What does this look like in practice?

 

[Jackson]

There is one thing that most martial arts overlook...the adrenal response. A person can do all kinds of intricate, flashy, and complex things when adrenaline isn't involved. As soon as adrenaline rears it's head many if not most of those things go out the window. Many will claim that aspects of martial arts like sparring and full-contact fighting do cause an adrenal response. I would agree but unfortunately the response caused by those events is not comparable to the response caused by asymmetrical life-threatening situations. That being the case, those skills that often seem to work well in a controlled training environment or in the fairly controlled ring seem to detoriate when the loss of life could easily be a result of ones actions.

Steve

I agree with the statement that "the response caused by those events [sparring and full-contact fighting] is not comparable to the response cause by asymmetrical life-threatening situations." But I would say that almost nothing does compare to that. How do you prepare for something that is so difficult to simulate without putting someone in real danger?

I am somewhat familiar with the FAST training methodology, and have participated in other role-player-based and student-on-student force-on-force type exercises. As close and as realistic as they can get, they don't come anywhere near the adrenal dump I have felt when in real situations. In the back of my mind I know the person is a role player and I'm not going to get hurt. I would say, from my fairly limited experience, they probably get less response than going in to a competitive martial arts situation where I know the guy on the other side of the mat is out to hurt me, or at a minimum win the match without regard for whether I get hurt.

 

[Jackson]

Training Men vs Training Women

Are we talking about men or women? Does the gender of the person training matter?

How much does the size and strength of the person matter?

How much does the cardio strength or conditioning of the person matter?

Is the person you are fighting ready? (They picked the time and place of the criminal encounter)

Probably yes to all of the above. Should men and women train differently?

They are physically different.

I wish we had more women around here to weigh in on this stuff. It would be interesting to get some more women's perspectives on this.

However, the whole discussion got me thinking about the differences between men and women. So I decided to do some googling. When you refer to the differences, I assume you're primarily considering differences in physical strength. So how much stronger are men than women? When you look around you find studies like these that say that women, on average, posses 50 to 66% the strength that men do. They also typically indicate that strength is most closely related to muscle cross sectional area and overall muscle mass. So, theoretically, a man and woman with the same muscle mass should be roughly the same strength (given the same level of strength training).

So, I thought to myself "where can I find some data to look at myself?" I decided that I'd go take a look-see at some power lifting records between men and women. I strolled over to this USAPL website and looked at some men's and women's records. I'm not too familiar with the different divisions, but I pulled the same division from men and women for comparison.

Mens Open - Squat
Weight Class	Weight
-53	479.5 lbs
-59 (130)	557.8 lbs
-66	700 lbs
-74	722 lbs
-83 (182)	815.7 lbs
-93	826.7 lbs
-105	837.8 lbs
-120	910.5 lbs
120+	1113.3 lbs

Female
Open - Squat
Weight Class	Weight
-43	275.6 lbs
-47	363.8 lbs
-52	413.4 lbs
-57 (125)	451.9 lbs
-63	474 lbs
-72	546.7 lbs
-84 (185)	595.2 lbs
84+	655.9 lbs

I grabbed data for the squat because it was on top, it represents the greatest amount of overall strength and muscle involvement, and it's often said that "women are stronger in the lower body" or some such stuff. I'm assuming these people are well trained and close to their individual genetic potential. At least much closer to it than random people chosen for the cited studies. In the 84kg (185lb) weight class, the dude is about 37% stronger than the woman in the same weight class. You have to go down two weight classes to 59kg (130lb) to find a man of similar strength to the 182lb woman. Another thing I thought was interesting, though, is as the weight class falls, the difference in relative strength seems to come down too. In the 59kg (130lb) class, the difference is about a 23% increase in strength. However, the other thing I think is important to note is the 185lb man is 46% stronger than the 130lb man.

What I'm trying to say here is that huge strength differences (and strength potential differences) exist between individuals regardless of gender. There are a lot more 130lb women than 130lb men sure, but its common to see 160lb men and 260lb men walking around all over the place. The strength difference between these two guys, assuming the 260lb guy isn't just morbidly obese, is going to be very substantial. So I don't think it's as much a question of gender as it is just a question of size.

So to address the questions: Yes. Size, strength, conditioning, cardio, age, previous injury, and surprise are all significant and deciding factors in a fight. Absolutely the stronger person has an advantage. Absolutely the person who is less tired has an advantage. Absolutely the person with the initiative has the advantage. There is no question this is the case. Those who seek to refute those things are selling you bull**** or out of touch with reality.

Do these facts invalidate or render useless the application of martial arts training for self defense? I don't think so. More on that after I address one other thing...

I am not looking for a teacher. I am looking to further the discussion on how well martial arts works out for combating violent crime and especially for women. Because I think there is a disservice done for women in this area as far as building false confidence. I think there are many viable reasons for this type of training but I think any belief that it is equipping women to fight and save themselves is unfortunate.

For example,I have a colleague that believe she could take me in a fight. She is wrong.

I don't think women (or men, or anyone) come away from any serious martial arts training (and by serious, I mean martial arts training that includes live sparring, randori, rolling, or whatever you want to call it... real resistance with real people) without a well-developed understanding of the strength differences between themselves and a bigger, stronger opponent. You simply cannot get on the mat with someone 50lbs heaver than you and somehow overlook the fact that size matters. It just can't happen. You feel the pressure. You see how difficult it is to move the weight. You experience the giant strength difference. It requires real resistance to come to this understanding, but that experience is the best possible teacher of these facts. If you take a 150lb wrestler and have them wrestle a 210lb wrestler, is there any way they don't come out of that experience with a solid understanding of where they stand on the strength scale? For these reasons, I think martial arts training with real resistance does just the opposite. Seeing it on TV without having ever done it might lead someone to false confidence, but doing it shows you the truth.

So, I'll come back around to whether martial arts is useful for self defense. I think it is. I think the student has to understand where it fits in the context of the training goal, though. There's a lot of discussion in this thread about the woman going toe-to-toe with the guy. Another point was related to "asymmetrical initiative", the importance of situational awareness, verbal agility, etc, etc. And I agree with all of those points. The first goal, regardless of size, training, or gender, should be to see it coming and not be there. The second goal, if you can't not be there, is to see it coming and deal with it verbally. Use appropriate methods to deselect yourself. If not, then see it coming and deal with it at a distance with a distance weapon. All of these are probably preferred over ending up on the ground with some dude on top of you. But maybe, despite our best efforts, we end up in that situation (especially for women where being on top of them might be exactly the attacker's goal). Who do I think has the best chance of getting out from under that guy; the totally untrained woman, or the woman with a blue belt in Jiu Jitsu (or whatever)? I'm putting my money on the woman with the training. [I'm just using jiu jitsu as an example. Change the situation and the art to whatever makes you happy.]

Do I think she's going to win every time? Nope. Do I think she's going to "win" at all? Probably not. Does she need to win? Maybe we need to redefine winning in the context of this fight. In this case it might just be to hang on well enough to avoid getting punched too many times and losing consciousness. It might be to frustrate the attacker for 30 extra seconds so they decide it's too much trouble and give up, or until help comes along. It might be making just enough space, or freeing a hand to access that pistol she's carrying. These little things are victories in this context. You don't have to dominate your attacker to enjoy the benefits of being trained.

Martial arts is one slice of the self-defense spectrum. It only deals with the part where you're actually in the fight. I 100% believe training in situational awareness, verbal agility, managing distance, understanding threat cues, dealing with all that stuff that happens before you're in any kind of fight in the first place is super important. That should absolutely be a focus for anyone, man or woman, interested in self defense. I also agree with szorn that sometimes much of what is done in "sparring" or the dojo doesn't look like a real fight and prepare you for a real fight. They are done that way to build skills. I agree that some training time needs to be spent testing those skills in as realistic a situation as is safely possible. But I don't think that lack of realism makes the martial arts training useless. I think the student needs to use that real testing to provide context and adapt the martial arts training to the problem they are training to deal with.

 

[Coach]

So you thought about it and concluded what you already believed to be true to be correct. That is a surprise. That is what we do. That is if we even think about it at all. Which I give you credit for thinking about it. I think your overall conclusion is probably right but not by as much as you think it is.

I have a pretty good understanding about giving up weight and strength in matches. I wrestled heavyweight in college against a large number of people weighing 275 and I was about 217 most of the time. I was strong but then. I could handle the weight better that I could handle the 225 pound guy that was fast. But I saw far fewer of those.

I coached wrestling for a long time with good results. Females in the lighter weights against freshman boys can sometimes win. Usually because the freshman boy does not want to touch their butt. Which won't be an issue for the criminal. Women doing well on the mat in my experience is mostly because the male they are up against has a mental block because it is a female. Move up in the weight classes and female wrestlers get much harder to find. Move the males up a weight class or two and their success rate gets smaller fast.

Sometimes there is a girl that place kicks in football but for some reason she never does the kick off. Because if she ever did she would leave with a concussion after one play.

There difference are clear. Anyone male or female who does not think so is simply in denial. To quote Phyllis Schafly take it up with God. He made it that way.

If an individual wants to train in whatever, fine. It will have some benefits. But it will not make them immune to attack or automatically provide the results. I think the mindset exists where people teach and believe that they are safe because they hold whatever color of belt. I think a lot of money is fleeced from women for training that is not going to help them one bit.

I blame TV and movies. It has been cool for years now to have a woman successfully fight men hand to hand and kick their ass. People are starting to believe it. I think that is dangerous.

 

[Jackson]

So you thought about it and concluded what you already believed to be true to be correct. That is a surprise. That is what we do. That is if we even think about it at all. Which I give you credit for thinking about it. I think your overall conclusion is probably right but not by as much as you think it is.

Well, to an extent that may be true. I hadn't really thought about the men vs women question when I started the thread. I'm not a woman so it wasn't something I'd really given a lot of thought. If you'd asked me before all the discussion, I probably would have cited articles like this and said "see, this is what you can do with training" without a lot of regard for the physical differences that exist between individuals. And maybe I am tweaking the definition of "winning" in a fight to fit my preconceived notions about the efficacy of martial arts training. I guess I just can't see that it's detrimental if the training is somewhat realistic and involves real pressure. Its certainly no magic bullet though and I'm not trying to say that it is. You aren't going to turn a 130lb woman in to Lara Croft or the chick from Kill Bill with a few Krav Maga classes or even Qin Na.

I think I agree with you and szorn on all of this more than I disagree. If someone came to me and said "I want to learn about self defense", there are a lot of places I'd send them before I sent them to a martial arts school. I'd send them to Managing Unknown Contacts. I'd push them toward a firearm and good firearm training. I'd push them to understand what the likely threats are and how they happen so they can be avoided. Martial Arts would be pretty low on the list of important things they should learn for self defense. Its the piece that requires the greatest commitment of time and energy for relatively little gain in terms of the overall self-defense situation. I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just not willing to say to that woman that once he's on top of you your'e fu*k*d and there's no possible way you can improve the situation.

Another thing that is true, though, is most people aren't going to dedicate the training time to any of this stuff regardless of size or gender. So for that majority of people, the whole conversation is meaningless. For those that are going to put in the work, I agree 100% there are places to focus before signing up for Jiu Jitsu.

 

[Jackson]

If an individual wants to train in whatever, fine. It will have some benefits. But it will not make them immune to attack or automatically provide the results. I think the mindset exists where people teach and believe that they are safe because they hold whatever color of belt. I think a lot of money is fleeced from women for training that is not going to help them one bit.

I blame TV and movies. It has been cool for years now to have a woman successfully fight men hand to hand and kick their ass. People are starting to believe it. I think that is dangerous.

This is probably true. I think its more true in martial arts systems where real, live pressure testing is not common. It's easy to think you're a badass when no one ever punches you in the face. I still think the best way to break someone of this is realistic training with real pressure. You have to experience it first hand to understand it. The lack of realism and lack of context affects men in martial arts too, though. It's part of what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I sometimes think to myself, am I practicing stuff that's actually going to help me? Is the context so different that it won't be applicable? Am I giving myself a false sense of ability? These are real concerns and the primary reason I started this discussion. I appreciate all the feedback. It's not my goal to reinforce my own beliefs or to convince anyone else. That's why I waited until page 11 to really give my opinion on any of it. I didn't want it to derail the good discussion everyone had going on.

 

[Thor]

It's not just men vs women, it's also little people vs big people. If that were not a thing there would be no need for weight classes at all.

With that being said, most of the women who weigh as much as I do (or Coach!) didn't get there by being in shape, their weight is a hindrance not a help. If they did carry that weight in a fit way they'd probably not be women. IMHO 235lbs of hate beats 235lbs of couch potato every day.

 

[Brad69]

Interesting thread

I have been in many physical altercations in my life.
Being sarcastic and enjoying drinking 24 years in the Army all contribute to the physical contacts I have survived.
Nobody truly "wins" I have never walked away without a bruise,cut,sprain,pavement rash, spitting out teeth etc.
1. Being in shape If you don't do like PT 5 days a week you will get winded quick then a less trained foe will take you out.
2. Violence of action hit first and hard
3. Keep your mindset stay calm I have infected much damage by keeping a eye out for weakness.

Try to avoid multiple attackers if so take one out quick. Look at your situation it may be better to break contact and run than take on the world!
If in an unbreakable headlock go limp most people will release quickly after you go limp. If they have shut off your blood it's night night time.

I think some of the most important training you can get is to get your "bell rung".
In MACP level 1 you have the achieve the clinch drill which is the first time some have ever been punched.

 

[Jackson]

Interesting thread

I have been in many physical altercations in my life.
Being sarcastic and enjoying drinking 24 years in the Army all contribute to the physical contacts I have survived.
Nobody truly "wins" I have never walked away without a bruise,cut,sprain,pavement rash, spitting out teeth etc.
1. Being in shape If you don't do like PT 5 days a week you will get winded quick then a less trained foe will take you out.
2. Violence of action hit first and hard
3. Keep your mindset stay calm I have infected much damage by keeping a eye out for weakness.

Try to avoid multiple attackers if so take one out quick. Look at your situation it may be better to break contact and run than take on the world!
If in an unbreakable headlock go limp most people will release quickly after you go limp. If they have shut off your blood it's night night time.

I think some of the most important training you can get is to get your "bell rung".
In MACP level 1 you have the achieve the clinch drill which is the first time some have ever been punched.

What is MACP?

 

[Brad69]

Modern Army Combatives Program

 

[churchmouse]

Modern Army Combatives Program

Most of my early hand to face training came from relatives in the military. Interesting way to get involved. No rules straight up go in hard and get out. No playing around. Every strike needs to count.
I stayed in this whenever the people were available. My shooting style reflects this as well.

This made doing the organized style thing very mundane except for the cardio. Tried a few different ones but just not for me.
Finding the right teacher was the key. I did and it was great training. Retired military. Same mindset.
I find I am much better on my feet. Not much of a grappler but I can hold my own down there. I will choke you out if I can.

 

[Coach]

This is probably true. I think its more true in martial arts systems where real, live pressure testing is not common. It's easy to think you're a badass when no one ever punches you in the face. I still think the best way to break someone of this is realistic training with real pressure. You have to experience it first hand to understand it. The lack of realism and lack of context affects men in martial arts too, though. It's part of what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I sometimes think to myself, am I practicing stuff that's actually going to help me? Is the context so different that it won't be applicable? Am I giving myself a false sense of ability? These are real concerns and the primary reason I started this discussion. I appreciate all the feedback. It's not my goal to reinforce my own beliefs or to convince anyone else. That's why I waited until page 11 to really give my opinion on any of it. I didn't want it to derail the good discussion everyone had going on.

You think about this stuff more and differently than most people. It has been a great discussion.

 

[szorn]

Without giving away all of your trade secrets, what are the primary keys to training to "survive explosive violence"? What does this look like in practice?

There are several major aspects of learning to deal with explosive violence. Two of the most important are Mind-Set (mental preparation) and Awareness (and not just the situational awareness that so many instructors emphasize). So, in practice giving people a fundamental understanding of Mind-Set along with internal awareness forms the foundation. Then giving them additional skills to include verbal self-defense / boundary-setting along with simple physical skills that have been proven to provide a high rate of success for the majority. These are generally derived from primal movement patterns, things that people already know how to do (they have already performed them thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times in their life) rather than overly complex and unnatural motor-skills such as found in the martial arts. The next step is to allow the participants to train these skills progressively through the adrenal state. Since the overall objective is the success of the student, they must be trained to succeed each step of the way. If they are trained to fail early on they will most certainly fail under the stress of a real threat. I wish I could say that I figured all of this stuff out myself but I have just been lucky enough to associate and train with instructors that have either figured it out before me or trained with others that had. I will admit that I am far from knowing it all but I have been able to successfully validate these training methods with hundreds of students over the years. Fortunately there is close to 50 years of testimonials and feedback to validate the training since it's inception around 1970. The good news is that you will get a little taste of these training methods during the handgun retention course in a couple of weeks- minus the verbal self-defense stuff. Steve

 

[szorn]

I agree with the statement that "the response caused by those events [sparring and full-contact fighting] is not comparable to the response cause by asymmetrical life-threatening situations." But I would say that almost nothing does compare to that. How do you prepare for something that is so difficult to simulate without putting someone in real danger?

I am somewhat familiar with the FAST training methodology, and have participated in other role-player-based and student-on-student force-on-force type exercises. As close and as realistic as they can get, they don't come anywhere near the adrenal dump I have felt when in real situations. In the back of my mind I know the person is a role player and I'm not going to get hurt. I would say, from my fairly limited experience, they probably get less response than going in to a competitive martial arts situation where I know the guy on the other side of the mat is out to hurt me, or at a minimum win the match without regard for whether I get hurt.

It is true that we can't completely simulate a real situation without the fear of severe injury or worse. And I agree that many programs that include role-playing do very little to active an adrenal response regardless of how realistic the training may seem to be. That's the difference between courses that just include some role-playing and those that specialize in adrenal stress training. Many of the drills and scenarios that we do in FAST are far from "realistic" but that's not the objective. Our objective is to cause an adrenal response in the student, period. They need to experience it in a controlled training environment so they will be able to better handle it and even control it during real situations. I also agree that the adrenal response in training, even proper adrenal stress training is not as intense as the real thing but when done properly it's a close second. In fact there are dozens of testimonials from students since the 1970's that validate this. Many have said something to the effect "the experience (the attack / assault / verbal attack along with their physical and emotional response) was just like it was in training". As with most things in life there are no guarantees when it comes to personal safety and self-defense. However, with thousands of students going through this type of training, almost 50 years of supportive feedback, and some of my own personal experiences I would bet my life on these training methods before anything else that is currently available out there.


Steve

 

[jsharmon7]

Thought this was applicable to the conversation:

https://www.jiujitsutimes.com/rener-gracie-possible-get-purple-belt-go-fight-get-beat/

 

[szorn]

Who do I think has the best chance of getting out from under that guy; the totally untrained woman, or the woman with a blue belt in Jiu Jitsu (or whatever)? I'm putting my money on the woman with the training. [I'm just using jiu jitsu as an example.

I would put my money on the woman that has the appropriate Mind-Set regardless of training. I have seen highly trained martial artists fail miserably when faced with similar situations. On the other hand I have seen and read tons of reports of untrained people surviving assault, rape, murder, etc. with little or absolutely no previous training. The difference was their mental preparation, their tenacity, and their willingness to sometimes do the unthinkable to survive a bad situation.

Steve