PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKES: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY, PART 1

In my six previous columns, pre-emptive striking featured prominently.

- LITO ANGELES

One reason for this was to highlight its importance in self-defense when you have to use physical violence as a last resort because avoidance and/or verbal de-escalation failed or were not viable options. As I’ve said, the most practical way for a smaller, weaker, slower, less-skilled person to physically prevail against a bigger, stronger, faster, more-skilled adversary is to employ a pre-emptive attack to immediately neutralize him, optimally by knockout. There is no better tactic for most people. Everything else is secondary.

With that said, there are instances when you can’t or won’t use this option — for example, when combating domestic violence with a spouse. In such cases, many people are doomed to defeat and possibly worse, depending on the assailant’s intentions. This realm deserves its own treatment, which I’ll address in future columns. For now, I’ll continue with pre-emptive striking and cover some other viable and not-so-viable strikes you might be tempted to use.

In the past, I stated why I consider the boxing-based hook punch (from the rear or lead side using the palm or fist) and the cross (a rear straight punch using the palm or fist) the two best pre-emptive strikes to use if you have the attitude and aptitude to master them. If for whatever reason you don’t like or are unable to achieve competency with either one, there are a few other pre-emptive strikes you should consider using instead.