I do agree, however there are the few kids in between who are either pacifists, or extremely timid and who absolutely refuses to throw a punch in retaliation or even attempt to stand up for themselves. Thats another thing you would have to take into consideration, is your child even bold enough to fight back? If yes, then yes it most likely will work, if not, then you have to consider alternatives. Keep in mind, not everyone's a fighter.
I was a 'pacifist kid.' I still am the type to smile and take a few knocks on the head before I really decide enough is enough.
I do respect what you did as a kid though, sounded like some karate kid sh*t lol, glad you stood up to him.
It was really just a sort of improvised throw utilizing basic leverage. It's like I said, though, most people in our world haven't really fought much and think a hand-to-hand fight is going to involve a lot of bruising.
That might be the case in boxing or fighting done for show - but when you're dealing with people who have had a little instruction and a little experience applying that instruction... it's all a fairly quick series of events that result in victory or defeat.
I was actually relatively poor at sparing matches in my martial arts school. I never really cared for the competitive aspect of hitting people I liked or who had done nothing to me.
There is a reason sparing matches are done the way they are, though. A 'point' is scored by successful contact in certain regions - and the match breaks as soon as the point is scored. Most of a sparing match is setting up between points, which are scored in an exchange lasting less than three seconds. This is done because most of the strikes, were they implemented as full-contact, deliver enough force to serve as a technical knockout within a martial standing (IE - this is just one mook in an opposing army you are fighting, and as soon as one or the other of you deliver the strike, you are on to dealing with someone else while the other one either limps away or is just knocked hard enough that he's at least five seconds from getting back into the fight).
Real martial fighting is quick and deadly.
I was instructed in American Bushido, which does put a little bit more focus on holds and throws after you get past your strikes. Holds, throws, and kinematic manipulation developed out of the need for unarmed fighters to confront armed and armored opponents within the Meiji period following the Haitorei Edict.
I don't criticize your conviction, but your methods.
The basic principle is this; you'll never reach above anyone by copying them. And that's exactly what "stomping the shit out of them" is; crude and worthless.
Which is why I said that it doesn't have to include 'stomping the shit out of.' There is such a thing as restraint.
The point is that an application of force to counter the force taken against you is necessary.
It enrages them and builds up their ego, and that encourages them to come back more determined, using more crude and degrading methods like ambushing them or outnumbering you.
This is rarely the case and is another product of TV drama.
The only way to repress a bully for good is to use technique. By showing him you are skilled and can quickly subdue him, he will instinctively back down. If he attacks using force, use grappling techniques to cancel and overwhelm whilst leaving fewest marks; this way you have taken him down without inflicting some of the ignobility on yourself, and leaving little doubt for teachers that you were just defending yourself.
This is just a no true scottsman argument.
Bullies tend to back down after they have been challenged and injured in some way or another. Perhaps it is their pride that is damaged, perhaps it is their corporeal being that is harmed. In either case - they realize that continuing to attack you is going to result in continued losses on their part. Even if they are still able to succeed in what they used to do free of consequence, it becomes clear that there is now a price for their actions - and bullies do what they do because they are misers.
Had I executed the throw I did anywhere else - that kid would have likely been in the hospital. It is because I slammed him into a padded seat (and it was because I knew there was a padded seat to absorb the shock that I executed it in the first place) that he was not thrown onto a concrete or asphalt floor with enough force to bounce the back of his skull off of it. Even the more forgiving metal floor of the bus would have still probably left him with a concussion.
I may be under-estimating the resilience of the human body, a bit, but the throw was, essentially, a forward lunge that transferred a good portion of my own inertia was added to what would come from him suddenly falling backward. Even if he tucked his head to his chest, there is a high probability he would have bounced or suffered spinal damage.
Like I have been saying - martial techniques were developed for the purpose of killing human beings in very quick and efficient ways. When I struck as I did - it was as if I was going to kill him.
You don't get very far in fighting unless you can strike with the intent to kill. That is an often-used idiom of combat themed anime, but it is true. Fighting for the purpose of establishing dominance is what animals and thugs do. A thug can't do anything on his or her own, so while he may pound others into submission, he usually just keeps it to superficial and degrading damage.
The rest of us are self-sufficient beings who seek honest exchange with those around us. When someone starts trying to beat us into submission - we have no need of his/her presence, and should strike as if we would eliminate said person's existence.
A kick to the groin is at least consistent with removing their continued existence.
As for bullies who use paltry verbal jibes, a dose of sharp loud wit to gather attention and publicly humiliate them douses arrogance.
Bully the bully? I thought we weren't doing that.
Verbal bullies are a bit more difficult to counter. The metrics of 'cost' and 'reward' in verbal abuse are quite abstract and not as obvious as when physical bullying occurs.
I've generally found that the best way to deal with verbal bullies is to just ignore them - or to simply turn the bullied statement into a conversational invite. Then I would just talk as if it were a normal conversation until they told me to shut up.
The key is to impose a cost. They are doing whatever it is they are doing for the sense of power and control. Saying horrible things about a person while getting laughs out of others makes them feel influential and important. Some kind of cost has to be incurred before they'll stop.
In my case - it was treating them like I was part of a friendly conversation. I'd usually launch into deep explanations about theories on matter and physics, and that generally got them to tell me to shut up. They would rarely hazard disparaging comments toward me, because I could quickly steal the stage they wanted.
Of course, I could also be a broody little bastard back then, too... kind of depended upon the situation.
There's nothing worse for a bully to be humiliated by a quick defeat. It's much more effective than getting into some useless extended brawl.
They don't really need to be humiliated - just deprived of the reward; the sense of power and control they get from what they are doing... or made to pay a cost for it.
