I frequently come across some facet of the 'styles' debate. This is where somebody argues what will and what will not 'work' in real life. This is generally a lot of 'my kung fu is stronger' type of chest thumping. The basic mechanics of many techniques are pretty much the same across arts. The targets my differ a bit, but the timing of when the technique is inserted is probably the largest difference. All of this is philosophy, doctrine, or dogma. The point is that if you insert the right technique correctly at the right time you will get a positive result.

I would just assume skip the whole style debate. Simply stated you need to be big, strong, and skilled in order to win. If you are caught short on size, or strength then you have to make up for it with more skill or better tools. Skill doesn't necessarily mean fancier technique, but it does mean knowing when to execute a simple technique and knowing how to execute it correctly. Tae Kwon Do gets a bad rap sometimes, but I wouldn't want to get front snap kicked by one of those guys while I was still cussing and taking off my jacket.

Some people receive what I would consider to be ineffective or substandard training. It isn't the way that I would do it, and I am not convinced it is all that effective. My question is what advantage do I gain by trying to convince someone that it doesn't work? They have a plan (maybe not *my* plan, maybe not a good plan) and if the dice roll their way it might work out for them. A perfect example is Model Mugging. I am not a fan of a lot of the techniques that they teach, but I am betting that any woman that goes through the program probably gets a lot out of it and is much harder to victimize as a result.

False confidence is better than no confidence, and is a different thing entirely from over-confidence. It's a good idea to receptive to alternatives and think critically, but if you have a plan that you have worked on then go with it.