Street Fighting - The new Martial Art?

[Withered Soul]

Well, is it? What differant is it to Kickboxing or Muay Thai? They both kick and punch. What is the differance? What's your opinion on it?

[Zepp]

Street fighting is hardly a martial art, though it may be a contest of martial skill. Every legitimate martial art has at least something in it that can be applied to street fighting. Just take away the rules and add hate.

The major difference between a street fight and what we do in practice (or in a match) is the opponents' willingness to truly hurt each other, and the fear of what happens to the loser.

[yilisifu]

We must remember the word "art." Without that, all we have are sophisticated forms of street-fighting.

[Elfan]

A "street fighter" usually refers to one who uses "underhand methods" (ie doesn't fight "fair", which is a good thing) or someone who learned to fight from experience as opposed to formal training.

[MartialArtist]

Street fighter - One who has a life expectency rate comparable to that of one who runs between two armies shooting each other.

[7starmantis]

I think street fighting is the next martial art as much as "drive bys" are the next military.

Fighting is an action, not an art form or system.


7sm

[Yari]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Fighting is an action, not an art form or system.


7sm

I like that!

/Yari

[theletch1]

Street fighting: fighting for the sake of fighting, the perverse enjoyment of inflicting pain on another human being, undisciplined brawling to prove who the big dog on the block is. Pop culture.

Martial Arts: fighting for the sake of defense of yourself or others, the honorable enjoyment of knowing that you inflicted only as much pain on another human being needed to cease an undesirable action, disciplined action to prove that you have grown beyond the level of being a "dog" at all. Ancient CULTURE.

[Cryozombie]

Originally posted by theletch1
Street fighting: fighting for the sake of fighting, the perverse enjoyment of inflicting pain on another human being, undisciplined brawling to prove who the big dog on the block is. Pop culture.

Martial Arts: fighting for the sake of defense of yourself or others, the honorable enjoyment of knowing that you inflicted only as much pain on another human being needed to cease an undesirable action, disciplined action to prove that you have grown beyond the level of being a "dog" at all. Ancient CULTURE.

That rocks.

[Wes Idol]

I define "Art" as an expression of an emotional and/or psychological experience, manifested into some tangible physical form. "Martial," to me, means war. "Streetfight" simply applies (to me that is) as an act of combat which is not bounded by any rules agreed upon by either party.

So, with these parameters...no, I don't think "Streetfighting" is a "Martial Art", much less the new "Martial Art."

Respectfully,

WI, HI
UKS

[moromoro]

STReet fighting IS A MARTIAL ART.... it is fighting....

fighting is a martial art

when a fighter beats you and he has no previous "martial art" experience HE IS STILL A BETTER MARTIAL ARTIST THAN YOU......

just because he doesnt have a belt or knows respect and bows or kneeling on his knee does not make him less of a martial artist than you... respect him for his fighting ability.....

for example in the Pilipino martial arts we do not bow we do not kneel we dont wear belts. we just learn to fight. this is martial arts

[sammy3170]

Originally posted by moromoro
STReet fighting IS A MARTIAL ART.... it is fighting....

fighting is a martial art

when a fighter beats you and he has no previous "martial art" experience HE IS STILL A BETTER MARTIAL ARTIST THAN YOU......

just because he doesnt have a belt or knows respect and bows or kneeling on his knee does not make him less of a martial artist than you... respect him for his fighting ability.....

for example in the Pilipino martial arts we do not bow we do not kneel we dont wear belts. we just learn to fight. this is martial arts

That is one of the more ridiculous things ive read in here. Martial arts with out the philosphy and the development of the individual is just organised street fighting. If a guy beats a martial artist in a fight he is a better fighter but in no way is he a martial artist. There are far more things to the martial arts than just fighting. Moromoro i'm sure that since you've been at your school your attitude at least must have improved somewhat and not just your fighting ability. Through street fighting the only thing a street fighter develops is his ego.

Cheers
Sammy

[Wes Idol]

Originally posted by moromoro
fighting is a martial art

Fighting does not equate to art, go check out a dictionary.


Originally posted by moromoro in the Pilipino martial arts we do not bow we do not kneel we dont wear belts. we just learn to fight. this is martial arts

There is a custom where in Philipino stick fighters not only bow to each other, kneel on one knee. Before you spout offabout what you know, you might do well with some homework first.

WI

[Damian Mavis]

"There is a custom where in Philipino stick fighters not only bow to each other, kneel on one knee. "

No kidding, sounds like someone is showing him the moves of an art but not an actual martial art. No wonder he has such a bad attitude, bad instructors that don't teach properly ruin the martial arts.

Damian Mavis
Honour TKD

[Randy Strausbaugh]

When someone says "I'm a streetfighter", he's saying "I havn't trained in anything, but I'm good at beating up other guys who likewise have no training".

Trying to avoid life's potholes,
Randy Strausbaugh

[rmcrobertson]

I wanted to briefly respond to some of the ideas here, especially the ones about a) being a "streetfighter," and b) confusing fighting with being a martial artist.

My guess is that almost anybody who claims to be a streetfighter isn't; and nobody, at all, who decides to go out and become a streetfighter will ever become one.

Why? "Real" streetfighters are made by the world they live in. They don't choose to be born poor and out of luck; they don't choose to be born into some version of a ghetto. They were unlucky enough to be born into street violence, and for some driving reason they chose to respond to that with more violence. It's nothing to be particularly proud of--like saying, "I'm better than you because I was born blond"--it's just the way it is. No "choice," involved. Are they tough? You bet.

If they're smart--they fight less and less with each passing year. Why? because their lives suck, and get worse if they keep it up.

As for choosing to grow up and become a streetfighter--why the hell would anybody want to do that? A life of violence and pain, for yourself as well as others? And forget about separating one part of your life from others--cops, who had pretty much better be streetfighters, are at risk for personal, marital, and all sorts of problems. (No, not all of them. Of course not; not even a majority. But a high percentage--just like psychiatrists, who are at risk for suicide and depression.) Why? Because nobody can completely separate the different aspects of their lives.

More than that, I don't believe that any school can teach you to become a streetfighter. How would you do that? ("For your first-level training, you must give up your job and go live in the local rathole. For second level, start hanging out in biker bars...") They can perhaps help you become a martial artist. Which is better anyway.

Why? Well, martial artists often know the difference between fighting and self-defense. And fighting? They're not into it. A guy could get hurted. And then there's the old, old story--the study of the art (and oddly enough, even the "practical," styles claim this) is about the perfection of the human being, not about learning to beat people up.

But then, everybody knows that.

Thanks,
Robert

[Touch Of Death]

The difference between a seasoned streetfighter and a martial artist is your level of comfort. Fighting without rules on a regular basis, if nothing else, will give a guy a been there done that feeling which on some level allows for relaxation and the ability to think. A martial artist, depending on the type of training, may feel a little out of place when things start happening that he or she has not trained for. The nice thing about martial arts is you can train for as many things as you can think of. Unfortunantly all to many schools specialize in one range or another and tell themselves they are to damn good to be confronted at ranges they have not trained for. Imagine the feeling in the pit of the stomach of a trained kicker with his jacket pulled over his or her head.
Respectfully

[andurilking2]

quote: Originally posted by theletch1
Street fighting: fighting for the sake of fighting, the perverse enjoyment of inflicting pain on another human being, undisciplined brawling to prove who the big dog on the block is. Pop culture.

Martial Arts: fighting for the sake of defense of yourself or others, the honorable enjoyment of knowing that you inflicted only as much pain on another human being needed to cease an undesirable action, disciplined action to prove that you have grown beyond the level of being a "dog" at all. Ancient CULTURE.

very admirable sentiment i agree 100%
(excellent choice of verbatim) :asian: :D

[jwreck]

Well, I consider myself a martial artist first, but I definitely have experience from "street fighting" that no martial art could teach you. After working in night clubs for years, I've been involved in more bar brawls than I can remember, and one thing I know for sure is that brawling is not martial arts. I also know that a seasoned brawler will make all but the most highly trained martial artist look stupid in a bar fight. Fortunately, there are only a few seasoned brawlers out there. Why? Because they don't last long. It doesn't take too many nights of spitting out teeth to realize that its a stupid way to live. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that street fighting and martial arts are about as related as marksmenship and fighting in a war. They may have some similarities, but overall, they are worlds apart.

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by jwreck
Well, I consider myself a martial artist first, but I definitely have experience from "street fighting" that no martial art could teach you. After working in night clubs for years, I've been involved in more bar brawls than I can remember, and one thing I know for sure is that brawling is not martial arts. I also know that a seasoned brawler will make all but the most highly trained martial artist look stupid in a bar fight. Fortunately, there are only a few seasoned brawlers out there. Why? Because they don't last long. It doesn't take too many nights of spitting out teeth to realize that its a stupid way to live. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that street fighting and martial arts are about as related as marksmenship and fighting in a war. They may have some similarities, but overall, they are worlds apart.
A seasoned brawler without formal training is juse a seasoned brawler, not even coming close to his physical or mental potential.

Since you brought up the military analogy, how about the old days with the draft and today's military?

During the old draft days, after boot camp and some minimal training, they were sent off to war. Many were inexperienced but became battle-hardened. This was the case in WWII where the Americans at first had trouble fighting in Africa. This was also the case in Vietnam.

Today's military is highly trained soldiers. Even if you are not a member of an elite force such as the Army's Special Forces or the Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, Marine Recon, etc., you still have at least 2-3 years of training before you are even put out on an important mission. And you continue training as long as you are enlisted or comissioned. The highly trained soldiers of today have lots of formal training, but many don't have a lot of combat experience like the men have had during WWII. And industrial-age warfare was on a MUCH grander scale than today's precision-type attacks.

Which is more effective? The experienced combat veteran with minimal formal training, or today's yellow but highly trained soldier?

[rmcrobertson]

An inexperienced soldier is called, "green," like fresh-cut wood that hasn't been seasoned yet, not yellow--which is usually associated with cowardice.

Other than that, I agree pretty much with the last poster.

[Michael Billings]

Originally posted by theletch1

Street fighting: fighting for the sake of fighting, the perverse enjoyment of inflicting pain on another human being, undisciplined brawling to prove who the big dog on the block is. Pop culture.

Interesting perspective. This fails to include the group of "Streetfighters" who fight to survive in various parts of the world. Mr. Parker used to talk about the early days in Hawaii, that was street brawling, testing themselves, but a different culture from today. None-the-Less, the sweeping statement regarding "street fighters" bothers me somewhat. I have known men and boys who had to fight their whole lives, or at least a portion of them, who do not fit this stereotype.

[Michael Billings]

If you remove the label of Martial Artist, and try to sort the groups by "Warriors", I think it would reveal some "Streetfighters" ARE warriors, with a complete set of ethics and morals.

Contrary to this, many "Martial Artist" do not have a clue about what a "Warrior" is ... not to be confused with a "Soldier" (who may or may not be a "Warrior".)

It is ludicrous to believe that someone is a "better" Martial Artist, who beats someone on the street. They may have been better that day, or the person they beat may have slipped and fallen and cracked their head? Does this make the street fighter a BETTER Martial Artist? Does it make him a Martial Artist at all? Or rather someone who is big, fast, and pretty tough? Who knows? I have friends who played professional football, could I beat them in a fight, probably not - could I kill them, maybe! I would hate to have to find out on the street with someone I don't know.

Why not accept the proposition that you are a Martial Artist if you study the Art of fighting/combat? It does not matter where or with who, or if you learn it from a book or video. If you train, think, prepare to be a Martial Artist ... I think you are one. That does not speak to either the quality of the Art, or of the individual's training. That is a separate matter entirely.

So what is up with trying to create and in-group and out-of-group "Martial Artist" label. Are we so vane that you do not think you could learn something from a seasoned good street fighter? I know better. The repetoire may be more limited, but what he knows is effective.

You should see some of the prison videos I have reviewed. It is interesting to see inmates practice their idea of a Martial Art - 3 on 1 takedown (2 doing a high/low takedown and the 3rd going for the victim's hip) Get the idea? They are practicing taking down a cop who is attempting to pull a firearm. Then I saw it actually happen on a patrol cars video camera. The officer is dead. They were extremely effective! Are they Martial Artists? Just grist for the mill.

[rmcrobertson]

Yep, exactly, and this is why we don't fool with Tank Abbott--I don't care how many "fights," he lost in the so-called UFC.

There are three things about street-fighters that scare me: 1) their background/their environment; 2) their experience; 3) their willingness.

Fortunately, there are a couple of reasons that serious streetfighters are very unlikely to be our real problem--and the first of these is that there's no real reason for any of these guys to come after most of us. I mean, really--anybody out there regularly hanging out in crappy ghetto bars, truck stops in Tulsa, roadhouses in Amarillo, biker bars in San Bernardino, and the like? Anybody out there looking for this sort of trouble?

I should of course note that if you're, say, a cop, well, the story's different. But my understanding is that even cops usually work pretty hard to pre-empt these sorts of fights...it's why they've got shotguns, pepper spray, a radio and a tac squad...

In other words, these guys are professionals. I'm an amateur, and so are the overwhelming majority of the folks in martial arts these days...and a good thing too.

One of the things I keep coming back to about kenpo is that the techniques have absolutely nothing to do with fighting as such....unless you think that dropping a piano on somebody's head is the same thing as a fight.

Still, though, it's good to keep these guys in mind--as a "worst case scenario," if nothing else, for those moments when we're feelin' pretty darn good about ourselves on the mat...

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by Elfan
A "street fighter" usually refers to one who uses "underhand methods" (ie doesn't fight "fair", which is a good thing) or someone who learned to fight from experience as opposed to formal training.

It occurs to me that the only unfair fight in the whole world is the one you lose.

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

One of the things I keep coming back to about kenpo is that the techniques have absolutely nothing to do with fighting as such....unless you think that dropping a piano on somebody's head is the same thing as a fight.

Still, though, it's good to keep these guys in mind--as a "worst case scenario," if nothing else, for those moments when we're feelin' pretty darn good about ourselves on the mat...

RM ... I would like to hear what is wrong with dropping a piano on somebody's head (mainly an attacker) if it wins the fight? ... And you can use a correct technique to lift the piano?
:lol:

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Sigung86
It occurs to me that the only unfair fight in the whole world is the one you lose.

Hmm I disagree. I'd be perfectly happy if any fight I was ever in was horrible unfair in my favor.

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by Elfan
Hmm I disagree. I'd be perfectly happy if any fight I was ever in was horrible unfair in my favor.

Sorry... Had I been a well known Master or Grand Master, or at least a 10th Degree that little bit might have been published in a book someday. But you tend to prove my point El'... It certainly would be unfair to the guy who lost, but not to you, eh? Eh?
:rolleyes:

[rmcrobertson]

Nothing wrong in the least...ask Bugs Bunny.

I was trying to make a point about the difference between this "fighting," that I keep reading so much about on forums, and what's going on in good kenpo. Which is closer to what's going on in wartime---once it's on, well, it's "by all means necessary."

It seems to me that a lot of folks are caught up with a set of twinned concepts--fighting and toughness, fighting and honor. There may be something honorable in fighting, I suppose, just as there may be something of honor to be salvaged out of wartime. In both, I guess, you can do the right thing, as they say, in the face of horrible circumstances. Good for you.

But the ways these ideas get discussed, they're both a little too Marquis of Queensberry on one haand, and Tough Man Competition on the other, for my taste. I'd argue that honor and self-defense are in a sense OPPOSITES. The honor's in avoiding the damn self-defense, because once It starts--honor's right out the window, gone. (Restraint may still play a role--another reason to practice those "useless," kata, but that's another story.) But once It--the real It, not these fake its that the folks who seem to brag about getting in fights all the timee are engaging in--why, hell yes, drop the piano.

I've heard a great, probably apocryphal story about Mr. Parker which ends with him saying, "Technique? I was gonna run the SOB over." That's the right idea, to me. Drop the piano--in some situations, that's the perfect adaptation of Five Swords.

I guess I just don't want to be in a situation where I have to lower the Steinway. I was thinking about this the other day, when I was teaching a white belt how to yank the body and head out of there on, say, Delayed Sword...you step back first to get range, of course, but also to keep trying to avoid having to hit anybody...you learn to really, really block well so that when an attacker comes after you, they feel real pain and real damage...which, oddly, LOWERS the level of violence, since if the gods are smiling, you needn't go further...

But I see some fairly-tangled ideas here. Any thoughts?

[Sigung86]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Nothing wrong in the least...ask Bugs Bunny.

I was trying to make a point about the difference between this "fighting," that I keep reading so much about on forums, and what's going on in good kenpo. Which is closer to what's going on in wartime---once it's on, well, it's "by all means necessary."

Absolutely right ... That was the reason for my little quip that Elfan took exception to. It goes back to the original Kenpo Anthem "These are my weapons, my empty hands". Nothing about what may be in them or how I will use them.

It seems to me that a lot of folks are caught up with a set of twinned concepts--fighting and toughness, fighting and honor. There may be something honorable in fighting, I suppose, just as there may be something of honor to be salvaged out of wartime. In both, I guess, you can do the right thing, as they say, in the face of horrible circumstances. Good for you.

First of all... There is absolutely no honor in fighting. The trick is to train so that you don't have to fight, but if it happens, then you should be trained to win. The real loser of any fight is the first person that throws the punch. That is speaking from the honor side of the coin. And in 40 years of martial arts, I've never seen an honorable fight. A fight is simply that ... A fight. An attempt, trained or untrained, to survive.

But the ways these ideas get discussed, they're both a little too Marquis of Queensberry on one haand, and Tough Man Competition on the other, for my taste. I'd argue that honor and self-defense are in a sense OPPOSITES. The honor's in avoiding the damn self-defense, because once It starts--honor's right out the window, gone. (Restraint may still play a role--another reason to practice those "useless," kata, but that's another story.) But once It--the real It, not these fake its that the folks who seem to brag about getting in fights all the timee are engaging in--why, hell yes, drop the piano.

Why Robert... If I didn't know better, and thought that you weren't simply paying lip service to a concept (and I do not believe you are)... Then I'd say that you have developed a level of insight that would do many of the old Masters proud and would shame some of the newer ones. The old Rooseveltian saying is pretty much right on, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". That is what it is supposed to be about, and that is what many people do not understand.

I had a friend, many years ago, who happened upon some bullies picking on an old man. Well... Being the white knight, and tougher than any 3 men I knew, that he was, he intervened and begged them to let the old man go. They turned on him. He stopped before anything escalated to the physical, and knelt on the ground. He told them to go ahead and vent their anger on him. He just knelt there. These bad guys worked into such a frenzy because they couldn't get a response they wanted that they gave up in disgust and left him alone.

I had reason after the fact to ask him about that. He said, speculatively, "I wanted to do something difficult". Like SGM Parker said, "A gorilla can be trained to kill"... That doesn't take any smarts whatsoever.

I've heard a great, probably apocryphal story about Mr. Parker which ends with him saying, "Technique? I was gonna run the SOB over." That's the right idea, to me. Drop the piano--in some situations, that's the perfect adaptation of Five Swords.

I heard the same sort of story about him regarding an alley, a fight and a large trash can... He having said that if there were a 20 gallon metal trash can then he would be the one wielding it ...
Probably just as apocryphal. Nonetheless, a great example of fighting theory and practice.

In the end ... Right or wrong ... I believe we are both a little better for believing as we do.

Dan

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
An inexperienced soldier is called, "green," like fresh-cut wood that hasn't been seasoned yet, not yellow--which is usually associated with cowardice.

Other than that, I agree pretty much with the last poster.
honest mistake

[MartialArtist]

There are no such things as an unfair street fight, as many of you have stated.

A street fight has no rules. That's what makes it much more dangerous and a bit more equal than a sports competition which is limited on purpose to prevent injury and for entertainment and fun. MA competitions, be it so-called NHB or tag sparring, most are professional at it. Street fighting, many keep on attacking when the guy is down there bleeding to death. It isn't no game to be taken lightly, it's playing with fire.

A street fighter can have some things to teach, like what strategies work for them, and what certain techniques do. I've seen a technique where the guy had no real formal training and had a move where he took the guy's legs like he was going for a double leg lock but then steps on the guy's groin and pretends he's reving up a car. :o Not very original, but it works. However, formal training is what makes things much easier. Reason being is you train to minimize extraneous movements that aren't required to get the task done, which improves speed, precision, and power and conserves energy.

My experience is that you see a lot of "farmer boy" wrestlers in high school. The stereotypical roughnecks that grow up wrestling other kids around the area, wrestling pigs, do a lot of lifting around the house doing chores, etc. These guys usually beat most of their opponents. However, you rarely see any of them in the NCAA, and even fewer at the international level. The farmer boy wrestlers aren't people that you would want to wrestle with and expect an easy win. They will give you a good match, but they won't get very far unless technique becomes their top priority.

[jwreck]

Originally posted by MartialArtist


Since you brought up the military analogy, how about the old days with the draft and today's military?

During the old draft days, after boot camp and some minimal training, they were sent off to war. Many were inexperienced but became battle-hardened. This was the case in WWII where the Americans at first had trouble fighting in Africa. This was also the case in Vietnam.

Today's military is highly trained soldiers. Even if you are not a member of an elite force such as the Army's Special Forces or the Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, Marine Recon, etc., you still have at least 2-3 years of training before you are even put out on an important mission. And you continue training as long as you are enlisted or comissioned. The highly trained soldiers of today have lots of formal training, but many don't have a lot of combat experience like the men have had during WWII. And industrial-age warfare was on a MUCH grander scale than today's precision-type attacks.

Which is more effective? The experienced combat veteran with minimal formal training, or today's yellow but highly trained soldier? Actually, that falls right in line with the point I was trying to make. In the military there is a saying "No plan survives five minutes of combat." Training is training, and war is war. Again, they have many similarities, but they are not the same. You can train for war and find that your methods are all wrong (as with the US in Vietnam). That's why I brought up the point about there being a lack of old brawlers. The learning curve is very steep. You mess up in training, you get re-taught. You mess up in a brawl, you get stitches (or worse).

[gunclub]

if anyone cares (yeah right), bowing & belt rank were not part of pilipino ma culture... just a modern addition

some great men wanted to share thier culture w/ the world
but in the process, became trapped in this martial arts mess

try hanging that on your academy store front window

[psi_radar]

There's not much to being a "street fighter." I had my share of scraps when i was younger, and though I did quite well in general, if I met the old me and the new me, the new "trained" me would kick my young butt. The street fighter's advantage lies in his grit and commitment--all-out aggressiveness coupled with willingness to take pain and a soul-deep denial to accept defeat. This type of onslaught can and does work, but defense is always a better, stronger tactic than offense. Unrelenting offense intrinsically exposes opportunities to a person with a cool mind and good skills.

That said, trial under combat is an effective training tool, so a criminal fighter can learn a lot in a short period by trial and error, finding techniques that work consistently. Hopefully, they'll also work in jail, which is where that lifestyle eventually leads.

[TaiChiTJ]

fighting is a martial art

when a fighter beats you and he has no previous "martial art" experience HE IS STILL A BETTER MARTIAL ARTIST THAN YOU......


It is interesting for me to replace the word "beats" in the statement above with the word "kills". As in "....when a fighter kills you and he has no....".

It seems to me what we are doing is participating in an activity that leaves us both hopefully alive so that we have learned from our experience and can come back and display better skills. Learning new skills is fundamentally life affirming, and increases our intelligence so we can communicate our knew knowledge to fellow martial artists or to friends and family. Listen to the early stories about Hawaiian Kenpo and Chow's classes. They got a little blood on the floor, maybe a trip to the hospital, but nobody died. They all lived to see the next sunrise and grow in their knowledge.

[masherdong]

Street Fighting is not an art. It is a form of competition where there are no rules and no holds barred. Just non-stop, bloody action.

[47MartialMan]

Strange, I have nevered been trained to fight a "street". Maybe drive on one-I win! :)

Seriously, I have been in, broke up, and witnessed many. The main factor was not to be there in the first place.