Comparing kid ranks to adult ranks

[skribs]

No, buddy, there's really no confusion, especially in the Martial world, about what "can't fight" means.

In fact, that might be the ONLY term in Martial Arts, or the fight game, where there is absolutely no confusion about definition.

I read this post before the edit, and assumed you must be being sarcastic. Then I read the second part, and you seem serious about this. I have seen so many moving goalposts on what "can't fight" means in discussions, it is probably one of the least-agreed-upon terms.

 

[drop bear]

What is more of a crank?

The submission by the 12 year old.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.

I'm sure that if someone looked hard enough, they could find a bjj fighter that can't fight.

I've never met a BJJ black belt I'm confident i could beat in a fight though. Some I think I could beat, but there's always the risk they can get me to grappling. And then I'd lose, 100%.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I read this post before the edit, and assumed you must be being sarcastic. Then I read the second part, and you seem serious about this. I have seen so many moving goalposts on what "can't fight" means in discussions, it is probably one of the least-agreed-upon terms.

What are the goalposts here? To me it seems pretty straight forward-you either can do well in a fight, or not.

 

[skribs]

What are the goalposts here? To me it seems pretty straight forward-you either can do well in a fight, or not.

The goalposts are what level of "fight" qualifies. For example, I think there are very few people on this forum who would stand a chance going toe-to-toe with a UFC fighter. I've seen that as the goalpost before. That if you're not fighting in the UFC, you have no idea how effective of a fighter you are, because you've never tested yourself against top-level fighters.

I also think the majority of people on this forum could probably handle an average untrained person who's a little drunk and had a bad day. Is that a fight? Yes. But I've seen it not count, because if they're untrained, it doesn't mean you know how to fight, it just means they suck more than you do.

How are we assessing who knows how to fight? Take a champion boxer with no grappling experience and put him in a BJJ class, and to most of them, he'll look like he doesn't know how to fight, because he's completely clueless on the ground, even though he probably knows how to fight very, very well.

Are we factoring size, age, and other factors? I'm 5'5". One of my friends in my BJJ class is 6'5", literally a foot taller than me (and almost 100 pounds heavier). Would we be assessed the same in the same situation against the same opponents, or would you grade him harsher than me because he's bigger?

I've seen people reject claims of knowing how to fight or of systems working because the level of competition wasn't good enough. Someone used aikido to defend themselves? Doesn't matter, because we don't know how good the assailant was. I've seen that before on this very forum. I'm absolutely shocked that you would think everyone in the martial arts world agrees on this, because I'm assuming you read this forum.

What level of fight do you think is sufficient to prove that you can fight? What makes you think that literally everyone in the martial arts community agrees with you on that threshold?

 

[skribs]

The submission by the 12 year old.

I don't think that would be what happens. This kid doesn't strike me as the type to spaz.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The goalposts are what level of "fight" qualifies. For example, I think there are very few people on this forum who would stand a chance going toe-to-toe with a UFC fighter. I've seen that as the goalpost before. That if you're not fighting in the UFC, you have no idea how effective of a fighter you are, because you've never tested yourself against top-level fighters.

That's not a goalpost of ability to fight, though. That's a goalpost of being an elite fighter. Just like saying a basketball player not in the NBA is not an elite basketball player. I don't think anyone assumes someone who can fight is able to win in the UFC, just like no one assumes anyone who's good at street ball could make it in the nba.

I also think the majority of people on this forum could probably handle an average untrained person who's a little drunk and had a bad day. Is that a fight? Yes. But I've seen it not count, because if they're untrained, it doesn't mean you know how to fight, it just means they suck more than you do.

I don't know anyone who's claimed that's not a fight. There are some, like @drop bear who's said that shouldn't be the goal-which I agree with, but they're not saying people aren't able to take on the untrained.

How are we assessing who knows how to fight? Take a champion boxer with no grappling experience and put him in a BJJ class, and to most of them, he'll look like he doesn't know how to fight, because he's completely clueless on the ground, even though he probably knows how to fight very, very well.

That's not fighting, that's grappling.

Are we factoring size, age, and other factors? I'm 5'5". One of my friends in my BJJ class is 6'5", literally a foot taller than me (and almost 100 pounds heavier). Would we be assessed the same in the same situation against the same opponents, or would you grade him harsher than me because he's bigger?

Same grade. If you can fight, you can fight. Unless you want to go professional in a system that has weight classes.

I've seen people reject claims of knowing how to fight or of systems working because the level of competition wasn't good enough. Someone used aikido to defend themselves? Doesn't matter, because we don't know how good the assailant was. I've seen that before on this very forum. I'm absolutely shocked that you would think everyone in the martial arts world agrees on this, because I'm assuming you read this forum.

Can you point that out? I don't remember seeing anyone disregarding someone stating they used an art, by claiming it's not that art. I've seen people trying to find their art in something else, and people pointing out that's not how that works, but not anyone denying the persons original art. I've seen that on reddit, and youtube, plenty but not here. And it's idiotic when it does come up-how is a random internet stranger going to know what a person practices better than that person.

 

[skribs]

I don't know anyone who's claimed that's not a fight. There are some, like @drop bear who's said that shouldn't be the goal-which I agree with, but they're not saying people aren't able to take on the untrained.

I've had @drop bear make that claim (a long time ago).

That's not fighting, that's grappling.

See, right there. A lot of people would say that it is fighting, including me and my BJJ professor. If we can't even agree on what the definition of fighting is, how can we agree on the definition of "can't fight"?

The fact that we're even arguing about this proves my point that not everyone agrees.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I've had @drop bear make that claim (a long time ago).

I don't recall that being his MO. So let's ask @drop bear. Do you believe that if someone isn't able to fight at the highest level of organized UFC (MMA) that means they're unable to fight?

See, right there. A lot of people would say that it is fighting, including me and my BJJ professor. If we can't even agree on what the definition of fighting is, how can we agree on the definition of "can't fight"?

You believe that people who start from grappling, and only grapple-meaning if someone breaks free, it ends, or they have to reconnect, is a fight? Did I misunderstand you, did you misunderstand me, or is that your belief?

The fact that we're even arguing about this proves my point that not everyone agrees.

Yes, it proves you don't agree. It doesn't prove what the majority believes (Which for the record, I don't know what the majority does believe but two people arguing doesn't mean there's a legitimate argument. Any more than someone arguing sandy hook was falsified or the assault on the capital January 6th wasn't an assault, means there's a legitimate debate).

 

[skribs]

You believe that people who start from grappling, and only grapple-meaning if someone breaks free, it ends, or they have to reconnect, is a fight? Did I misunderstand you, did you misunderstand me, or is that your belief?

Yes. My Professor has on numerous times told me that "this is a fight" and it's a very sport-focused gym.

Yes, it proves you don't agree. It doesn't prove what the majority believes (Which for the record, I don't know what the majority does believe but two people arguing doesn't mean there's a legitimate argument.

That's funny, because you said it was pretty straight-forward, and Buka said "there is absolutely no confusion."

Now, it's "I don't know what the majority believes."

I honestly can't even understand why this is a hill you're defending so hard. It doesn't make sense that everyone would have the same opinion on who can fight and who can't.

Look at fraudbusting videos as an example. Everyone in the video thinks their instructor can fight. Everyone commenting on the video thinks the instructor can't. Or look at professional fighters. Lots of people think some of them can't fight, even though they are in the UFC, because they haven't been impressed by their performances.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yes. My Professor has on numerous times told me that "this is a fight" and it's a very sport-focused gym.

So just to make sure-he believes that a fight starting from grappling and prohibiting anything but grappling is a fight? Wow.

That's funny, because you said it was pretty straight-forward, and Buka said "there is absolutely no confusion."

Now, it's "I don't know what the majority believes."

I honestly can't even understand why this is a hill you're defending so hard. It doesn't make sense that everyone would have the same opinion on who can fight and who can't.

I'm pretty sure I know what the majority believes. I'm just not omnipotent, and haven't conducted a scientific experiment to prove you're an outlier here, so I won't claim that.

Look at fraudbusting videos as an example. Everyone in the video thinks their instructor can fight. Everyone commenting on the video thinks the instructor can't. Or look at professional fighters. Lots of people think some of them can't fight, even though they are in the UFC, because they haven't been impressed by their performances.

Ok? That's again true of any sport. I've seen people claim the same of NBA players, and then get wrecked by the third-string players in 1-on-1. The fact that there are couch quarterbacks doesn't change things.

 

[skribs]

So just to make sure-he believes that a fight starting from grappling and prohibiting anything but grappling is a fight? Wow.

So you don't think grappling is a fight, and you think that so arrogantly that you have to say "Wow" when someone does? Is boxing a fight? Kickboxing? Muay Thai? MMA? I mean, in MMA, you can't do 12-6 elbows or pull a knife and stab them, so is that really a fight? I mean, you're prohibiting anything but unarmed techniques, and there's little real danger of being killed.

If someone pushes me because they're mad I looked at their girlfriend the wrong way, but backs off when I land one punch a fight? That's a far lower bar than a BJJ match in terms of skill, but it doesn't start at grappling and prohibit anything but grappling.

What is your definition of a fight? What is the threshold of technique, skill, and danger that makes it a "fight" instead of "not a fight", so that we can determine if you "can" or "can't" in that situation?

Ok? That's again true of any sport. I've seen people claim the same of NBA players, and then get wrecked by the third-string players in 1-on-1. The fact that there are couch quarterbacks doesn't change things.

The fact that it's true of other sports means what in the context of this conversation? If anything, it's supporting my argument that these disagreements exist. You are arguing that disagreements don't exist. Does the irony of this completely escape you?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So you don't think grappling is a fight, and you think that so arrogantly that you have to say "Wow" when someone does? Is boxing a fight? Kickboxing? Muay Thai? MMA? I mean, in MMA, you can't do 12-6 elbows or pull a knife and stab them, so is that really a fight? I mean, you're prohibiting anything but unarmed techniques, and there's little real danger of being killed.

Is this a genuine question, or do you not understand the difference between limiting yourself to just grappling vs. not allowing knives and 12-6 elbows? Given the rest of your statement, I have to assume that you're annoyed and trolling, so just going to ignore you for now (not using the ignore button-just manually ignoring).

 

[drop bear]

That's not a goalpost of ability to fight, though. That's a goalpost of being an elite fighter. Just like saying a basketball player not in the NBA is not an elite basketball player. I don't think anyone assumes someone who can fight is able to win in the UFC, just like no one assumes anyone who's good at street ball could make it in the nba.

I don't know anyone who's claimed that's not a fight. There are some, like @drop bear who's said that shouldn't be the goal-which I agree with, but they're not saying people aren't able to take on the untrained.

That's not fighting, that's grappling.

Same grade. If you can fight, you can fight. Unless you want to go professional in a system that has weight classes.

Can you point that out? I don't remember seeing anyone disregarding someone stating they used an art, by claiming it's not that art. I've seen people trying to find their art in something else, and people pointing out that's not how that works, but not anyone denying the persons original art. I've seen that on reddit, and youtube, plenty but not here. And it's idiotic when it does come up-how is a random internet stranger going to know what a person practices better than that person.

Can fight is a super hinky definition.

Ok. Lets use the 12 year old. Say she has bashed every other 12 grader in school.

I still would still say skribs shouldn't go balls out. Even if she "can fight"

So can fight is situational.

I also get the "this is a fight" mentality for grappling.

Especially grappling. It is how mat enforcers work. And sometimes they really hurt people. So it can be serious business.

But not with a 12 year old. Unless for some reason I am getting smashed.

 

[skribs]

Is this a genuine question, or do you not understand the difference between limiting yourself to just grappling vs. not allowing knives and 12-6 elbows? Given the rest of your statement, I have to assume that you're annoyed and trolling, so just going to ignore you for now (not using the ignore button-just manually ignoring).

I was asking you where the line was. You have repeatedly avoided answering the question. Instead of answering the question, you call me a troll. If I could use the ignore button on you, I would.

Can fight is a super hinky definition.

Ok. Lets use the 12 year old. Say she has bashed every other 12 grader in school.

I still would still say skribs shouldn't go balls out. Even if she "can fight"

So can fight is situational.

I also get the "this is a fight" mentality for grappling.

Especially grappling. It is how mat enforcers work. And sometimes they really hurt people. So it can be serious business.

But not with a 12 year old. Unless for some reason I am getting smashed.

I don't think the "can fight" conversation is related to me rolling with this kid.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Can fight is a super hinky definition.

Ok. Lets use the 12 year old. Say she has bashed every other 12 grader in school.

I still would still say skribs shouldn't go balls out. Even if she "can fight"

So can fight is situational.

I also get the "this is a fight" mentality for grappling.

Especially grappling. It is how mat enforcers work. And sometimes they really hurt people. So it can be serious business.

But not with a 12 year old. Unless for some reason I am getting smashed.

She can fight 12 year olds. She can't fight adults. A 12 year old can mat-enforce against her. A 30 year old can't. Seems pretty simple business to me.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I was asking you where the line was. You have repeatedly avoided answering the question. Instead of answering the question, you call me a troll. If I could use the ignore button on you, I would.

I don't recall you asking me directly once where the line was. I also don't remember ever avoiding a question regarding that. Your first post that referenced me was #45. I thought I answered every question you had pretty clearly. Then you limited a fight to just grappling, which to me is not a fight-as a fight includes the option of not grappling. You made multiple claims of what I was arguing, with no basis, and no evidence that I was arguing such, which is why I posited that you were trolling. I don't know what question I avoided, but if you ask me directly I will answer.

 

[drop bear]

She can fight 12 year olds. She can't fight adults. A 12 year old can mat-enforce against her. A 30 year old can't. Seems pretty simple business to me.

Yeah.

I am still not sure why all the angst in the first place.

The worst thing that happens if you go too easy is you get tapped out.

 

[drop bear]

I was asking you where the line was. You have repeatedly avoided answering the question. Instead of answering the question, you call me a troll. If I could use the ignore button on you, I would.

I don't think the "can fight" conversation is related to me rolling with this kid.

Yeah. I don't know I am super confused by the whole thing.

 

[skribs]

I don't recall you asking me directly once where the line was.

Post #45:
"What level of fight do you think is sufficient to prove that you can fight? What makes you think that literally everyone in the martial arts community agrees with you on that threshold?"

Post #52:
"What is your definition of a fight? What is the threshold of technique, skill, and danger that makes it a "fight" instead of "not a fight", so that we can determine if you "can" or "can't" in that situation?"

Post #55:
"I was asking you where the line was. "

I realize that you quoted Post #55 when you said you don't recall me asking where the line was. However, I would assume it was very clear from that post that I was asking where the line was, and thus another opportunity for you to define it.

There were other posts where I also hinted that a definition of what is a fight would clear up any miscommunications, but you missed those as well. I don't think I need to directly ask for you to gather from context what information would help, but also I did directly ask three times.

I also don't remember ever avoiding a question regarding that. Your first post that referenced me was #45. I thought I answered every question you had pretty clearly. Then you limited a fight to just grappling, which to me is not a fight-as a fight includes the option of not grappling.

So I only get answers to one post, and follow-up questions deserve ridicule?

You made multiple claims of what I was arguing, with no basis, and no evidence that I was arguing such, which is why I posited that you were trolling.

I was providing examples of what the line could be. Those were not claims about what you said. I was giving you a multiple choice question with an option of E) Other at the end.

I was also trying to show how the logic of the claims you did make didn't make sense. That you picked an arbitrary line that people disagree with, and there are other arbitrary lines people could choose.

I asked those as questions which could be answered together or individually. You may have answered all my questions in Post #45, but I posited new questions in Post #52, and instead of answering those, you called me a troll.

I don't know what question I avoided, but if you ask me directly I will answer.

Okay, let me try this:

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS AND ISN'T A FIGHT?

There. Did you catch it? Was I clear enough this time? Apparently you missed it the last three times, so I made it as big as I can on this forum.

Yeah.

I am still not sure why all the angst in the first place.

The worst thing that happens if you go too easy is you get tapped out.

I want to be able to improve even against the small group of rolling partners that I'm athletically superior to.

The purpose of this threat was simply to figure out where a kid color belt compared to an adult white belt or adult colored belt, so that I could go into that roll with a good ballpark idea of what level of intensity to go so that we both get something out of it.

Yeah. I don't know I am super confused by the whole thing.

I wonder if you have someone ignored, and that's the person that started the rabbit trail. This one started with the "bet" that there are some BJJ black belts who can't fight, which was already getting off topic of this thread in itself.