Fighting and Self Defence are two different things.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
drop bear said:
Nothing is proven until it has be tested an infinite amount of times.

Look while true. It is not practical. Otherwise you remove the variables people do that all the time.
Click to expand...
So how do you test "self defense" What are we defending against? Since no two events are ever the same
 
drop bear

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,477
Reaction score
8,158
ballen0351 said:
So how do you test "self defense" What are we defending against? Since no two events are ever the same
Click to expand...

Same way you test a car saftey. Flogg it into a wall under controlled conditions.
 
B

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
drop bear said:
Same way you test a car saftey. Flogg it into a wall under controlled conditions.
Click to expand...
What are we flogging? Cars are made a standard way all VW Jettas are made to be identical so its easy to test. People not so much. What I do effectively my wife cant, my dad cant, you cant, even I cant again every time since ever situation is different
 
drop bear

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,477
Reaction score
8,158
ballen0351 said:
What are we flogging? Cars are made a standard way all VW Jettas are made to be identical so its easy to test. People not so much. What I do effectively my wife cant, my dad cant, you cant, even I cant again every time since ever situation is different
Click to expand...

Did you miss the bit about trends and percentages?
 
drop bear

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,477
Reaction score
8,158
ballen0351 said:
No, History is pretty specific
Click to expand...

OK. The history of the martial art.(mabye what you are getting at?) Is not specific to the individual so my coach my be able to high percentage a move that I can't. I have to find what works for me. Testing is a more effective method than history.
 
O

O'Malley

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
641
Reaction score
573
drop bear said:
Self defence tip. Don't sit in the pocket.

Click to expand...

People don't always have the luxury to control distance in SD situations.

drop bear said:
(Why do S,Ders have no friends anyway)
Click to expand...

Don't know about other countries but where I live you never attack someone without a) outnumbering the victim (who's ideally alone) or b) having a weapon that you can safely use to threaten/maim him/her. You never start on even ground, it's like "bullying 101".

I have done hard sparring (mainly Muay Thai), I have knocked out a man with a left hook, I've withstood hard hits and been knocked out myself, I've popped a guy's kneecap (unlucky inside kick) and I've broken someone's nose septum ("enthusiastic" hammerfist, though not during my time in MT) but none of these were done on purpose, I didn't mean to hurt those guys as we were sparring. Despite having some martial arts experience I'm worried about getting in an actual fight. So far I've been smart and lucky enough to avoid being caught up in trouble but I've witnessed numerous street fights and the reason I don't want to take part in those is that they are nothing like "hard sparring". When people clash in the streets, they want to hurt each other, they headbutt, knee your groin, use the environment or the hood of your jacket to their advantage, they have friends, and when one of the "fighters" is down the other and his pals start kicking and stomping him until their thirst for violence is satiated. I'm not even talking about the weapons and other crazy stuff (drugs...) that can turn the fight into a bloody mess.

Now I'm not saying that MMA is useless for self-defence (I'll take any good MMA coach over a bad SD instructor) but I'm really skeptical when I read some comments that seem to promote sports fighting as the best way to train for SD.

Maybe some of you have seen that video where pro MMA fighter Maiquel Falcao gets beaten up to a pulp (quite deservedly, in this case) by some thugs:


I'm no expert but we can see some differences with the way it would have unfolded in a ring:

- the fight starts way closer than classic MMA distance (he should have watched drop bear's video),
- the thugs have weapons (and for example fighters who only train for mano-a-mano fights might be at a disadvantage against strikes such as the one at 0:56)
- there are multiple attackers (that's why he gets nailed with the first hit and why he gets dropped in the end) yet he focuses on just one opponent
- his goal should be to get the f*** out of there unharmed but instead he's going for the KO, otherwise he would have run, with his conditioning he would have either shaken them off or put enough distance between them (especially the dude with the piece of wood) to deal with them one at a time (ever heard of the Horatii? :bookworm: )
- the opponents' goal was not to "get the submission" or "get the KO" but to punish him for hitting the lady, which is showed by the means they used to "win" the fight and by the fact that they repeatedly soccer-kicked his head when he was down
- he was driven by competition spirit (and his inner jerk which fortunately has nothing to do with his MMA training) instead of survival instinct.

Now we're talking about a professional MMA fighter with a respectable fight record (possibly two, as his friend looked like he was trained too), who's supposed to have "tested his skills against full resistance", yet none of his aggressors were neutralized. The Pitbull wannabe that gets punched repeatedly seems fine when he exits the store, by contrast look at Falcao's state at the end of the encounter. That's pretty weird for someone who practices what "the best fighters tend to gravitate towards". Where was the almighty BJJ? Also, where were the dangerous hits that are prohibited in MMA but that "any MMA practicioner could do in a SD situation"? No groin kick, no eye gouge, not even a headbutt?

I'll conclude with a word about those prohibited moves (among which I'll lump hits to prohibited targets such as the groin, joints, throat, eyes, etc.). I've read some messages where those confusing sports fighting with self defense in which those people made two big false assumptions.

1) "If we want, we can do the prohibited moves too, the basics are the same, we just have to target the groin/throat/eyes/etc."

They assume that those particular moves require no skill (which is kind of insulting for those who actually train them) or that they require the exact same skills that can be acquired through MMA training. However, those prohibited hits are trained skills just like any other move you can think of and it's not wise to assume that you will be able to hit the targets you purposefully avoid in your training. It isn't logical to think that you need training to land an uppercut to the chin but that "yeah if I need to protect myself I'll just target the groin with my inside leg kick". Besides, to be most effective, some prohibited hits require a move that is so target-specific that it is not trained outside of this specific application (for example a backhand to the groin or a vertical kick with the upper shin to the groin). Those target-specific moves are designed to give you the best angle and timing to do damage to that particular target and they need to be trained. If these didn't matter, anyone reading a book about pressure points would instantly be able to apply everything about them in real life.

2) "Yeah but anyway if he targets my eyes I'll just block it or avoid it and c'mon everyone knows that you need to protect your groin"

This falls into the same category of assumptions as the ones made by strikers that say they don't have to worry about grappling. Although MMA fanboys like to ridicule the "I won't let him grab me" argument, when asked about shots to the groin/eyes/throat they say "I won't let him hit me there". Well, it can work if you have good instincts (and you're better than your opponent) but it's still pretty unsafe to think that you'll be able to defend against something you never encounter in your training. In a competition you can be surprised by a hit coming from an unusual angle, I think that a fortiori you can be caught off-guard by an unusual strike to a prohibited target (like someone clawing at your eyes). Moreover, one might say that you can develop bad habits that might leave "holes" for those prohibited moves since they are never used in competition (it's along the same lines as why grappling supposedly isn't suited for armed encounters or multiple opponents), even though I'll leave this point to someone who has better knowledge of MMA.
 
B

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
drop bear said:
OK. The history of the martial art.(mabye what you are getting at?) Is not specific to the individual so my coach my be able to high percentage a move that I can't. I have to find what works for me. Testing is a more effective method than history.
Click to expand...
So just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean the technique won't work. The question was how do we prove a technique works if we dont test it under controlled environment. My answer was history. The question wasn't how do we know if you personally can pull the technique off. That's where class time and repetition come in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

attacking vs defending question

Previous Thread

High kick effectiveness and form.

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Top