“The techniques and tactics used to win a fight are far from an ideal fit when it comes to the physical side of self-protection.” Iain Abernethy World Combat Association Chief International Coach
The reason you are unable to understand the difference between fighting and self defence is understandable. You have never experienced criminal violence. If you are a young male the form of violence you are most likely to be a victim of is street fighting (consensual violence) and wanting to defend yourself from this leads you into the mistaken assumption that fighting is self defence. If you are a martial artist and your experience of violence is consensual violence (combat sports) then this is the only violence you know of. This makes it harder to view violence in any other form.
This then leads you to assume that fighting sills, and fighting arts (MMA in particular) hold the answers to self defence. However ask yourself this, why do none of the world’s leading authorities on Self Defence recommend MMA as the answer for self defence? Ask yourself further, why are the only people who think MMA is the answer to criminal voice, people who a) are worried about getting into drunken pub brawls/street fights b)do MMA and c) do not understand the difference between fighting and self defence?
When people who understand the difference attempts to explain, two things happen. One, someone saying “This is not ideal for self defence” is taken as being “Combat sports are useless”. Clearly this is not true, and yet this is exactly how it is taken, people come flying out of the woodwork to defend their beloved combat sports. But saying something does not work in a different field is not an attack or an attempt to demean its inherent value. I myself after all am a UFC fan, but the knowledge that it is not ideal for self defence does not mean that I think any less of it. The second thing that happens is that you counter with “I know this works, I did it in the dojo/cage/ring”. Again this error is understandable. The problem is what works is dependent on the criteria being used to decide what works.
Kicking someone in the groin and running away works for self defence, but it does not work for combat sports as you will be disqualified for use of illegal strikes and for failing to engage with your opponent. Conversely, triangle choke someone in the ring and you win, triangle choke someone in the street and his mates stomp your head flat. That fact that something works in the dojo/ring/cage does not mean it works in a live self defence situation. The reverse is also true. These techniques have not changed of course, but the criteria used to judge success has.
The success of a skill or techniques cannot be divorced from the criteria used to judge success. It is not enough to say “this works” you have to say this works in the ring, but not in the street. This works in the street but not in the ring, or this works in situation a, b or c (as applicable) when x, y or z (as applicable) are being used to judge its effectiveness.
Fighting takes place at fighting distance, in a fighting stance with your hands up in a guard. Self Defence takes place at sucker distance, you will be attacked without warning, in fact criminal will use the three of the four D’s (dialogue, distraction ,deception) to lull you into a false sense of security before using the last of the four D’s (Destruction).
While “fighting skills” have some crossover value, physical self-protection is very different from “fighting”. It is faster, closer, more emotional and way more chaotic. The techniques and tactics used to win a fight are far from an ideal fit when it comes to the physical side of self-protection. - See more at: http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/problems-street-fighting#sthash.DAlrcbHp.dpuf
If you were fighting someone and they didn’t respond it would soon become boring. You want that exchange of techniques, you want the back and forth, you want that test of skill. When a self defence situation gets to the point where physical invention becomes necessary it is not a “fight” you are looking for. You don’t want the other person to “get a go”. There is no bobbing and weaving, no guards, no exchange of techniques, no exploratory jabs look for “holes in his game”, it will not look like a fight, it will not resemble sparring, it will have no similarity between the skilled exchanges of two trained martial artists.
There is also the misconception that “if it works against a skilled fighters” it will work against a criminal. This shows a lack of understanding of the nature of criminal violence. Whilst it is true that skilled fighters are better at fighting (consensual violence) than criminals, they are not better at criminal violence. A criminal has no intention of fighting. He wants what you have, and he will chose the easiest and safest way for him to get what he wants. From The Little Black Book of Violence:- Criminals, bullies and thugs do not want to fight – they want to win. And they’re downright eager to cheat their way to victory because they don’t want to get hurt in the process.
He will not ask for your wallet and when you refuse get into a fighting stance and offer you a “square go” with you, with the winner getting your wallet. He will ask you if you have a light, or the time, as your brain is temporarily engaged with the question, or whilst you are looking at your watch or getting a light, he will attack. He will strike without warning and continue to do so until you are incapacitated. At which point he will alleviate you of your possessions. Your skills at sparring in the gym, or rolling at BJJ have no bearing here, he is not fighting, he is not engaging in a contest of skill. He will not make any attempt to play your game on your terms.
In his book Dead or Alive: The Definitive Self Protection Handbook, Geoff Thompson writes “The attacker may ask his victim a question and then initiate attack while the victim is thinking about the answer. This distraction also switches off any instinctive, spontaneous physical response the victim may have. A man with twenty years of physical training in a fighting art can be stripped of his ability by this simple ploy. I have witnessed many trained fighters, who are monsters in the controlled arena, get beaten by a guy with only an ounce of their physical ability.”
If you are sucker punched and taken out of the game before you realised you were even in it, your ability as a fighter counts for nothing. Several highly skilled boxers and MMA fighters have been stabbed, killed, mugged, beaten and hospitalised by people with no “fighting” training or skill. Conversely people with no fight training are able to protect themselves. Being familiar with the rituals of violence (i.e. the process and methods used by those adept at criminal violence:- muggers/sexual predators/etc) will allow you to spot the warning signs, and attack pre-emptively before fleeing. Assuming a person’s self defence ability, or self defence techniques themselves, can only be judged by their ability to function when sparring or rolling in an MMA gym/ring/dojo is like judging a table tennis player on his success at Wimbledon.
In his book The Complete Urban Combatives, Lee Morrison writes “The physical side of the equation is pretty simple: just develop two or three effective strikes that can be executed hard and that work well. Drill them until you reach a level of unconscious competence, which comes from practicing strikes for several thousand reps with visualisation and real intent on the impact equipment until they become a part of you.”
Now ask yourself how successful would you be in the ring/cage/dojo if you only had two or three techniques? Not very, and yet people with the experience all say the same thing, you need to develop a small arsenal of gross motor skills which will work under stress. None of them suggest we should all sign up to our nearest MMA gym and spends years developing the huge range of techniques and skills necessary for success in MMA.
Distance
Fighting in the ring or street takes place at sparring/fighting distance. Self defence takes place at a much closer “sucker punch” range. The skills needed to bob and weave in and out of striking range as your opponent bobs and weaves looking for his own openings have no relevance to two people who are static and at arm’s length. For self defence you need to develop the ability to explode, without telegraphing, from a normal everyday stance. This skill has no place in the ring, but the fact that it has no place in the ring, does mean it has no value outside it.
Opponents
Combat sports usually take place between two opponents. Self defence will often involve multiple attackers. So whilst tying an opponent up in the cage and kneeing him will work in the cage, try it in the chip shop on a Friday night and his mates will be busy stabbing you. Again, what “works” cannot be divorced form the criteria being used to judge success.
Training
In a combat sport your opponent will be trained/skilled in the art of fighting. In self defence the criminal is not highly skilled or trained in martial arts. He is however highly skilled and experienced at criminal violence. He will not fight you, he will not play your game. He will play you at his game in which you are not trained, and unless you are familiar with the rituals of violence you may not even realise you are being in the middle of the criminals “interview” process.
But what if your assailant happens to also be a highly skilled/trained boxer or mma fighter? In self defence terms, nothing changes. You need the non physical self defence skills to be aware that a situation has the potential to turn violent, and use your non physical skills to avoid it ending that way. If a violent ending is unavoidable then your gameplan remains the same, you are not trying to engage in a consensual fight, you will attack pre-emptively continuing to strike until the treat is neutralised and then flee.
Weapons
There are no weapons in the ring or cage. Criminals will utilise weapons
Objective
The object of a fight is to out score your opponent on the score card, or win by other means dictated to by the rules. The object of self defence is to create the opportunity to escape. Therefore training yourself to rush in for the finish once you have knocked your opponent to the floor is the exact opposite of what you should be doing for self defence. Rushing in to “finish off” a downed criminal crosses the line between self defence and assault.
In self defence your only objective is to create the opportunity to escape.
Starts
Fighting starts when the bell rings. In self defence there is no pre agreed starting point for things getting physical, in fact a mugger, sexual predator, etc will do everything he can to disguise the fact he is about to attack.
Legality
Fighting in the street (engaging in consensual violence) is stupid, dangerous and illegal. It leaves you open to the legal consequences that engaging in it bring. Criminal convictions, loss of employment, the possibility of begun sued by your victim. Self Defence is legal, whilst it is a common misconception that people are convicted for self defence, the reality is that they are convicted on the statement they gave the police, as they have no training in how to give a statement and fail to include key phrases into their statement. You will not lose your job for defending yourself.
In conclusion; Fighting is not self defence. If you are sparring/fighting in the street you are breaking the law. The skills of fighting, whilst having some cross over value, are not the ideal solution to self defence. The measure of self defence is not its ability to function under sparring, or in the ring/cage or dojo. The skills needed for success in one area are not the skills needed for success in the other, and in fact many skills needed for success in fighting are the exact opposite of the skills need or self defence and vice versa.
Finally and more importantly, if you want to get good at fighting, train for fighting. If you want to get good at self defence, train for self defence.
For further information on the differences between fighting, martial arts, and self defence, and why the skills which will bring success in one will not by default bring success on the other I recommend you listen to the free audio book The Martial Map, by Iain Abernethy.
The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy