In order for something to work...?

[Paul_D]

In order for something to work in a live situating i.e. the battlefield, or “the street” (So we are not talking competition/points scoring here, just to clarify). It has to fill two criteria:

Number one; it has to be simple.

The more complicated something is:-
• the more chance there is it will go wrong
• the less likely you are to pull it off
• the less likely you will be able to respond with it subconsciously
• fine motor skills are decreased during adrenal stress, leaving us with gross motor skills, meaning intricate or movements become more difficult, if not impossible.

Number two; it has to be brutal. An Indian burn isn’t going to pursued someone they no longer want to attack you. However if they are unconscious they can no longer attack you, if their arm is broken they can no longer hit you with it, etc etc, you get the idea.

So I am interested to see others think, so let me know :- what would you add to this list, what would you take away from this list?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So I am interested to see others think, so let me know :- what would you add to this list, what would you take away from this list?

I would take away all of it. It's good advice, but it's not an absolute.

In order for a technique to work "on the street," it has to work. That is all.

What does it mean for a technique to work? I define it as something that ends the situation. Typically this would mean removing the person performing the technique from danger.

For example: A man raises his fist to me in the street, indicating he is about to punch me. I kick him sharply in the shin, causing him to gasp in pain and bend over to grab his leg. I walk away quickly. I am in no danger. Fight ended. Was it simple? Yes. Was it 'brutal'? Only in the sense that it cause the person attacking me to change his mind about his priorities.

For example: A man throws a punch at me in the street. I sidestep while brush-blocking his punch, lock my hand around his extended wrist, and step in, bending his elbow in the crook of mine. I then reach over, grab his hand with my other hand, and complete the lock, leaving him uninjured but unable to do anything but stand on tippy toe and say "Yes sir" when I ask him questions and punctuate by tweaking his wrist. Was it simple? No. Was it brutal? Not particularly. But although no permanent damage is done, he cannot do anything to me until I choose to let go, which I won't do until we have an agreement; and if he goes back on that agreement, he will see a different technique which will be brutal and which he will not like at all.

For example: A man throws a punch at me in the street. I block and counter punch, breaking his ribs with my power. Then I front snap kick his pelvis, blasting through his gonads and breaking the pelvic bone. He is dropped like a bad habit, and cannot stand or walk, so the confrontation is ended. Is it simple? About as simple as it gets. Is it brutal? I'd say so.

Which is 'better'? Doesn't matter. Use what works and go home. It would be a mistake to assume that only the simplest and most brutal techniques work, but there's nothing wrong with them either. Part of the reason many of us train is to get better at techniques which are more complex and which offer different outcomes.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Additional thought. If a person only wants to learn to defend themselves on the street, a rising block on the left and a good right cross might be the only things they need for MOST circumstances in the US, since most Americans are right-handed and throw haymakers. However, it is good to have other options if that doesn't work.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I would take away all of it. It's good advice, but it's not an absolute.

Agreed.

 

[Paul_D]

Additional thought. If a person only wants to learn to defend themselves on the street, a rising block on the left and a good right cross might be the only things they need for MOST circumstances in the US, since most Americans are right-handed and throw haymakers. However, it is good to have other options if that doesn't work.

UK crime statistics show most injuries (n relation to violence) are left side facial trauma, for the same reason (people being right handed)

 

[Buka]

This is an interesting topic. (to me) I gotta' think about this.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

what would you add to this list,

I would add "strategy".

If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, that will be your advantage. You don't want to spar with a striker, or wrestle with a wrestler. To spar with a wrestler and wrestle with a striker should be your "strategy". In order to do so, you have to be good in both and you will need "cross training".

"Simple" is a 2 edges sword. A punch to the face is simple. But a simple kick to the chest can stop all punches (leg is longer than the arm). When you kick, if your opponent grab on your leg, you will be down.

So when you

- punch, you have to watch for your opponent's kick.
- kick, you have to watch for your opponent's leg catching and take down.

This makes a simple move no longer simple any more. A "simple" punch is more than just a punch, it can follow by a "pull" and set up a "clinch". A kick is more than just a kick, it can set up another kick, a punch, or just close the distance. In other words, a simple move can be just part of your entire "strategy". If you just keep swing your punches at your opponent's head (your opponent can be a better boxer than you) and hope one of your punches can knock him down, you are not fighting "effectively" IMO.

 

[drop bear]

In order for something to work in a live situating i.e. the battlefield, or “the street” (So we are not talking competition/points scoring here, just to clarify). It has to fill two criteria:

Number one; it has to be simple.

The more complicated something is:-
• the more chance there is it will go wrong
• the less likely you are to pull it off
• the less likely you will be able to respond with it subconsciously
• fine motor skills are decreased during adrenal stress, leaving us with gross motor skills, meaning intricate or movements become more difficult, if not impossible.

Number two; it has to be brutal. An Indian burn isn’t going to pursued someone they no longer want to attack you. However if they are unconscious they can no longer attack you, if their arm is broken they can no longer hit you with it, etc etc, you get the idea.

So I am interested to see others think, so let me know :- what would you add to this list, what would you take away from this list?

Number 2 it has to be mechanical. So the body should have no choice but to comply with the move regardless of the intent of the person defending that move.

Me knocking someone over and sitting on them is hardly brutal. But they are also not going to get back up.

 

[drop bear]

I would add "strategy".

If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, that will be your advantage. You don't want to spar with a striker, or wrestle with a wrestler. To spar with a wrestler and wrestle with a striker should be your "strategy". In order to do so, you have to be good in both and you will need "cross training".

Lead your oponant to where your friends are.

 

[drop bear]

Additional thought. If a person only wants to learn to defend themselves on the street, a rising block on the left and a good right cross might be the only things they need for MOST circumstances in the US, since most Americans are right-handed and throw haymakers. However, it is good to have other options if that doesn't work.

Left hook?

Then at least you are responding against the general expectations.

 

[drop bear]

Mabye want it to be a bit legal? Or at least look legal with a bit of creative explanation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Lead your oponant to where your friends are.

Or lead your opponent to your car where you have something in your glove compartment. When I was a kid, every time when there was a street fight, the moment that one side started to run toward a funeral home, the other side started to run toward the opposite direction. The local gang hided samurai swords inside coffin in that funeral home.

 

[hoshin1600]

I like the premise here but I think the will to fight or intent is more important then the technique. In essence you have to have the will and intent to do harm while removing that from your attacker. A wave of violence needs to be met by a larger wave of violence or you need to get the heck out of the way.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the will to fight ...

Old saying said, "If you want to fight, you have to see blood". If you don't intend to see blood, you should not fight. The fighting is a serious matter. It's not just a game.

 

[drop bear]

I like the premise here but I think the will to fight or intent is more important then the technique. In essence you have to have the will and intent to do harm while removing that from your attacker. A wave of violence needs to be met by a larger wave of violence or you need to get the heck out of the way.

Not so much. This intent to hurt is kind of a winning intent. Which means it is fine if you are laying the boot it but less useful when the boots are laid on you.

Then you may want a mechanically sound escape in your toolkit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Number 2 it has to be mechanical. So the body should have no choice but to comply with the move regardless of the intent of the person defending that move.

Me knocking someone over and sitting on them is hardly brutal. But they are also not going to get back up.

I agree, with the exception that psychological techniques can avoid physical techniques.

 

[hoshin1600]

Not so much. This intent to hurt is kind of a winning intent. Which means it is fine if you are laying the boot it but less useful when the boots are laid on you.

Then you may want a mechanically sound escape in your toolkit.

Not really sure what you mean using the phrase "laying the boot"
But I will assume you mean being the guy doing the damage.
The will to fight goes beyond what I may have written, maybe I could have written more.
The will to fight is most important when your on the losing end of the fight. When you have multiple knife holes stabbed in your chest, " your not done till you're dead" . For myself I am not going to just lie down and wait for the coroner.
In combat there is nothing more important than the will to fight.

Now I also mentioned if you can't fight you need to get out of the way of the wave of violence

 

[hoshin1600]

Number 2 it has to be mechanical. So the body should have no choice but to comply with the move regardless of the intent of the person defending that move.

Me knocking someone over and sitting on them is hardly brutal. But they are also not going to get back up.

I think I understand what you mean by being mechanical but if you are sitting on your attacker you have accomplished nothing.
How long can you sit on him? I hope your cell phone is in your hand while you're sitting on him because if he gets up he is going to kill you.

 

[Hanzou]

Not all chokes are brutal, but those same chokes are very effective.

 

[drop bear]

I agree, with the exception that psychological techniques can avoid physical techniques.

Yeah. And even paifull stuff like that Chinese burn has a use.