It doesn't work... Blog Post

[jobo]

You don’t seem to be actually making a point any longer.

im pointing out your errors

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

if she cant defend her self she is getting no benefit at all from the training or at least no more benefit than she get from step aerobics or aikido

Going to try something here. I'll assume you are correct, and no matter how skilled she gets at fighting, she will have a disadvantage against someone stronger without experience. I don't think that's the case, but i'll go with it.

So let's take three instances.

Instance A: She has no experience whatsoever, in fighting or martial arts, weighs 130 and is attacked by a guy weighing around 200. She probably has about a 1% chance (maybe less) of winning, considering she doesn't know how to react and the guy was prepared. so 99% chance she gets mugged/beat up/raped/killed/kidnapped/whatever.

Instance B: She has no experience whatsoever, in fighting or martial arts, but does do aerobics and/or a martial art at a place that does no practical application. She weighs 130 and is attacked by a guy weighing around 200. She probably has about the same 1% (or less) chance of winning, considering she still doesn't know how to react and the guy was prepared. so 99% chance she gets mugged/beat up/raped/killed/kidnapped/whatever.

Instance C: same lady now has about 10 years of experience in BJJ (likely crosstrained some striking at some point from my experience with BJJers, but that's irrelevant). She still weighs 130, and is attacked by the same guy weighing around 200. She still has a disadvantage, but knows something that she can do to protect herself. Now she has a 5% chance of reacting and using her skills to sub the guy and escape, 95% chance of all that other stuff. I feel like I'm lowballing her chances, but that's also irrelevant. Even if it went to a 2% chance it would be irrelevant.

In the third instance, the person has a better chance of winning/surviving/whatever, even if it is still extremely low. So that increased chance is the benefit.

 

[jobo]

Going to try something here. I'll assume you are correct, and no matter how skilled she gets at fighting, she will have a disadvantage against someone stronger without experience. I don't think that's the case, but i'll go with it.

So let's take three instances.

Instance A: She has no experience whatsoever, in fighting or martial arts, weighs 130 and is attacked by a guy weighing around 200. She probably has about a 1% chance (maybe less) of winning, considering she doesn't know how to react and the guy was prepared. so 99% chance she gets mugged/beat up/raped/killed/kidnapped/whatever.

Instance B: She has no experience whatsoever, in fighting or martial arts, but does do aerobics and/or a martial art at a place that does no practical application. She weighs 130 and is attacked by a guy weighing around 200. She probably has about the same 1% (or less) chance of winning, considering she still doesn't know how to react and the guy was prepared. so 99% chance she gets mugged/beat up/raped/killed/kidnapped/whatever.

Instance C: same lady now has about 10 years of experience in BJJ (likely crosstrained some striking at some point from my experience with BJJers, but that's irrelevant). She still weighs 130, and is attacked by the same guy weighing around 200. She still has a disadvantage, but knows something that she can do to protect herself. Now she has a 5% chance of reacting and using her skills to sub the guy and escape, 95% chance of all that other stuff. I feel like I'm lowballing her chances, but that's also irrelevant. Even if it went to a 2% chance it would be irrelevant.

In the third instance, the person has a better chance of winning/surviving/whatever, even if it is still extremely low. So that increased chance is the benefit.

but you cant do that with out a base line,

so how many women with no training escape, she doesn't have to win, just get away ,some what high than the 1% you claim i suspect, but there your figures so il leave you to do the research

then you need to find how many women with 10 years BJJ escape. then you have answer

all your doing is plucking random figures from the air and making a case that supports your view

But it still begs the question, what happens if she is attacked after 18 months

NB we are discussing sexual assault not muggings, their easy just give up your purse

 

[Hanzou]

how are you quantifying that ? if she ends up raped and beaten, then she may as well have have either or non at all, the outcome is exactly the same

So go on .. quantify it

There's always a chance she will get raped or beaten no matter what she knows. However, if she's trained how to stop that method of attack, her chances of escaping that encounter without getting raped or beaten increases dramatically. Bjj excels at fighting from your weakest position (your back), so if a woman is surprised and knocked to the ground with an attacker on top of her and she has 10 years of Bjj experience (@kempodisciple example, putting her at or near black belt range), are we really going to pretend like she has absolutely no idea what to do?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

but you cant do that with out a base line,

so how many women with no training escape, she doesn't have to win, just get away ,some what high than the 1% you claim i suspect, but there your figures so il leave you to do the research

then you need to find how many women with 10 years BJJ escape. then you have answer

all your doing is plucking random figures from the air and making a case that supports your view

But it still begs the question, what happens if she is attacked after 18 months

NB we are discussing sexual assault not muggings, their easy just give up your purse

You're right, they were random numbers to try and help explain the point. The point is that it doesn't really matter what the numbers are. If it improves the odds even slightly, then that is the benefit. And I'm not really sure how you can claim that learning how to fight doesn't improve the odds of winning a fight (at least) slightly more than not learning how to fight.

 

[jobo]

There's always a chance she will get raped or beaten no matter what she knows. However, if she's trained how to stop that method of attack, her chances of escaping that encounter without getting raped or beaten increases dramatically. Bjj excels at fighting from your weakest position (your back), so if a woman is surprised and knocked to the ground with an attacker on top of her and she has 10 years of Bjj experience (@kempodisciple example, putting her at or near black belt range), are we really going to pretend like she has absolutely no idea what to do?

i don't mean to labour the point, but quantify means supply quantities. ''dramatically'' is not a quantity just a somewhat vague opinion

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but you cant do that with out a base line,

so how many women with no training escape, she doesn't have to win, just get away ,some what high than the 1% you claim i suspect, but there your figures so il leave you to do the research

then you need to find how many women with 10 years BJJ escape. then you have answer

all your doing is plucking random figures from the air and making a case that supports your view

But it still begs the question, what happens if she is attacked after 18 months

NB we are discussing sexual assault not muggings, their easy just give up your purse

So, the point is just give up?

 

[jobo]

So, the point is just give up?

the guys attacking aikido for making unsubstantiated claims and making equally unsubstantiated claims for bjj

no the point is be realistic

 

[jobo]

You're right, they were random numbers to try and help explain the point. The point is that it doesn't really matter what the numbers are. If it improves the odds even slightly, then that is the benefit. And I'm not really sure how you can claim that learning how to fight doesn't improve the odds of winning a fight (at least) slightly more than not learning how to fight.

well does it ? you either escape or you don't. being closer to escaping, but still not escaping is a failure,

 

[Hanzou]

the guys attacking aikido for making unsubstantiated claims and making equally unsubstantiated claims for bjj

no the point is be realistic

It isn't an unsubstantiated claim though. You fight like you train and Bjj offers full contact training from a position of weakness on a consistent basis. The idea that someone who trains that way for a decent amount of time would be unable to utilize that training in a self defense situation is laughable.

As for Aikido, many Aikidoka would freely admit that most of the art has gone full hippie, losing a lot of the edge it had in its earlier days. There's definitely hard Aikido out there, but you're hard pressed to find it.

 

[jobo]

It isn't an unsubstantiated claim though. You fight like you train and Bjj offers full contact training from a position of weakness on a consistent basis. The idea that someone who trains that way for a decent amount of time would be unable to utilize that training in a self defense situation is laughable.

As for Aikido, many Aikidoka would freely admit that most of the art has gone full hippie, losing a lot of the edge it had in its earlier days. There's definitely hard Aikido out there, but you're hard pressed to find it.

more unsubstantiated opinions

of course they can use it in self defence, the issue is will it work,

your claim women with a serious size and strength disadvantage can make it work, after some unspecified amount of time

thats what im asking you to quantify, you have data obviously

 

[Hanzou]

more unsubstantiated opinions

of course they can use it in self defence, the issue is will it work,

your claim women with a serious size and strength disadvantage can make it work, after some unspecified amount of time

thats what im asking you to quantify, you have data obviously

Again, if a woman can escape from under a mount, sweep a bigger man while in guard, and choke out a man in training when the man is imposing his will on her, why can't she do any of that in a self defense situation? This is common sense bro.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

well does it ? you either escape or you don't. being closer to escaping, but still not escaping is a failure,

It's the likelihood of escaping. If you're more likely to escape because you trained, then it's a benefit leading into the fight/attack.

 

[jobo]

It's the likelihood of escaping. If you're more likely to escape because you trained, then it's a benefit leading into the fight/attack.

yes if your more likely to, so how much more likely is some woman to escape if she has trained BJJ, which is the same question i asked you before and you just starting making up numbers

 

[jobo]

Again, if a woman can escape from under a mount, sweep a bigger man while in guard, and choke out a man in training when the man is imposing his will on her, why can't she do any of that in a self defense situation? This is common sense bro.

so no actual data ? just you unsubstantiated opinion that its common sense

if she can do all that against a man that trying she MAY be able to do it in an attack or she may very well not be able to.
so the best you have is IF , BUT and maybe.

that's along way from your original claim

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

yes if your more likely to, so how much more likely is some woman to escape if she has trained BJJ, which is the same question i asked you before and you just starting making up numbers

You actually didn't ask me any questions before I made up numbers.

And I have no idea how much more likely, but I can pretty confidently say that you are at least more likely to escape if you do train then if you don't.

 

[jobo]

You actually didn't ask me any questions before I made up numbers.

And I have no idea how much more likely, but I can pretty confidently say that you are at least more likely to escape if you do train then if you don't.

what you made up random number with out being asked a question, that impressive

well you may be confident, but in the absence of some unmade up quantities that just supposition, the people who train and escape may have escaped anyway, people with out training escape SO....

 

[Hanzou]

so no actual data ? just you unsubstantiated opinion that its common sense

Unsubstantiated would mean that I have no evidence to back up what I'm saying. Except I do have evidence. It simply isn't the evidence that YOU want because you know the specific "data" you want doesn't exist.

if she can do all that against a man that trying she MAY be able to do it in an attack or she may very well not be able to.
so the best you have is IF , BUT and maybe.

that's along way from your original claim

My original claim was the Bjj was better for self defense than Aikido. How is that a long way from that original claim?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

the guys attacking aikido for making unsubstantiated claims and making equally unsubstantiated claims for bjj

no the point is be realistic

BJJ’s results are much easier to see than Aikido’s in most cases. There’s a difference between unsubstantiated and unquantified. You’ve confused those terms in this thread.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again, if a woman can escape from under a mount, sweep a bigger man while in guard, and choke out a man in training when the man is imposing his will on her, why can't she do any of that in a self defense situation? This is common sense bro.

The only difference is sheer aggression. We can’t really account for that, but MMA outcomes seem to suggest the skills transfer.