Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by FriedRice, Nov 9, 2018.
This is why Fighter's training for sport is the best form of Self Defense.
I agree real violence is usually sloppy street boxing, but i dont see how that makes it good.
This was a good video to analyze street fighting, but i dont see how it proves the point that sport fighting training is the best form of self defense
The argument would be if you are probably going to face a version of bad boxing on the street. Then learning good boxing would be the most efficient counter.
Brophy tents show it better.
boxing only helps if the situation follows the very predictable pattern of male dominance chest puffing.
What does 'male dominance chest puffing' have to do with being good with your fists?
99% of 'street fights' are just people throwing hands from a stationary position. Being able to move and throw accurately as well as having the experience to read what's coming, understand distance(when you can hit, when you can be hit, and when you are safe) that boxing gives you is invaluable at that point.
Gang and weapon attacks
@Martial D not sure what your disagreement is, maybe you are reading into my post something that isnt there.
i would hesitate to give a number 99% as fact but anecdotally, yes i agree. i love boxing. it one of the fundamentals i base my own art on.
it has everything do.
if anyone is so inclined to read....
Aggression Continuum in Healthcare - McKesson Medical-Surgical
From the Cover: Two types of aggression in human evolution
"Two major types of aggression, proactive and reactive, are associated with contrasting expression, eliciting factors, neural pathways, development, and function.
The distinction between the two types is centered on the aims of aggression. Proactive aggression involves a purposeful planned attack with an external or internal reward as a goal. It is characterized by attention to a consistent target, and often by a lack of emotional arousal. Aggressors normally initiate action only when they perceive that they are likely to achieve their goals at an appropriately low cost . Examples include bullying, stalking, ambushes, and premeditated homicides, whether by a single killer or a group.
By contrast, reactive aggression is a response to a threat or frustrating event, with the goal being only to remove the provoking stimulus. It is always associated with anger, as well as with a sudden increase in sympathetic activation, a failure of cortical regulation, and an easy switching among targets . Examples are bar fights arising from mutual insults and crimes of passion immediately after the discovery of infidelity."
most of the discussion on this web sight addresses the reactive violence, the "street fight" or bar fight. we have gone over this again and again. this aggression follows the pattern shown above. there are better versions of the pattern but this is what i googled quickly. in the more defined continuum there are also branch off points for capitulation and de-escalation.
what many fail to address is that the type of violence will determine the success rate of certain responses. in the first clip i posted the assailant uses an ambush type attack, this is consistent with proactive violence or "predatory behaviors" the continuum that exists in the bar fight does not exist in predatory violence. the aim of proactive violence is to do as much damage as possible without risk or the violence is a means to an end. the assailant will only engage when he has mitigated the risk of resistance in order to attain his goal. while on the contrary reactive violence is predicated on engaging in the risk and showing dominance. the assailant has the belief that he is the more dominant primate and is expressing his power. actual physical engagement is not necessary for the "win" if the other will capitulate and submit although there is very often an emotional build up that needs to be released with physical aggression.
what this means is that the monkey dance is a fight between two people and is predictable and boxing works well as a defense. while on the contrary predatory violence is strategically designed to remove the ability of the victim to fight back. he only uses the violence to overwhelm you in order to obtain compliance for another goal. there is usually no opportunity for a defense so boxing skills will not come into play.
Nope, I responded to the words you said. If that's not what you meant to say you should have said something different.
Also, your Wikipedia copypasta is really here nor there in terms of 'boxing only helps if the situation follows the very predictable pattern of male dominance chest puffing.' Yes there are different reasons for violence, and yes it won't help if someone you don't see hits you with a wrench, but that hardly banishes it's usefulness exclusively to the realm of dude bro chest puffing. Not sure where you are trying to go with this.
I am pretty confident that being able to punch a man's face through the back of their head will generally trump his understanding of human psychology.
Which is why punches generally win fights.
And if dominance fights were not predatory what is sucker punching?
Wow. he prison shanked the mess out of him? her?
lol I go straight from 1 to 6. All of that other stuff is just a waste of time lol. Being at 2 - 5 just gives the person time to prepare. Steps 2 -5 should be "negotiate / manipulate"
I stand by my statement of a good combat focused teacher should include "sport" aspects, or at least sufficient "live" training to supplement a sports like atmosphere. (if you dont want to call it sport)
I understand the merits and everything. But there is a element of experience in thse things as well, nothing after all can truly prepare you for the real thing unless it analogs a sports fight or what your "live" training consists of.
Also, he could have done with taking some legal advice as to not kick and stomp on the head of someone who is clearly not posing a threat as that is defensible in court.
addendum: AND i saw haymakers.
Addendum 2: I personally hold a high importance of actually practicing in realistic scenarios with actual proper resistance and to emulate it as closely as possible.
The wrench is where I was going, with the added verbal that violence can be classified and divided and what works for one can not be depended upon in the other. Therefore boxing is not ALL you need, you also need other solutions. If you know the two classifications then the "other solutions" are easier to figure out.
For someone who uses the WORD sciencetific method a lot, you retreat quickly back to caveman club thumping when presented with a little social science.
Often sucker punches have violence cues if your aware to notice them. But yes they do have a predatory aspect to them.
I think your making an argument that doesn't need to be made. Of course punching works.
It not only works. But caveman club thumping works so well that it can completely negate psychology.
Which is the point.
I think boxing helps any time you get a chance to respond. It helps more in some situations than others.
The same is true of any physical system of defense/combat.
Do you think there is a predictable pattern of chest thumping?
Sometimes. Sometimes there's no chest-thumping, at all. When there's chest-thumping, it's usually going to follow the predictable pattern, unless derailed.
I agree, for the fact that a sloppy punch can still cause damage. Sloppy does not always mean weak or less dangerous. It may mean that the person doesn't have a lot of accuracy but if one of the punches connects, you'll still be in trouble.
its a dumb point. because no one said you fight with psychology.
its not a difficult logic to follow here. my thoughs were as follows;
does boxing work every single time in every situation? no....ok then
how often does it effectively end the confrontation?
if you were to believe the Gracie propaganda 90% of all fights go to the ground, which nullifies boxing skills.
so without actual data lets say 50% of the time. now out of that 50% what percent of situations does boxing skills end the confrontation where its not a ground game? well its still not 100% because very often there is a weapon or its as was said earlier a wrench hits you when your not looking. how often is that? as we factor in more and more variables we get a smaller and smaller percentage where boxing skills are applicable. now im not against boxing, its actually my favorite segment of my training. its my go to skill. but i am not willing to put all my eggs in that one basket. i want more skills in my tool box then just boxing. so what skills do we need to learn to deal with that other section of the pie?
until you start to understand the psychology of fighting the attempts to fill in the gaps in your game plan is merely guessing.
is cave man thumping appropriate in every situation...no. just because someone is rude to you at the market, it doesnt warrant a punch in the head. you cant just go around punching people in the head for every slight or comment you find offensive. this is all self evident. i think some people here just argue to argue.
I agree, though probably not with who the people are.
You are responding to arguments nobody made to support a point that seems to have little to do with your initial assertion vis a vis chest thumping.
Yes, there are situations that you can't respond to, but again, that does not paint boxing..or any style..into the corner you are attempting to diminish it to.
Separate names with a comma.