Street Jitsu! Punch Block Series for Self Defense

[jobo]

To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance).

To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.

well quite capable against who, against you perhaps, but against someone of much greater fitness, perhaps not.
but then your point doesn't stack up. Being in yoir late 50s with a gut doesn't mean you don't have a very good standard of fitness

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well quite capable against who, against you perhaps, but against someone of much greater fitness, perhaps not.
but then your point doesn't stack up. Being in yoir late 50s with a gut doesn't mean you don't have a very good standard of fitness

We have to decide to draw a line somewhere. Very few people are concerned about being attacked by a world-class athlete. I'm a guy in his mid-40's in reasonably good shape. I can hike all day, run about 3 miles (depending upon hills), and have reasonable muscle tone (excepting some areas of atrophy from recent injuries) - all knees permitting. If someone can hold their own with me, their ability is good enough for most needs. As for the guys-with-guts in question, they can't run a mile. Given your previous rant about how fitness must be an overall measure, I'm not sure what your point here is.

 

[jobo]

To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance).

To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.

I'm also perplex by you viewing 30seconds worth of fitness, as adequate, if if fight lasts 45secs your lost

 

[jobo]

We have to decide to draw a line somewhere. Very few people are concerned about being attacked by a world-class athlete. I'm a guy in his mid-40's in reasonably good shape. I can hike all day, run about 3 miles (depending upon hills), and have reasonable muscle tone (excepting some areas of atrophy from recent injuries) - all knees permitting. If someone can hold their own with me, their ability is good enough for most needs. As for the guys-with-guts in question, they can't run a mile. Given your previous rant about how fitness must be an overall measure, I'm not sure what your point here is.

some how you always manage to take any post I make about fitness,as a personal a front. You have to admit there are MAs walking about who couldn't blow the skin of a rice pudding

but you latest doesn't make a deal of sence, these fat old dudes are not fit enough to run a mile, but ate fit enough to deal with you, that can only mean that you are not very fit, can't it

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm also perplex by you viewing 30seconds worth of fitness, as adequate, if if fight lasts 45secs your lost

I didn't say 30 seconds was adequate. I said it doesn't take a high level of fitness to last 30 seconds, especially with adrenaline. In fact, lasting a minute with adrenaline is feasible for most folks, but it's unlikely an attack will last that long. If you're still fighting off an attacker after 30 seconds, you're in deep, deep stuff. They're committed to taking you down, rather than looking for easy prey, and they're capable of holding off your adrenaline-fueled defense for 30 seconds. That's not good, no matter who you are.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

some how you always manage to take any post I make about fitness,as a personal a front. You have to admit there are MAs walking about who couldn't blow the skin of a rice pudding

but you latest doesn't make a deal of sence, these fat old dudes are not fit enough to run a mile, but ate fit enough to deal with you, that can only mean that you are not very fit, can't it

Where did I take affront at it? I simply gave some details of my own fitness, because you stated being able to defend against me didn't ensure them against someone more fit. I clarified the point. The likelihood of them facing someone a lot more fit than me is probably not great. And unless the fight/attack lasts a long time, the opponent's fitness isn't much of an issue, either.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but you latest doesn't make a deal of sence, these fat all dudes sent fit enough to run a mile, but ate fit enough to deal with you, that can only mean that you are not very fit, can't it

And this was the point of my original post. If the fight doesn't last long, my fitness compared to theirs doesn't really enter into it. They are not more fit than me - they are more skilled. If I end up fighting Conor McGregor, his fitness (much higher than mine) won't be what beats me - he's simply more skilled than me. Fitness matters when the skill levels are similar, and the fight lasts a while.

 

[jobo]

I didn't say 30 seconds was adequate. I said it doesn't take a high level of fitness to last 30 seconds, especially with adrenaline. In fact, lasting a minute with adrenaline is feasible for most folks, but it's unlikely an attack will last that long. If you're still fighting off an attacker after 30 seconds, you're in deep, deep stuff. They're committed to taking you down, rather than looking for easy prey, and they're capable of holding off your adrenaline-fueled defense for 30 seconds. That's not good, no matter who you are.

but that's what a fight is, two blokes using all their fitness to hurt the other one. If your,oppoinent has a reasonable level of ability and fitness then the fight will last to one of you runs out of puff. Having a strategy that you only need to last 30 secs as that's all you need with you skill set, is fool hardy. As if the guy is still up right and punching,after that time, you are indeed in deep doo.

we are not taking about elite athletes, any one who plays basket ball ot,5aside soccer will easily out perform you

 

[hoshin1600]

you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.

The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveoping MA skills also guarantee a high,standard of physical fitness.

i admit i did not mention fitness. but it was not my intention to ignore the matter. there are multiple factors i did not address. this does not mean they are not important. it would just require me to write a book not a thread post. my last sentence accounts for all the variables when i asked "is your (general your not personal) art giving you the tools you need" i have never been to a dojo that does not address a persons fitness level, but i am sure they exist.

troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who refuse to follow orders has been a method of control.

im sorry i dont buy into the idea that soldiers are brain washed to follow orders. but that does not negate my point in the least even if they were. good training happens on a neurological level and in the stimuli -response hard wiring of the brain. its about reaction to a stimuli not "running towards danger".
as example Grossman in his book gives an example of a 50 cal gun man who's training taught him to "roll out" of the gun seat so that the next soldier can take over if needed. in this case the gun man was shot in the head but his training kicked in and his body did as trained and rolled out of the seat, allowing the next soldier to take his spot without having to pull the dead body out of the seat. this is called operant conditioning.
and yet again ,does your training give you the necessary tools ?

 

[jobo]

And this was the point of my original post. If the fight doesn't last long, my fitness compared to theirs doesn't really enter into it. They are not more fit than me - they are more skilled. If I end up fighting Conor McGregor, his fitness (much higher than mine) won't be what beats me - he's simply more skilled than me. Fitness matters when the skill levels are similar, and the fight lasts a while.

but this is the middle aged fantasy that prevails in MA, it doesn't matter that I'm fat and unfit, I will defeat all attackers with my skills. Well maybe some of them but I wouldn't put my money or my life on that holding up to examination

 

[jobo]

i admit i did not mention fitness. but it was not my intention to ignore the matter. there are multiple factors i did not address. this does not mean they are not important. it would just require me to write a book not a thread post. my last sentence accounts for all the variables when i asked "is your (general your not personal) art giving you the tools you need" i have never been to a dojo that does not address a persons fitness level, but i am sure they exist.


im sorry i dont buy into the idea that soldiers are brain washed to follow orders. but that does not negate my point in the least even if they were. good training happens on a neurological level and in the stimuli -response hard wiring of the brain. its about reaction to a stimuli not "running towards danger".
as example Grossman in his book gives an example of a 50 cal gun man who's training taught him to "roll out" of the gun seat so that the next soldier can take over if needed. in this case the gun man was shot in the head but his training kicked in and his body did as trained and rolled out of the seat, allowing the next soldier to take his spot without having to pull the dead body out of the seat. this is called operant conditioning.
and yet again ,does your training give you the necessary tools ?

well yes you did ignore it, as its a fundamentals' of any fight,
any MAtraining involves fitness, its just what level of fitness is achieved. Fighting is one of the most demanding physical activitys that you can undertake

 

[jobo]

Where did I take affront at it? I simply gave some details of my own fitness, because you stated being able to defend against me didn't ensure them against someone more fit. I clarified the point. The likelihood of them facing someone a lot more fit than me is probably not great. And unless the fight/attack lasts a long time, the opponent's fitness isn't much of an issue, either.

really, you place your self so high up the,fitness standards of the general population, that you view the,chances of them being attacked by someone fitter than you as unlikely

 

[hoshin1600]

well yes you did ignore it, as its a fundamentals' of any fight,
any MAtraining involves fitness, its just what level of fitness is achieved. Fighting is one of the most demanding physical activitys that you can undertake

Dude you have to chill. sometimes you got good posts and other times you hang on the edge of trolling. i am telling you that you are correct fitness is important. but my post was aimed at a post from Steve and fitness was not part of his post so i didnt address it directly

 

[oftheherd1]

What an unusual thread.

From a viable defense to soldiers who are brainwashed but still won't shoot.

The defense will work. It was pointed out, but people still worry and talk about the left arm, that can do nothing if the defense is applied correctly; especially that part of it which rotates the opponent's left side away from the defender. Now as I have always said about the grappling I learned, one must be both quick and accurate. If one is, no worry about the left hand/arm. If not ...

As to soldiers, I have read what gpsemour talked about. I had doubts about it then, and still do. The only way I might see that is if the soldiers interviewed were not combat arms, or if new combat arms soldiers were told to fire from ambush. But I simply don't believe if experienced combat arms soldiers were told to fire from ambush or respond to being fired on, they would refuse to kill someone who was clearly trying to kill them. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe I just didn't get around enough. ;-)

American soldiers are not brainwashed as I understand the term, but the poster who said that may have experiences with other armies I am not familiar with. American soldiers are indeed taught to obey orders because not to do so may be more likely to result in their own, or their fellow soldiers unnecessary deaths.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but that's what a fight is, two blokes using all their fitness to hurt the other one. If your,oppoinent has a reasonable level of ability and fitness then the fight will last to one of you runs out of puff. Having a strategy that you only need to last 30 secs as that's all you need with you skill set, is fool hardy. As if the guy is still up right and punching,after that time, you are indeed in deep doo.

we are not taking about elite athletes, any one who plays basket ball ot,5aside soccer will easily out perform you

Assumptions, again. But that's nothing new for you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but this is the middle aged fantasy that prevails in MA, it doesn't matter that I'm fat and unfit, I will defeat all attackers with my skills. Well maybe some of them but I wouldn't put my money or my life on that holding up to examination

That's not fantasy, that's reality. A highly fit person without skills will not defeat someone with more skills, unless their strength (not complete fitness, just strength) is much higher. And even then, that's not a guarantee against good skill. Just look for some of the BJJ challenges where they dealt with folks MUCH stronger (one, a bodybuilder), by handling them with skill.

That fitness will always prevail is a fantasy. Fitness matters, but it does not conquer all.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

really, you place your self so high up the,fitness standards of the general population, that you view the,chances of them being attacked by someone fitter than you as unlikely

If we look at what is common among the population, I'm well above average in fitness. So, to find someone "a lot more fit" (my original term, which you attempted to reduce to simply "more fit") is not high. A lot more fit than me is someone training for something serious, or simply seriously into training. That's not going to be a commonplace thing to run into.

 

[jobo]

If we look at what is common among the population, I'm well above average in fitness. So, to find someone "a lot more fit" (my original term, which you attempted to reduce to simply "more fit") is not high. A lot more fit than me is someone training for something serious, or simply seriously into training. That's not going to be a commonplace thing to run into.

ok, so how are you bench marking tour fitness against the population, you must have done so to make that claim

 

[jobo]

That's not fantasy, that's reality. A highly fit person without skills will not defeat someone with more skills, unless their strength (not complete fitness, just strength) is much higher. And even then, that's not a guarantee against good skill. Just look for some of the BJJ challenges where they dealt with folks MUCH stronger (one, a bodybuilder), by handling them with skill.

That fitness will always prevail is a fantasy. Fitness matters, but it does not conquer all.

well no not just strengh, cardio,balance reaction, co ordination can all over come some old fat guy, that had some skills.

holding up some bbj guy in peak condition doesn't mean it will Cary over to the old fat guys you spar with

 

[Steve]

two different concepts mentioned here. The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
to say this about the survivability is a legitimate concern. But it is a concern of personal significance it does not really apply in a general sense. i struggled with this idea for many years when had just started. maybe we all ask "will what i am learning actually work?" it doesnt apply in the macro view. in general this is an empty argument because we have to much evidence that says otherwise.

Totally agree with you that there are two things at play: the real danger vs the perceived risk. For example, there is a perception that if you are shot with a gun, you are deadmeat. But statistically, unless you are shot in the head or the heart, your chances of surviving a gun shot wound are very good. Over 95% if you make it to the hospital alive. In this case, I'm with you that there is a difference between the odds of an attack, and the survivability of an attack. I am strictly pointing out two things. First that, regardless of one's behaviors, the odds of an attack are very, very low. I have posted actual numbers in the past, but the stats are easy to find. AND, as for survivability, even if you are attacked, your odds of surviving an attack are very, very good, regardless of your level of preparedness. Most people, even if they are woefully unprepared or helpless to defend themselves, will survive an attack. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.

the argument that there is no data to support the idea is the equivalent of saying that we cannot say for sure that one billion plus one billion equals two billion because there is no possible way to count each item one by one to come to such a conclusion. the fact is that we can add one plus one, and we can extrapolate the answer to the larger question.

Well, no. We can actually quantify math. By definition, math is literally quantifiable. That's not the same at all and highlights my point. We can surmise that there is benefit to training, and we can speculate that training might (possibly) help, and that some training could (perhaps) help more than other training. But we cannot quantify it. The benefit may be negligible or even non-existent, and we don't know.

We know that to play pro sports takes many hours of practice. Tiger woods did not get good at golf watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.
the critic would say "well thats sports"

right, but is Tiger Woods good at putt-putt golf? Or is he good at shuffleboard?

We have data about how effective cop training is for cops. They train, then they go use their training. They get individualized feedback based on their performance and on a macro level, we accumulate data.

We have data about how effective MMA training is for MMAists. They train, then they go use their training. They get their feedback and we get data.

We have data about how golfers train for golf in exactly the same way. But we have no data to suggest that being a great basketball player is good training for golf, even though we know that Michael Jordan is really good at both. Do you see what I mean? We might speculate that being an elite level basketball player contributes to golfing skills, but we're moving away from the data and into belief.

And I am in no way saying that cop training or MMA training (or other kinds of self defense training) have no benefit. I'm saying specifically that we don't know for sure one way or the other, because it's not quantifiable. I'm not saying there is no benefit. We believe there is. And that's not the same thing.

back to the motor cycle helmet. the helmet gets left in the saddle bags rather that on your head. the significance is that these skills need to be brought into play and thats not an easy thing to do. the skills often get left behind when we need them. Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE" after 5 wins. that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights.

i have mentioned many times that the brain needs to make connections. there is a lot of MA training out there that does not resemble the kind of situations that we will encounter on the street. this leaves the brain looking for a proper response and neural connection and it wont find anything. the brain needs to make the connection therefore training must look like what we will encounter.
practice must resemble the reality.

Mind set and the ability to do violence. most people naturally do not want to engage in combat.
After WWII the US military changed the practice targets from a round dot to a human like silhouette. the result was a dramatic increase in the firing rate.
Dave Grossman has written a few books on this subject but it is nothing new. Ardarnt DU Picq wrote about the same conclusion is 1870. ( i have a suspicion that Grossmans conclusion was nothing more than reading Du Picq'a work)
Yet we know for a fact historically and have the data to show that PROPER training will and does overcome the reluctance to engage in combat. This leads to the question on why someone would be reluctant to fight.. the answer is simply fear. its obvious that if the soldier fires his weapon that return fire is a given result. so it becomes evident that with proper training fear can be overcome.

the ending question then is "Is your training giving you the tools to be successful" not an easy question and many do not like the answer.

I agree with all of this. Particularly this passage: "Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE" after 5 wins. that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights."

He's talking about the transition to application, something I've gone on about probably more than I should.