The more things change...

[achilles]

Has anyone else noticed a paradigm shift in terms of the street versus sport debate? At first many martial artists went on and on that sport, or competition oriented training, was either inferior to or not beneficial to street fighting. The athlete's experience against a resisting opponent was simply not considered valid in a street fight (or self defense situation). This ridiculous assertion now seems to have given way to a new paradigm where "street fighters" have no validity to their claims. Rather than viewing a "street fighter" as someone also engaged in combat against a resisting opponent, the straw-man is brandied about that "street fighters" are everything from sociopaths (which may be) to emotionally immature individuals (which may also be true) who know nothing about actual fighting. It is in the latter that I find fault. While I personally think that much more thought and research goes into sport fighting paradigms (after all, those engagements are much more encourageable and more conducive to a civil society) I find it unfair and irrational to completely discount the experience gained from a street fight. I think that resistance is resistance, and conflict is concflict. In both venues, there are two (or more) parties in conflict. Differences are plenty, but I see them as more qualitative than quantitative. I'm not advocating finding the first drunken jerk and becoming his pub-fu or bar-jutsu disciple, but I think that we can learn from experience from either venue and while I prefer the safety of the sport paradigm, I find it illogical to deny the street experience as a potential avenue for learning.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think a lot of people got put off by the artificial, restrictive and unrealistic nature of sporting venues available not too long ago. Caused an adverse reaction to anything resembling it.

Then they found out that it wasn't the fact that it was sport, but rather the way it was being done.

edit: You can still see it on forums like this. People righting off sparring as useless, yet the only form of sparring they've been exposed to is tournament style point fighting. Of course they think it is useless...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

While I personally think that much more thought and research goes into sport fighting paradigms (after all, those engagements are much more encourageable and more conducive to a civil society) I find it unfair and irrational to completely discount the experience gained from a street fight.

Achilles,

Some years ago a student of a local Kenpo instructor was telling people from other martial arts schools that he'd beaten up the Kenpo teacher and his top student. This got back to the instructor, who then slammed the student about in a training session.

Somewhat bloodied, the student cried, "Oh, well that's all and well and good, John...but what would you do on the street?"

The teacher then said, "Well, Marty, do you want me to drag you out on the street and do it again?"

I hadn't heard this in quite some time, but years ago the common refrain was "What would you do against a street fighter?" It was usually couched as a derogatory remark towards the martial artist, as if the dojo rat NEVER had any actual combat experience.

-----So...

I acknowledge that any resistance in a combative situation is valuable. The problem I see is defining what a "street fighter" is. The issue to me isn't one of value in resistance but an overblown assessment of a name. While the rare fraud might claim mastery level, just about anybody can claim to be a "street fighter." Three tussles in a bar with two positive outcomes could qualify one for the title, I suppose, or perhaps numerous altercations in the seventh grade. And while one can easily glean experience from any of these events, claiming the title "street fighter" might be a bit disingenous--yet I've seen it done.

If we say that anything outside the dojo is a "street fight" then we lump the lad who fought with his brothers in neighborhood brawls with the Tank Macnamara's of the world. The drunk in the bar in a college town is suddenly in a category with the inner city youth who carries a straight razor and who lives to use it. You've often heard me say "Street fighter? Whose street?" The streets of Bloomington, Indiana are far different than the streets of Hunter's Point, California.

There are points to be learned in any conflict...but one can learn bad habits on the street as well as in the dojo.

In a controlled environment such as a school one learns to keep one's hands up, critical distance lines, timing. In a street tussle one might get a lucky shot in and make the fatal assumption in the next altercation that the same method will work for him. Conversely, one who grows up in a particularly violent neighborhood can gain a great deal of saavy just by watching a fight...and learns (if he has any intelligence) just what a "sucker punch" truly is. The Dojo rat might never experience this until that unfortunate time when he finds himself sitting on his butt in a daze, looking lamely up at his assailant.


Regards,


Steve

 

[AaronLucia]

In combat, anything is better than nothing.

 

[Flatlander]

Great topic, Achilles.

I personally have not been involved in wide ranging discussions with an eclectic group of martial artists for very long. My time on MT is really all I've got, in terms of experiencing the debate of sport vs. street, and so I've not had time to really notice any type of paradigm shift. Good points, Steve.

I tend to look at things sort of psychologically. Usually, the biggest roar comes from the lion most afraid. So I think that anyone who really puts a lot of stock into the whole this way vs. that way is afraid of something... maybe just afraid of missing out on something. Maybe it's laziness - go try it out and see, why discount anything? Ruling something out is limiting experience, and in my experience, experience is key. Knowledge is good, but experience triumphs. I see less connection between knowledge and skill, and more between experience and skill.

 

[achilles]

I suppose the term street fighter is vague, but in any case, my point is that there exists a kind of double standard in conteporary martial arts circles as to what is valid experience and what is not.


Many martial approaches have been criticized, and rightfully so, for not training their theories against a resisting opponent. Sport paradigms are the most safe and consistant way of getting training against a resisting opponent, but if we truly value training against a resisting opponent, wouldn't street experience also be valued? The impetus of this thread was another thread which seemed to imply that any experience outside the ring/dojo doesn't improve the efficacy of a fighter. I disagree, and furthermore, I think it is a potentially dangerous assumption. I believe there is a class of fighters (small as it may be) who, while their methods lack sophistication, may pose more of a threat than martial artists, who live in a culture that values knowledge and skill, would like to believe. If it is the case that the accumulation of fighting experience over time does indeed improve one as a fighter (this is a corner stone of most modern martial theories who espouse some type of sparring or competition), then does the particular venue produce a qualitative difference? I would think that there would be a quantitative difference (I think that a man trained scientifically in an environment conducive to learning is better off), but it is NOT apples and oranges.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Well, phrased thus, then I agree with you fully.


Regards,


Steve

 

[DeLamar.J]

I think the best way to view this type of thing is to realize that every style, person, or training method has something to offer. Even some 16 year old cocky white belt has something to teach you, something of value to the martial arts.
Always remain teachable, and never dismiss anyones training methods.

 

[Han-Mi]

The thing I find funny is when people try to tell me that street fighting is fighting without rules, and the fact that I train with rules makes me vulnerable. I Don't understand why people actually think that we would be dumb enough to think that anyone would fight with any system of rules out on the street, then I explain to them that I actually learn all the dirty tricks and damaging tech's, I just don't use them on my training partners, they would be in short supply if I did. The thing is, we train to the point that we usually don't need to use those techs, though we have them in our arsenals if we need them.
This is just a subject that bugs me, because you can't just haul off and slug/kick everyone that accuses MA of being usless.
As for such a situation as was explained earlier when someone came in and said he could or had beat the instructor, my instructor had a somewhat similar experience that makes for a good story.

The man walked in challenging My instructor. He was verbally abusing my instructer in front of his students and refused to leave. My instructor finally gave into his taunts and sent his students outside and told them to call an ambulance in 5 minutes. This man fancied himself as a streetfighter and thought he would have no problem with someone who "played with rules". As soon as he hear my instructor mention an ambulance, he backed down, appologised and left.

Once they realize there are only rules in sport for safety, and we still know how to really fight, this ridicule will end. However, I don't see that happening while I'm alive.

 

[JPR]

The impetus of this thread was another thread which seemed to imply that any experience outside the ring/dojo doesn't improve the efficacy of a fighter. I disagree, and furthermore, I think it is a potentially dangerous assumption.

I know the arts have changed from their origin, however if you look back at the history of many of the arts, they were intended for use in combat. I am particularly thinking of FMA. Much of what we are taught has come from real life combat experience (I would call them street fights, but they don't all happen on the streets). It seems to me to be almost axiomatic that experience outside the training setting is valuable. If not for learning something new, at least for learning that what you know really works.

JPR

 

[Toasty]

"Tank Mcnamara"? The football coach from the comics page of the Sunday Paper? He's out starting fights in bars?

Holy crap, how bad would it be to get beat up by a cartoon...
j/k

I think you maybe meant "Tank" Abbott?


see ya
Rob

 

[hardheadjarhead]

HAH! You got me Rob. I did indeed mean Tank Abbott.

I'm surprised nobody got that before you. Nobody reads my posts anymore.

Odd that I put that. I hadn't read that cartoon in years.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Adept]

I just don't use them on my training partners, they would be in short supply if I did.

The point most 'street' advocates are trying to make is quite simple. It's one most serious combat trainers realised a very, very long time ago. You fight the way you train. If you train without using horribly crippling fight-stoppers, then when you are called upon to actually fight, you will be very unlikely to use said fight stopping moves.

Now, when debating a topic like this one needs to cater for the lowest common denominator. Obviously there will be very skilled martial artists out there who train in such a way that fight stoppers are constantly in their repertoire. But most martial artists wont, and dont.

The problem is, as you correctly point out, that one cannot use full force fight stoppers during regular training and sparring, simply because they cause terrible immediate injury. We would all be in hospital! But that limitation means that we are less likely to use those moves when they should be used.

 

[Fluid Design ®]

Exactly Adept; you hit the nail on the head. But, what the training group I'm a part of tries to do is not let the the fight stoppers go too far. Also, it helps to involve the focus mitts for this type of training. I also have heard of finger jab bags being used by some JKD groups.

 

[kensen83]

Self defence is literrly what it means self defence, the reason a street fighter is a street fighter is that this is not self defence but a violent act by violent people who have found no other options but to bash eachothers heads in, the true spirtit, the true meaning of formal martail arts training is not to fight at all, to avoid conflict, and to be at peace with ones self. Does it trully matter if some guy on a street can sucker punch a 30 year vetren of the arts? No it does not, because that is not the spirit, that is not the meaning. Anyone can walk up behind someone and knock them out, does that mean he is a better fighter? or more importantly a better person? Ive had to defend myself against life threating situations on more then one occasion, and have come out ontop everytime, did i wish for this to happen? no i did not. i even felt remorse for the ones i hurt. keep in mind however, in my studio there are rules for saftey and to embody the true spirit of the arts, which is not to hurt but to grow.

 

[JKogas]

Another problem is the assumption that all fight enders always will cause “terrible immediate injury” without fail, all the time, against all people.

This has been proven wrong in TOO many instances.

Thus, the nature of training fight stoppers in any way other than actually performing them FOR REAL, leaves no viable and credible feedback to their effectiveness. Without such feedback, one develops no real understanding of appropriate follow ups. That tends to turn a lot of people off from such training.





-John

 

[Adept]

Another problem is the assumption that all fight enders always will cause “terrible immediate injury” without fail, all the time, against all people.

This has been proven wrong in TOO many instances.

Thus, the nature of training fight stoppers in any way other than actually performing them FOR REAL, leaves no viable and credible feedback to their effectiveness. Without such feedback, one develops no real understanding of appropriate follow ups. That tends to turn a lot of people off from such training.





-John

Good point.

 

[bcbernam777]

IMHO my own personaly belief is that both street fighting and tournament fighting teach their own lessons and have their own uses. Both are valid, and both can be used to the martial artist ends (though Im not promoting going out and starting a street fight). The good thing about tournament fighting is that you are up against others who are skilled at the martial arts, and although in a controled environment, it is a good chance to compare skill v skill, to look, learn and go back to the drawing board for some serius self examination, what a street fight can teach is how to act instead of thinking, and how to keep control of your emotion in any situation.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think a lot of people got put off by the artificial, restrictive and unrealistic nature of sporting venues available not too long ago. Caused an adverse reaction to anything resembling it.

Then they found out that it wasn't the fact that it was sport, but rather the way it was being done.

edit: You can still see it on forums like this. People righting off sparring as useless, yet the only form of sparring they've been exposed to is tournament style point fighting. Of course they think it is useless...

Why is training to be first useless?
Sean

 

[achilles]

My original point in starting this thread was that we as martial artists seem biased towards technology and formality. I think it is a dangerous assumption that untrained means less dangerous. Another dangerous assumption is that our training in the gym necessarily makes us ready for anything. This is a broad generalization I know, but think about it. Training occurs within certain parameters, albeit more sophisticated training has much looser and abstract parameters. But we really can never be sure what will occur in a fight, and that uncertainty increases as the parameters are loosened. In what most of us would refer to as a street fight/self defense situation, very little can be known and sufficiently trained for as far as training specificity goes. The sport paradigm is then helpful just because an athletic body used to resistance and conflict may be a more adaptable body, but the tactical/self defense paradigm may be useful in addressing a different set of parameters. It would then seem that a balance must be struck between approaches, which really aren't limited to two, and much broader definitions of martial art, experience and ability should be espoused.