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.