Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by drop bear, Aug 13, 2019.
And lets specifically use the kabib Connor fight.
That's a good question. I think some folks would argue there wasn't any self-defense anywhere in that. I'd argue it started when the first actual attack came after the fight had ended.
The answer to the last question is mostly, "not much". It's mostly just a way of referring to things that happen outside of combat sport, where we don't get to ask the fight to stop. I've heard people refer to the same as "fighting in 'the street'", which triggers some folks.
When we're talking about technique, I think the overlap between what works in hard combat sports (like MMA) and "the street" is pretty big. There are some different considerations in the environment (variability, lava floors, potential for weapons, etc.) that amount more to fine-tuning than a huge difference.
Legally, if the person is no longer a threat, it is no longer self defense.
However, you should remain on red alert until you know for sure it is safe.
Looks to me as if they should put aside this sport art, and work on their emotional and mental game.
Serious lack of control for so called professionals. But, I am not impressed by the MMA sport in any way.
But, I agree with Skribs take on this topic.
On different note, every single fighter in the brawl should be banned for life from the UFC. Just my opinion.
Also, in many if not all states, you can not claim self defense if you initiated the attack. Only innocent parties can claim self defense.
One thing I do - and I don't know that many people do this in discussions - is I differentiate "self defense" from "street fight".
And I'm even trying to find a new term than "self defense", because sometimes it isn't yourself that you're defending.
I dont think a new term is needed because it is widely accepted that self defense covers defense of others. The main thing is the defense has to be of an innocent party or at least a reasonably perceived innocent party.
Criminal or civil?
i know enough to know the standards for self defence in the criminal courts and civil courts are different. I dont know what it is, just know they are different.
but god damn, they should have nipped that thing in the bud.
- defend the weak against the strong.
- fight for the good against the evil.
- protect the world peace.
- Save the human being.
- Preserve the civilization.
With great power comes with great responsibility - 侠 (Xia).
A man is a kind of spiritual and social pursuit by helping the weaker person without asking for return.
For me it is always a street fight.
Once we are physical. I am a hundred percent invested.
But regardless if I broke down a fight in to its components.
Win the position.
Win the exchange.
Win the exit.
And I will win the fight.
I'd have to re-watch the video to say for certain but I wouldn't classify much of this (maybe not any of it) as self defense or legitimate defense of another. It looked exactly like the dumb crap I'd see on a Friday night in my home town on the cruise where a bunch of guys in their late teens or early 20's would get into a mostly consensual brawl just to try to prove their masculinity. Except these guys aren't 19 and they're a whole lot more dangerous in most respects.
This is in fact exactly what I don't mean when I say I'm interested in self defense. If you and everyone else involved can easily walk away you aren't defending yourself you're just fighting. I got in a couple of these kinds of fights when I was maybe 20 and I learned pretty quickly that this was a really dumb way to live your life. I will literally never again be in this kind of altercation unless I happen to be an innocent bystander in the crowd and even that's extremely unlikely. As far as I could see everyone involved in this mess was actively engaged in promoting a conflict and could have avoided one if they'd just kept their mouths shut or maybe just left. McGregor might be a slight exception to some of what I'm saying if he was jumping in to try to protect someone but I couldn't tell whether that was his motivation or he just let himself get carried away by the BS happening around him.
Regardless, these aren't young adults with still developing brains, these guys are what, 30+ years old? Either they've taken too many head shots and have CTE related emotional control issues or they need some counselling to help them learn how to pretend to be adults. The whole thing makes MMA look like it's just more polished WWF, especially as it looks like Khabib's camp was saying they were going to do something like this all along. I mean if you were watching this develop you have to think either the fight organizers were incompetent or underfunded, staged the whole thing or knowingly let it happen because they wanted the spectacle, none of which seems particularly responsible.
Interesting, for me the difference between a street fight and self defense isn't the level of engagement but how and why it starts. When I say street fight I mean something where all the participants have some level of choice about whether they want to participate or not and self defense as a situation where at least one party has no choice about being involved. So from my perspective I will almost certainly never be involved in another street fight but if I am attacked and have to defend myself I will be 100% engaged in stopping my assailant. How do you see self defense as something in which the defender is going to be less invested in fighting?
That's more or less the distinction I usually work with. I used to use the term "street fight" (or something similar) quite a bit for any physical conflict that's not in a ring/octagon/competition, but it seems to trigger some folks (both the "street" part, and the "fight" part), and more folks seemed to grasp "self-defense" more quickly as an identifier, so that's what I usually use now.
A street fight is when either:
Both parties agree to a fight (i.e. "meet you in the parking lot after school")
One party had an opportunity to de-escalate or disengage and chose not to
Self defense is when:
You are jumped
You are threatened with no means of escape
Someone else is in danger and you decide to help
@drop bear Basically, if the reason you're fighting is because you want something, or because you have something to prove, it's a "street fight". If the reason you're fighting is for your rights, safety, property, or life - or those of others - then it is self defense.
This is important, both tactically and legally. Tactically, in a street fight, your goal is to dominate the other person until they give up that you're the winner or give up whatever it is you wanted. It will play out similar to a sanctioned fight, but with less rules. In self defense, you may be responding to attacks before you have your guard up, and your goal is to do whatever is necessary to survive and escape the situation. Which means either creating distance and running, or controlling the situation until it can be over. In some cases that may mean using grappling to hold them until they can cool off or putting them to sleep so they can't respond. In other cases it means shooting them until the attack stops.
This is where legality comes in. In a street fight, you are fighting for pride or possessions. Both people are guilty of assault. Because of that, you typically don't want it to escalate to something deadly (even though it can). If you get arrested for punching the other person, it's much better for you if he needs a couple stitches and an ice pack, than if he's going to need facial reconstructive surgery and suffered permanent brain damage. In self defense, you don't know what your attacker is willing to do, and your number one focus should be on surviving. You do what you have to in order to survive. If it was legitimate self defense, there should be no legal ramifications. But if its determined that the attack was over, then you can be in serious trouble if you continue the fight.
From a bouncing background regardless as to how it start. You really don't want that guy who doesn't want to be there.
Which seems to be how people are defining the difference is exactly that.
If they don't want to be there then it is self defense.
This is contrary to basic fighting in that i want to make you not want to be there.
So psychologically I don't escape. I fight for an exit.
So my mentality would be it is always a street fight. Never a self defense.
I have mentioned the same when I spar. Someone gets a bit exited life gets a bit hard. I have two choices. I can complain about life's unfairness or dig deep and push back.
I see your point, but I think you're a bit off from what he was trying to say. It's about whether you wanted to be in the fight before it happened, or whether it happened to you. Once you're in it, I agree, it's best to turn it into a situation they don't want to be in (what I call "changing the math").
I would argue that bouncing falls under the "defense" category when what you're doing is justifiable as your role as security. You are providing for the safety of the patrons or are protecting the property of the establishment by removing someone from the location.
that rather depend why the person is being removed from venue, if they are being a nuisance rather than an actual threat to the safety of others then its clearly a trespass thing. they also tend to remove both victim and perpetrators if there is a fight, clearly a fair % of removal are not for defence purposes
No need to overcomplicate it.
A street fight is a fight anywhere outside a ring or training location.
Self defense is the act of defending yourself.
The two terms can overlap
Separate names with a comma.