All rights. Face punching point scoring and self defence.

[drop bear]

I do hate having to quote from a post on the same page but:



So, we have a weapons awareness in combat sports question, a protecting a principal in combat sports question and a legal implications question.

Deescalation and avoidance are also areas lacking, but not one's I asked about.

Your post lost coherence for me but you seem to be asking where I learned self.defence. The answer hasn't changed from the last time you avoided inconvenient points on this topic: the Metropolitan Police. For 10 years. Not.that it matters. People far more qualified than I make the same point.

Incidentally you're also avoiding the fact that you mooted your own argument. If this were a self defense situation your technique would be awesome.

Fine then weapons and multiple oponants. What are we stacking boxing up against?

Let's try to find real world examples of boxing used against weapons and multiple s vs any SD system you want.

 

[drop bear]

So here is my two. And both pensioners to boot.

72 Year Old Retired Boxer Beats Up A Robber

BuckeyeSports.com - Ohio State Buckeyes Football, Basketball, Recruiting, News, Rumors & Forums Front Page

So now show your self defence system working against multiples or weapons.

 

[Koshiki]

...the point is it's apples/oranges. If you want to train for sport then do a sport MA, if you want to train to deal with civilian violence, then train to deal with civilian violence.

The thing is, it's not just apples and oranges. Let's say that real world serious violent encounters are oranges. Now, there are a range of oranges; navels, temples, juicing oranges, and then some that people tend to forget about and misidentify, like tangerines, satsuma... An orange is not just one thing.

Now, some sport combat is definitely apples. I would say hard contact but range limited sports like Boxing, BJJ, Kickboxing, WTF TKD, Kyokushin, etc, are all apples, whether Braeburn, McIntosh, Jazz, Gala, Honey Crisp, or Golden Delicious. If all you've ever eaten is apples, your first orange might surprise you when you you bite into the skin and it's bitter and tough, or when you find segments with seeds rather than a core. However, it's still a spherical fruit with skin, a stem, seeds, and edible flesh, and it still grows on a tree, and there's a good chance you'll still figure out you can pick it, and how to eat it. You just might have some unpleasant surprises on the way.

Some sports, like point sparring, no contact sparring, (and probably some others, I'm not as familiar here), honestly, are probably more like I dunno, lettuce. Again, there's Romaine, Green Leaf, Red Leaf, Escarole, Friseé, but it's all leafy greens. If you eat mainly Boston Butter Lettuce, you'll probably be pretty good at figuring out what to do with dandelion greens or collards even if you've never seen them before, but oranges are going to through you for a loop. There's a good chance you're going to eat the leaves of the tree, rather than the fruit. You might figure it out, you might not. That thick peal is definitely going to pose a challenge.

Some sports and arts, on the other hand, when well trained, are not apples or lettuce. Things like MMA. Things like most traditional arts trained for civilian defense. RBSD. They're not oranges either. They're, Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit, Pommelos and Ugli Fruit. They have that same thick bitter skin, they have that same sweet-sour flesh, divided into segments with seeds, they have pulp, they grow on similar trees... Sure, if you've only ever eaten Grapefruit, oranges might disappoint you with their more simple flavour, they skin might be a bit harder to get through than you expected, it might take significantly less time to eat them than you might be used to. But at the end of the day, a Grapefruit and an orange are relatively good approximations of one another. They are not and will never be the same, but they're pretty close.

On the other hand, if you cut an orange in half, bisecting the segments, put it in a bowl, and try to eat it with a spoon, well, good luck with that.

 

[drop bear]

The thing is, it's not just apples and oranges. Let's say that real world serious violent encounters are oranges. Now, there are a range of oranges; navels, temples, juicing oranges, and then some that people tend to forget about and misidentify, like tangerines, satsuma... An orange is not just one thing.

Now, some sport combat is definitely apples. I would say hard contact but range limited sports like Boxing, BJJ, Kickboxing, WTF TKD, Kyokushin, etc, are all apples, whether Braeburn, McIntosh, Jazz, Gala, Honey Crisp, or Golden Delicious. If all you've ever eaten is apples, your first orange might surprise you when you you bite into the skin and it's bitter and tough, or when you find segments with seeds rather than a core. However, it's still a spherical fruit with skin, a stem, seeds, and edible flesh, and it still grows on a tree, and there's a good chance you'll still figure out you can pick it, and how to eat it. You just might have some unpleasant surprises on the way.

Some sports, like point sparring, no contact sparring, (and probably some others, I'm not as familiar here), honestly, are probably more like I dunno, lettuce. Again, there's Romaine, Green Leaf, Red Leaf, Escarole, Friseé, but it's all leafy greens. If you eat mainly Boston Butter Lettuce, you'll probably be pretty good at figuring out what to do with dandelion greens or collards even if you've never seen them before, but oranges are going to through you for a loop. There's a good chance you're going to eat the leaves of the tree, rather than the fruit. You might figure it out, you might not. That thick peal is definitely going to pose a challenge.

Some sports and arts, on the other hand, when well trained, are not apples or lettuce. Things like MMA. Things like most traditional arts trained for civilian defense. RBSD. They're not oranges either. They're, Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit, Pommelos and Ugli Fruit. They have that same thick bitter skin, they have that same sweet-sour flesh, divided into segments with seeds, they have pulp, they grow on similar trees... Sure, if you've only ever eaten Grapefruit, oranges might disappoint you with their more simple flavour, they skin might be a bit harder to get through than you expected, it might take significantly less time to eat them than you might be used to. But at the end of the day, a Grapefruit and an orange are relatively good approximations of one another. They are not and will never be the same, but they're pretty close.

I want to know why we can't compare apples and oranges anyway?

I like apple I don't really like oranges. They are the second rate fruit.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The thing is, it's not just apples and oranges. Let's say that real world serious violent encounters are oranges. Now, there are a range of oranges; navels, temples, juicing oranges, and then some that people tend to forget about and misidentify, like tangerines, satsuma... An orange is not just one thing.

Now, some sport combat is definitely apples. I would say hard contact but range limited sports like Boxing, BJJ, Kickboxing, WTF TKD, Kyokushin, etc, are all apples, whether Braeburn, McIntosh, Jazz, Gala, Honey Crisp, or Golden Delicious. If all you've ever eaten is apples, your first orange might surprise you when you you bite into the skin and it's bitter and tough, or when you find segments with seeds rather than a core. However, it's still a spherical fruit with skin, a stem, seeds, and edible flesh, and it still grows on a tree, and there's a good chance you'll still figure out you can pick it, and how to eat it. You just might have some unpleasant surprises on the way.

Some sports, like point sparring, no contact sparring, (and probably some others, I'm not as familiar here), honestly, are probably more like I dunno, lettuce. Again, there's Romaine, Green Leaf, Red Leaf, Escarole, Friseé, but it's all leafy greens. If you eat mainly Boston Butter Lettuce, you'll probably be pretty good at figuring out what to do with dandelion greens or collards even if you've never seen them before, but oranges are going to through you for a loop. There's a good chance you're going to eat the leaves of the tree, rather than the fruit. You might figure it out, you might not. That thick peal is definitely going to pose a challenge.

Some sports and arts, on the other hand, when well trained, are not apples or lettuce. Things like MMA. Things like most traditional arts trained for civilian defense. RBSD. They're not oranges either. They're, Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit, Pommelos and Ugli Fruit. They have that same thick bitter skin, they have that same sweet-sour flesh, divided into segments with seeds, they have pulp, they grow on similar trees... Sure, if you've only ever eaten Grapefruit, oranges might disappoint you with their more simple flavour, they skin might be a bit harder to get through than you expected, it might take significantly less time to eat them than you might be used to. But at the end of the day, a Grapefruit and an orange are relatively good approximations of one another. They are not and will never be the same, but they're pretty close.

On the other hand, if you cut an orange in half, bisecting the segments, put it in a bowl, and try to eat it with a spoon, well, good luck with that.

Is this where we post the fruit or vegetable that our art corresponds to? If so, I'm going to claim bananas for BJJ. Mostly because I like bananas and can eat them every day. BJJ can stand for "Bananas are Just Joyful."

 

[Koshiki]

I want to know why we can't compare apples and oranges anyway?

I like apple I don't really like oranges. They are the second rate fruit.

They have different flavours, uses, and growing ranges and seasons. Aside from that, I'm perfectly happy with either or both in my fruit salad.

The thing is, you can't train oranges. I mean, not without being evil in the most literal of senses. All you can do is train other citrus, and aim for grapefruit rather than Kumquats.

Put another way, if I'm the notorious Baddy on the infamous Street, and I had a choice of marks I'd pick the untrained person first, then the tag-sparrer, then the limited sport fighter if I'm dumb and desperate, and I'd avoid at all costs someone who's been training a sport or defensive art that trains hard and comprehensively.

And more on topic, yeah, a sport that counts any sort of contact with the head as the same thing is going to encourage things like forehead punching, and treating a liver shot or a hit to the celiac plexus as equal to a punch to the center of the abs is obviously suboptimal. And yes, if contact to the back of the head/neck, groin, and biting is all dissalowed in your training, there is a chance you will leave that stuff more exposed than you would if you constantly trained with that in mind. Every training style has limitations, most of them pretty blatant and game changing.

Most importantly, my art would be muffins. My all time favorite fruit.

 

[Buka]

I had to look up Boston Butter Lettuce. (I need to get out more)

And I'll take oranges over apples any day. Maybe because I have an apple tree in the yard. But now you guys have me thinking of food. So....

My dinner last night - oh, man, so fantastic! Had to be much better than yours.

You don't know what I had, do you? It was the same dinner you had. Maybe yours was cooked better. Maybe mine was.

Maybe they were different versions of the same dinner. Yeah, but my side dishes complimented mine better than yours. No, wait, maybe your side dishes were better.

But yours was spiced better. Mine was plated better, though. But the wine with yours was superb.

Ah, but see, my body was more in need of protein last night, so mine was obviously more important. If only I had some bread, especially a good bread like yours. And I really wish we had spoons last night. Kind of sucked eating my soup with a fork.

Or maybe we had wildly different meals. And we probably have different tastes, different palates, maybe different needs. Probably different stoves and different pots and pans. Different stores we shop at.

Kinda like the Martial Arts we all do.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Why would you learn a sports martial art that isn't designed to deal with civilian violence, in order to help you deal with civilian violence?

For me I wouldn't do this because the training is going to be focused on the sporting aspect which has clear rules.

Sports martial arts example. Point sparring and Olympic TKD

Maybe I'm living in the past but training is training, it all deals with fighting. I don't really know any schools that only teach sport stuff.

People train according to purpose. A guy that does a 100 yard sprint does not train the same way a person who is training for a marathon. It's all running but different focus and different purpose. Martial arts is the same way.

 

[drop bear]

People train according to purpose. A guy that does a 100 yard sprint does not train the same way a person who is training for a marathon. It's all running but different focus and different purpose. Martial arts is the same way.

So self defence sprinting would be better for self defence than just sprinting.

 

[DaveB]

I

Fine then weapons and multiple oponants.

And protecting a third party, and legal implications and since you raised them avoidance and deescalation...

What are we stacking boxing up against?

What? The question was where are these things taught in boxing clubs? Not "'oo's the 'ardest?".

Let's try to find real world examples of boxing used against weapons and multiple s vs any SD system you want.

Why on earth would I do that? My whole point has been that while combat sports are good at teaching you to fight, there is much more to self defense which makes learning self defense at a self defense school the better option.

By your logic a diplomacy course would be totally sufficient for self defense because they teach one of the skills used in SD.

 

[drop bear]

Why on earth would I do that? My whole point has been that while combat sports are good at teaching you to fight, there is much more to self defense which makes learning self defense at a self defense school the better option.

By your logic a diplomacy course would be totally sufficient for self defense because they teach one of the skills used in SD.

You said specifically multiples and weapons. I will find the quote.

"Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be better at dealing withweapons or multiple assailants."

Because it is proven against multiples and weapons.

Now take up your own challenge.

Otherwise learning self defence is probably best done away from self defence schools. And left to people who are experts in whatever field you consider necessary. Same as you did with the policing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So self defence sprinting would be better for self defence than just sprinting.

Not to be funny but I recently I did a self defense class where students had to avoid a knife attack. Here are the real life options.
1. Do an all out sprint to get away and hope the attacker isn't faster than you
2. Stay and try to fight the attacker.
3. Do a short sprint to the nearest obstacle (large bush, car, hedges)

When I attacked someone slower than me I could catch up and easily stab them. Even if I didn't have a knife the victim was too tired to resist after sprinting.
When I attacked someone slower than me and they sprinted to the nearest large object (which they used to keep between me and them,) I could never get them. We went around, if I went to the left or right they would move to the right or left always keeping the object in between. They used less energy to stay away from me and no matter how hard I tried she could prevent me from catch her.

So in that light.. Yes. if you are slow runner and your attacker is faster then as you say "self defense running" is safer than just sprinting. It makes no sense to try to outrun someone if you only have 20 yards worth of hard sprint in you.

 

[Koshiki]

This thread, I think, was aimed at discussing the differences inherent between sport combat and self defense combat, rather than the broader field of self defense, encompassing deescalation, trip planning, awareness, knowledge of local social norms, lane position, proper lifting, and dietary recommendations.

For example, does the requirement for non-avoidance in a sporting context hurt or benefit training, do generalized target zones versus specialized hurt training, does the long range of two tactical strikers ill prepare one for closer combat and grappling, do gloves overly detract from sophistication in striking or do they allow for more committed live training, and so on.

I'm not saying the conversation should be limited to solely generalized versus specified targets on the face, but some centralized topic is needed, otherwise we're basically discussing, well, really all of an absolutely enormous topic...

 

[hoshin1600]

For the record, bananas and strawberries are my fruit of choice because they go the best with my bowl of ice cream.

 

[hoshin1600]

as i posted earlier....we all see the issue through the biased lens of our own training and the posts in this thread seem to prove that. topics like this always end up being a reactionary response to try and validate and defend what we do and how we train. the issue i see is that everyone feels the need to measure their training with the yard stick of street effectiveness. tai chi, tae- bo, shintaido, reiki or whatever people train in regardless of how removed from street fighting it is, still feel the need to validate themselves by saying " oh yeah its also good for self defense"... a video clip on a boxer knocking someone out in a street fight does not validate boxing as a system intended and effective for self defense. it only shows the individual has a good punch and was able to hit someone. as martial artists we ALL punch and we All kick . news flash ...untrained people also know how to punch and kick. there are lots of videos of untrained thugs knocking people out. you could put a Hells Angel in a tutu and ballet shoes and he will still knock someone out if they touched his bike. doesnt make ballet street effective. im not saying boxing is not street effective . im just pointing out that training gives you a skill set and some skills are transferable to be used in a violent street encounter but this does not make the system as a whole geared towards self defense. i believe this was the point that was trying to be made.

 

[Drose427]

The flurry of straight punches to the face(as no competent point fighter will throw on or two and then stop) that you see in TMA's, are also pretty common in MMA, Boxing, etc.

Especially when the opponent isnt moving properly or backing up.

Why?

Overrunning like that works, if your opponent isnt moving properly, you have the dominant position cause there are only so many ways he can block before he gets hit.

The same situation occurs in street fights with those who dont train.

so its really as simple as that.

There are things that get divided by the Sport/SD line, but I dont feel this specific thing is one.

 

[Koshiki]

The flurry of straight punches to the face(as no competent point fighter will throw on or two and then stop) that you see in TMA's, are also pretty common in MMA, Boxing, etc.

Especially when the opponent isnt moving properly or backing up.

Why?

Overrunning like that works, if your opponent isnt moving properly, you have the dominant position cause there are only so many ways he can block before he gets hit.

The same situation occurs in street fights with those who dont train.

so its really as simple as that.

There are things that get divided by the Sport/SD line, but I dont feel this specific thing is one.

There is some truth to that, a flurry of punches to the face is a good way to gain the advantage. Introduce chaos until things are going well for you.

However, it really does depend on the sport. I have seen and experienced first hand that in light contact point sparring, a common target is the forehead. A flurry of punches to the forehead is probably better than nothing, but if I'm determined, even without training I can still haul of and slug you hard, especially if you're not training to penetrate.

A flurry of punches to the general face area is better, but not ideal. A flurry of punches to the chin, jawline, side of the neck, and so on is better yet. It's not that a flurry of general head-area strikes is useless, it's that a flurry of directed, targeted strikes is better.

I mean, any flurry to the general head area will generally cause some form of balance and/or momentum in your favor, but isn't a barrage of strikes that also have the ability to do real damage or potentially cause a knockout better? And in terms of self-defense, I would say opting for the better option is pretty well nigh paramount.

That said, I've never been much of a "flurry" type guy at all. Not even a little, so I'm somewhat just speculating here.

 

[JowGaWolf]

On the topic of "flurry punches" there's no solid rule to the effectiveness of them. It requires skill to use them and skill to deal with them. Flurry punches only work against fighters that panic and can't stay calm or focus, fighters who are afraid to get hit, and fighters who don't fight at angles. Flurry punches won't work against someone who does the opposite of those three things.

I actually like flurry punches because I know i can sit in the storm, take one or 2 hits and then counter. The one or 2 hits on me will help me to determine how committed you are to the punches. By taking a hit I don't mean leaving my face wide open for someone to hit. If you are committed to throwing a lot of punches my face then I know you aren't thinking about blocking.
This video shows both how "flurry punches" can work and fail. If I'm only committed to blocking "flurry punches" then I'm not thinking about attacking.

 

[RTKDCMB]

BJJ can stand for "Bananas are Just Joyful."

Tomatoes Kick Derriere.

 

[DaveB]

You said specifically multiples and weapons. I will find the quote.

"Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be better at dealing withweapons or multiple assailants."

Because it is proven against multiples and weapons.

Now take up your own challenge.

Otherwise learning self defence is probably best done away from self defence schools. And left to people who are experts in whatever field you consider necessary. Same as you did with the policing.

Again with the cherry picking?

1. Boxing is NOT proven against anything but boxing. All the examples on the Internet would not constitute proof in any sense.
2. Showing that boxing can work is not showing that it is better. Everyone has agreed from the off that combat sports training is helpful in a fight.
3. You are still trying to reduce SD to fighting when my whole argument is that there is more.to learn. The point of my challenge was to find out what your sports teach with relation to the other areas of SD. You are still avoiding this masterfully.
4. You still haven't addressed the fact that you mooted your whole argument by suggesting that the audience you are speaking to are looking to go out and get into fights. Which is illegal.
Lastly. Even if I wanted to play your game, ignore every other concern and discuss fighting using SD based systems, I couldn't show you any examples. Because when they worked they avoided the fight altogether.