All rights. Face punching point scoring and self defence.

[drop bear]

Because this will get complicated and there is no need to crap up a guys thread.

OK. So this is the concept.

"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?

Sports aim their punches at general areas (head/body) as anywhere in these areas score points. However, once you start looking at punching for self defence it's a whole different ball game. Punch someone in the nose in the ring, you score a point, punch someone in the nose in the street and it may stop them, or if they are have a lot of drugs/alcohol/adrenalin in their system it may just piss them off make enrage them further. Ok so you are not entering competitions, but you will just be told to aim your punches at these general 'scoring zones" in training, not at specific areas designed to incapacitate.



There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them, they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them. Training in an art which is not sports based, or training specifically to deal with civilian violence will teach you to get off line, keeping them in your line of attack, whilst getting off their line of attack.

There are just two points, there are others, but 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.

Taking a sport martial art to deal with civilian violence is like taking table tennis lessons because you have decided to enter Wimbledon. Yeah, looks the same to the laymen, just hitting a ball over a net with a bat right? But in reality it's not."

Which is ironically basically correct advice except for a few bits of information that is just missed and is wrong. Which then makes everything said wrong in context.

So. Here is a novel concept. You can win sports fights by stopping the other guy. Happens all the time. This is done by effective vital point striking. So vital point striking wins competitions.

Don't believe me? Here is a ko compilation showing vital point striking being used effectively to win competitions.

OK the reason you don't stand in front of someone in a fight is so you can punch them better than they can punch you. So angles win competitions.

So if you are concerned about these issues in self defence then they are a main component of sports fighting.

It would be like learning table tennis to play table tennis.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Just to avoid confusion, here is the original post that drop bear is referencing:

Neither.

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?

Sports aim their punches at general areas (head/body) as anywhere in these areas score points. However, once you start looking at punching for self defence it's a whole different ball game. Punch someone in the nose in the ring, you score a point, punch someone in the nose in the street and it may stop them, or if they are have a lot of drugs/alcohol/adrenalin in their system it may just piss them off make enrage them further. Ok so you are not entering competitions, but you will just be told to aim your punches at these general 'scoring zones" in training, not at specific areas designed to incapacitate.

There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them, they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them. Training in an art which is not sports based, or training specifically to deal with civilian violence will teach you to get off line, keeping them in your line of attack, whilst getting off their line of attack.

There are just two points, there are others, but 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.

Taking a sport martial art to deal with civilian violence is like taking table tennis lessons because you have decided to enter Wimbledon. Yeah, looks the same to the laymen, just hitting a ball over a net with a bat right? But in reality it's not.

Drop bear is pretty much on target, but I wanted to emphasize this bit:

There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them, they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them. Training in an art which is not sports based, or training specifically to deal with civilian violence will teach you to get off line, keeping them in your line of attack, whilst getting off their line of attack.

No competent instructor of a combat sport* teaches you "to stand directly in front of an opponent." Boxers, wrestlers, jiu-jitieros, karateka, MMA fighters, etc will all try to establish a dominant angle on an opponent in order to protect themselves and better launch their own attacks. The reason you see fighters in competition standing in front of each other is that both fighters are doing their best to not let the other guy get the superior angle on them. As soon as one fighter gets off-line and has the superior angle the other will be doing his best to take away that angle.

It's not like a demo you see in some arts where a compliant uke throws a punch and then stands frozen in place with his arm outstretched so that his partner can step offline and deliver a 15-count combination. In order to get offline and deliver attacks from a superior angle against a skilled opponent in the time before he recovers you have to be really good and it will probably happen so quickly that the untutored spectator will often miss it.

*(The only exception I can think of is modern sport fencing, where moving off line is against the rules.)

 

[Buka]

Hold on now.

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. Except...I spent a lot of time boxing. That's a sport, right? Worked all right for us when it had to. Spent a lot of time in Martial Arts. Worked even better when it had to. Competed a lot, but never confused competition with anything in the real world. I suppose some folks did, but they never stuck around long.

As for standing directly in front of someone, used to do that in police work all the time. It's how you talk to them. At least that's how it starts. Talked to a lot of people over the years, just that very way.

As for me, for fighting, I like to stand in front of someone. Smack dab, directly in front of them. Right there in their sights. Right there in their wheelhouse, right there in their kitchen.....you know why? Because it's MY kitchen.
The way I look at it is - I want you to fire right there in front - so I can position off angle when you move, which I live for. OR - right down your center, right into you. You move I move. It's been working for forty years. So far so good.

As for "No competent instructor of a combat sport* teaches you "to stand directly in front of an opponent."

Do you mean directly in front of a person - with your feet squared off like you were looking at a painting in a museum? Well, no, of course not.
But if I'm training you, the very first thing I'm going to teach you is to fight in the kitchen, right there in front of the threat.
In fact, as I think about it, every instructor I've ever had, did exaclty that same thing. Be it in striking or grappling, that's where we started. And they were pretty darn good combat instructors.

 

[Paul_D]

You haven't posted the link to the video which explained striking to certain area's of the head which work better than others for Self defence. That was kind of pivotal

When you trian for sport you get told to target Jodan (head) or chuden (body) it doesn't (or didn't; in my experience) get any more specific than that.

Also, I am not disputing sports can work on occasions, my point was if you want to train for civilian violence, which the poster did, why would you train sport which isn't designed to deal with civilian violence. If you want to train for sport, train sport, if you want to train for CV then train for it. Why train for one when your training goal is the other?

Sure you can get a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer, but if your goal is to get a screw into a piece of wood, use a screwdriver. That doesn't mean hammers don't work, or can't be made to work, it just means if you want to hammer nails in use a hammer, if you want to screw screws in use a screw driver.

 

[hoshin1600]

From my experience very few people really understand street violence and what that entails. However most martial artists think they know all about it. There is a big difference between the two and most martial artist I have come across don't really know the difference but see both thru the biased lens of their own particular training or style.

 

[Rmada]

From my experience very few people really understand street violence and what that entails. However most martial artists think they know all about it. There is a big difference between the two and most martial artist I have come across don't really know the difference but see both thru the biased lens of their own particular training or style.

I'm asking this as an "outsider looking in" since i have little martial arts training, so would you say this is because of the students lack of understanding (what they are trying to achieve) or teachers not conveying the reality of (end results) what they are offering?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

When you trian for sport you get told to target Jodan (head) or chuden (body) it doesn't (or didn't; in my experience) get any more specific than that.

I guess it depends on your sport and your coach. In boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA you do train to target specific points to maximize the chance for a knockout. I can't speak for whatever sport you practiced.

As for me, for fighting, I like to stand in front of someone. Smack dab, directly in front of them. Right there in their sights. Right there in their wheelhouse, right there in their kitchen.....you know why? Because it's MY kitchen.
The way I look at it is - I want you to fire right there in front - so I can position off angle when you move, which I live for. OR - right down your center, right into you. You move I move. It's been working for forty years. So far so good.

As for "No competent instructor of a combat sport* teaches you "to stand directly in front of an opponent."

Do you mean directly in front of a person - with your feet squared off like you were looking at a painting in a museum? Well, no, of course not.
But if I'm training you, the very first thing I'm going to teach you is to fight in the kitchen, right there in front of the threat.
In fact, as I think about it, every instructor I've ever had, did exaclty that same thing. Be it in striking or grappling, that's where we started. And they were pretty darn good combat instructors.

Perhaps I phrased my point poorly. Obviously you need to be comfortable fighting directly in front of your opponent, because that's where you are going to be most of the time unless you're really skilled and/or lucky. Given the opportunity, however, you would prefer to be off-line so that you are facing your opponent and he isn't facing you. Maybe you can get there by moving your opponent, maybe you can get there by moving yourself. Doesn't matter whether you're doing boxing, karate, or BJJ, your odds of success go way up if you can achieve that superior angle. Paul D's original statement made it sound either like sport fighters don't know about getting to a superior angle or would prefer not to get to one, which is nonsense.

I want you to fire right there in front - so I can position off angle when you move, which I live for.

Exactly!

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm asking this as an "outsider looking in" since i have little martial arts training, so would you say this is because of the students lack of understanding (what they are trying to achieve) or teachers not conveying the reality of (end results) what they are offering?

It's because most teachers teach what they have been taught in the dojo or in the ring. If you ask, most do not have a lot of experience in street violence. So it's a combination of learning to swim by reading a book and then teaching the next generation as well as the problem of the hammer only seeing nails.

 

[drop bear]

I'm asking this as an "outsider looking in" since i have little martial arts training, so would you say this is because of the students lack of understanding (what they are trying to achieve) or teachers not conveying the reality of (end results) what they are offering?

There is a lot of guess work and not enough evidence. It is all anecdotes and stories.

 

[drop bear]

Also, I am not disputing sports can work on occasions, my point was if you want to train for civilian violence, which the poster did, why would you train sport which isn't designed to deal with civilian violence. If you want to train for sport, train sport, if you want to train for CV then train for it. Why train for one when your training goal is the other?

Sometimes the basic tool is better than the specialised tool. And especially if that basic tool has proven performance.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In CMA even if you train sport, you still train "black hand" to deal with unfriendly challengers (similar to street fight).

- To hit on the back of your opponent's head, or
- To twist your opponent's knee joint side way,

will always work in street situation.

One guy that I know who loves to train "illegal sport moves". He believes that's the MA treasure.

 

[Paul_D]

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1730757, member: 32360" Paul D's original statement made it sound either like sport fighters don't know about getting to a superior angle or would prefer not to get to one, which is nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
I probably didn't phrase it properly then, my bad ;-)

 

[DaveB]

Yes sports combat systems teach you how to fight effectively.

They are still second best for self defense because self defense is more than just fighting.

This has been gone over so many times that rather than re-listing all the differences I will just ask, why all the non punch/kick/wrestle, non one on one elements get ignored in order to make this point.

If not glossed over, you have to outright avoid every relevant part of self defense training to hold onto the idea that sport fighting is as good as training specifically designed for self defense.

Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be better at dealing with weapons or multiple assailants. Tell us which bit of the pre fight training covers legal implications and obligations. What elements of Muay Thai are designed to get your girlfriend away from a group of thugs?

Reducing self defense to ringfighting is naive and irresponsible.

 

[drop bear]

Yes sports combat systems teach you how to fight effectively.

They are still second best for self defense because self defense is more than just fighting.

This has been gone over so many times that rather than re-listing all the differences I will just ask, why all the non punch/kick/wrestle, non one on one elements get ignored in order to make this point. You literally have to outright avoid every relevant part of self defense training to hold onto the idea that sport fighting is as good as training specifically designed for self defense.

Because most people don't start fights who are looking for self defence. So it becomes a moot point. People who want self defence basically don't want to get bashed.

People who don't want to get bashed avoid fighting anyway. Had a whole lifetime of doing it.don't need to learn much more of it.

People who do fight are pretty much at peace with getting bashed or they wouldn't fight. So probably should learn how to avoid fights but won't.

So when most people want self defence they want to know how to fight. So then they are empowered with choice.

Basically for the most part avoidance is selling ice to Eskimos.

Now having said that. If the delivery system for avoidance and deescalation was any good then it would be a worthwhile skill. But it rarely is any better than just learning to fight.

 

[DaveB]

Your response is a perfect example of avoidance: I didn't mention avoidance once, but you have ignored all the things I did mention and attempted to reduce the many counter points to just that one.

On the subject of avoidance, what you think you need in relation to self defense doesn't change what is universally relevant to the subject. In other words you can't speak for everyone else just because you think you are a natural at avoidance.

Second you've made your whole point moot because what you are talking about is people who want to fight learning to fight (consensual
violence). This is the antithesis of self defense and the essence of sports fighting. Thus the point of training in the area you want to act in still holds true.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1730757, member: 32360" Paul D's original statement made it sound either like sport fighters don't know about getting to a superior angle or would prefer not to get to one, which is nonsense.

I probably didn't phrase it properly then, my bad ;-)[/QUOTE]
If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then please clarify it you don't mind. I don't want to waste my time arguing against a point that wasn't what you meant.

 

[drop bear]

Your response is a perfect example of avoidance: I didn't mention avoidance once, but you have ignored all the things I did mention and attempted to reduce the many counter points to just that one.

On the subject of avoidance, what you think you need in relation to self defense doesn't change what is universally relevant to the subject. In other words you can't speak for everyone else just because you think you are a natural at avoidance.

Second you've made your whole point moot because what you are talking about is people who want to fight learning to fight (consensual
violence). This is the antithesis of self defense and the essence of sports fighting. Thus the point of training in the area you want to act in still holds true.

There were two counter points. One was multiples one was the non fighting skills like swimming or navigation. Oh wait mabye you don't teach those as self defence.OK um.. Avoidance and deescalation then.

So if avoidance is the important part of self defence then why is the system of avoidance in martial arts the equivalent of making stuff up in the back yard?

What is the linage of your avoidance method?

What is the competition base to your avoidance method?

What service/military/police system has your avoidance method come from?

 

[GiYu - Todd]

I suspect the OP was referring to some sport arts often not being well rounded, due to being constrained by rules.
One example is TKD not typically emphasizing ground fighting. Once knocked down, your opponent can't pursue you. If a real fight goes to the ground, they may not be fully prepared to fight there.
Or a judoka not being as practiced in punches and kicks, as their sport doesn't allow those. So in a stand up fight, they may be at a disadvantage.
However, if it comes to having a real fight with a highly trained practitioner of any "sport art", I'd still prefer not to fight them. They're likely to just steer the fight toward the stuff they are really good at and beat you with that.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I suspect the OP was referring to some sport arts often not being well rounded, due to being constrained by rules.
One example is TKD not typically emphasizing ground fighting. Once knocked down, your opponent can't pursue you. If a real fight goes to the ground, they may not be fully prepared to fight there.
Or a judoka not being as practiced in punches and kicks, as their sport doesn't allow those. So in a stand up fight, they may be at a disadvantage.

I'd have no problem with that suggestion. Everybody has holes in their game, unless they train 40+ hours per week with access to a holodeck. Regardless of your art, it's worth exploring where those gaps in your training are.

What I objected to was the suggestions that "sport martial artists" don't understand getting off the line of attack or aiming at specific targets to maximize damage. Those points are demonstrably false.

 

[DaveB]

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

Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be better at dealing with weapons or multiple assailants. Tell us which bit of the pre fight training covers legal implications and obligations. What elements of Muay Thai are designed to get your girlfriend away from a group of thugs?

Reducing self defense to ringfighting is naive and irresponsible.

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.