Can an underweight man realistically protect himself/fight his way out of a situation?

[K-man]

Strength is something you can control good training is something you can control. Developing these will give you the best chance defending an attack.

A 72 year old manhandling a robber.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...face-burglar-got-wrong-72-year-old-boxer.html

I would like to think I will be still fit and strong at 72 but if I need to defend myself I won't be relying on strength and nor did this guy. He punched the young fellow twice. It was skill from past training that helped here, not strength or fitness. That and the fact that the young punk was drunk. I would expect that the older guy also channeled his aggression as he would have copped an adrenalin dump when the knife was pulled.

I'm not arguing that strength is not important. Just that in a conflict where one person is bigger than the other, if the smaller person is relying on strength he may well fail. Training would certainly be number one and that would include strategy. All our training is based on the premise that your attacker may be bigger and stronger. If that were not the case there would be no place in MA training for young people, old people, women or guys of smaller stature because they can't expect to out muscle a larger, stronger male opponent.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

I would like to think I will be still fit and strong at 72 but if I need to defend myself I won't be relying on strength and nor did this guy. He punched the young fellow twice. It was skill from past training that helped here, not strength or fitness. That and the fact that the young punk was drunk. I would expect that the older guy also channeled his aggression as he would have copped an adrenalin dump when the knife was pulled.

I'm not arguing that strength is not important. Just that in a conflict where one person is bigger than the other, if the smaller person is relying on strength he may well fail. Training would certainly be number one and that would include strategy. All our training is based on the premise that your attacker may be bigger and stronger. If that were not the case there would be no place in MA training for young people, old people, women or guys of smaller stature because they can't expect to out muscle a larger, stronger male opponent.
:asian:

The more strength you have the more it will close the gap between you and a bigger person. I have also mentioned good training in pretty much every post I have made here.

There are tactics You can employ to handle bigger stronger people. I accept that.

But if you are worried about the stronger person. Don't skirt around the issue. Get stronger and then you have the unfair advantage.

 

[K-man]

But if you are worried about the stronger person. Don't skirt around the issue. Get stronger and then you have the unfair advantage.

I don't know how old you are but your expectation that a 175cm 60 or 65 year old male working out in the gym could match a young fit 185cm 30 year old is unrealistic. Likewise if you think a 20 year old woman can work out in a gym and match the above male, it just isn't going to happen. They will never have an unfair advantage, but good training can level the playing field.

And I backed up your point on good training. But it is the good training that gives the smaller person the ability to defend himself, not the strength training.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

I don't know how old you are but your expectation that a 175cm 60 or 65 year old male working out in the gym could match a young fit 185cm 30 year old is unrealistic. Likewise if you think a 20 year old woman can work out in a gym and match the above male, it just isn't going to happen. They will never have an unfair advantage, but good training can level the playing field.

And I backed up your point on good training. But it is the good training that gives the smaller person the ability to defend himself, not the strength training.
:asian:

You are not trying to match people. Just giving yourself the best chance possible.

 

[wingchun100]

And I happen to agree with you, but for a different reason. 'Dirty tricks' are part and parcel of my training. I teach them as mainstream, but they are not something you can rely on to win a fight by themselves. You need to know how to enter, how to evade, how to get away as well as how to strike effectively etc. In tournaments I have seen small guys out point big guys on many occasions but that was nothing to do with size. They were just really good fighters.
:asian:

Right, but I interpreted the OP's question as meaning, "Can an underweight man defend himself if he had the training?" So I was talking of a smaller person who knew how to enter/evade/get away/strike effectively versus a bigger person who might not. Of course, if you just met this bully on the street, you have no idea what (if any) training they have...but if they have you cornered, then it's a risk you have to take. If they outweigh/outsize/outreach you, and the only way to get out is to fight, then fight dirty!

 

[K-man]

Right, but I interpreted the OP's question as meaning, "Can an underweight man defend himself if he had the training?" So I was talking of a smaller person who knew how to enter/evade/get away/strike effectively versus a bigger person who might not. Of course, if you just met this bully on the street, you have no idea what (if any) training they have...but if they have you cornered, then it's a risk you have to take. If they outweigh/outsize/outreach you, and the only way to get out is to fight, then fight dirty!

I agree with you. All I said was you can't rely on 'dirty' lone and for me 'dirty' is just part of mainstream training. That is a major difference between training for sport and training reality based.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

I agree with you. All I said was you can't rely on 'dirty' lone and for me 'dirty' is just part of mainstream training. That is a major difference between training for sport and training reality based.
:asian:

It shouldn't be though. There should be variations in scenario,ambush counter ambush,use of force. First aid incident reporting,weapons,awarness ,tactical use of the environment. That sort of thing.

Dirty vs sport is such a minimal difference as to be no real difference. There are a few tricks here and there but not enough to effect good basic fundamentals.

An eye gouge is a jab with your fingers extended.

 

[K-man]

It shouldn't be though. There should be variations in scenario,ambush counter ambush,use of force. First aid incident reporting,weapons,awarness ,tactical use of the environment. That sort of thing.

Dirty vs sport is such a minimal difference as to be no real difference. There are a few tricks here and there but not enough to effect good basic fundamentals.

An eye gouge is a jab with your fingers extended.

I'm not at all sure how your first points of ambush etc come into this discussion but the way you train for sport is totally different to the way you train for self defence. In sport you have rules that prevent certain techniques. So in sport you don't instinctively strike to the eyes, you don't instinctively use the point of your elbow, you don't target the groin, and you don't grab the hair to gain advantage. You don't train to hit the back of the neck or spine and you don't stomp on your opponent to get away.

But on top of the rules in sport there are unwritten rules that most fighters accept. The main one here is that in a sporting contest you are not trying to severely damage your opponent. In the ring you really aren't trying to take out your opponent's knee. In a reality based scenario, especially against a weapon, I will be trying to destroy his base. Now I'm not saying you can't use those techniques if you are training a sport based style but it is not your primary objective and the saying is "you fight as you train". Our training targets weak points, our training is to make sure your attacker can't chase after you as you try to escape.

But perhaps the biggest difference is, in sport you are training to engage. In RBSD you are really training not to fight at all. In sport you are penalised if you don't move in to engage. In RBSD an attacker has to breach your defence. There is no way in the world that sport based MAs have more than a passing resemblance to RB MAs. The objective is different and the training is different.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

I'm not at all sure how your first points of ambush etc come into this discussion but the way you train for sport is totally different to the way you train for self defence. In sport you have rules that prevent certain techniques. So in sport you don't instinctively strike to the eyes, you don't instinctively use the point of your elbow, you don't target the groin, and you don't grab the hair to gain advantage. You don't train to hit the back of the neck or spine and you don't stomp on your opponent to get away.

But on top of the rules in sport there are unwritten rules that most fighters accept. The main one here is that in a sporting contest you are not trying to severely damage your opponent. In the ring you really aren't trying to take out your opponent's knee. In a reality based scenario, especially against a weapon, I will be trying to destroy his base. Now I'm not saying you can't use those techniques if you are training a sport based style but it is not your primary objective and the saying is "you fight as you train". Our training targets weak points, our training is to make sure your attacker can't chase after you as you try to escape.

But perhaps the biggest difference is, in sport you are training to engage. In RBSD you are really training not to fight at all. In sport you are penalised if you don't move in to engage. In RBSD an attacker has to breach your defence. There is no way in the world that sport based MAs have more than a passing resemblance to RB MAs. The objective is different and the training is different.
:asian:

You mean nobody has suggested that as a tactic yet?

OK one method to give yourself greater advantage against a more physical opponent is to start the fight before he knows it has started.

Especially if you believe a fight only lasts 10 seconds or so. Then it can be all you for that ten seconds. Now this also applies to not training to engage. It can be a terrible mistake to allow the other guy the ambush and to gain that momentum. I am not sure why you would not train that in a self defence martial art.

I am going to suggest training to engage is a vital component in winning fights.


And in some circumstances you are really trying to take out a knee.

(I found this while playing around in another thread. A good example of the use of the oblique kick)

http://fightland.vice.com/fight-school/the-oblique-kick-with-jon-jones

 

[K-man]

You mean nobody has suggested that as a tactic yet?

OK one method to give yourself greater advantage against a more physical opponent is to start the fight before he knows it has started.

Good luck with that one! I'm not sure you understand the laws in Australia but as long as you have a good barrister you might get away with preemptive strike. Less likely now with the 'one punch' legislation.

Especially if you believe a fight only lasts 10 seconds or so. Then it can be all you for that ten seconds. Now this also applies to not training to engage. It can be a terrible mistake to allow the other guy the ambush and to gain that momentum. I am not sure why you would not train that in a self defence martial art.

If you see it coming it is hardly an ambush. If it is an ambush you had better hope that it is not a good punch. How do you train for an ambush other than in the theory of SD in avoiding certain areas and being aware of your surroundings?

I am going to suggest training to engage is a vital component in winning fights.

In the context of sport that is 100% and in your chosen field of MMA it is most important. For me, not as much. There may be instances where I would want to enter but most times I will just be waiting. In RBSD at least that gives me some justification for my actions if it goes to court. The other thing is, in a number of instances I could have done what you suggest and I may have ended up in court. By not entering and engaging I avoided those potential fights entirely. I have never pursued a fight.

As to training to engage. All our training is about engaging. Once engaged we don't disengage until it is safe to do so. There is a big difference between 'engaging' and 'attacking' although if some one attacks me I will be attacking them as they close.

And in some circumstances you are really trying to take out a knee.

In a sporting contest? I don't think so. Apart from the lawsuit you are likely to where if you are successful it is against the rules which say ... foul includes "any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to opponent".
(I found this while playing around in another thread. A good example of the use of the oblique kick)

http://fightland.vice.com/fight-school/the-oblique-kick-with-jon-jones

An oblique kick is within the rules of sport. It is often used in WC as well as Krav. I would call this example more of a stomp. One kick I teach that is similar is more kicking straight in to the point just above or just below the knee without the prior knee lift. That is with the toes if you are wearing shoes or the ball of the foot if bare foot. For me the stomp is more for the back of the knee as a takedown. But that is not the kick I am saying will take out the knee. I had a quick search on youtube but can't find what I teach. All MAs teach kicks to the knee whether that be back or front. Some teach to attack the side. Muay Thai train the kick I teach but normally they target the thigh.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

An oblique kick is within the rules of sport. It is often used in WC as well as Krav. I would call this example more of a stomp. One kick I teach that is similar is more kicking straight in to the point just above or just below the knee without the prior knee lift. That is with the toes if you are wearing shoes or the ball of the foot if bare foot. For me the stomp is more for the back of the knee as a takedown. But that is not the kick I am saying will take out the knee. I had a quick search on youtube but can't find what I teach. All MAs teach kicks to the knee whether that be back or front. Some teach to attack the side. Muay Thai train the kick I teach but normally they target the thigh.
:asian:

My point is you can target a joint.

You said.

. In the ring you really aren't trying to take out your opponent's knee

And that is incorrect.

 

[drop bear]

Instead of having to deal with that cut and paste multi quote from k ma's.

Allrighty.

An assault occurs when you are in fear of you life not when an attack is thrown. A preemptive attack does not have to be a punch and does not have to kill people. The one punch law is a bit different.

You train for an ambush during what is called the interview stage in rsbd. You could also use the term sucker punch. It is complicated and probably off topic.


Training to engage. You need to pick one stance. You only train to engage but don't engage sounds like messy logic. Not disengaging ever also seems limiting. I see the value of keeping momentum up. But it is always good to have more options.

And knee shots are not unsportsmanlike. At the moment. I think the point is that they take out a lot less knees than people think they do.

And the mention of a sporting contest with rules not being applicable does not make sense if you are going to worry about laws in a self defence.

 

[K-man]

My point is you can target a joint.

You said.

. In the ring you really aren't trying to take out your opponent's knee

And that is incorrect.

And there is an enormous difference between targeting the knee and trying to destroy the knee.

An assault occurs when you are in fear of you life not when an attack is thrown. A preemptive attack does not have to be a punch and does not have to kill people. The one punch law is a bit different.

Sorry mate, the law has changed. If you want to use that defence in court you had better have a super smart barrister and witnesses to attest that your life was actually in danger.

Under current law you are unlikely to convince a court that anything other than a physical assault is assault unless there is a weapon. Perhaps I could recommend a good SD instructor for you.

You train for an ambush during what is called the interview stage in rsbd. You could also use the term sucker punch. It is complicated and probably off topic.

Not sure about "rsbd" but I'm happy to take your word for it. Sucker punch is appropriate in the context of ambush because you don't see it coming. But sorry, in my world there is no interview stage in ambush.

Training to engage. You need to pick one stance. You only train to engage but don't engage sounds like messy logic. Not disengaging ever also seems limiting. I see the value of keeping momentum up. But it is always good to have more options.

Mmm! You don't have the first clue when it comes to predictive response training obviously.

And knee shots are not unsportsmanlike. At the moment. I think the point is that they take out a lot less knees than people think they do.

Knee shots of the sort you showed are, as I said, within the rules of sport. The knee shot I teach is way outside the rules, sorry.

And the mention of a sporting contest with rules not being applicable does not make sense if you are going to worry about laws in a self defence.

Right. I'm sure you are trying to make point here but the logic escapes me. Let me try to understand. In a sporting contest there are rules and the fight is stopped when someone can't defend himself or can't continue. In self defence the laws of the land provide the 'rules'. Under the law there are certain exemptions but now you are not protected by the law if a court determines that you could have avoided the fight. Under the law you can only use 'reasonable' force. If you are pushed in the chest by a woman and you punch her in the face knocking her to the ground you will possibly go to jail for assault, even though she started it. If a thug attacks you with a knife and you take the knife from him and stab him, you will go to jail. Once the threat is removed your further action becomes retaliation and not self defence.

As I said, self defence training is totally different to sport training.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

And there is an enormous difference between targeting the knee and trying to destroy the knee.


Sorry mate, the law has changed. If you want to use that defence in court you had better have a super smart barrister and witnesses to attest that your life was actually in danger.

Under current law you are unlikely to convince a court that anything other than a physical assault is assault unless there is a weapon. Perhaps I could recommend a good SD instructor for you.


Not sure about "rsbd" but I'm happy to take your word for it. Sucker punch is appropriate in the context of ambush because you don't see it coming. But sorry, in my world there is no interview stage in ambush.


Mmm! You don't have the first clue when it comes to predictive response training obviously.


Knee shots of the sort you showed are, as I said, within the rules of sport. The knee shot I teach is way outside the rules, sorry.


Right. I'm sure you are trying to make point here but the logic escapes me. Let me try to understand. In a sporting contest there are rules and the fight is stopped when someone can't defend himself or can't continue. In self defence the laws of the land provide the 'rules'. Under the law there are certain exemptions but now you are not protected by the law if a court determines that you could have avoided the fight. Under the law you can only use 'reasonable' force. If you are pushed in the chest by a woman and you punch her in the face knocking her to the ground you will possibly go to jail for assault, even though she started it. If a thug attacks you with a knife and you take the knife from him and stab him, you will go to jail. Once the threat is removed your further action becomes retaliation and not self defence.

As I said, self defence training is totally different to sport training.
:asian:

So you have destroyed knees? This with a technique that can't be defined and is different to kicking the thing. Kicks to the knee are allowed front side whatever. I really don't see how yours falls outside the rule set.

The king hit laws are specific to someone dying or being injured and me being intoxicated
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...ws-not-for-kids/story-e6frgczx-1226808030419#

I don't drink and so am not subject to them.

OK the interview is where an attacker is deciding whether to attack you or not that is usually the taunts and the threats to see if he is going to get something for nothing.

Quite often there is opportunity to be ambushed at this stage or to ambush.

I have no idea what predictive response training is. I Googled it and apparently nobody else does either.

And laws are rules. So training to fight under the rule of the law is training to fight under a set of rules. You cannot go from super devastating techniques that cripple people and use of force because you are bouncing from one extreme to another.

And regardless you train under a rule set. Everybody trains with rules.

 

[K-man]

So you have destroyed knees? This with a technique that can't be defined and is different to kicking the thing. Kicks to the knee are allowed front side whatever. I really don't see how yours falls outside the rule set.

And I haven't broken any necks, destroyed spinal columns or gauged eyes either. Your point is?

The king hit laws are specific to someone dying or being injured and me being intoxicated
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...ws-not-for-kids/story-e6frgczx-1226808030419#

I don't drink and so am not subject to them.

Sorry you are just plain wrong. What you quoted was not what I was talking about. Your article just excludes children!

THE NSW government has ruled out applying its new mandatory minimum sentences to children - the first exemption to its new sentencing regime - as it scrambles to introduce its new alcohol-fuelled violence package by next week. It was unable, however, to answer a series of questions about its mandatory minimum laws, which will apply to a range of offences beyond unprovoked attacks, or "king-hit" crimes.

What I am referring to are violent offenders, so sorry that does include you

NSW will introduce a new offence of unlawful assault causing death to cover situations such as the king hit which killed Sydney teenager Thomas Kelly.


The new law is based on a Western Australian law but will double the maximum penalty to 20 years in jail.


However, this is actually less than the maximum of 25 years available under the manslaughter charge used in the Kelly case. But unlike manslaughter, the new offence does not require the prosecution to prove that the accused could have foreseen the death of the victim.


The killer of Thomas Kelly, Kieran Loveridge received a non-parole period of four years, sparking outrage from his parents, victims groups and media commentators.


The NSW Attorney General Greg Smith, who has asked the DPP to appeal the sentence, said the new law would send a message to the judiciary about imposing appropriate sentences.


"There is community support for creating an offence which explicitly recognises situations where an assault directly or indirectly causes the death of a person. It will also provide clarity about the appropriate charge in 'one punch' situations."


"The new offence and proposed penalty will send the strongest message to violent and drunken thugs that assaulting people is not a rite of passage on a boozy night out your behaviour can have the most serious consequences and the community expects you to pay a heavy price for your actions."


He backed the NSW Director of Public prosecutions decision to accept the plea bargain of Loveridge down from murder to manslaughter, saying it would not have been possible to prove murder.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-kelly-sentence/story-e6frgczx-1226758191594

As I took pains to point out, self defence training is totally different to training for the ring.

OK the interview is where an attacker is deciding whether to attack you or not that is usually the taunts and the threats to see if he is going to get something for nothing.

Hardly an ambush or has the English language changed since I was at school?

Quite often there is opportunity to be ambushed at this stage or to ambush.

Yeah right, if you say so.

I have no idea what predictive response training is. I Googled it and apparently nobody else does either.

So if it's not in Google it doesn't exist? Really? Perhaps you could Google Taira bunkai or look at some of Iain Abernethy's material.

And laws are rules. So training to fight under the rule of the law is training to fight under a set of rules. You cannot go from super devastating techniques that cripple people and use of force because you are bouncing from one extreme to another.

And regardless you train under a rule set. Everybody trains with rules.

I thought that is what I said but thank you for reinforcing it.

 

[drop bear]

And I haven't broken any necks, destroyed spinal columns or gauged eyes either. Your point is?

Sorry you are just plain wrong. What you quoted was not what I was talking about. Your article just excludes children!
What I am referring to are violent offenders, so sorry that does include you



As I took pains to point out, self defence training is totally different to training for the ring.



Hardly an ambush or has the English language changed since I was at school?



Yeah right, if you say so.


So if it's not in Google it doesn't exist? Really? Perhaps you could Google Taira bunkai or look at some of Iain Abernethy's material.
I thought that is what I said but thank you for reinforcing it.

Ok alcohol is a component in those laws.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...datory-jail-term/story-e6frgczx-1226813800693

I don't know why just is. But it personally gives me an out.

Now having never broken a knee. You are suggesting that you have a better technique than john jones? I am not sure how you would know. But see here is the thing. The reason you haven't broken a knee is because you train with rules. Just like me.


It doesn't matter how you label the attack. I am not married to the word ambush. Use whatever term you like.

But that stage of whatever you call it can be a deciding factor in overcoming a larger oponant. Just stringing out straight punches from nowhere has been a staple of fighting for years and is still very high percentage.

I will Google your thingy.

 

[stonewall1350]

God made men. Sam Colt made 'em equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

God made men. Sam Colt made 'em equal.

... and Uncle Sam puts the survivors in jail.

 

[stonewall1350]

... and Uncle Sam puts the survivors in jail.

Only if the survivor was a bad guy...well a bad guy not in Detroit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RTKDCMB]

The king hit laws are specific to someone dying or being injured and me being intoxicated
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...ws-not-for-kids/story-e6frgczx-1226808030419#

I don't drink and so am not subject to them.

I don't think it matters if the king hitter is drunk or not, he would probably be in more trouble if he wasn't (because their is no impairment of judgment due to alcohol).