Comparing kid ranks to adult ranks

[Steve]

Hey coming in late, but the way i view rolling with kids is that it’s all about them. Giving them a bigger, stronger person to try and move around and providing only enough resistance to push them a little. I didn’t expect to get anything more than a warm up out of it and have a little fun.

When my older daughter trained, she was little… maybe 75 lbs. she was small for her age but is smart and analytical, and if the coach told her to do something “this way” that’s what she’d do. Trust the technique.

So I walked in and a blue belt… 185lbs and an amateur MMA fighter at the time, was describing how my daughter caught him with an RNC. He really played up the story, but there is no doubt that when she locked her tiny arms around his neck it must have been like a garrote. Sure, he probably let the technique go longer than he should have and had he been fully resisting, of course she would have been thrown across the room. But he was genuinely surprised that she pursued that choke so quickly and aggressively and that he tapped out of necessity. That taste of success she experienced was really motivating for her. I think that’s what it’s all about.

 

[drop bear]

Post #45:
"What level of fight do you think is sufficient to prove that you can fight? What makes you think that literally everyone in the martial arts community agrees with you on that threshold?"

Post #52:
"What is your definition of a fight? What is the threshold of technique, skill, and danger that makes it a "fight" instead of "not a fight", so that we can determine if you "can" or "can't" in that situation?"

Post #55:
"I was asking you where the line was. "

I realize that you quoted Post #55 when you said you don't recall me asking where the line was. However, I would assume it was very clear from that post that I was asking where the line was, and thus another opportunity for you to define it.

There were other posts where I also hinted that a definition of what is a fight would clear up any miscommunications, but you missed those as well. I don't think I need to directly ask for you to gather from context what information would help, but also I did directly ask three times.

So I only get answers to one post, and follow-up questions deserve ridicule?

I was providing examples of what the line could be. Those were not claims about what you said. I was giving you a multiple choice question with an option of E) Other at the end.

I was also trying to show how the logic of the claims you did make didn't make sense. That you picked an arbitrary line that people disagree with, and there are other arbitrary lines people could choose.

I asked those as questions which could be answered together or individually. You may have answered all my questions in Post #45, but I posited new questions in Post #52, and instead of answering those, you called me a troll.

Okay, let me try this:

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS AND ISN'T A FIGHT?

There. Did you catch it? Was I clear enough this time? Apparently you missed it the last three times, so I made it as big as I can on this forum.

I want to be able to improve even against the small group of rolling partners that I'm athletically superior to.

The purpose of this threat was simply to figure out where a kid color belt compared to an adult white belt or adult colored belt, so that I could go into that roll with a good ballpark idea of what level of intensity to go so that we both get something out of it.

I wonder if you have someone ignored, and that's the person that started the rabbit trail. This one started with the "bet" that there are some BJJ black belts who can't fight, which was already getting off topic of this thread in itself.

Ok. I think I get the issue. The easiest way to tell how good someone is and therefore what intensity to go. Is by rolling with them

 

[Steve]

Yeah.

I am still not sure why all the angst in the first place.

The worst thing that happens if you go too easy is you get tapped out.

And make that kid's day.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Post #45:
"What level of fight do you think is sufficient to prove that you can fight? What makes you think that literally everyone in the martial arts community agrees with you on that threshold?"

Post #52:
"What is your definition of a fight? What is the threshold of technique, skill, and danger that makes it a "fight" instead of "not a fight", so that we can determine if you "can" or "can't" in that situation?"

Post #55:
"I was asking you where the line was. "

I realize that you quoted Post #55 when you said you don't recall me asking where the line was. However, I would assume it was very clear from that post that I was asking where the line was, and thus another opportunity for you to define it.

There were other posts where I also hinted that a definition of what is a fight would clear up any miscommunications, but you missed those as well. I don't think I need to directly ask for you to gather from context what information would help, but also I did directly ask three times.

So I only get answers to one post, and follow-up questions deserve ridicule?

I was providing examples of what the line could be. Those were not claims about what you said. I was giving you a multiple choice question with an option of E) Other at the end.

I was also trying to show how the logic of the claims you did make didn't make sense. That you picked an arbitrary line that people disagree with, and there are other arbitrary lines people could choose.

I asked those as questions which could be answered together or individually. You may have answered all my questions in Post #45, but I posited new questions in Post #52, and instead of answering those, you called me a troll.

Okay, let me try this:

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS AND ISN'T A FIGHT?

A fight is no rules.
A fight is anything goes.
A fight means I am trying to go home.
If I end up in the hospital I hope you have good insurance as I would expect to give as much as possible.

This includes improvised weapons and environment.

** RELFECTION is what you are getting from what you are putting out **

There. Did you catch it? Was I clear enough this time? Apparently you missed it the last three times, so I made it as big as I can on this forum.

I want to be able to improve even against the small group of rolling partners that I'm athletically superior to.

The purpose of this threat was simply to figure out where a kid color belt compared to an adult white belt or adult colored belt, so that I could go into that roll with a good ballpark idea of what level of intensity to go so that we both get something out of it.

I wonder if you have someone ignored, and that's the person that started the rabbit trail. This one started with the "bet" that there are some BJJ black belts who can't fight, which was already getting off topic of this thread in itself.

 

[skribs]

A fight is no rules.
A fight is anything goes.
A fight means I am trying to go home.
If I end up in the hospital I hope you have good insurance as I would expect to give as much as possible.

This includes improvised weapons and environment.

** RELFECTION is what you are getting from what you are putting out **

So for you, anything that is a sanctioned combat sporting match (i.e. MMA, boxing, muay thai, wrestling, BJJ) is not a fight?

I'm just clarifying to make sure we're on the same page.

 

[Rich Parsons]

So for you, anything that is a sanctioned combat sporting match (i.e. MMA, boxing, muay thai, wrestling, BJJ) is not a fight?

I'm just clarifying to make sure we're on the same page.

A sanctioned Sporting event is a Sanctioned Sporting event with rules.
They might be skilled. They probably (Most likely) have better cardio than me. So not attack on their physical condition.
And not disrespect meant to their skill.

Now that being said, I do not go around telling people NOT to use the term fight for those sanctioned sporting events.
And it is not me being cocky, as point to any of these "sanctioned fighters" and ask them if they think they will loose before they step into the ring. Yes they are there to give everything they can within those rules. Props! Knuckle bump to them. I can even watch an event and enjoy it. I also watch Battle Bots ,and they call their events fights , and it doesn't bother me. As the context, is understood it is about their league and their rule set.

So would I be called a fighter in any competition? Right now today? No, I would not.
Yet, my statement above still stands I will give it all I got , including environment and improvised , to make sure I go home.

 

[jks9199]

Attention all users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Administrator

 

[Dirty Dog]

So for you, anything that is a sanctioned combat sporting match (i.e. MMA, boxing, muay thai, wrestling, BJJ) is not a fight?

Not really, no. The term is commonly used and generally accepted (and I have been known to use it myself, for simplicities sake and to avoid debate) but in the strictest terms, a sanctioned sporting match is just that - a MATCH.

Similarly, people often refer to wheels as rims (a rim is the outermost part of a wheel which holds the tire, not the whole thing), magazines as clips (a clip is a device used for quickly loading a number of individual rounds into a magazine), and engines as motors (motors are electric).

 

[skribs]

Not really, no. The term is commonly used and generally accepted (and I have been known to use it myself, for simplicities sake and to avoid debate) but in the strictest terms, a sanctioned sporting match is just that - a MATCH.

It's also an industry term in the UFC. Ultimate Fighting Championship has their Fight Night.

Words can be defined differently in different contexts.

 

[Dirty Dog]

It's also an industry term in the UFC. Ultimate Fighting Championship has their Fight Night.

Yes, because that appeals to drama. That's what the entertainment industry does. Joe Schmoe and his drinking buddies are more likely to shell out exorbitant PPV fees for a "fight" than a "match".
Or do you think the people on "American Ninja Warrior" really are American Ninja Warriors?

Words can be defined differently in different contexts.

More often, they are misused, either intentionally or through ignorance.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

First, one must define what "can't fight" means. Because "can't fight" can mean anything from:

• If presented with an angry teenager, would probably hurt themselves more than the teenager would hurt them
• -to-
• Capable of winning a fight in the UFC. (Or even something stricter than that).

Depending on what you define as "can't fight", I'm sure at some point you'll find a line where some black belts don't stack up to it.

No, buddy, there's really no confusion, especially in the Martial world, about what "can't fight" means.

In fact, that might be the ONLY term in Martial Arts, or the fight game, where there is absolutely no confusion about definition.

What are the goalposts here? To me it seems pretty straight forward-you either can do well in a fight, or not.

I'm actually with skribs on this one. "Can fight" or "can't fight" is not a binary category.

I'm pretty certain that anyone on this forum could easily win a fight with a 5 year old.

I also think it's pretty probable that no one on this forum is likely to win a fist fight with a current UFC champion or a fire fight with a Navy Seal team.

In between those two extremes is a huge spectrum of challenge, opponents of varying nature and ability, and contexts which vary in danger, predictability, and restriction of options.

When someone says that so-and-so "can fight" or "can't fight", they've got some cutoff point along that spectrum where they imagine the person would or wouldn't do well in a fight. My personal observation is that different people envision different points on the spectrum when they use the phrase. Some use it to mean "would do well in a fight against an average person." Some use it to mean "would do well in a fight against the sort of person who regularly gets into fights." Some use it to mean "would do well against professional fighters." Just those three options represent three very different levels of fighting ability.

 

[skribs]

When someone says that so-and-so "can fight" or "can't fight", they've got some cutoff point along that spectrum where they imagine the person would or wouldn't do well in a fight. My personal observation is that different people envision different points on the spectrum when they use the phrase. Some use it to mean "would do well in a fight against an average person." Some use it to mean "would do well in a fight against the sort of person who regularly gets into fights." Some use it to mean "would do well against professional fighters." Just those three options represent three very different levels of fighting ability.

To add onto that, I don't think it's a 1D spectrum where it's just in your ability to fight. Fighters with different specializations and abilities might be likely to win against each other in a round robin, similar to rock-paper-scissors. Where Fighter A beats Fighter B, who beats Fighter C, who beats Fighter A; or a coin-flip of "Did I land my strikes before he got in range to grapple".

 

[Buka]

I'm actually with skribs on this one. "Can fight" or "can't fight" is not a binary category.

I'm pretty certain that anyone on this forum could easily win a fight with a 5 year old.

I also think it's pretty probable that no one on this forum is likely to win a fist fight with a current UFC champion or a fire fight with a Navy Seal team.

In between those two extremes is a huge spectrum of challenge, opponents of varying nature and ability, and contexts which vary in danger, predictability, and restriction of options.

When someone says that so-and-so "can fight" or "can't fight", they've got some cutoff point along that spectrum where they imagine the person would or wouldn't do well in a fight. My personal observation is that different people envision different points on the spectrum when they use the phrase. Some use it to mean "would do well in a fight against an average person." Some use it to mean "would do well in a fight against the sort of person who regularly gets into fights." Some use it to mean "would do well against professional fighters." Just those three options represent three very different levels of fighting ability.

I couldn't disagree more. You either know how to fight or don't. Everyone you know in Martial Arts, you know whether they know hot to fight or they don't.

 

[Steve]

First, I think every fight has rules, whether they are imposed by the courts or by a sanctioning competitive body. That said, outside of sport, I think it’s common for there to be different rules for people involved. For example, in a fight between cops and a civilian, the rules are understandably stacked in favor of the cops. But that doesn’t mean there are no rules.

Second, I think it’s possible and common to say someone can fight (“he can handle himself” or “he can hold his own” or “he can take a punch” or whatever) and also acknowledge that fighting ability is a spectrum.

It’s human nature to categorize people into subjective buckets. But it’s a very bad idea to convince yourself that your subjective buckets aren’t subjective. In my opinion.

 

[skribs]

I couldn't disagree more. You either know how to fight or don't. Everyone you know in Martial Arts, you know whether they know hot to fight or they don't.

What then is your threshold for what means you can fight or not?

 

[jks9199]

Are we going down a rabbit hole about what is or isn't a fight? Maybe we need to look back at the original post, and move back to the topic about how to handle youth rank vs adult rank in a training environment?

There is tons and tons of content out there about the differences between white, blue, purple, brown, and black belts. This goes for Q&A on martial arts forums or sites like Quora and Reddit, as well as youtube videos discussing these topics. There's very little content out there talking about the differences between kids belts, and almost none comparing kids belts to adult belts.

Every once in a while, one of the older kids (12-13) will stay for the adult class. I had the opportunity to roll with one of them this week, and I vastly overestimated the intensity I would need to bring in order to match up with a gray belt. During the roll, my professor told me to slow down, and I did. I should also note, the kid wasn't in any danger. I was using deliberate movements and I wasn't using my full strength or weight. But I also wasn't holding back my strength and I was keeping up the pace with my attacks. My school is fairly new, so the highest kids we have right now are gray belts. Hopefully in a few years we'll have some yellow and orange belts as well.

I have a pretty good idea what to expect when I get matched up with an adult of various rank. Someone close to blue (high white to low blue) is going to beat me because they're focused on beating me. Someone higher than that (high blue and above) is going to be bored beating me with muscle memory. The other lower white belts are going to be a good challenge for me. The guy who's 6'5" tall or the guy who's a 300-pound piece of solid muscle is just going to crush me in top position. I can get a pretty good sense what I'm in for when I see their rank.

But I don't have that calibrated for what to expect from kids. If I get matched up with a gray belt, or later on a yellow or orange belt, what should I expect from them? What level of intensity should I go at? At what point in a roll do you evaluate your intensity and decide whether you need to dial it back to be a good training partner?

 

[drop bear]

 

[Steve]

a classic.

 

[Buka]

I'm actually with skribs on this one. "Can fight" or "can't fight" is not a binary category.

Yeah, well you're wrong, too.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I couldn't disagree more. You either know how to fight or don't. Everyone you know in Martial Arts, you know whether they know hot to fight or they don't.

Yeah, well you're wrong, too.

Well now you've got me curious. I laid out several components of my perspective. I wonder which part(s) you disagree with so strongly.

My first point was that there is a wide spectrum of fighting ability.

Most people, even if they are untrained, unathletic, and lacking in general fighting spirit, can win a fight against someone who is much smaller and weaker and doesn't have some other exceptional compensating attribute. As an extreme example, even a relatively wimpy 20 year old man can generally beat up a 10 year old girl without much trouble. Do you disagree with this part?

At the other end, most people, even if they are trained, skilled, and mentally tough, are not prepared to handle fighting elite level professional fighters. I think most people on this forum (myself definitely included) would be quickly destroyed in a match with Israel Adesanya. Heck, some of my training partners are current or retired professional fighters and I would be surprised if any of them could last a full round with Adesanya. Do you disagree with this part?

In-between those two extremes, there is a pretty much continuous range of ability. There are people who can do well in a fight against an untrained, inexperienced person of their own size and strength, but who will fall apart against someone with a bit of skill or superior physical attributes. There are people who have natural aggression and experience in street scraps who can often overwhelm opponents who have some martial arts training or some advantage in physical attributes, but who will mentally fold when they run into a tough, skilled, trained fighter who can take their shots, stay cool, and fire back. There are individuals with remarkable physical attributes who can defeat even many tough skilled fighters just through sheer physical superiority. There are other individuals who are lacking in skill or physical attributes but have a mindset which will keep them fighting against anyone until they are dead or unconscious. There are people who can do okay in low-level amateur fights, but who would be quickly smashed in professional competition. There are fighters who can compete at the professional level, but will get quickly knocked out if they run into an elite opponent. Do you disagree with this part?

I also expressed my observation that given this huge range of possible fighting ability, different people draw the line in different places between those they consider "can fight" or "can't fight." I've heard people use "can fight" to describe someone who can do well against the average untrained person. I've heard other people use "can't fight" to describe someone who never proved themself in professional competition. Do you disagree with this part? Do you think that actually most people in the martial arts community have an agreed upon standard and that I've just missed hearing about it? Or do you think there is one correct place to draw that line and anyone who draws it in a different place is just wrong? Or do you think that there is a correct way to define "can/can't fight" which isn't purely dependent on one's place on that spectrum of fighting ability (such as basing the judgement on one's fighting spirit rather than one's physical ability)? I'm interested to know.

If it helps, I'll offer myself as an example. I give you my word that it will not hurt my feelings if you or anyone else judges that I "can't fight." I think I have a fairly realistic idea of where I fall on the general scale of fighting ability. I'm just curious as to what criteria you (or anyone else that wants to chime in) would use to judge whether I can or can't fight.

I'll leave aside my general training background. You've seen it. Anyone else who wants to see it can check my past posts. My years of training and ranks certainly don't prove anything about my fighting ability. We've all seen high ranking individuals with limited ability. I'll just list my experiences which seem to potentially offer more direct information regarding whether I can fight.

1) Before I switched from the Bujinkan to the "combat sports" side of martial arts (Muay Thai/BJJ/etc). I worked retail and had a handful of fights attempting to apprehend shoplifters or evict banned individuals from the store. All of these I won or held my own without taking damage. I'd guess that none of my opponents had any training or had exceptional physical attributes, although several were bigger than I was. I had a few other instances where I avoided the physical confrontation because I judged the situation to not be in my favor. Looking back: a) the me of then didn't really know how to fight by my current standards - 58 year old me of now would easily smash mid-20s me of then, b) if I were in that situation today I wouldn't initiate those fights to protect the property of a corporation that wasn't paying me to do so and wouldn't have backed me up if I had gotten in legal trouble.

2) In my mid-30s I had a couple of amateur kickboxing matches. Lost the first by TKO against a much more experienced opponent, but kept getting up until the ref stopped the fight. Won the second by TKO against an opponent who had one more fight than me. I was supposed to have an amateur boxing match, but my opponent got scared and bailed at the last minute so I had an exhibition Muay Thai match with my instructor instead. It was really more of a hard sparring session, since neither of us was trying hard to knock the other out. I believe the me of now would beat the me of then in a kickboxing match. I don't have nearly the cardio I did back then, but my skill and my ability to control my adrenaline would probably compensate. (Me of then was gasping for air after 3 minutes of fighting because of the adrenaline dump.)

3) I've competed in a number of grappling (Judo/BJJ/Sumo) and weapon (SCA/HEMA) competitions over the years. Not exactly what I would call fights, but I've demonstrated the ability to take some punishment and keep going. The only tournaments I've placed in were a couple of golds and a couple of silvers in Judo and in BJJ in the white belt division when I was in my 30s. I don't compete in BJJ anymore because I just don't have the conditioning to do ten minute rounds against opponents who have the same skills I do and are 30 years younger. (I still roll with other black belts in the gym and do okay, but there's a difference between technical sparring for the purpose of learning and a competition where they will bring all their physical attributes to bear.)

4) I've sparred in the gym with a lot of people over the last 30 years, from complete newbies to current and retired pro fighters, under a wide range of rules (grappling/boxing/MMA/weapons/etc). These days I try to work at light to moderate contact. (I can actually handle full contact psychologically much better than I used to, but I also don't heal as fast as I used to and I'm trying to avoid any more concussions than I've already had.) My experience is that I can handle newbies (even those with superior physical attributes) pretty easily. I can do well against most trained martial artists who aren't experienced fighters. I do okay against most amateur fighters, but would probably gas out and lose via cardio in an official MMA match. I can even hold my own against some of the professional fighters in friendly light sparring, but I'm very aware that in a real fight the strength and conditioning difference would be overwhelming and I would get smashed quickly.

So, given all that, can I fight?

From the perspective of an elite MMA fighter? Probably not. I wouldn't last a minute in the UFC. Even in a low-level amateur fight I'd need to win by submission or knockout in the first minute or two in order to avoid gassing out and becoming too exhausted to defend myself.

From the view of students at my gym who have only been training a year or so? Sure, I'm a badass.

From someone else's standpoint? Who knows. It depends on what criteria they apply.

What are your criteria?