Fighting vs Self-Defense vs Martial Arts

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
We have several threads going on at the moment with arguments about the applicability of various martial arts to self-defense. Some of the disagreement seems to boil down to different ideas about what self-defense means in the first place. I thought I'd toss out some of my own definitions to clarify at least my own statements in those threads and possibly those of some others.

Fighting - covers any situation where two or more people are trying to violently defeat each other. This can occur in a sportive or a street context. The combatants may be armed or unarmed. They may be operating under different sets of rules (even in a non-sportive context). Just a few examples of a fight might be: a MMA bout between two pro fighters, three cops subduing a resisting suspect, a pair of drunks squaring up outside a bar over some verbal offense. Many, many more situations are possible. These different contexts significantly affect what tactics, principles, and techniques are most effective in winning the fight. Nevertheless, there is significant overlap in what works as well.

Not all violent situations are fights. A canny asocial predator will attempt to use surprise, intimidation, or overwhelming force to ensure that there is no fight - that all the violence is directed towards his victim with no resistance.

Most fights are not self-defense, but some are. (None of the examples I listed above would qualify.)

Self-defense - covers the necessary actions and skills to get home at the end of the day unharmed by violence, without any unscheduled stops along the way at the hospital or prison. Some of the relevant factors here include lifestyle, awareness, attitude, de-escalation skills, evasion skills, and understanding of how different types of violence begin.

Most of self-defense does not involve fighting. Sometimes it does, but usually that is an indication that you have either screwed up the other important aspects of self-defense or else gotten really unlucky. If you get into fights on any sort of regular basis and it's not part of your job, you should strongly consider the possibility that you are not just unlucky.

Based on these definitions, fighting and self-defense can be seen as separate circles in a Venn diagram with about 5% of overlap.

Martial arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.

Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:
  • an acrobatic performance art with stylized movements derived from old fighting techniques
  • an historical recreation of medieval swordfighting methods
  • a system for cultivating certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques
  • a system for unarmed fighting in a civilian context
  • and many, many more.

Chris would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.

Once you understand the nature of fighting, of self-defense, and of a given martial art, then you are in a better place to evaluate how your martial arts training may affect your ability to defend yourself or to win a fight in a given context. Bear in mind that defending yourself and winning a fight are not the same thing. For example, if your training encourages your aggressive nature, then it may help you win a fight. If your training helps you stay calm, it may help you walk away from a fight, which is a much higher form of self-defense.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
Not quite sure what to say at this time. You have summed it up well. :) Perhaps I'll think about it some more later.
:asian:
 

Kong Soo Do

IKSDA Director
Supporting Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
329
Tony, that's a very good post and I appreciate the time you've put into it.

Just a few examples of a fight might be: a MMA bout between two pro fighters, three cops subduing a resisting suspect, a pair of drunks squaring up outside a bar over some verbal offense. Many, many more situations are possible. These different contexts significantly affect what tactics, principles, and techniques are most effective in winning the fight. Nevertheless, there is significant overlap in what works as well.

These are some fine examples. The only disagreement I would offer is in regards to the three officers subduing a resisting suspect. I wouldn't put that under the term of fighting. Nor would it necessarily fall under self-defense as it is more of an overt use-of-force. I would offer a fourth category where the use-of-force to control someone (for lawful purposes) is the goal. When I use-force on a bad guy I'm not 'fighting' him per se, rather I'm trying to overcome his physical resistance. Might be a fine hair to split and I'm biased from the point of a legal perspective. I might have to 'fight' a bad guy if attacked to use 'self-defense' or I might be overtly using force against them to overcome resistance so it is a mix and blend but I wouldn't use the fight label. Perhaps self-defense if attacked and use-of-force to control if overcoming resistance by overt actions. Again, a fine hair to split.

In regards to martial arts; some have 'martial' heritage and were used in formal battle. Weapon arts come to mind. I don't quite remember why the term 'martial art' came to stick with non-battle field training. When I think of the term martial art I sub-divide it into two categories. The first is an organized system of self defense (both armed and unarmed), mainly for civilians though useful for military in some applications as well as L.E. The second category would be an organized system of sport competition. I would like to see separate designations for both, but generally speaking they both fall under the term of martial art.

I see self defense, as noted above, as one aspect of the martial arts. But I also see self defense as a stand alone entity. In otherwords, one doesn't need martial trapping to learn self defense. This would cover areas like hand-2-hand combatives, WWII combatives, defensive tactics etc. The structure is organized, but not 'martial-arty'.

That's generally my take :)
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
Self-defense - covers the necessary actions and skills to get home at the end of the day unharmed by violence, without any unscheduled stops along the way at the hospital or prison. Some of the relevant factors here include lifestyle, awareness, attitude, de-escalation skills, evasion skills, and understanding of how different types of violence begin.

Most of self-defense does not involve fighting. Sometimes it does, but usually that is an indication that you have either screwed up the other important aspects of self-defense or else gotten really unlucky. If you get into fights on any sort of regular basis and it's not part of your job, you should strongly consider the possibility that you are not just unlucky.

Based on these definitions, fighting and self-defense can be seen as separate circles in a Venn diagram with about 5% of overlap.

Martial arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.

Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:
  • an acrobatic performance art with stylized movements derived from old fighting techniques
  • an historical recreation of medieval swordfighting methods
  • a system for cultivating certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques
  • a system for unarmed fighting in a civilian context
  • and many, many more.

Chris would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.

Once you understand the nature of fighting, of self-defense, and of a given martial art, then you are in a better place to evaluate how your martial arts training may affect your ability to defend yourself or to win a fight in a given context. Bear in mind that defending yourself and winning a fight are not the same thing. For example, if your training encourages your aggressive nature, then it may help you win a fight. If your training helps you stay calm, it may help you walk away from a fight, which is a much higher form of self-defense.
OK. Having read, reread and inwardly digested the only comment I would make is in regard to your Venn diagram. It would be interesting to sit down with a group of martial artists from all styles and see what a mess we could make on a very large sheet of paper. I could agree that fighting and self defence would overlap, by a debatable amount dependent on among other things the size of the relevant circles. What is certainly beyond doubt is the fact that an awful lot of fighting is outside self defence and an awful lot of self defence does not involve fighting.

What would be interesting would be for each practitioner to then add a circle representing where they feel their art is in relation to the other two and maybe even where it sits in relation to other arts. For example I would place my Okinawan karate in the segment of overlap of the other two circles. If I was to add TKD I would overlap the karate but have most of its circle within fighting. Muay Thai would be similar to karate but more into fighting and Krav would overlap karate, Muay Thai and Jujutsu, if that was also added, in the same area. Karate would overlap Kung fu and so on. Japanese karate would be more into the fighting and less self defence.

Could be an interesting thread.
:asian:
 

drewtoby

Orange Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
30
Great thread, thanks for starting it! I have to play devil's advocate on two things you said though:

Self-defense - covers the necessary actions and skills to get home at the end of the day unharmed by violence, without any unscheduled stops along the way at the hospital or prison.

True for the most part. However, getting home at the end of the day and staying out of prison are conflicting goals at times. Sometimes you need to use excessive force to stop the offender, especially if you think it's likely he/she has a concealed weapon. Sometimes it's necessary to shoot a fleeing offender, especially if it is likely he/she will call for reinforcements. Sometimes you need to be the first to strike, making YOU look like the offender. Sometimes the only defensive tools that will keep you alive are illegal in the county, and/or will scream "premeditated" to the jury. I'm not saying to break the law, but I'm saying survival comes first in any self defense situation. If you find yourself in a self defense situation worrying about the consequences, you have already lost.

Bear in mind that defending yourself and winning a fight are not the same thing. For example, if your training encourages your aggressive nature, then it may help you win a fight. If your training helps you stay calm, it may help you walk away from a fight, which is a much higher form of self-defense.

I have a few issues with this statement. First off, winning a fight is equivalent to many assault situations. Second, training aggressive nature does not mean you will stay and fight. It means that you learn to use adrenalin to your advantage, and make use of strikes instead of restraining techniques. This is the only form of self defense when it comes to multiple opponents. If you don't go crazy rattling off strikes in an attempt to escape, you will loose. I say learning both calmness and aggression is the most beneficial.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,275
Reaction score
9,392
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
We have several threads going on at the moment with arguments about the applicability of various martial arts to self-defense. Some of the disagreement seems to boil down to different ideas about what self-defense means in the first place. I thought I'd toss out some of my own definitions to clarify at least my own statements in those threads and possibly those of some others.

Fighting - covers any situation where two or more people are trying to violently defeat each other. This can occur in a sportive or a street context. The combatants may be armed or unarmed. They may be operating under different sets of rules (even in a non-sportive context). Just a few examples of a fight might be: a MMA bout between two pro fighters, three cops subduing a resisting suspect, a pair of drunks squaring up outside a bar over some verbal offense. Many, many more situations are possible. These different contexts significantly affect what tactics, principles, and techniques are most effective in winning the fight. Nevertheless, there is significant overlap in what works as well.

Not all violent situations are fights. A canny asocial predator will attempt to use surprise, intimidation, or overwhelming force to ensure that there is no fight - that all the violence is directed towards his victim with no resistance.

Most fights are not self-defense, but some are. (None of the examples I listed above would qualify.)

Self-defense - covers the necessary actions and skills to get home at the end of the day unharmed by violence, without any unscheduled stops along the way at the hospital or prison. Some of the relevant factors here include lifestyle, awareness, attitude, de-escalation skills, evasion skills, and understanding of how different types of violence begin.

Most of self-defense does not involve fighting. Sometimes it does, but usually that is an indication that you have either screwed up the other important aspects of self-defense or else gotten really unlucky. If you get into fights on any sort of regular basis and it's not part of your job, you should strongly consider the possibility that you are not just unlucky.

Based on these definitions, fighting and self-defense can be seen as separate circles in a Venn diagram with about 5% of overlap.

Martial arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.

Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:
  • an acrobatic performance art with stylized movements derived from old fighting techniques
  • an historical recreation of medieval swordfighting methods
  • a system for cultivating certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques
  • a system for unarmed fighting in a civilian context
  • and many, many more.

Chris would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.

Once you understand the nature of fighting, of self-defense, and of a given martial art, then you are in a better place to evaluate how your martial arts training may affect your ability to defend yourself or to win a fight in a given context. Bear in mind that defending yourself and winning a fight are not the same thing. For example, if your training encourages your aggressive nature, then it may help you win a fight. If your training helps you stay calm, it may help you walk away from a fight, which is a much higher form of self-defense.

Interesting and I tend to agree with most of it, but a question....where do you place things like Sanda which has a sports branch for fighting in a organized competition similar to MMA and civilian branch which I imagine could be easily be in martial arts or Self defense a police military branch which is specifically trained for hurting others and protecting yourself.

There is another part to this but I am currently trying to figure the best way to word it
 

Instructor

Master of Arts
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
549
Location
Knoxville, TN
Well whatever you want to call it I can say this. I was attacked once before learning martial arts. I failed in every form of self defense you listed. i.e.
lifestyle, awareness, attitude, de-escalation skills, evasion skills, and understanding of how different types of violence begin

I woke up a few days later in a hospital with many injuries and lucky to be alive.

Many years (and martial arts lessons later) I was attacked again, this time with a weapon and I was able to defend myself, my kids, and nobody was seriously injured. However it originated and however the various disciplines overlap and whatever label we attach to it the simple truth to me is that I am alive because of what I learned, it's as simple as that.
 
OP
Tony Dismukes

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
Interesting and I tend to agree with most of it, but a question....where do you place things like Sanda which has a sports branch for fighting in a organized competition similar to MMA and civilian branch which I imagine could be easily be in martial arts or Self defense a police military branch which is specifically trained for hurting others and protecting yourself.

There is another part to this but I am currently trying to figure the best way to word it

Sanda is a martial art (see my last definition). The techniques, skills, and attributes it teaches can be used in fighting (either in a sportive or non-sportive setting, depending on how it is trained). Some of these skills and attributes may also be useful in the 5% of self-defense which involves fighting, although some of the techniques or tactics may be counterproductive in that context.
 

Daniel Sullivan

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
271
Location
Olney, Maryland
Martial arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.

Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:
  • an acrobatic performance art with stylized movements derived from old fighting techniques
  • an historical recreation of medieval swordfighting methods
  • a system for cultivating certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques
  • a system for unarmed fighting in a civilian context
  • and many, many more.

Chris would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.

Which begs the question: is it truly a martial art? Simply labeling something as a martial art does not make it a martial art.

Ceremonial sword dancing, for example, is not martial art. XMA is not martial art either, though it is highly athletic and requires a lot of training to do well. Of course, the same can be said of gymnastics. Being athletic and requiring a lot of training does not make anything a martial art. Theatrical fighting is performance art, not martial art.

As far as cultivation of certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques, whether or not it is a martial art depends upon the physical techniques and the unifying principles that tie them together. I cultivate spiritual and mental attributes through riding my Harley, but motorcycling is not a martial art.

To be a martial art, there must be a focus on combative and strategic elements in a violent encounter. Whether or not tournament fighting equivocates to a violent encounter is another debate entirely, but at a minimum, a focus on combative and strategic elements in a violent encounter must be present in order for something to be considered a martial art.
 
OP
Tony Dismukes

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
True for the most part. However, getting home at the end of the day and staying out of prison are conflicting goals at times. Sometimes you need to use excessive force to stop the offender, especially if you think it's likely he/she has a concealed weapon. Sometimes it's necessary to shoot a fleeing offender, especially if it is likely he/she will call for reinforcements. Sometimes you need to be the first to strike, making YOU look like the offender. Sometimes the only defensive tools that will keep you alive are illegal in the county, and/or will scream "premeditated" to the jury. I'm not saying to break the law, but I'm saying survival comes first in any self defense situation. If you find yourself in a self defense situation worrying about the consequences, you have already lost.

I would say that the consequences are part of survival. Let's take an example. Suppose you are assaulted by an unarmed bully intent on knocking your teeth out. You respond by drawing your knife and cutting his throat. The witnesses aren't clear on who started the fight, so you are convicted of manslaughter and are later shanked in the prison yard by a gang member who was a friend of the bully. Have you really defended yourself?

There are all kinds of risks, and mitigating one may increase another. It's important to be aware of the big picture, but you can't easily analyze all the potential consequences in the middle of a fight with fists flying. That's why it's important to develop appropriate tactical responses, awareness, and contingency plans ahead of time.

I have a few issues with this statement. First off, winning a fight is equivalent to many assault situations. Second, training aggressive nature does not mean you will stay and fight. It means that you learn to use adrenalin to your advantage, and make use of strikes instead of restraining techniques. This is the only form of self defense when it comes to multiple opponents. If you don't go crazy rattling off strikes in an attempt to escape, you will loose. I say learning both calmness and aggression is the most beneficial.

I agree. That's why I said may rather than will in my examples. Absolutely the best option is to be able to access aggression or calmness as appropriate in a given moment.
 
OP
Tony Dismukes

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
Which begs the question: is it truly a martial art? Simply labeling something as a martial art does not make it a martial art.

Ceremonial sword dancing, for example, is not martial art. XMA is not martial art either, though it is highly athletic and requires a lot of training to do well. Of course, the same can be said of gymnastics. Being athletic and requiring a lot of training does not make anything a martial art. Theatrical fighting is performance art, not martial art.

As far as cultivation of certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques, whether or not it is a martial art depends upon the physical techniques and the unifying principles that tie them together. I cultivate spiritual and mental attributes through riding my Harley, but motorcycling is not a martial art.

To be a martial art, there must be a focus on combative and strategic elements in a violent encounter. Whether or not tournament fighting equivocates to a violent encounter is another debate entirely, but at a minimum, a focus on combative and strategic elements in a violent encounter must be present in order for something to be considered a martial art.

I can totally sympathize with this argument. For the sake of my definition I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive. (That is, I was defining the term as it is widely used rather than how I think it should maybe be used.) It's fine to have a different definition as long as we agree on the terminology before we start arguing.
 

Instructor

Master of Arts
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
549
Location
Knoxville, TN
I can totally sympathize with this argument. For the sake of my definition I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive. (That is, I was defining the term as it is widely used rather than how I think it should maybe be used.) It's fine to have a different definition as long as we agree on the terminology before we start arguing.

Whats sad is that you automatically know we will all start arguing... And you are correct of course, because all these threads do eventually.
 

Daniel Sullivan

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
271
Location
Olney, Maryland
I can totally sympathize with this argument. For the sake of my definition I was being descriptive rather than prescriptive. (That is, I was defining the term as it is widely used rather than how I think it should maybe be used.) It's fine to have a different definition as long as we agree on the terminology before we start arguing.
Yes, the term is definitely used very broadly these days. I don't agree with some of the usages, but the usage of the term, martial art, has evolved as society has changed.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,275
Reaction score
9,392
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Sanda is a martial art (see my last definition). The techniques, skills, and attributes it teaches can be used in fighting (either in a sportive or non-sportive setting, depending on how it is trained). Some of these skills and attributes may also be useful in the 5% of self-defense which involves fighting, although some of the techniques or tactics may be counterproductive in that context.

I agree with that, mostly, although the police/military version is not counterproductive as much as it is training you to respond quickly, powerfully and without much thought....but that is stuff of another thread. However I never ever agree with percentages people throw out so the 5% means nothing to me without seeing the date and formulas used to get that 5%. Statistics is great but also easily manipulated to make ones point so I currently am of the belief that 5% is arbitrary at best

I had to read your first post printed out because I can’t always focus on things properly on a computer monitor if it is a longer article

Although I do agree with much of what you posted, I do not think is not as cut and dried or as black and white as you are making it, particularly when it comes to Self-Defense.

Fighting - covers any situation where two or more people are trying to violently defeat each other. This can occur in a sportive or a street context. The combatants may be armed or unarmed. They may be operating under different sets of rules (even in a non-sportive context). Just a few examples of a fight might be: a MMA bout between two pro fighters, three cops subduing a resisting suspect, a pair of drunks squaring up outside a bar over some verbal offense. Many, many more situations are possible. These different contexts significantly affect what tactics, principles, and techniques are most effective in winning the fight. Nevertheless, there is significant overlap in what works as well.

Not all violent situations are fights. A canny asocial predator will attempt to use surprise, intimidation, or overwhelming force to ensure that there is no fight - that all the violence is directed towards his victim with no resistance.

Most fights are not self-defense, but some are. (None of the examples I listed above would qualify.)

This is where I think it is not as cut and dried or black and white as stated, basically there is, like in most things, a grey area.

Three cops subduing a resisting suspect can be Self-defense, it would depend on how the situation began, it could have been that canny asocial predator or a person in a mental health or drug/alcohol situation that would not have been a suspect if they had not attacked. Been there done that, have the coffee cup and the t-shirt….had a job in security, many moons ago, in a hospital with a mental health and detox unit


Self-defense - covers the necessary actions and skills to get home at the end of the day unharmed by violence, without any unscheduled stops along the way at the hospital or prison. Some of the relevant factors here include lifestyle, awareness, attitude, de-escalation skills, evasion skills, and understanding of how different types of violence begin.

Most of self-defense does not involve fighting. Sometimes it does, but usually that is an indication that you have either screwed up the other important aspects of self-defense or else gotten really unlucky. If you get into fights on any sort of regular basis and it's not part of your job, you should strongly consider the possibility that you are not just unlucky.

Based on these definitions, fighting and self-defense can be seen as separate circles in a Venn diagram with about 5% of overlap.

And that overlap can be the canny asocial predator who attacks and there is resitance.



Martial arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.

Yes and no if you look at it historically. The majority of martial arts we have today either come from war arts, are a response to war arts or were developed because of war arts. However to invoke that today, in most cases, it is simply not applicable.


Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:

  • an acrobatic performance art with stylized movements derived from old fighting techniques
  • an historical recreation of medieval swordfighting methods
  • a system for cultivating certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques
  • a system for unarmed fighting in a civilian context
  • and many, many more.

But you do still have some, Sanda, Krav Maga, and even BJJ to name a few that are trained to non-civilians those being police and military who could potentially use them in an SD situation or a fight as a a system for unarmed fighting. However generally not the first choice in a potentially volatile situation and to be honest, historically it was not the first choice either.

Chris would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.

That is between Chris and you and I will not comment

Once you understand the nature of fighting, of self-defense, and of a given martial art, then you are in a better place to evaluate how your martial arts training may affect your ability to defend yourself or to win a fight in a given context. Bear in mind that defending yourself and winning a fight are not the same thing. For example, if your training encourages your aggressive nature, then it may help you win a fight. If your training helps you stay calm, it may help you walk away from a fight, which is a much higher form of self-defense.

I agree with that bit but I would also say that training that helps you stay calm can also help you win a fight.

In general my view is a fight is a fight, no SD or martial arts necessary. Self-defense is self-defense but it can also be a fight and Martial arts is training for a multitude of things some of which can be a fight and can be self-defense and training martial arts does not mean you will ever be in a self-defense situation or a fight
 
Last edited:

drewtoby

Orange Belt
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
30
There are all kinds of risks, and mitigating one may increase another. It's important to be aware of the big picture, but you can't easily analyze all the potential consequences in the middle of a fight with fists flying. That's why it's important to develop appropriate tactical responses, awareness, and contingency plans ahead of time.

That's a very good point. I was too focused on life/death scenarios. A fight with a bully can be avoided by awareness and de-esculation 99% of the time, but in the case one starts, that's a tricky one. You have a violent person trying to bash your face in, and I can see how it would be tempting to reach for a blade if you had one. But in this case, the wise thing to do would to not further escalate the conflict. Keep the blade accessible just in case, but try to get out and away from the jerk. A few good punches should do the trick most of the time.
 

Instructor

Master of Arts
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
549
Location
Knoxville, TN
Other forms of conflict exist besides fighting as well. Some people are compelled to engage physically due to the nature of their work. I have a student that works in an emergency room and routinely has to physically struggle with people. Simple avoidance, deesculation, and etc does not always apply.

Just off the top of my head I can think of a lot of careers like this. People that have to work with patients suffering from mental illness for example. Heck even your garden variety bar bouncer has all kinds of conflict resolution situations to cope with.
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
It would seem lately that the forum is getting bored with MMA vs. Traditional Martial Art. So we have now moved onto Self Defense vs. xyz. Really that is cool as the more discussion the better in my opinion.

When you look at fighting vs. self-defense vs. martial arts or traditional vs. modern martial system vs. sporting or RBSD vs. Traditional martial arts vs. Combative sports and you can just add in whatever way you want to categorize it. You have certain systems designed for a specific function but you get cross over. Meaning you certainly can use a sporting system like MMA to defend yourself. It has been done already and there is no disputing that. You could and it has been done step into the cage with a more traditional system and be successful. (though you might be at an overall disadvantage due to the rules) or you could very well train in an RBSD system but actually in time it will be just like a traditional martial art if they codify it and preserve it. You can take movement from a traditional system and put it into military training. You could also take technique training from a sporting martial system (combative sports) and put it into military training or .......... a traditional martial art. There is a significant amount of crossover.

I just whipped up a chart to show how they interrelate. Literally I whipped it up in a couple of minutes so it is definitely not a finished product per se. (feel free to put in your favorite martial connotation and have a go)

View attachment $Self Defense, Fighting, Combative Sports, Military Martial Training, Traditional Martial Arts.jpg


We as humans like to put definitions on everything and define it and make it nice and tidy
. Some people like to think then that some thing can only be used a certain way. Other people think "out of the box" and walla break the mold. Yet specifically in the martial sciences you do have cross over in the aspect of Traditional, Modern, Military, Fighting and Sporting approaches. This really is undeniable! As many or almost all of the modern, military, self defense and sporting approaches come from the traditional approaches. So right off the bat you have cross over and linking between them. I know of many Traditional systems that have a self defense component within their teaching. They teach it hand in hand. Some others not so much. There is a small push in some areas for sporting approaches to also teach some self defense as well. Yet again in the RBSD world you can easily strip down the techniques and training and move it into a sporting match.

Now I would not argue that their are differences between: Military, Fighting, Self-Defense, Combative Sports and Traditional Martial Arts. They are different approaches! There are differences in the approach to training. Yet, there is a lot of cross over!

As Tony said initially:

"Once you understand the nature of fighting, of self-defense, and of a given martial art, then you are in a better place to evaluate how your martial arts training may affect your ability to defend yourself or to win a fight in a given context. Bear in mind that defending yourself and winning a fight are not the same thing. For example, if your training encourages your aggressive nature, then it may help you win a fight. If your training helps you stay calm, it may help you walk away from a fight, which is a much higher form of self-defense."

If you take that and then look at what is out there you can find what you want in your martial training and make it work for you!
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
That's a very good point. I was too focused on life/death scenarios. A fight with a bully can be avoided by awareness and de-esculation 99% of the time, but in the case one starts, that's a tricky one. You have a violent person trying to bash your face in, and I can see how it would be tempting to reach for a blade if you had one. But in this case, the wise thing to do would to not further escalate the conflict. Keep the blade accessible just in case, but try to get out and away from the jerk. A few good punches should do the trick most of the time.
Even the one percent, and I would question it is that percentage, where you are being bullied, why would you even consider using a knife? Bullying is a non-life threatening situation. If you suddenly pull a knife you then have to consider appropriate force, not to mention that you have turned an asocial situation into a life and death situation. Potentially you are now the aggressor, especially if any witnesses who didn't see the whole situation develop.

I am quite concerned about your attitude to carrying a knife. I asked you in your thread on what sort of knife to carry why you felt the need to carry a knife at school and it seems that you may now have answered that previously unanswered question. I was bullied at school when I was small and that was in a time when it was acceptable behaviour to have schoolyard fights. I dread to think what would have happened if we were all running round with knives.

As to the few good punches doing the trick, I dispute that. In any asocial fighting scenario and even more so with bullying, the instigator has already decided in his mind that he can defeat you. In the case of bullying that is even more the case as a bully is often physically bigger, hence the expression "pick on someone your own size". In a case of bullying I doubt a few good punches will help at all unless you are well trained in some form of martial art and if that was the situation why would you even consider 'keeping the blade accessible'?
:asian:
 

Latest Discussions

Top