How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?

[Hanzou]

So this friendly sparring match took place recently;

This is an example of how size and strength can dictate a fight. Firas is on of the most skilled Jitsu guys on the planet, and the only thing he could do was leg locks to get a submission. If Laratt knew a bit more BJJ, Firas would have had no chance to submit him.

Also in terms of self defense, not many people are going to mess with Devon Laratt on the street.

 

[dvcochran]

I agree. I think it's a matter of degrees, too. Someone who's a bit stronger than me (and untrained) probably loses to me in a fight. Someone who is a lot stronger than me and more athletic might be able to make up for my training if they are also very aggressive and tough (toughness is one of those variables that we don't usually include in the simplified look, but matter a lot). Likewise, someone with a little MA training probably doesn't overcome even a moderate difference in strength, but someone with a lot of training (and good fitness, etc.) has a good chance of making up for a larger difference in strength.

Toughness is a good choice of words.
It is seldom a born-in trait (although genetics play a part) and can come from/through a number of conduits, so it is hard to define at face value when talking about SD ability.

 

[tim po]

toughness, yeah. but meanness, don't forget that. the ability to get real mean on demand is worthy of pondering.

 

[dvcochran]

toughness, yeah. but meanness, don't forget that. the ability to get real mean on demand is worthy of pondering.

I think I get what you are saying but, to me, 'meanness' comes in many forms. Sometimes it is a very unbecoming human quality.
More often than not, meanness as you describe, it just outright fear forced into motion when involved in a SD encounter.
In the competition realm, being able to turn emotions and off as needed is a critical asset.

To me, all these are quite different from toughness. The first example that comes to mind, how many times have you seen a guy at a tournament who has tons of intent, and outwardly seems fully turned on, hyped up and ready to go. Looking downright mean. And then, for whatever reason, they straight up flop when they enter the ring.

In your definition, would be put meanness and ruthless in the same subset?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Toughness is a good choice of words.
It is seldom a born-in trait (although genetics play a part) and can come from/through a number of conduits, so it is hard to define at face value when talking about SD ability.

As a side note, one of the toughest people I ever knew was my Sanda Shifu. Didn't act tough, did not do anything to show he was tough, but there was something about the way he carried himself and is attitude towards life in general that made me think that. And there was nothing I would call meanness about him. Of course training by striking, kicking, elbowing and kneeing trees helped too

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As a side note, one of the toughest people I ever knew was my Sanda Shifu. Didn't act tough, did not do anything to show he was tough, but there was something about the way he carried himself and is attitude towards life in general that made me think that. And there was nothing I would call meanness about him. Of course training by striking, kicking, elbowing and kneeing trees helped too

Probably the toughest guy I ever trained with was a few years junior to me in NGA. He worked as a mover, and just was tough. Was - and still is - one of the nicest guys I've ever known, but I suspect if someone went after his kids, he'd be the meanest SOB they ever met.

 

[tim po]

I think I get what you are saying but, to me, 'meanness' comes in many forms. Sometimes it is a very unbecoming human quality.
More often than not, meanness as you describe, it just outright fear forced into motion when involved in a SD encounter.
In the competition realm, being able to turn emotions and off as needed is a critical asset.

To me, all these are quite different from toughness. The first example that comes to mind, how many times have you seen a guy at a tournament who has tons of intent, and outwardly seems fully turned on, hyped up and ready to go. Looking downright mean. And then, for whatever reason, they straight up flop when they enter the ring.

In your definition, would be put meanness and ruthless in the same subset?

yes ruthless, determined? there are better words. in this thread the original idea was psychological intimidation factor of the appearance of strength-as is achieved by bodybuilding/weightlifting. many impressive looking body-builders are not actually tough, having built their muscles in a controlled environment and rested and eaten well afterwards, while hard labor and determined martial arts training develops perseverance and forbearance, toughness, mind body and spirit.

meanness as i meant it is the ability to switch on an animal sort of savagery, giving a person who seeks inner peace the ability to strike viciously in a sudden self defense encounter. i do not advocate becoming a 'mean person', but cultivating in yourself the ability to 'do mean things' when your own moral code allows it, to save yourself. if you lack the mindset to cause harm when needed, you'd better be really good at what you train to do. it is possible to defend without harm, but requires greater skill. for the purposes of pure self-protection, especially excluding firearms which make it so much easier (but still very possible that unprepared persons will be unable to shoot to kill),you gotta be willing to get mean and dirty, however 'unbecoming'. just my opinion, once i might have been more confident in my physical prowess to defend without causing harm, but i am not young anymore. for me success would likely hinge more upon my willingness to be brutal from the outset, to whatever degree the threat involved made appropriate-no more, no less. i'm not a mean person, but can be pretty horrible if i need to be.

sports are not the same conversation. when i think of tactics for self-defense, i am not thinking about what works for professional athletes and highly-trained martial artists, but for average people with enough provocative interest to train a bit for the however unlikely eventuality of being attacked. mindset training and general awareness can't be overlooked, those of us who train for many years may take these things somewhat for granted, but many people fail to defend themselves becasue they hesitate, or pull their punches, out of an instinctual reluctance to 'be mean'. and yes, this comes from fear, an instinct of self-protection that does not always lead us to making the best choices, and must be redirected through training to develop appropriate responses to replace reactions.

 

[Steve]

yes ruthless, determined? there are better words. in this thread the original idea was psychological intimidation factor of the appearance of strength-as is achieved by bodybuilding/weightlifting. many impressive looking body-builders are not actually tough, having built their muscles in a controlled environment and rested and eaten well afterwards, while hard labor and determined martial arts training develops perseverance and forbearance, toughness, mind body and spirit.

meanness as i meant it is the ability to switch on an animal sort of savagery, giving a person who seeks inner peace the ability to strike viciously in a sudden self defense encounter. i do not advocate becoming a 'mean person', but cultivating in yourself the ability to 'do mean things' when your own moral code allows it, to save yourself. if you lack the mindset to cause harm when needed, you'd better be really good at what you train to do. it is possible to defend without harm, but requires greater skill. for the purposes of pure self-protection, especially excluding firearms which make it so much easier (but still very possible that unprepared persons will be unable to shoot to kill),you gotta be willing to get mean and dirty, however 'unbecoming'. just my opinion, once i might have been more confident in my physical prowess to defend without causing harm, but i am not young anymore. for me success would likely hinge more upon my willingness to be brutal from the outset, to whatever degree the threat involved made appropriate-no more, no less. i'm not a mean person, but can be pretty horrible if i need to be.

sports are not the same conversation. when i think of tactics for self-defense, i am not thinking about what works for professional athletes and highly-trained martial artists, but for average people with enough provocative interest to train a bit for the however unlikely eventuality of being attacked. mindset training and general awareness can't be overlooked, those of us who train for many years may take these things somewhat for granted, but many people fail to defend themselves becasue they hesitate, or pull their punches, out of an instinctual reluctance to 'be mean'. and yes, this comes from fear, an instinct of self-protection that does not always lead us to making the best choices, and must be redirected through training to develop appropriate responses to replace reactions.

I don't consider ruthlessness to be a positive trait, and wouldn't want to encourage that in anyone, for any reason. Meanness, either. While you have to realize that some folks are just mean and ruthless, how you relate to them is up to you. Personally, I don't voluntarily hang around anyone whom I believe to be ruthless. Someone who is ruthless is just inherently not a good person.

Ruthless and determined are not synonyms. They are completely different terms. I would suggest that "steadfast" is more synonymous with determined than "ruthless."

Why are we even talking about being ruthless?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Probably the toughest guy I ever trained with was a few years junior to me in NGA. He worked as a mover, and just was tough. Was - and still is - one of the nicest guys I've ever known, but I suspect if someone went after his kids, he'd be the meanest SOB they ever met.

Pretty much the same, he's be tough without the Sanda...and I would not recommend going after his kids.

I figure it came from his growing up in Heilongjiang...

 

[Steve]

Pretty much the same, he's be tough without the Sanda...and I would not recommend going after his kids.

I figure it came from his growing up in Heilongjiang...

I don't recommend going after anyone's kids, as a general rule.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I don't recommend going after anyone's kids, as a general rule.

That’s in the other thread titled how to collect from a deadbeat.

 

[Steve]

That’s in the other thread titled how to collect from a deadbeat.

LOL. Or the other thread, "How to be an effective mob enforcer"

Step 1: Be ruthless
Step 2: Take up strength training (not to be confused with bodybuilding)
Step 3: Go after the kids.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

LOL. Or the other thread, "How to be an effective mob enforcer"

Step 1: Be ruthless
Step 2: Take up strength training (not to be confused with bodybuilding)
Step 3: Go after the kids.

No no no you are skipping important steps! It’s much more subtle than that. Maybe I should start this thread just to see what kind of kooky response will come up...

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

LOL. Or the other thread, "How to be an effective mob enforcer"

Step 1: Be ruthless
Step 2: Take up strength training (not to be confused with bodybuilding)
Step 3: Go after the kids.

What should I title it? How to use MA to be more successful at a life of crime? How to collect the vig? Most effective way to get more mileage out of a ho?

 

[tim po]

I don't consider ruthlessness to be a positive trait, and wouldn't want to encourage that in anyone, for any reason. Meanness, either. While you have to realize that some folks are just mean and ruthless, how you relate to them is up to you. Personally, I don't voluntarily hang around anyone whom I believe to be ruthless. Someone who is ruthless is just inherently not a good person.

Ruthless and determined are not synonyms. They are completely different terms. I would suggest that "steadfast" is more synonymous with determined than "ruthless."

Why are we even talking about being ruthless?

because we're talking about psychological advantage in a purely self-defense scenario.

i agree that i wouldn't want to be described by any of these words, by anyone EXCEPT the dude who tries to knife me in the back! sure, i love the idea of gently disarming him, buying him a cup of coffee and making friends. but..

most of us on here follow a martial arts path, and it is a long road with many attributes being collected slowly over time, if you are astute and observant. but there are also, it seems, people here seeking advice for 'self-defense', which suggests they are seeking a shorter road. i acknowledge that it represents a higher level of attainment to be able to calmly and effectively disarm an attacker, and i actually do aspire to that in my training. but if faced with imminent death, there is nothing too nasty for me, and that is something i have also deliberately cultivated, doesn't imply that i am wont to unleash it, i am not.

 

[Steve]

What should I title it? How to use MA to be more successful at a life of crime? How to collect the vig? Most effective way to get more mileage out of a ho?

Don't get carried away.

because we're talking about psychological advantage in a purely self-defense scenario.

i agree that i wouldn't want to be described by any of these words, by anyone EXCEPT the dude who tries to knife me in the back! sure, i love the idea of gently disarming him, buying him a cup of coffee and making friends. but..

Why are you swinging from one extreme to another? Is it truly ruthless or gently disarming and making friends?

most of us on here follow a martial arts path, and it is a long road with many attributes being collected slowly over time, if you are astute and observant. but there are also, it seems, people here seeking advice for 'self-defense', which suggests they are seeking a shorter road. i acknowledge that it represents a higher level of attainment to be able to calmly and effectively disarm an attacker, and i actually do aspire to that in my training. but if faced with imminent death, there is nothing too nasty for me, and that is something i have also deliberately cultivated, doesn't imply that i am wont to unleash it, i am not.

We can disagree. I'm fine with that. This is similar to that other thread about hating your enemy. This isn't about how other people act. It's about how we choose to act, and whether we actually have a functioning, consistent moral compass. I mean, if your sense of right and wrong is so flexible that you apply one set of values to some people and different values to others... that's problematic.

I don't think being ruthless is a trait that is to be admired in anyone. I certainly wouldn't want to be known as ruthless, and I wouldn't want to promote ruthlessness in anyone I know.

Are other people ruthless? Sure. Some people seem to be proud of it. Do I want to be friends with, or even friendly to them? Probably not, at least, not if they understand what ruthlessness really is. In fact, it's the opposite. Someone who is truly ruthless is probably someone I would actively avoid associating with, and while I would prefer not to harm that person, I would not hesitate to do so. Recognizing it when you see it helps you protect yourself from those dudes.

I guess to say it as simply as I can, the opposite of ruthlessness isn't meekly naive. You can be compassionate without being victim, just as you can protect yourself without being a sociopath.

So, maybe when you guys are talking about being mean and ruthless, you have an unconventional definition of those words that changes their meaning significantly. If so, I'm willing to try and figure out what you really mean. But if you actually intend to use the words in their true sense, we may just fundamentally disagree. Because ruthlessness is intrinsically immoral, in my opinion, and unnecessary for self defense.

 

[tim po]

because we're talking about psychological advantage in a purely self-defense scenario.

to speak in these terms does run the risk of suggesting developing a cruel nature, and i am not. however, failing to psychologically prepare for actually doing to someone the things we train to do, could result in the inability to do what needs done.

i think we are at a point of defining the rift between traditional martial arts and practical self-defense. the long road vs. the short, so to speak. and the big draw back of the short road? lack of moral compass. cultivating animal ferocity is another skillset to be trained. fear will be experienced, all animals experience it when they are threatened, and fight or flight is better than freeze and die.

we can't just 'rely on our animal' to go berzerk and save us. like a guard dog, the animal must be trained, must be obedient, or it might turn on you. cultivating this ferocity is, imho, paramount to achieving practical skill in self-defense without long-term martial arts training.

 

[tim po]

Why are you swinging from one extreme to another? Is it truly ruthless or gently disarming and making friends?

i said, i'm not a mean person. if i could survive being attacked by making friends with my attacker i would. but i'd be dead.

i am not a fighter. i don't look for trouble. but when my life or the life of someone i love are in danger, i am not at all concerned with being 'a nice guy'.

that is why i originally said 'meanness' is a subject worhty of ponder, i was implying that one must consider the brutal reality of having to use damaging technique, and understanding what it takes to call that out of yourself at a moment's notice.

hate is not the same thing. a lion does not hate a gazelle. a fox does not hate a rabbit. nature employs savage cruelty all the time, yet i seriously doubt any creature other than human beings have ever experienced hate.

thank you for bringing up that distinction, it is important.

 

[Steve]

to speak in these terms does run the risk of suggesting developing a cruel nature, and i am not. however, failing to psychologically prepare for actually doing to someone the things we train to do, could result in the inability to do what needs done.

i think we are at a point of defining the rift between traditional martial arts and practical self-defense. the long road vs. the short, so to speak. and the big draw back of the short road? lack of moral compass. cultivating animal ferocity is another skillset to be trained. fear will be experienced, all animals experience it when they are threatened, and fight or flight is better than freeze and die.

we can't just 'rely on our animal' to go berzerk and save us. like a guard dog, the animal must be trained, must be obedient, or it might turn on you. cultivating this ferocity is, imho, paramount to achieving practical skill in self-defense without long-term martial arts training.

Having been around people who are entirely unpredictable, sometimes violently so, as much as I have... I have a visceral reaction to the idea that going "unleashing" or "cultivating" ferocity and ruthlessness is a good thing. That just sounds like a terrible idea, for anything, including self defense. I am distrustful of it, and my guard goes up every time I run across it.

 

[tim po]

, if your sense of right and wrong is so flexible that you apply one set of values to some people and different values to others... that's problematic.

that is an interesting sentence. i think i know what you mean, but right and wrong are subjective, and do change from one circumstance to another. and i do reserve the right to make that choice in any circumstance where i consider my life threatened by another creature. we all must. no one can do it for us.