Martial Arts Aren't Magic

Headhunter

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
1,587
Looking through this post it seems the op thinks that everyone should share the same values and opinions that he does. Well no buddy sorry it doesn't work that way. If martial art schools only accepted people who were extremely dedicated then there'd be maybe 5 or 6 in each club. The majority of kids In kids classes simply don't care about martial arts. It's a little hobby for them after school. Same with adults it's something to do after work to keep active. They simply don't care about being amazing martial artists and that's absoloutely fine. You're dedicated to it good on you but your way isn't the only way and frankly thinking that everyone /should/ be taking it as seriously as you sounds very arrogant in my eyes.

Why do you even care about what other people do..just get on with your own stuff and let them do there's.
 

Headhunter

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
1,587
How the heck did this thread get into more of this pro fighter self defence multiple attacker bs
 

Paul_D

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
437
Location
England
I don't know of any realistic approach that makes 7-1 not overwhelming odds, without a great deal of luck, other than getting shots off before they get close enough to do damage, so maybe they stop attacking and start running for their lives.
No one is saying it's not overwhelimg odds. What I am saying is the best way to preapre for multiple opponents is to practice trainig against multiple opponents, rather than training to deal with one opponent and then have no idea, no skills and no training to deal with multiple opponents.
 

Headhunter

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
1,587
No one is saying it's not overwhelimg odds. What I am saying is the best way to preapre for multiple opponents is to practice trainig against multiple opponents, rather than training to deal with one opponent and then have no idea, no skills and no training to deal with multiple opponents.
There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own
 

Paul_D

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
437
Location
England
There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own
Ok, I give up.

Clearly the best way to prepare for multiplie opponents is to never train to deal with multiple opponents. The best way to train to deal with weapons is to never train to deal with weapons. Instead just take up MMA because it covers everything to do with SD that anyone could ever need.

Goodbye
 

Headhunter

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
1,587
Ok, I give up.

Clearly the best way to prepare for multiplie opponents is to never train to deal with multiple opponents. The best way to train to deal with weapons is to never train to deal with weapons. Instead just take up MMA because it covers everything to do with SD that anyone could ever need.

Goodbye
Um okay bye then...I didn't actually say a thing about mma at all but okay
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,918
Reaction score
7,614
Location
Hendersonville, NC
No one is saying it's not overwhelimg odds. What I am saying is the best way to preapre for multiple opponents is to practice trainig against multiple opponents, rather than training to deal with one opponent and then have no idea, no skills and no training to deal with multiple opponents.
I agree with that premise. The tone of previous posts sounded to me - and perhaps to others - as if that training would make 7-1 reasonable odds. If that wasn't your intention, no harm done.
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,918
Reaction score
7,614
Location
Hendersonville, NC
There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own
I avoid the word "impossible", because someone will show me an example or two. But I agree with the basic tone and intent of your post.
 
OP
Anarax

Anarax

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
924
Reaction score
283
Location
New Mexico
Which is exactly what you did with your initial post.

Everydays a school day ;)

Some parents believe enrolling their kids into a martial arts class is all they need to do for their child/children to learn to defend themselves

Though some people like to downplay younger students not taking their training seriously

Some adults share this mindset as well

I don't know where I generalized or painted with a broad brush.
 
OP
Anarax

Anarax

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
924
Reaction score
283
Location
New Mexico
If you are taking about professional fighters getting into fights outside the ring against groups of 5 people, I would like to know the circumstances and outcome vs TMA fighters who do the same, then factor in TMA who may not have had training defending against boxers and also believe in fighting fair. Are professional fighters or TMA practitioners fighting against groups of drunken thug wannbees or experienced street fighters?

But regardless, your assertion that training to fight against more than one attacker would not make you better at that, is frankly, quite ridiculous. That can be expanded to say that no training will help anyone to fight better. TMA, newer MA, boxing, nothing. So either you can fight or not. No training will help you. Do you support that?

If you want to argue the odds of any fighter, TMA or otherwise, winning against 2 attackers, or 3, or 4, 7 or 10, that would make more sense. But there are so many possible variables I think it would be very difficult.

His assertion was the pro fighter failed because of his training. Mine was there are a lot of a professional fighter's skills that can applied fighting multiple opponents and there are multiple videos illustrating that. Him finding one video to try and prove his point, but ignoring so many others that provide a counter point is what I objected to. Is training for multiple opponents useful? Absolutely. Does that mean pro fighters can't defend themselves against multiple opponents? No.
 
OP
Anarax

Anarax

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
924
Reaction score
283
Location
New Mexico
Looking through this post it seems the op thinks that everyone should share the same values and opinions that he does. Well no buddy sorry it doesn't work that way. If martial art schools only accepted people who were extremely dedicated then there'd be maybe 5 or 6 in each club. The majority of kids In kids classes simply don't care about martial arts. It's a little hobby for them after school. Same with adults it's something to do after work to keep active. They simply don't care about being amazing martial artists and that's absoloutely fine. You're dedicated to it good on you but your way isn't the only way and frankly thinking that everyone /should/ be taking it as seriously as you sounds very arrogant in my eyes.

Why do you even care about what other people do..just get on with your own stuff and let them do there's.

Absolutely not, I posted to start a discussion. Replying to other people's posts to clarify my position isn't to say your wrong and I'm right. If someone's makes illogical assertions or generalizes then I reply as well. However; that's not to say if you disagree with me you're illogical, but some are illogical in how they come to their conclusions. Exploring how some come to their conclusions and replying isn't saying "you must agree with me." I posted what I've seen first hand and wanted to know other people's view of what they've seen. Clarifying my stance and replying in a respectful manner isn't arrogant either. I've already stated I don't say anything to the other students who train in that manner. I'm not the student telling everybody in class they're "training wrong".
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
11,200
Reaction score
7,498
Location
Maui
There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own

I partly disagree. I've been teaching Fighting Multiples for years now. To students, Leos and security forces. Unfortunately [but fortunately from an instructor's viewpoint] I've experienced it first hand. Been in too many melees, riots and crowd control to remember them all.

But there's a caveat to this. First, you have to know how to fight going in. If you have no idea how to fight, what I can teach you is limited to information only. You know, a nice little week long course where you had some fun. But, if you know how to fight to start with - that's an entirely different story.

There are some oddities to this, at least in my experience. I've always found it easier to fight three people as opposed to two. And the smaller the space you use, the better off you are. Natural instinct tells us to move, create space. But you want just the opposite. You want to close, to move in, always. You vortex them, using position and the taking away of their space.

And here's another couple of caveats. If you are fighting three people who have a plan, and have done this before, you just might have a bad day. But most instances of multiple against one person aren't usually planned.

If you are hit first, especially if you didn't see it coming, you might be in trouble. But if you already know how to fight, getting hit first is just another day of taking a hit. Getting into a real fight and learning how to take a hit, really shouldn't happen on the same day.

And it depends on who we're talking about. I can't really run well any more. Eventually, they'll catch me, and I'll be tired and out of position, and breath, when they do. Advantage them.
But if I dictate when we start, advantage me.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
20,347
Reaction score
5,293
5 maybe 6 years back a group of UFC fighters were involved in a training program with the U.S. Marines where they were either attacked by 2 man teams of Marines or they attacked the marines. Most of the attacks had the fighters with more numbers than that of the marines with the fighters losing almost every encounter even when they had the upper hand with surprise as well as numbers. That said the marines had the advantage of home territory (being outside in the rough terrain and snow), having trained as two man teams with weapons vs 4 or 6 man teams. All encounters were hand to hand with and without weapons.
Training vs multiple opponents is different than fighting a single person. The overall strategies are different and some important tactics are different. The idea of engagement is different, when to engage and how is different.

Yeah but marines don't win at that sneaker course either. So again it was not a case of specialized training winning that situation either.
 

Balrog

Master of Arts
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
401
Location
Houston, TX
Over the years I have witnessed an interesting concept both the trained and untrained believe. The concept is based around the idea that showing up for practice is the only thing required to improve martial prowess. This isn't directed to the differently abled, but more towards those that don't wish to put the work in for various reasons.
I get the occasional one of those. The first no-change they get on a promotional testing is a bucket of cold water in the face.
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
6,216
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Southeast U.S.
i understand your "that guy"...the one who sees the world through their own eyes and refuses to try to understand the underlying point that someone is trying to make...so be it....

What do children know of their own mortality?

"In a recent review of studies on children’s understanding of death, medics Alan Bates and Julia Kearney describe how:"

"Partial understanding of universality, irreversibility, and nonfunctionality usually develops between the ages of 5 and 7 years, but a more complete understanding of death concepts, including causality, is not generally seen until around age 10. Prior to understanding nonfunctionality, children may have concrete questions such as how a dead person is going to breathe underground. Less frequently studied is the concept of personal mortality, which most children have some under standing of by age 6 with more complete understanding around age 8–11."

now that is for the concept of death and mortality but they also have to have an understanding that bad things can happen to them. often children think that death is only something that happens to old people or adults. on top of that we are not just talking about mortality we are talking about violence. while some children do experience violence, most do not. it is that experience that allows them to grasp the concept. i am not talking about fist fights in school where the worst that happens is someone cries and runs away humiliated. if the child's experience is limited to school fights then they will not comprehend the concept of the level of violence an adult can do to another. the ability to comprehend is dependent on experience. this is not limited to children. adults are prone to this as well. many adults who can logically understand violence can have an insulated view. thinking that things like that can not happen to them, or perhaps ignoring the possibility for psychological comfort.
while a child may understand violence from one perspective, correlating their own martial arts and the connection to violence is again another step. its a step many adults cant make. violence is often nothing more than a vague concept that has a slight possibility of happening somewhere way off in the future,, but probably not ..in their view. this insulated view makes martial training less about self protection and more a social activity.

and to clarify my earlier post...i said their training does not reflect self defense ability until around 15.
#1...the reality is that under the age of 15 or 16 children are not really learning applicable fighting skill.
please notice the . period after the word skill

It seems to me sir your opinion is a bit narrow. One head doctors opinion of the younger population is in no ways concrete evidence. Especially in the U.S. violence is regional, yes that means mortal violence. If you are referring to the McDojo concept of teaching MA then I agree that a lot of your argument has merit. What any good instructor will do is to stretch a student, not only physically but mentally. This is vital when teaching younger students. Teach them adversity and failure. Teach them what fear feels like and how to deal with it. Make certain you explain this to parents. The best saying my GM says is "something that is always bad is bad, something that is always good is bad, it takes a healthy balance of both to understand how to appreciate the good in something (I'm paraphrasing). Your argument has merit when speaking about the general population. But do you want your Dojo/Dojang to be full of the bland general population. We teach to be exceptional. If we do not teach this way and believe it we are not fulfilling our obligation to the MA community.
You also cannot start out arguing generalities then be specific and point out 15-16 year olds. If that is part of your argument then I am going to say spend a day in a children's hospital. Then you will see just how much children can understand about mortality.
 

Hyoho

Black Belt
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
584
Reaction score
231
But do you want your Dojo/Dojang to be full of the bland general population. We teach to be exceptional. If we do not teach this way and believe it we are not fulfilling our obligation to the MA community.

As far as Japan is concerned: Again your premise is based on a Western concept. In the country it comes from? It's little league. That's how it survived WWll. To be reinstituted after a five year suspension as a cultural sportlike tradition. No way will a dojo have "bland population". It far too intense. At least it should be! Will everbody be good. I dont really mind as long as the try their best and at
least one of them will be good enough to carry the flag for me.
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
2,961
Reaction score
1,402
It seems to me sir your opinion is a bit narrow. One head doctors opinion of the younger population is in no ways concrete evidence. Especially in the U.S. violence is regional, yes that means mortal violence. If you are referring to the McDojo concept of teaching MA then I agree that a lot of your argument has merit. What any good instructor will do is to stretch a student, not only physically but mentally. This is vital when teaching younger students. Teach them adversity and failure. Teach them what fear feels like and how to deal with it. Make certain you explain this to parents. The best saying my GM says is "something that is always bad is bad, something that is always good is bad, it takes a healthy balance of both to understand how to appreciate the good in something (I'm paraphrasing). Your argument has merit when speaking about the general population. But do you want your Dojo/Dojang to be full of the bland general population. We teach to be exceptional. If we do not teach this way and believe it we are not fulfilling our obligation to the MA community.
You also cannot start out arguing generalities then be specific and point out 15-16 year olds. If that is part of your argument then I am going to say spend a day in a children's hospital. Then you will see just how much children can understand about mortality.
You are 100% correct. My opinion is both "general" and regional. I have not travel around the globe to get cross section as a reference for my thoughts on this issue. I can say I have been been exposed to maybe a hundred schools or more in my regional location. Not one school addresses actual violence other than lip service on how to deal with an imaginary bully or the usual "don't talk to strangers". It is not until the age of about 15 when the child is allowed to join the adult classes that violence is addressed in an adult manner. Things are different in other parts of the world. It is a mistake to think otherwise. Perhaps I failed a bit in this respect but I stand by my original premise.
Which I should add was a specific response to someone's comment.
For a child, superficial understanding of violence is one matter. Having the full emotional understanding and capacity , empathy, apathy, and the maturity to work on these topics in a class is somthing different
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,493
Location
Manchester UK
You are 100% correct. My opinion is both "general" and regional. I have not travel around the globe to get cross section as a reference for my thoughts on this issue. I can say I have been been exposed to maybe a hundred schools or more in my regional location. Not one school addresses actual violence other than lip service on how to deal with an imaginary bully or the usual "don't talk to strangers". It is not until the age of about 15 when the child is allowed to join the adult classes that violence is addressed in an adult manner. Things are different in other parts of the world. It is a mistake to think otherwise. Perhaps I failed a bit in this respect but I stand by my original premise.
Which I should add was a specific response to someone's comment.
For a child, superficial understanding of violence is one matter. Having the full emotional understanding and capacity , empathy, apathy, and the maturity to work on these topics in a class is somthing different
your point NOW is that under 15s don't get schooled in violence at their ma class. Your point previously was that under 15s don't have the capacity to understand the concept of violence, this is not the same thing.
 

Hyoho

Black Belt
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
584
Reaction score
231
your point NOW is that under 15s don't get schooled in violence at their ma class. Your point previously was that under 15s don't have the capacity to understand the concept of violence, this is not the same thing.

I guess we had better tell that one to people like my father that went off to Africa at the outset of WWll aged fifteen. He lied about his age so that he could go.

Probably before fifteen was the most violent part of my life. I was constantly bullied until I realized I had a certain natural ability. After that with training it became and still is controlled violence.
 
Top