Pressure testing self-defence techniques

[Bob Hubbard]

I just combed through the thread and don't see any deletions. Might be madness, or might be a software hiccup.

(If you find yourself thinking you're a lemon wedge and that the lake you're in is a gin and tonic, well, then you can be assured you've gone mad.)

 

[MJS]

I think that what should be taken into consideration, and I will say that some people are seeing it and some are not, is the fact that we all will train our arts differently, and we will all look at a given art in a different way. Was the chart set up the way it is because that is really where those arts fall into perspective or because the person setting up the chart used their own feelings about the mentioned arts?

Mike

 

[DavidCC]

Teh chart is interesting but not perfect.

For example some of the data points are training activities (kata, chi sao) and some are not (competitions). Unless you are saying that a competitive bout is a form of training, you are mixing apples and oranges.

So remove the competition dots and add "punching heavy bag" "skipping rope" "shadow boxing" "practice rolling" "kempo sparring" etc. that might clear up some of the confusion. Lets discuss doing kata vs puncing the speed bag. Now you are closer to apples and apples.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Teh chart is interesting but not perfect.

For example some of the data points are training activities (kata, chi sao) and some are not (competitions). Unless you are saying that a competitive bout is a form of training, you are mixing apples and oranges.

So remove the competition dots and add "punching heavy bag" "skipping rope" "shadow boxing" "practice rolling" "kempo sparring" etc. that might clear up some of the confusion. Lets discuss doing kata vs puncing the speed bag. Now you are closer to apples and apples.

Regardless

What data was used to place the dots on the chart?

Research data gained though observation, data collected via a survey, random chance, throwing darts at a board, personal preference, what?

Without this the chart is meaningless. I can produce a similar chart that tells you Irish step dancing is better at preparing you for real life encounters than Judo and penguins are the best teachers of Irish step dancing if I do not need to produce the data.

I am not saying the chart is right or wrong, but without the date it is meaningless.

 

[kickcatcher]

the data as such is the rule sets/typical nature of the activity plotted against the two factors. It really is that simple. You do not have to watch hundreds of muay Thai matches to know that Muay Thai competition is likely to expose you to being punched in the face and body, kicked in the head, body and limbs, kneed in the body and occassionally the face etc etc, all heavy ("full") contact.

We can compare that with boxing and find that whilst a boxing match has about the same contact level, you are only likely to face punches to the face and body - a far narrower bandwidth of resistance relative to Muay Thai match - hence boxing is plotted at about the same level of contact but significantly less bandwidth....

Similarly, you don't have to do thousands of solo kata to realise that in so doing you do not face any resistance from an opponent so it scores zero in both contact and bandwidth of resistance. A two-person kata would score marginally higher but it is usually light/no-contact and completely choreographed so again scores extreemely low against both factors.

If you were to plot skipping then that too would be right down there in the bottom left along with kata. Skipping can make you fit and agile footed but it isn't anything like a real fight.... it really is that simple.

 

[Xue Sheng]

the data as such is the rule sets/typical nature of the activity plotted against the two factors. It really is that simple. You do not have to watch hundreds of muay Thai matches to know that Muay Thai competition is likely to expose you to being punched in the face and body, kicked in the head, body and limbs, kneed in the body and occassionally the face etc etc, all heavy ("full") contact.

We can compare that with boxing and find that whilst a boxing match has about the same contact level, you are only likely to face punches to the face and body - a far narrower bandwidth of resistance relative to Muay Thai match - hence boxing is plotted at about the same level of contact but significantly less bandwidth....

Similarly, you don't have to do thousands of solo kata to realise that in so doing you do not face any resistance from an opponent so it scores zero in both contact and bandwidth of resistance. A two-person kata would score marginally higher but it is usually light/no-contact and completely choreographed so again scores extreemely low against both factors.

If you were to plot skipping then that too would be right down there in the bottom left along with kata. Skipping can make you fit and agile footed but it isn't anything like a real fight.... it really is that simple.

So basically there is no data just assumption based on "A" certain combative activity. So If I see a boxing match that has a high number of strikes, hits, contacts and a Muay Tai match that has lower incidents of contact I can change there positions in the chart.

If I see a Judo competition that has fewer contacts, I could place it lower. And if you are using face punches, then Judo should be very low; judo competitions do not have face punches generally.

And if contact is a general term then Sumo should be on the chart and very high since it is virtually 100% contact.

I have my doubt about the validity of this chart.

 

[kickcatcher]

You could try to plot every single incidence of an activity (i.e. seperate boxing matches) seperately but I can't see that as particularly useful. It is fair to say that if you enter boxing matches you are going to dface someone smacking you in the face hard. With judo you aren't going to get punched in the face but you are likely to get thrown with plenty of hard landings, and choked/arm barred from time to time also.

You can plot sumo if you like - I have no idea if Sumo throws are harder than judo throws. If you don't have Sumo open to you as a training option, there's not much point plotting it.
The activities plotted are EXAMPLES.

 

[shesulsa]

Again, you are putting a lot of faith in the idea that if you can punch, kick and grapple that these are the best solutions and are global applications of self-defense and can work for anyone if you use this chart you've created.

Again, you just cannot put everyone's ability on that chart, you can't put every situation on that chart and you can't apply MMA to every self-defense situation.

Next?

 

[Flying Crane]

ya know, I think this chart is really only useful for charting your own opinions. There is really nothing objective about it, nothing that can be truly and accurately measured. So you plot the activity based on your own notion and understanding of it. Everyone's chart ends up looking different, because it is really just a chart of your own opinion.

 

[kickcatcher]

Again, you are putting a lot of faith in the idea that if you can punch, kick and grapple that these are the best solutions and are global applications of self-defense and can work for anyone if you use this chart you've created.

Again, you just cannot put everyone's ability on that chart, you can't put every situation on that chart and you can't apply MMA to every self-defense situation.

Next?

?
I'm not where you are getting this from. Whether you coose to train in MMA doesn't concern me - how anyone can think that MMA sparring or comp isn't in RELATIVE terms closer to a real fight than say semi-contact point stop sparring, is mind boggling.

For the 1000th time, it plots ACTIVITIES in general terms. It does not plot arts, people, your dog whatever.

Flying Crane, the chart is really useful if you want to try to weigh up training options available to you and consider how you can get your training ever closer to the target activity. You get out what you put in. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term "comfort zone", but if you want to expand your comfort zone, then you need some way of plotting where you are and where you are going.

 

[shesulsa]

The point is that those activities are relative.

 

[Flatlander]

Right, it's quite obvious what the point of the chart is. My question is, does anyone really need a chart to figure this stuff out?

It stands to reason, even without a chart, that the higher the level of pressure/contact in your training, the more closely you approximate combat.

However, the original premise:

So we need ways of comparing our training options with “reality” in order to assess the benefit we are getting and what we can do to get closer to “reality”.

One model, my own in fact, plots training activities against two variables:
1. The contact level
2. The scope (“bandwidth”) or resistance you face

and specifically, the notion of "assessing the benefit we are getting", is faulty. The chart, along with the premise statement, assign a "lesser value" to lower pressure activities. This is an unreasonable exclusion. We mustn't eliminate balance from our training.

For example, hitting the heavy bag affords us zero opportunity to get hit. Does this mean it has no value? I'd beg to differ. Kata and chi sao (by some's definition) affords us little opportunity to get hit. Does this mean it has no value? I'd beg to differ.

So, the argument put forward here seems to be that the chart helps us assess. I really don't see the chart as being necessary. Any and all martial art training activities, if done correctly and in the right balance, will better prepare us for violent encounters.

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane, the chart is really useful if you want to try to weigh up training options available to you and consider how you can get your training ever closer to the target activity. You get out what you put in. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term "comfort zone", but if you want to expand your comfort zone, then you need some way of plotting where you are and where you are going.

You are once again assuming that these activities will give a certain result. Not everything works equally well for everyone. Some activities that you might rank low actually produce fierce fighters. Some activities that you might rank high produce some lousy fighters. It all comes back to the individual and how well they respond to the method and how well they can make it work for themselves. The whole problem with the chart is that it assumes static absolutes and that these are measurable, but they are not and the assumption is flawed.

an individual may engage in several of the activities on the chart, and that variety is what makes them a skilled martial artist able to defend himself.

Take Wing chun, for example. We have forms that we practice. This equates to your Kata practice that you have ranked the lowest. But this practice teaches and develops the basic techniques of the system. This is were we begin.

We also have Chi Sau, which you also ranked fairly low. This is a contact drill that develops both sensitivity and technique useage, and can be quite rough. But without prior Forms Practice you have no concept of the technique and cannot practice Chi Sau.

We also have Wooden Dummy practice, which you did not place on the chart. It has a lot of physical contact that develops technique useage, proper angles, and conditioning, but the dummy can't punch back or wrestle you down. So where exactly does that fit on the chart? I don't really know. Once again, without Forms practice, you would not be able to do Wooden Dummy because you have to understand the technique first, or else you are just randomly beating on the dummy and you don't develop skill.

And then we have contact sparring, that would develop the ability to use technique in a random and ever-changing environment with fewer rules and restrictions. But for safety purposes there have to be some regulations. This is something that you rank higher on the chart. Once again, without Forms practice, we would have no technique to use in sparring, and Chi Sau and Wooden Dummy also develop a lot of skill that is then translated into Sparring.

None of these exercises stand alone, and nobody practices just one or the other. They are all part of the big picture, and all work together to develop a skilled wing chun player.

But another fallacy of the chart, or at least a fallacy in how it seems to be presented, is that you are picking and choosing one exercise instead of another, when in reality it should be one exercise AND the other, AND the other, AND the other. Any of these alone is inadequate, but together, within the proper context of the art that you train, should produce a competent fighter. And any well structured art should have a similar variety of exercises and drills that work together to create a skilled martial artist. They may not be identical to Wing Chun's methods, but they have their own series of methods with a logical and meaningful progression, that give similar results.

 

[MJS]

?
I'm not where you are getting this from. Whether you coose to train in MMA doesn't concern me - how anyone can think that MMA sparring or comp isn't in RELATIVE terms closer to a real fight than say semi-contact point stop sparring, is mind boggling.

I may be wrong here, but I believe what people are saying is that MMA has rules, the street does not. In MMA, if I find myself in a clinch position, I can't reach up and gouge the eyes.

What about weapon defense? Do you discount a knife defense because the people are not using a real blade, going full speed? What about a gun? Should I use a real one?

 

[Xue Sheng]

You could try to plot every single incidence of an activity (i.e. seperate boxing matches) seperately but I can't see that as particularly useful. It is fair to say that if you enter boxing matches you are going to dface someone smacking you in the face hard. With judo you aren't going to get punched in the face but you are likely to get thrown with plenty of hard landings, and choked/arm barred from time to time also.

You can plot sumo if you like - I have no idea if Sumo throws are harder than judo throws. If you don't have Sumo open to you as a training option, there's not much point plotting it.
The activities plotted are EXAMPLES.

First, let me apologize for not finishing my previous post. A thunder storm rolled through and I knew this would be a long one so I finished quick and shut down.

Let me explain what I am talking about when I ask for data, control and question the validity of the chart.

I am sure that there are many different ways to set up a study that would produce that chart, but to me there has to be at lest 3 variables. Number of strikes, duration and intensity.

For example.
Strike – what constitutes a strike or in you case contact
Duration - measured time period
Frequency – the number of strikes over a given period of time
Intensity – injuries received
And you have to be careful here, if you simply say contact is touching then Chi Sau and push hands rocket to the top of your chart above boxing and Judo.

You need to define contact, number of punches, number of throws, amount of body contact, etc. you need to define the time period, for example 2 minutes. (I am attempting to avoid great detail and a doctoral dissertation so please allow a few leaps)

So you now have time of 2 minutes so how many strikes would be considered average in 2 minutes based on the events you have chosen to chart, After going to a multitude of different types of events you could come up with an average, say you come up with 10 hits in 2 minutes.

Now in order to get the frequency of strikes you would have to watch a whole lot of boxing matches, Muay Tai matches, Judo matches, etc. You could ask the fans for an average number but that number is likely going to range far and wide depending on who they wanted to win and how excited they got.

This is where you would need some sort of control. A group of people interested only in the research or films you could watch in order to get a strike count. Or an average based on the responses of a multitude of fans from a multitude of events. You could then have an accepted frequency based on the number of hits over a period of time

Now once you have this you can say low pressure is under 10 strikes in 2 minutes, medium is 10 strikes in 2 minutes and high is above 10 strikes in 2 minutes. And of course you would need a range around this figure in order to rate events within these areas.

You also need to take into account intensity, now there are several possibilities here, but I am going to use injury for intensity in this example. You need something like this, if you base the chart solely on contact a street fight could be over in 2 or 3 hits where a boxing match or a Judo match could go on much longer by comparison and therefore be considered higher pressure.

Injury would require a series of interviews with the participants of fighting competitions and victims of street fights. And as a side note in a street fight the number of strikes may be very hard to get, it could be 1, 2, 3 strikes your out and 4 through 60 kicks while your down and out. Therefore injury may not be viable as a measurement eihter. But I am using it as an example not suggesting its use.

So something with little contact over a given period of time with little or no injuries would be low on your chart and it very likely could be kata. Where something with a large number of hits over a given period of time with multiple injuries would be high on the chart. And I would suggest some sort of calculation of average in this in order to get something with low strike rate but with high injury in the proper location.

This is what I am talking about when I am asking for data. If this was not how the chart was constructed then ok, how was it constructed? To say it is excepted understanding or anyone would agree, its obvious, or looking at the chart you can tell is not an acceptable answer, First the chart is what is in question and you cannot use the chart in question as proof of its validity. Also if any of those were acceptable reasons then there are an awful of things that would have to be accepted as fact ranging from Alien abduction to Racist beliefs to the loch ness monster.

I do not think anyone is truly doubting the position of Kata on your chart if you are using the amount of contact as the basis of your chart. I do however question the placement of everything else on the chart.

But if you are using it to discredit other martial arts in favor of what you prefer you also must consider that although a kata is not real, when you are talking confrontation, it can help prepare you for reality. If I stand in San Ti for an hour it can help prepare my mind for a fight. Now I will admit there is a world of difference between standing in San Ti and getting hit in the face. But the fact I stood in San Ti may make it so when I am hit in the face I remain calm so I am more prepared for combat and thereby have a better chance at survival. So if you goal is to discredit or prove a personal belief then the validity of the chart is highly doubtful.

If contact is your basis than as I previously stated Sumo should rate very high, but then again so should WWE wrestling. Should Kata be lower that boxing on your chart? Yes I believe it should. Should Boxing be higher or lower or considered more or less intense than Muay Tai? Without data and set definitions, it is at best arguable – but it is not a valid fact.

To make a chart and expect all to accept it as valid based on opinon is not enough, you need proof.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Flying Crane, the chart is really useful if you want to try to weigh up training options available to you and consider how you can get your training ever closer to the target activity.

This is what I am talking about, without the data behind it the chart is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be taken as proof of anything.If you posted the chart and said this is what I think then I have no argument, but you cannot use it as proof of anything and expect others to take it as such.

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

This is what I am talking about, without the data behind it the chart is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be taken as proof of anything.If you posted the chart and said this is what I think then I have no argument, but you cannot use it as proof of anything and expect others to take it as such.

Hm, yes and no. Yes, the chart was based on a subjective analysis of typical martial arts confrontations, this is true.

On the other hand, such an analysis, though subjective, is not without its merits, if we consider the criteria used to create the chart.

As I see it, the chart DOES NOT present a "maximum benefits achieved according to kind of training" result. That is simply not its function: the chart itself does not judge the effectiveness of all kinds of training.

What the chart does, IMHO, is to evaluate the approximation of martial arts training to a (necessarily undefined) "real confrontation", by working on the sum of less restrictive rules+risk of injury.

So I believe the chart works like this:

less rules + greater risk of injury = closer approximation to real confrontation

This has nothing to do with benefits gained through training and/or sparring. We all know the benefits we get from drills trained without much resistance, and we all know a poorly done round of hard contact sparring will teach you close to nothing, while allowing for injury.

Now, I suppose we can all agree that in tha street there are no rules. Duh. So this part of the chart, again IMHO, is not disputable: since in the street there are no rules, the best way to approximate MA training to a real confrontation is to reduce protective rules.

In that sense, and speaking only of UNARMED combat, the much vaunted MMA dispute would be the best approximation to a real encounter, at least rules-wise.

What can be disputed, I think, is that a greater risk of injury during training will necessarily be the better way to approach the reality of a real confrontation. This is subject to discussion, I believe, because NOT ALL ENCOUNTERS ARE TO THE DEATH AND/OR INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS.

I have seen plenty of stupid fights in clubs and streets, and some of them consisted of plenty of swearing and not much trading of blows. Not everyone who will fight you in tha street wants you dead or seriously injured.

So, in the end, I believe the chart does quite a nice job. Not a flawless job, but, considering its purpose, I believe it is quite a nice piece of work.

But please, do not mistake its purpose. It does NOT show what is the best training method, that varies with the purpose of the practitioner. It just tries to attach some values to different kinds of sparring as related to a real, unarmed confrontation, and THAT it does rather well.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Hm, yes and no. Yes, the chart was based on a subjective analysis of typical martial arts confrontations, this is true.

On the other hand, such an analysis, though subjective, is not without its merits, if we consider the criteria used to create the chart.

As I see it, the chart DOES NOT present a "maximum benefits achieved according to kind of training" result. That is simply not its function: the chart itself does not judge the effectiveness of all kinds of training.

What the chart does, IMHO, is to evaluate the approximation of martial arts training to a (necessarily undefined) "real confrontation", by working on the sum of less restrictive rules+risk of injury.

So I believe the chart works like this:

less rules + greater risk of injury = closer approximation to real confrontation

This has nothing to do with benefits gained through training and/or sparring. We all know the benefits we get from drills trained without much resistance, and we all know a poorly done round of hard contact sparring will teach you close to nothing, while allowing for injury.

Now, I suppose we can all agree that in tha street there are no rules. Duh. So this part of the chart, again IMHO, is not disputable: since in the street there are no rules, the best way to approximate MA training to a real confrontation is to reduce protective rules.

In that sense, and speaking only of UNARMED combat, the much vaunted MMA dispute would be the best approximation to a real encounter, at least rules-wise.

What can be disputed, I think, is that a greater risk of injury during training will necessarily be the better way to approach the reality of a real confrontation. This is subject to discussion, I believe, because NOT ALL ENCOUNTERS ARE TO THE DEATH AND/OR INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS.

I have seen plenty of stupid fights in clubs and streets, and some of them consisted of plenty of swearing and not much trading of blows. Not everyone who will fight you in tha street wants you dead or seriously injured.

So, in the end, I believe the chart does quite a nice job. Not a flawless job, but, considering its purpose, I believe it is quite a nice piece of work.

But please, do not mistake its purpose. It does NOT show what is the best training method, that varies with the purpose of the practitioner. It just tries to attach some values to different kinds of sparring as related to a real, unarmed confrontation, and THAT it does rather well.

Basically I would agree with you, if any of what you put forth was even mentioned in the beginning, and it wasn't.

The use of undefined terminology "Level of Contact" and "Bandwidth" plus what appears to be random placement of various titles that from what I can tell have no data behind them other than personal opinion make it the chart invalid and certainly not scientifically sound as a measure of What ever Level of contact means based on Bandwidth which is also undefined.

Question were would "Competition San Shou - In the Ring" Be placed as apposed to San Shou done by a police office in Beijing? Be careful how you answer because I have given you no other variables which could make you positioning of them on the chart change. If I base this on one San Shou competition I happen to have seen and/or 1 police encounter in Beijing I happen to have seen I seriously doubt the validity of the results and the placement of that result on a chart.

The original post is below and there is absolutely no mention of any of the variables you suggest. I am not saying that the variables I suggest are any part of the chart, nor am I saying that this is the only way to make this chart. I am saying that neither what I have suggested nor what you have suggested has ever been mentioned or discussed in the defense of this chart when I have asked.

Basically without the actual data behind the chart, if there is in fact any data at all, anything you or I say are suggestions.

Without data and the parameters of the study that produced that data the chart is no more than personal opinion and certainly should not be considered any proof of "Value assessment" or "reality"

It is the opinion, it is a "school of thought" which is not proof.

Is "this school of thought" correct in its statement "that whatever training you do, it is often going to be a step-up to the real thing"?

I have no idea. Am I going to be more prepared for the real thing if I do Kata all the time as apposed to MMA? Probably not.


Is Muay Tai going to make me more or less prepared that Boxing or what I had mentioned, San Shao, I have absolutly no idea and there is nothing to back up this chart to say yes or no because it is based on a "school of thought" not factual results from a scientific study.

Could this chart be used to suggest such a study or as a basis to create guidelines for such a study? Yes I believe it could, but it is not valid as it is presented as a measure of reality or measurement of value.

There is a school of thought within the self-defence community (“RBSD” although that label is fast becoming a stigma as somewhat unrealistic people join the bandwagon), that the training which best prepares you for real life situations is that which is closest to it. This school of thought acknowledges that whatever training you do, it is often going to be a step-up to the real thing. I say “often” because ‘reality’ is itself an imprecise and variable factor. The goal therefore is to make the step-up as small as possible.

So we need ways of comparing our training options with “reality” in order to assess the benefit we are getting and what we can do to get closer to “reality”.

One model, my own in fact, plots training activities against two variables:
1. The contact level
2. The scope (“bandwidth&#8221 or resistance you face

For practical reasons “reality” is plotted as notionally unrestricting in both scope and contact. Obviously this is not always the case, but it is best not to underestimate it.

The graph ends up looking something like this:

You can plot virtually any martial arts training activity on the graph to assess its value.

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

1)Basically I would agree with you, if any of what you put forth was even mentioned in the beginning, and it wasn't.

2)The use of undefined terminology "Level of Contact" and "Bandwidth" plus what appears to be random placement of various titles that from what I can tell have no data behind them other than personal opinion make it the chart invalid and certainly not scientifically sound as a measure of What ever Level of contact means based on Bandwidth which is also undefined.

3)Could this chart be used to suggest such a study or as a basis to create guidelines for such a study? Yes I believe it could, but it is not valid as it is presented as a measure of reality or measurement of value.

1) Oh well, I am not the thread starter...

2) A fair point. I certainly agree the chart cannot be considered scientifically sound, since it attempts to compare various degrees of sparring, in various rulesets, without first establishing an objective criteria for such a comparison. Specially since it tries to compare levels of contact between striking and grappling arts!

It just so happens that, even though I disagree with some of the assumptions made in that chart, most of it sounds eminently reasonable to me. We can certainly argue whether MMA fighting has more or less contact than, say, Muay Thai fighting, but I suppose we can all agree that kata training should be pretty low on that scale when compared to those two.

And, I suppose, that was Kickcatcher´s goal: the chart paints things with a broad brush, but some points are, objectively, correct (again, IMHO).

3) Indeed. I believe that chart is an interesting concept, and I am quite sure it is doable, but there must be a scientific basis for comparison between various styles of unarmed combat for it to be taken as fact, rather than opinion.




Still, according to my experience (some years of MA training, saw some fights from a safe distance), the opinions expressed by means of the chart are quite correct. A regular brawl, according to my experience, involves:

- Swearing;

- Shoving and pushing;

- A wild swing or a badly done front kick to the balls, which usually offends more than it hurts;

- A wild, unscientific but incredibly funny trade of punches which do nothing to the adversary, even though most of them land because the other guy is as pathetic as the first guy - usually not even a black eye arises from this;

- A sad attempt at a koshi guruma or osoto gari, as one of the contenders remembers the couple of months he did of judo in highschool;

- Both idiots fall to the floor in a complete mess of arms and legs, while their respective friends point, laugh and halfheartedly tell them to stop (at this point a girl usually screams);

- Some unscientific but rather dirty groundfighting takes place, usually by means of scratching, gouging, and spitting.

- At this point the bouncers/friends/bystanders decide they had enough fun and separate the two morons. Both of them curse and swear at each other while promising to kill each other´s guts, while halfheartedly attempting to escape the grasp of the bystanders/bouncers/friends (this is also known as the "keep your head high" stage of street fighting, very important to give the girls the impression you won, or could have won if it weren´t for these pesky intruders - "you are lucky, man, or I would have done you good").

- General rejoicing and divers alarums as the fighters go back to the bar and try to convince their respective friends they won. Sometimes there is some explaining to do at the nearest police station, where both fighters try to look as sheepish as possible to the sleepy officer taking notes.

- By the next morning, one of the fighters goes to the dentist because his mouth is bleeding a bit. His dentist tells him to stop being a pansy, that was nothing.

Now, this is what I usually think about when the words "real fight" come to my mind - if, of course, we remove sadistic bouncers, improvised weapons, and non improvised weapons from the equation. THIS is what we train for when we go to the gym.

Rather sad, I know.

Still, my point is - the whole affair looks much more like a MMA fight than a kata or a punching bag drill, and it looks more like a boxing match than a point sparring session. So the chart is not actually WRONG in that aspect, even if it presents no verifiable scientific method.

 

[Xue Sheng]

1) Still, according to my experience (some years of MA training, saw some fights from a safe distance), the opinions expressed by means of the chart are quite correct. A regular brawl, according to my experience, involves:

- Swearing;

- Shoving and pushing;

- A wild swing or a badly done front kick to the balls, which usually offends more than it hurts;

- A wild, unscientific but incredibly funny trade of punches which do nothing to the adversary, even though most of them land because the other guy is as pathetic as the first guy - usually not even a black eye arises from this;

- A sad attempt at a koshi guruma or osoto gari, as one of the contenders remembers the couple of months he did of judo in highschool;

- Both idiots fall to the floor in a complete mess of arms and legs, while their respective friends point, laugh and halfheartedly tell them to stop (at this point a girl usually screams);

- Some unscientific but rather dirty groundfighting takes place, usually by means of scratching, gouging, and spitting.

- At this point the bouncers/friends/bystanders decide they had enough fun and separate the two morons. Both of them curse and swear at each other while promising to kill each other´s guts, while halfheartedly attempting to escape the grasp of the bystanders/bouncers/friends (this is also known as the "keep your head high" stage of street fighting, very important to give the girls the impression you won, or could have won if it weren´t for these pesky intruders - "you are lucky, man, or I would have done you good").

- General rejoicing and divers alarums as the fighters go back to the bar and try to convince their respective friends they won. Sometimes there is some explaining to do at the nearest police station, where both fighters try to look as sheepish as possible to the sleepy officer taking notes.

- By the next morning, one of the fighters goes to the dentist because his mouth is bleeding a bit. His dentist tells him to stop being a pansy, that was nothing.

Now, this is what I usually think about when the words "real fight" come to my mind - if, of course, we remove sadistic bouncers, improvised weapons, and non improvised weapons from the equation. THIS is what we train for when we go to the gym.

Rather sad, I know.

Still, my point is - the whole affair looks much more like a MMA fight than a kata or a punching bag drill, and it looks more like a boxing match than a point sparring session. So the chart is not actually WRONG in that aspect, even if it presents no verifiable scientific method.

I have a few years of MA training as well and I have seen a few real fights and a few compititions and most unfortunately I had a job once (many years ago) that required me to get into some of these and I agree with you.