For a skilled sport fighter, often an adjustment of mindset and being able to quickly identify which mindset you need, along with some discussion about tactics and the actual goal of self defense is all the additional training needed.
I think that "sport vs. self-defense" is sort of the "striking vs. grappling" of our time. I feel the general consensus right now is that striking and grappling both have their place. But I also feel that sport and "self-defense" (whether it's a focused system like Krav Maga or a piece of a curriculum like in Taekwondo) also have their place.
Sport is very good at testing what works and what doesn't, and about finding ways to make things work against a noncompliant opponent. However, it brings this mentality that a real fight situation is one where:
- Both of us know we're going to fight
- My opponent is trained in the same things I am
- My opponent's goal is to knock me out, choke me out, or break my arm
- My goal is to knock him out, choke him, or break his arm
You also get these assessments:
- If your opponent has a weapon, you will automatically lose, because you can't defend against it
- If my opponent has a weapon, I will win, because I know how to wrestle
- Any techniques we can't use in my art are useless
I feel that while most people agree we need a mix of striking and grappling, I think we also need a mix of sport and self-defense. And you don't necessarily need to compete in the sport, or agree with everything you learn in the self-defense class. It's more about the thought process that goes into it. Like with Martial Arts Journey, and how he went away from Aikido for three years, only to come back and apply the training principles he learned in MMA and its various component arts to make the Aikido work better.
Or how someone who trains BJJ or MMA could look at knife defense and pressure test various ideas to come up with a system that's more likely to succeed, like FightSmart did.
Someone who looks at Krav Maga and dismisses it as LARPing and someone who looks at BJJ and says it wouldn't work in the street are both just as wrong as someone who says boxing is dumb because they have no take-down defense.
Am I the only one who can't stand "Icey Mike"?
He's hit-or-miss for me. A perfect example of both is his endorsement of flashlights as self-defense weapons, when compared with guns. He is very correct about their utility as a self-defense weapon and various ways in which you can use them. But then he goes on to say that the only thing you can do with a gun is shoot someone, when very often the mere presence of a gun will scare off an attacker, or you can use the gun to keep a home invader compliant until the police arrive. There's a lot more ways to use the gun in self defense than just "pew pew".
I was finding that I'd watch a video of his and subscribe, and then watch the next one and unsubscribe. Eventually I just stopped subscribing.
