Sport vs. Street

[oaktree]

Ok. definitely enhanced risk in a street fight.

And avoid them obviously.

But going straught to shanking a dude because all street fights are kill or be killed. Sorry but just no. That was oaktrees origional premis. Showed a video of a guy getting shanked in a fight.

Now Friedrice has turned around and said here are heaps of fights where guys are not getting shanked. Which to me was a fair point.

And then you jumped in and said it didn't count because of the self defence difference.

It seemed a trumped up difference. which self defence gets used for a lot. Especially when you are the sole diviner of what self defence actually is.(also gets used a lot)

My view is if self defence is used as an argument it should actually apply to the topic. And not be a catch all comment.


Regarding going full retard in a fight.

You can't justify it legally. You cant justify it ethically. And considering most fights don't end in a death. It really only escalalates the problem.

There is definitely a risk in a street fight. But they are mitigated by avoiding them. Finishing them quickly and fighting conservatively. More than just knifing everybody.

You don't have to shank or kill someone you SHOULD APPROACH the situation with the mindset that the opponent may be trying to kill you and IF NEED be, be prepared to kill him before he kills you. Since there are no rules in a street fight if I need to stab or use a bat in order to get home then that's what I do. I am not interested in ethics or legally I am interested in breathing.

 

[Steve]

This thread may contain allergens

Cause it's full of nuts?

 

[drop bear]

You don't have to shank or kill someone you SHOULD APPROACH the situation with the mindset that the opponent may be trying to kill you and IF NEED be, be prepared to kill him before he kills you. Since there are no rules in a street fight if I need to stab or use a bat in order to get home then that's what I do. I am not interested in ethics or legally I am interested in breathing.

No. you need to fight in a conservative manner that shut down as many risks to yourself as you can.

You basically need to start putting the odds in your favor. Not just mindlessly escalating a fight.

Society is designed to shut down mad dogs. You can't actually successfully be one for too long.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

"Fear starts more conflict than bravery. Disciplined persons are able to accomplish difficult tasks." Grand Master Hwang Kee

 

[Gerry Seymour]

volume and intensity.

The people who train bare knuckle train different exercises. So you don't generally see 10 rounds of sparring or heavy bag bare knuckle from anybody.

Bare knuckle fighters dont do it.

Hitting a guy for ten or fifteen seconds in the street is not hitting a guy for half an hour.

It is a pretty silly difference that people came up with having no real idea what they were on about.

One of those stories. I keep mentioning.

Now. should you condition your hands? Yes.
Should you punch in a correct manner? yes.

But this is for both bare knuckle and gloved.

Should you just throw away hand protection and then train like a boxer?

I think you are saying much the same thing I am, but I'm actually not sure. My point is simply that heavy boxing gloves (and maybe other kinds of gloves), combined with wrist wraps, can allow for some variations in technique that won't be desirable with an unpadded, unsupported hand. I know my "kempo" gloves have enough support and padding that I could get away with strikes that would be uncomfortable even at moderate power if I were punching a heavy bag bare-handed (so say nothing of hitting a cheek bone with power). I expect most/all boxers (referring to the more common gloved style) do enough training without all that to be able to translate what they do to punching people hard without gloves, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. definitely enhanced risk in a street fight.

And avoid them obviously.

But going straught to shanking a dude because all street fights are kill or be killed. Sorry but just no. That was oaktrees origional premis. Showed a video of a guy getting shanked in a fight.

Now Friedrice has turned around and said here are heaps of fights where guys are not getting shanked. Which to me was a fair point.

And then you jumped in and said it didn't count because of the self defence difference.

Actually, I didn't say that didn't count because of a self-defense difference. I'd have to look back at the exact posts, but I believe what I said was that the point isn't that all SD situations are lethal, but that we have to assume they could be. (I'm assuming that's the post you're referring to.)

It seemed a trumped up difference. which self defence gets used for a lot. Especially when you are the sole diviner of what self defence actually is.(also gets used a lot)

I think I've made it clear that I'm not any sort of "sole diviner". I give my opinion, based on how I define the term. There are definitely those who disagree with me, and most have a pretty good argument behind their difference in opinion.

My view is if self defence is used as an argument it should actually apply to the topic. And not be a catch all comment.

I'm not sure what you even mean by self-defense being used as an argument. It's simply a conceptual classification, a different situation than other situations, and as such some parts of the situation will be different. The term isn't terribly clear, but neither is any other term I've heard anyone use to discuss the differences among those situations. Heck, there was a long discussion some time ago over what the heck "sparring" was, and I thought that was an easy one.

Regarding going full retard in a fight.

You can't justify it legally. You cant justify it ethically. And considering most fights don't end in a death. It really only escalalates the problem.

There is definitely a risk in a street fight. But they are mitigated by avoiding them. Finishing them quickly and fighting conservatively. More than just knifing everybody.

I agree, on all points. The only time it's justified to go "full retard" is when you feel like it's the only chance of surviving. I can't imagine most of us will ever be in that situation in our lives.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Cause it's full of nuts?

Hey, don't look at me like that when you say that!

 

[drop bear]

I think you are saying much the same thing I am, but I'm actually not sure. My point is simply that heavy boxing gloves (and maybe other kinds of gloves), combined with wrist wraps, can allow for some variations in technique that won't be desirable with an unpadded, unsupported hand. I know my "kempo" gloves have enough support and padding that I could get away with strikes that would be uncomfortable even at moderate power if I were punching a heavy bag bare-handed (so say nothing of hitting a cheek bone with power). I expect most/all boxers (referring to the more common gloved style) do enough training without all that to be able to translate what they do to punching people hard without gloves, too.

Yeah you had two pretty big and fairly nuanced topics going there. I went for the easier more definable one.

Big gloves vs little gloves vs bare knuckle. Is kind of a different conversation. And while there are semantic differences they are unlikley to be game changers.

I basically raised that to a mate of mine who went from muay thai to muay thai in a cage witn MMA gloves (cmt)

Not that big a leap.

 

[oaktree]

No. you need to fight in a conservative manner that shut down as many risks to yourself as you can.

You basically need to start putting the odds in your favor. Not just mindlessly escalating a fight.

Society is designed to shut down mad dogs. You can't actually successfully be one for too long.[/QUOTe/]
You just don't get it, and you know what that's fine good luck in your life kid.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, I didn't say that didn't count because of a self-defense difference. I'd have to look back at the exact posts, but I believe what I said was that the point isn't that all SD situations are lethal, but that we have to assume they could be. (I'm assuming that's the post you're referring to.)


I think I've made it clear that I'm not any sort of "sole diviner". I give my opinion, based on how I define the term. There are definitely those who disagree with me, and most have a pretty good argument behind their difference in opinion.


I'm not sure what you even mean by self-defense being used as an argument. It's simply a conceptual classification, a different situation than other situations, and as such some parts of the situation will be different. The term isn't terribly clear, but neither is any other term I've heard anyone use to discuss the differences among those situations. Heck, there was a long discussion some time ago over what the heck "sparring" was, and I thought that was an easy one.




I agree, on all points. The only time it's justified to go "full retard" is when you feel like it's the only chance of surviving. I can't imagine most of us will ever be in that situation in our lives.

You go back and have a look.

I will point out the next obvious "That is not self defence" for you. It is a sneaky argument that gets used out of context a fair bit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah you had two pretty big and fairly nuanced topics going there. I went for the easier more definable one.

Big gloves vs little gloves vs bare knuckle. Is kind of a different conversation. And while there are semantic differences they are unlikley to be game changers.

I basically raised that to a mate of mine who went from muay thai to muay thai in a cage witn MMA gloves (cmt)

Not that big a leap.

I was thinking more in the other direction, but again, I'd expect you to have better information on MMA (and maybe boxing) than me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You go back and have a look.

I will point out the next obvious "That is not self defence" for you. It is a sneaky argument that gets used out of context a fair bit.

Please do. I do say that, but it's based on my definition, and it matters a bit, because the range of what is "self-defense" changes if you include people squaring off to settle a dispute, rather than one of them backing down and moving away. A different dynamic (much closer to competition distancing, likely to last a bit longer, people pushing people back into the fight, etc.).

If someone presents me with a better distinction, I'm happy to use it, to cut down on the unproductive arguments.

 

[drop bear]

Please do. I do say that, but it's based on my definition, and it matters a bit, because the range of what is "self-defense" changes if you include people squaring off to settle a dispute, rather than one of them backing down and moving away. A different dynamic (much closer to competition distancing, likely to last a bit longer, people pushing people back into the fight, etc.).

If someone presents me with a better distinction, I'm happy to use it, to cut down on the unproductive arguments.

Yeah but based on my definition is the trick. It means i can discount any evidence at any time based on my definition.

Footwork is a great example. It is a solid defensive mesure. And a lot of SDers are pretty bad at it.

So you prestent this idea footwork is bloody effective.

Sorry that is sport.

Nope not a real altercation.

Nope not self defence. You argument is invalid.

And so on.

Then you get this story about how in self defence. (My definition remember. )This happens that happens. people don't use footwork. there is no space. people dont put their hands up.(seriously I really had that one) We train whatever,based on my personal idea of what a fight will look like. Which is why my method is more suited to self defence.

And to me it is a failed methodology in regards to equiping someone to defend themselves.

It does equip martial artists to sell a product though.

 

[jobo]

Please do. I do say that, but it's based on my definition, and it matters a bit, because the range of what is "self-defense" changes if you include people squaring off to settle a dispute, rather than one of them backing down and moving away. A different dynamic (much closer to competition distancing, likely to last a bit longer, people pushing people back into the fight, etc.).

If someone presents me with a better distinction, I'm happy to use it, to cut down on the unproductive arguments.

its quite a strange defintion to be honest, if I went on a self defence course and all I got was advice to back down leave quickly don't go out alone etc, I would think I've got done. Being skilled at self defence means you dont have to back down, or leave quickly you can stand your ground and defend yourself if you have to
I've found one of the best strategies' is to represent strength and escalated the situation, " talk to me like that and il break your nose "type of thing. Then they leave quickly

 

[CB Jones]

I've found one of the best strategies' is to represent strength and escalated the situation, " talk to me like that and il break your nose "type of thing. Then they leave quickly

Better to always try and de-escalate then handle any subsequent threats.

 

[jobo]

Better to always try and de-escalate then handle any subsequent threats.

why? Most people don't want a fight, they want to intimidate you, show off in front of their girl friend etc, when they realise that your quite happy to fight them and that they might get hurt, they have a habit of backing down, nb this doesn't work with very drunk people

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah but based on my definition is the trick. It means i can discount any evidence at any time based on my definition.

Footwork is a great example. It is a solid defensive mesure. And a lot of SDers are pretty bad at it.

So you prestent this idea footwork is bloody effective.

Sorry that is sport.

Nope not a real altercation.

Nope not self defence. You argument is invalid.

And so on.

Then you get this story about how in self defence. (My definition remember. )This happens that happens. people don't use footwork. there is no space. people dont put their hands up.(seriously I really had that one) We train whatever,based on my personal idea of what a fight will look like. Which is why my method is more suited to self defence.

And to me it is a failed methodology in regards to equiping someone to defend themselves.

It does equip martial artists to sell a product though.

I can use it to say a piece of evidence doesn't fit what I'm talking about. And since what I'm talking about fits within the container of "self-defense" as I define it, that's a reasonable approach.

Of course, it would be problematic if I shifted the container every time I didn't like the evidence. But clarifying the definition to keep discussion on-track (assuming the discussion started within that container) is reasonable.

As for the things you posted, all those points are true (sport, not a real altercation, and not self-defense). All three, however have something to show that is valuable for self-defense. (The one in the middle, the least of all, as it is the most unrealistic of the scenarios.) Both the sport and the fighting context have commonalities with some portions of "self-defense". So, I could point out that they are not self-defense, or I can just point out what I see as applicable or not applicable, or where I see there are differences. Evidence from outside self-defense isn't useless in the discussion of self-defense, or I wouldn't borrow thoughts from BJJ and Muay Thai (recent influences). In fact, if we didn't borrow evidence from outside self-defense, we'd have to abandon the majority of what most of us would agree is useful there, since it's hard to find consistent evidence purely within the bounds of self-defense.

 

[drop bear]

Better to always try and de-escalate then handle any subsequent threats.

It depends where you are. If you are socially locked in. School for example constantly backing down may create more issues in the future.

If you are never going to see the guy again. Then who cares.

But if they are going to be a continued threat you may have to show some teeth.

Otherwise for me. If i am confident i can wreck the guy. I don't care if i back down. But if i am less confident I may have to be more aggressive.

By the way this is why we can't really have self defence conversations. Because instead of certain concepts like deescalation is a tool that works for me in this sort of situation. We get you should always deescalate. Cos self defence.

 

[CB Jones]

why? Most people don't want a fight, they want to intimidate you, show off in front of their girl friend etc, when they realise that your quite happy to fight them and that they might get hurt, they have a habit of backing down, nb this doesn't work with very drunk people

Because that one time you encounter that guy cuts you from navel to kidney it's too late to realize that was a bad idea.

Always de-escalate until you dont have another choice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its quite a strange defintion to be honest, if I went on a self defence course and all I got was advice to back down leave quickly don't go out alone etc, I would think I've got done. Being skilled at self defence means you dont have to back down, or leave quickly you can stand your ground and defend yourself if you have to
I've found one of the best strategies' is to represent strength and escalated the situation, " talk to me like that and il break your nose "type of thing. Then they leave quickly

That's a strawman. At no point did I say never go out alone, and that leaving was the only option.

As for the "talk to me like that and I'll break your nose" - in some US states (so I've been told by LEO's), that can remove any claim of self-defense (unless they escalate dramatically). So now if they take a swing, you are a willing combatant. Bad advice.