Street Effective

[Sigung86]

Well, I do believe the word was origionated in Vietnam, as the word was taken from the Vietnamese language.

The proper primary vowels in most asian countries are:

A (pronounced "ah")
E (pronounced "ay")
I (pronounced "ee")
O (pronounced with the long "O" sound)
U (pronounced "oo")

So that's why I spelled, "buku"!

Thanks for teaching me how Canada spells it as well!

Actually, the word is French, and is a holdover, in Nam, from the days when it was all under the general heading of "French Indo-China"... The original spelling "Beaucoup" is really the correct version. But yours, on the other hand, is kinda' cool! So you get 22 points anyway.:angel:

 

[l_uk3y]

The style doesn't really make much difference. Obviously some will make the general goal easier then others.

Street effective to me is mixture of Correct Mindset (Control of emotion and being capable of pulling the trigger (regardless of style)), a list of tools to get the job done as quickly as possible and the ability to quickly adapt to sudden "changes" in situation.

• Mindset. Doesnt matter how skilled you are if you sudden get an adrenalin dump and freeze. Or reluctant to strike at throats/eyes even during a life threatening situation.
• Tools required. Depends on the job you want to do. Style is negligable as long as you have a tool to do any job, improvising here is fine.
• Adaptability. Being able to adapt quickly is vital so you can quickly and calmly change if a 2nd or 3rd attacker join in. Or on the sudden draw of a weapon.

With those 3 keys on your side. I don't think it matters what style you learn. Odviously if you ONLY know how to fight on the ground or ONLY fight standing up then you have limited tools and may get caught out should the situation change.

The last thing you want when your life is on the line is finding you have a nail but dont have a hammer.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

This is something that I've gone around and around with my fellow Kenpoists. I say that there isnt much grappling/ground fighting ( yes there is a difference IMO) in Kenpo, while others say there is. But, there was a clip from a Kenpoist, who was showing a ground fighting/grappling move, using a Kenpo tech. The was a tech. designed to be used while standing, but he used it, to defend himself while he was mounted. However, IMO, the defense was flawed from the start, because the attacker wasn't giving his best attack, meaning, the mount basically sucked, which, IMO, allowed an easier defense.

Yeah, there's a big difference between groundfighting (a particular range) and grappling (a particular physical skill set). I do a lot of striking on the ground, and a lot of grappling standing up!

The Kenpo ground technique you describe is not uncommon when someone tries to tack something on without understanding it. But they were half right... the idea is to gain enough understanding of the new requirements to be able to adapt your existing art. By just doing BJJ on the ground and Kenpo standing up denies the reality that ranges can and do change very quickly, often with no warning, and you just can't "switch" from one approach to another (mentally). So you attend BJJ classes in order to know hwo your Kenpo needs to adapt for the ground, you study Arnis to have a better understanding of the properties of weapons to ensure your weapon defence is not lacking. In the end, though, you will find that you are doing one art with knowledge gleaned from a variety of sources (and that is how cross training can really work).

Now, while rolling, I've found places to insert some Kenpo stuff, but for me, I prefer to use grappling as my defense. Kenpo has takedown defense, defense against standing grappling attacks, ie: chokes and grabs, but as far as what to do on the ground....I'm not seeing it. Again, just my opinion, but it seems that sometimes people are afraid to look outside the box. Why I dont know. Afraid to admit something is flawed? Maybe I'm the one thats flawed. I look at it like this....if I want to learn to fly, I go to a school that'll teach me that, not one that teaches how to drive a car. I want to better my tennis game, I'll go to a tennis pro, not a golfer. I want to better my ground game, I'll go to BJJ, weapons...a weapon based art.

The big difference between your flying instructor and tennis coach is that you are unlikely to suddenly need to avoid a tackle on a tennis court. They are restricted environments, and as such you have no issue focusing on a single speciality even if it contradicts existing skills you have.

Admitting something is "flawed" (I would personally use the term "lacking" here, a little less negative...) is not a problem at all. It's an important part of learning, the first step is to recognise that there is something you don't know. So it's a good thing. But when it comes to martial arts, as I said, more is not better. The idea is to take from others to enhance your art, rather than just tacking things on. Otherwise it just doesn't work. That, by the way, is how MMA developed, it is a taking of various skills to enhance a base skill set, not just "I'll learn Judo so I can throw, BJJ so I'm good on the ground, Boxing so I can throw punches, and Muay Thai so I can kick". That mix actually doesn't work, but adapting the knowledge from the various systems in a coherrant whole does.

I like to work and compare my Kenpo stuff to how others would attack. Does my Kenpo defense address this? If so, great, if not, I need to work on something else.

Absolutely. But if Kenpo is your primary art, you need to realise that no matter what else you study, it will basically all become Kenpo. And that is the way it remains powerful for you. Which is just damn cool.

 

[seasoned]

I do not agree that for something to be street effective it must include all kinds of fighting skills. Someone could be very very good at fighting with his hands for instance, and be able to defeat attackers who attempt to engage him no matter what their method or range.

If the person can get his tools to work in a chaotic situation, then it is street effective for him, even if he's got a small toolbox.

I think there can be a danger is having a tool box that is too big. Not enough time to practice everything to a level of competence, so everything ends up being mediocre.

Good points Michael. I have known of some very ruthless guy's that were very street wise. Knew nothing about Martial Arts, but every weekend went out looking for trouble. Street effective, is a two way street, with some of these guys, only working with a very good sucker punch, and a very large set of you know what. When I teach self defense I always make my people aware, of the "attack that comes without warning". I am also an advocate of a small tool box with a large dose of street wise awareness, that would include eyes in the back of your head. In conclusion, know your surroundings, be aware of the people around you, because you can offend someone, and not even know it until it is too late. Never draw too much attention to yourself. Just a few thoughts I am throwing out there. :asian:

 

[MJS]

For me, my feelings are that the words "street effective" are used so much, that they've just become a selling point, and not much more then that.

Yup, and this is the reason why I always say that any art has the potential...(that being the key word) to be effective, however, it all comes down to how each person trains.

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

as a fellow kenpo guy, I'll go back and quote Mr. Parker. I'll actually try and suppress my gag reflex, because I really hate it when people do this, but in this case I think it's appropriate.

How many people like to point out that Mr. Parker said something on the lines of, "I'd rather have ten good techs that I can really use, than 100 techs that I can't use"? People quote this all the time, I can't count the number of times I've seen this in the kenpo threads.

Sometimes having too many systems in the mix, too many partially understood arts thrown into a hodgepodge, is like having 100 techs that you can't use. You end up ignoring, or not giving enough training time to the 10 that you can use.

I'm saying this as someone who has also trained several different systems. Much of what I've trained I've also let go, because I came to the conclusion that it's not right for me. I still train a couple of systems, but I'm very careful about spreading myself too thin.

Good points Mike.

Now, seeing that we're both Kenpo guys, we both know that there're enough techniques in the Parker and Tracy system to last 20 lifetimes. So, while I agree with the saying, "I'd rather have 10 that I can do, rather than 100 that I can't" your 10, my 10, and everybody elses 10 will all be different. So, the result is learning the entire system, and picking what works for us.

IMO, I think that alot of times, when people talk about crosstraining, the first thing that comes to mind is the time...how can one find enough time in the day to train 10 arts. Well, I'm not like some people, who shall remain nameless, who have a laundry list of arts and ranks to match. There are a number of people out there, who train 1-2 things in addition to their base. As I said, and continue to say, for myself, I'm in no rush. I work 40hrs a week, sometimes more, depending on OT, work a 4pm-12am shift, so my class room time is limited to noon-time classes, privates and training on my own. I do my best to always give it 100% when I'm training. I know the entire Modern Arnis system, as required by the org. that I'm a part of. However, I'm still a student, and even with that, I have my favorite things to use, just like in Kenpo.

If I were to talk to a boxer about training, chances are, I probably would not join up for lessons. But, if there was 1 thing that I could take, drill the heck out of, and end up making my jab that much better, I'm gonna do it. Like I said about BJJ...I'm no master, I am not ranked, but, I know the basics, and for me, I'd rather have that, be effective with that, than be a fish out of water, should I end up on the ground. Can I tap the guy who I train with? Not a chance. Will I best Leo Gaje? Not a chance. But the average punk isn't on their level. I try to be the best that I can, and train for the worst case.

So, what is too much? 1, 2, 3, 10? Looking at some past threads I've started on mult arts, I'd asked that same question....how can someone train 8 different arts, and have 6th, 7th and 8th degrees? I'm not in it for the rank...never have, never will be. I just love to train. For the amount of time that I've been doing Arnis, one would think I'd be a higher rank than I am, but thats fine.

With the exception of BJJ, which getting back to class is part of my New Years plan, every Kenpo person that I train with, is ranked in Arnis, so I'm always training something.

There are a few other things I'd like to look into, but I dont kid myself. With my current training and work schedule, in addition to not wanting to neglect my wife, by running out to train on my nights off ...I stay content with what I do.

Sorry for the long rant. I hope that answered some of your questions. Have a great Holiday!

Mike

 

[MJS]

Hey Chris,

I'll comment on this.

This is something that I've gone around and around with my fellow Kenpoists. I say that there isnt much grappling/ground fighting ( yes there is a difference IMO) in Kenpo, while others say there is. But, there was a clip from a Kenpoist, who was showing a ground fighting/grappling move, using a Kenpo tech. The was a tech. designed to be used while standing, but he used it, to defend himself while he was mounted. However, IMO, the defense was flawed from the start, because the attacker wasn't giving his best attack, meaning, the mount basically sucked, which, IMO, allowed an easier defense.

"Yeah, there's a big difference between groundfighting (a particular range) and grappling (a particular physical skill set). I do a lot of striking on the ground, and a lot of grappling standing up!

The Kenpo ground technique you describe is not uncommon when someone tries to tack something on without understanding it. But they were half right... the idea is to gain enough understanding of the new requirements to be able to adapt your existing art. By just doing BJJ on the ground and Kenpo standing up denies the reality that ranges can and do change very quickly, often with no warning, and you just can't "switch" from one approach to another (mentally). So you attend BJJ classes in order to know hwo your Kenpo needs to adapt for the ground, you study Arnis to have a better understanding of the properties of weapons to ensure your weapon defence is not lacking. In the end, though, you will find that you are doing one art with knowledge gleaned from a variety of sources (and that is how cross training can really work)."

When I grapple, I like to mix it up, meaning, sometimes I'll just do the standard BJJ rolling, other times I'll throw in some strikes, just we my partner and I keep each other in check, and other times, in addition to the strikes, I like to throw in some of the 'dirty' tricks, just to see where I can fit them in. As for the clip I mentioned...that was posted somewhere online for discussion. Not wanting to start bashing it, I'll send you a PM. IMHO, I think the end result we should be reaching for, is to react without having to think. As far as switching mid-stream goes...I do that all the time. Many times, I'll start off with a Kenpo tech., and next thing I know, I'm finishing with Arnis. BJJ...well, due to being on the ground vs. standing, yes, thats a bit more difficult.



Now, while rolling, I've found places to insert some Kenpo stuff, but for me, I prefer to use grappling as my defense. Kenpo has takedown defense, defense against standing grappling attacks, ie: chokes and grabs, but as far as what to do on the ground....I'm not seeing it. Again, just my opinion, but it seems that sometimes people are afraid to look outside the box. Why I dont know. Afraid to admit something is flawed? Maybe I'm the one thats flawed. I look at it like this....if I want to learn to fly, I go to a school that'll teach me that, not one that teaches how to drive a car. I want to better my tennis game, I'll go to a tennis pro, not a golfer. I want to better my ground game, I'll go to BJJ, weapons...a weapon based art.

"The big difference between your flying instructor and tennis coach is that you are unlikely to suddenly need to avoid a tackle on a tennis court. They are restricted environments, and as such you have no issue focusing on a single speciality even if it contradicts existing skills you have.

Admitting something is "flawed" (I would personally use the term "lacking" here, a little less negative...) is not a problem at all. It's an important part of learning, the first step is to recognise that there is something you don't know. So it's a good thing. But when it comes to martial arts, as I said, more is not better. The idea is to take from others to enhance your art, rather than just tacking things on. Otherwise it just doesn't work. That, by the way, is how MMA developed, it is a taking of various skills to enhance a base skill set, not just "I'll learn Judo so I can throw, BJJ so I'm good on the ground, Boxing so I can throw punches, and Muay Thai so I can kick". That mix actually doesn't work, but adapting the knowledge from the various systems in a coherrant whole does."

Yes, lacking is the better word. I see what you're saying with your analogy. My point is, I'm not trying to take a Kenpo tech. that you do while standing, and attempt to do the same moves on the ground. Instead, if I'm mounted, I'll use one of the BJJ escapes. This is what I was trying to stress to the Kenpo people I was talking to...instead of trying and hoping that something works, why not do something that stands a better chance of working? I think you will see what I'm talking about, when you see that clip.


I like to work and compare my Kenpo stuff to how others would attack. Does my Kenpo defense address this? If so, great, if not, I need to work on something else.

"Absolutely. But if Kenpo is your primary art, you need to realise that no matter what else you study, it will basically all become Kenpo. And that is the way it remains powerful for you. Which is just damn cool"

It is cool. One of the things I like to do, is test, say, my Kenpo takedown defense, against how a wrestler or BJJ guy would shoot. Kenpo is my base, and I do try to stick with that, but...if something goes south suddenly, I have something else to fall back on. I give credit where credit is due, so if I do something Arnis, I dont say its Kenpo, I say its Arnis.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

Yeah, the use of other arts to test your own is one of the best uses for training in other arts. I've sent you my reply to your clip, feel free to copy and paste here if you think it'll add to the discussion.

 

[AriesKai]

This is something that I've gone around and around with my fellow Kenpoists. I say that there isnt much grappling/ground fighting ( yes there is a difference IMO) in Kenpo, while others say there is. But, there was a clip from a Kenpoist, who was showing a ground fighting/grappling move, using a Kenpo tech. The was a tech. designed to be used while standing, but he used it, to defend himself while he was mounted. However, IMO, the defense was flawed from the start, because the attacker wasn't giving his best attack, meaning, the mount basically sucked, which, IMO, allowed an easier defense.

Now, while rolling, I've found places to insert some Kenpo stuff, but for me, I prefer to use grappling as my defense. Kenpo has takedown defense, defense against standing grappling attacks, ie: chokes and grabs, but as far as what to do on the ground....I'm not seeing it. Again, just my opinion, but it seems that sometimes people are afraid to look outside the box. Why I dont know. Afraid to admit something is flawed? Maybe I'm the one thats flawed. I look at it like this....if I want to learn to fly, I go to a school that'll teach me that, not one that teaches how to drive a car. I want to better my tennis game, I'll go to a tennis pro, not a golfer. I want to better my ground game, I'll go to BJJ, weapons...a weapon based art.

I like to work and compare my Kenpo stuff to how others would attack. Does my Kenpo defense address this? If so, great, if not, I need to work on something else.

Agreed. Which is why I try to cross-train in many different systems.
If I want to work on my ground work, BJJ.
If I want to work on my takedowns, Judo.
If I want to work on my standup striking and defenses... this is where I am lost, but at the moment I use boxing/muaythai/karate, Jujitsu and some parts of Aikido.
If I want to work on my kick defenses, San Shou.
If I want to work on weapon defenses, FMA.

What I do is base these things off of my Jujitsu (what i'm used to) and work on it from there.

I don't try to train all of these at once, that's like overloading a circuit.

One thing that one of my instructors taught me is:

"You want to load your cup up with plenty of water, filling it up while keeping only the things that are good and are relevant; but the things that are falling out of the sides are the bad and are the irrelevant."

Bruce Lee is also one who believed in this concept.
This is what Jeet Kune Do is all about...
Perhaps Jeet Kune Do is what i'm looking for.

 

[Chris Parker]

To be honest, I don't see a lot of success in your mix. The basic ideas are just too far out of whack with each other, and it comes across as someone wanting to be a gourmet chef by knowing how to do fried rice, indian curry, and ice cream, and putting them all in a bowl together. Not particularly appealing. But to give a little more detail:

BJJ and Judo aren't too different, as BJJ is a direct off-shoot of Kodokan Judo, but what works for one, and what works for another is different. But combining those two is not so bad. You should realise that both are donimantly sport systems, and that will dictate a lot of their tactics and strategies. Even when taught as "street" systems, the competitive side will be a huge influence.

When we get to stand up, you really lose me. You have San Shou (although you only seem to rate it for kick defence?), and are still looking at Muay Thai, Karate, Boxing, and Aikido (?)? Now, I know Aikido has striking (atemi) within it, but for a striking system, I wouldn't look to it at all. As for the rest, seriously, too many cooks! The ideas from each are opposed, pick one. Stop the rest, it's just unconscious fear talking.

Your jujutsu system, is that a modern one or older? If it's older, it's probably got some pretty decent weapon defences in it already, all the FMA will do is to give you some experience in a different type of weapon. So what kind of weapon do you need defence against? If it's pistols and rifles (going back to your army ideal), then FMAs will not necessarily be the best idea, but your army training will be. If it's traditional weaponry, is it Filipino you are interested in? If so, then it is an academic interest, so there's no problem. But if it's for a skill set, for practical use, then you are really trying to do this in a rather ineffective way.

As to your instructors quote, well I would disagree. The idea of "filling" your cup, and only having the "bad" things seep out implies that you can consciously decide what is important and what isn't. And that is not the way your mind works. As for Bruce, well the way he cross trained is different to the way you have described. It is more based on developing a complete understanding of combat through a single medium (his Wing Chun, and later explorations of the concepts he learnt there), and then sought to gain an understanding of different mechanical approaches. He then brought that back to what he knew, and incorporated it into his established base. He didn't learn "this art for this range, and this art for this range", and that is constantly forgotten when people look to him to justify cross training.

 

[AriesKai]

Your jujutsu system, is that a modern one or older?

The one that I've earned my 1st Dan in, is the old, old, old traditional style.
I began training in Yokosuka, Japan under a very old Japanese native man.


Thank you for your input.


Read my last post, the one in the "Machida Karate??" thread.

 

[Chris Parker]

Going through it now... you really need to stop overly qualifying yourself to us, it make you seem as if you are all talk honestly. Which system? Just saying an old one doesn't help, but give me a name and I'll probably know exactly which one you are refering to, and a fair bit of it's characteristics.

 

[AriesKai]

Going through it now... you really need to stop overly qualifying yourself to us, it make you seem as if you are all talk honestly. Which system? Just saying an old one doesn't help, but give me a name and I'll probably know exactly which one you are refering to, and a fair bit of it's characteristics.

Overly qualifying? Now that's quite an accusation.

The style of "JUJITSU" that i've studied and practiced for over 16 years is "TRADITIONAL JAPANESE JUJITSU".
I began training with my father and trained nearly my whole life in it.
I feel that the traditional style, for me, is not enough!!!
Why?
The curriculum includes!!!:

Main focus on STAND-UP GRAPPLING techniques, such as bone/joint destruction techniques, stand-up defense against striking-to-using opponents leverage and momentum against them into a bone/joint destruction technique.
STAND-UP defensive techniques, counter-force, and counter-momentum techniques.

Some throws with joint manipulation.

Some takedowns/throws, much like the curriculum that's in JUDO.

Some of the ground work like in BJJ.

The stand-up striking offensive/defensive techniques that are in the style that I'VE studied are meant for opening up opportunity for attack.


That's it!!


Perhaps now you see why i'm so discouraged in sticking with this ONE style of martial arts that i've studied extensively for 16+ years?
VERY frustrating!!!!!!

 

[xfighter88]

I do not agree that for something to be street effective it must include all kinds of fighting skills. Someone could be very very good at fighting with his hands for instance, and be able to defeat attackers who attempt to engage him no matter what their method or range.

If the person can get his tools to work in a chaotic situation, then it is street effective for him, even if he's got a small toolbox.

I think there can be a danger is having a tool box that is too big. Not enough time to practice everything to a level of competence, so everything ends up being mediocre.

True that homie. "Don't fear the man who has practiced 10,000 techniques. Fear the man who has practiced 1 technique 10,000 times."
Learning lots of different martial arts is great. I practice Taekwondo, BJJ, and Muay Thai. That being said when situations have arison the it has been a jab, cross, roundouse everytime.
P.S. Please don't flame me for fighting. I used to be a bouncer and am currently in law enforcement. It's just part of the job.

 

[Chris Parker]

No, not an accusation, just an observation. And a friendly one at that.

Were you correcting my spelling there? After I corrected yours.... hmm.

This usually gets pretty intense, but for the record, there is no such thing as "jujitsu". It's a mistransliteration of the word "jujutsu". Unfortunately, "jujitsu" was a common-usage form from early in Western knowledge of the art, so it kinda stuck, but "jitsu" and "jutsu" are different words, with different kanji, and different meanings. "Jujitsu" does not exist, but "jujutsu" does.

Now, you've described a rather generic Japanese-style art, which is fine, but without a name I'm not sure what it is. But frustrating? Why? If you have trained it extensively for 16+ years, then you should have a degree of understanding of the system. And that should give you an idea of how the art will go against strikes, kicks, weapons, and more. The techniques themselves are just the first step. As an example, one of the arts that makes up the syllabus that I teach is called Togakure Ryu, and it features very little in the way of physical technique. In fact, there are no strike or kick defence! But by understanding the art, I can use it against striking and kicking attacks.

 

[geezer]

The style of "JUJITSU" that i've studied and practiced for over 16 years is "TRADITIONAL JAPANESE JUJITSU".
I began training with my father and trained nearly my whole life in it...
I feel that the traditional style, for me, is not enough!!!

Arieskai... Why didn't you just open by saying that you had trained traditional Japanese jujutsu, no particular ryu, with your dad since you were a little kid. To us old guys, that makes a lot more sense than a 21 year-old saying he has studied an unnamed style of "very old traditional Japanese jujitsu (sic)" from an anonymous master for 16 years. I mean think about how that sounds!

Now, understanding (at last) where you are coming from, I totally get why you are investigating so many other styles. Still, I've got to agree with Mr. Parker on this matter. Eventually, you will have to winnow down all these approaches to a leaner mix of things that will work well together for you. It really comes down to having a sound conceptual base for what you do. As Mr. Parker accurately observed, many good systems work very differently, even contradictorily. You can't just throw them all together and expect your body to make instantaneous transitions from one system to the next as the need arises.

It's kind of like trying to mix parts from different types of cars to create "the ultimate vehicle". It won't work. I mean think about it. Take the engine from a Mack truck for power, the suspension of a Porsche for agility, the body of a Ferrari, the seating of a minivan... Heck, the damn thing won't even run!

 

[jks9199]

[yt]t1-zzJnKtDg[/yt]

 

[Draven]

I've seen this term used a few times on this forum lately, so I thought I'd start a thread. Its been asked, as to whether or not certain arts are effective on the street. So, in your opinion, what makes something street effective?

Well I teach an art based on being street effective and I define a street effective art as having;
1. A base in reality dealing with real tactics first hand.
Thats more then MA techniques but understanding the tactics of criminals, criminal probing methods & dealing with psychological factors involved in street culture. There also needs to be a clear definition of the 3 type of violence; fighting, self-defense & streetfighting (or if you prefer social violence, criminal violence & combat).

2. Has to deal with all 4 ranges in fighting technques.
Weapons range, Striking Range, Infighting Range & Grappling Range as deal with the 5 most realistic weapons to the street culture; handguns, knives, chains & sticks, and their improvised forms.

3. Scenario Training:
Training that uses similuated real world conditions; tight confines such as elevator or spaces between cars, multiple attackers, street cloths, role playing the social interaction to the encounter, break contact and escape & evasion drills.

4. Must Deal with Psychological Factors:
Simple disciptions of human behavioral traits, telling actions & means to deter both criminal & social violence.

5. Must have some First Aid Training:
Yeah needs to have some means of dealing with & treating injuries.

6. Cannot Use Flaud & Out of Context "Cookie Cutter" Self-Defense Docturine:
One of the biggest issues I see with Street Effective claims is the use of cookie cutter ideologies; such as the Gray Man Concept or the color codes of awareness which are entirely out of context. Most of all cannot preach the "fight unfairly docturine" of SD theory; most criminals are a) trained or training to harm you in their own anti-social ways, b) are stacking the deck in their favor from the get go and c) are often highly skilled in the context of their criminal activity. The unskilled criminal is the biggest and most deadly myth in Self-Defense.

Thats just me...

 

[AriesKai]

The unskilled criminal is the biggest and most deadly myth in Self-Defense.

Agreed.

Never heard of a criminal that stole a car without the keys who didn't know how to boost the car in the first place.
Never heard of a criminal shooting someone that didn't know how to shoot at all.
Never heard of a criminal beating someone up (even/especially black belts) without knowing how to fight in the first place.
Never heard of a criminal who knew what he was doing that'd never done it before.

What I have heard of is:

A criminal beating up a black belt and/or a Martial Arts Master.
A criminal/bully beating up someone who trains at the local Dojo (no matter what style or mix of styles he/she studies).
A criminal stealing a car.
A criminal robbing someone's house with and without people (even Black Belts and Martial Arts Masters).
A criminal committing any other types of criminal offenses whether aggressive and/or non-aggressive in nature.

Very realistic concepts, Draven. I commend you.



I believe in Sun Tzu's concepts of "thinking like your opponent is one of the first steps in defeating him" and "killing your opponent/enemy with his own mind".
Check out: "Sun Tzu: Art of War"

This book may cover military tactics; but military tactics is relatively same as Law Enforcement tactics in the manner of "thinking like your opponent/enemy", and the enemy of these Law Enforcement agencies is, of course, the criminal!
Law Enforcement agencies battle crime every single day.
Logically, if I'm going to defeat a criminal, I'm going to try to think like him, seeing what's behind his eyes, in order to do it.
Thinking like a criminal includes understanding that he knows this world is full of those who only wish to oppose his ideas and/or thoughts; so he must reflect on this by training himself to defend against those defending against him, in all, making himself a better criminal.
Thinking that a criminal is limited to thinking any less than you is the first step to getting yourself killed.

A criminal is just like any one of us, and can have the same capabilities in thinking the same way, and training the same way as we do.
Will he fully go through with it? Perhaps. Perhaps not every time; but don't count on the fact that a criminal won't or can't.
Thinking that way is not helping you at all.




Remember: If I think like a criminal; I'm going to know that I must do everything that I can to accomplish my goals. Doing so includes thinking like you, understanding that you're going to train to defend against me, so I must do the same so that I may defend against you and become an even better criminal. It truly is a never-ending cycle.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I've seen this term used a few times on this forum lately, so I thought I'd start a thread. Its been asked, as to whether or not certain arts are effective on the street. So, in your opinion, what makes something street effective?

IMO, I view all arts as having the potential to be street effective. How each person trains them, will be the deciding factor. Things that are important:

Having the RBSD flavor to them.

Being well rounded, meaning kicking, punching, clinch work, grappling, weapons.

Scenario training.

Training with some realism and aliveness.

Just a few things that came to my mind, and I'm sure there're others.

I would add realistic weapons training, especially training in improvised and common weapons........training in a weapons form for the sword, or some kind of obsolete weapon, is fine in itself, but not that applicable for modern self-defense. Training with a stick, however, or a knife certainly is.