Street Fighting vs Battlefield fighting vs Self Defense

[Bigshadow]

I often see people distinguish between Street Fighting, Battlefield Fighting, and Self Defense. I don't know if it is just the way I look at my training and I misunderstand others or not, so I thought I would make this thread so that people can draw their distinctions between them. I will start off with my opinions.

I always train as if my life and safety are on the line. My training is not a game, a tournament, a duel, or a competition. My training is centered around "oh **** this person is trying to hurt/mame/kill me". My life (may/does) depend on my training.

With this in mind, this is how I interpret these things.

Street Fighting = "Oh **** joe public is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Battlefield Fighting = "Oh **** jihad joe is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Self Defense = "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"

So in essense, all of these things mean one thing to me "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me", therefore, I must do whatever I need to do to survive. To me, there is no distinction. They are all life threatening situations.

Sure, the weapons, the terrain, the locations all may be different, but the essence of all of them are my life is on the line. So, if I train as if my life is on the line, I am then training for all of those conditions, no?

Well those are my thoughts about drawing distinctions between street fighting, battlefield fighting, and self defense.

 

[Rook]

I see "streetfighting" as simply an umbrella term that includes all fights outside a controlled envirnment like a dojo or ring.

I would include fighting on a battlefield, gang warfare, policework, bouncing, genuine self-defense in its many forms, and several others all under the umbrella of streetfighting.

Battlefield fighting, even in the unarmed variations, is one form which has its own requirement. Military combatives are different than most other unarmed systems in that they are must be taught in a short time to people who are already in good shape - the opposite of the situation of the average person, who is in poor shape and has more time to learn. The time restrictions make the systems simple and uncomplicated.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

You are right Dave in that they all have one thing in common. That is simply that someone or some group of people are trying to take you out.
One differance that I see is on the battlefield you are trying to kill/neutralize your opponents while in self defense or on the street you may (depending on the circumstances) be trying to just avoid or control your opponents rather than taking them out permenantly.

 

[Bigshadow]

Battlefield fighting, even in the unarmed variations, is one form which has its own requirement. Military combatives are different than most other unarmed systems in that they are must be taught in a short time to people who are already in good shape - the opposite of the situation of the average person, who is in poor shape and has more time to learn. The time restrictions make the systems simple and uncomplicated.

I think you are talking about learning/teaching it in boot camp. Please tell me how on the battlefield, it is different than being attacked on the street, with the exception of weapons. Being in good shape is only a minor influence in how well one can defend their life, it depends on how long the fight goes. Outside of that, how differently would a human soldier attack another human soldier than a human vs human on the street?

 

[Bigshadow]

One differance that I see is on the battlefield you are trying to kill/neutralize your opponents while in self defense or on the street you may (depending on the circumstances) be trying to just avoid or control your opponents rather than taking them out permenantly.

Excellent point! That is one of those small but important nuances of difference. Thanks!

 

[morph4me]

I think that the biggest difference between the three is measured in degree pf response. Battlefield fighting, to me, means trying to kill a trained enemy intent on doing the same thing to you.

Street fighting the guy may be trying to kill you or just put you out of commission for whatever reason, and may or may not require that you take it to the point of kill or be killed.

Self Defense requires a measured response to an immediate threat which ends when the threat does.

That being said, I believe that my main objective, in any of those scenarios would be to go home with as little damage as possible, as far as the other guy, what happens to him is irrelavent as long as I accomplish my objective.

 

[Monadnock]

I often see people distinguish between Street Fighting, Battlefield Fighting, and Self Defense. I don't know if it is just the way I look at my training and I misunderstand others or not, so I thought I would make this thread so that people can draw their distinctions between them. I will start off with my opinions.

I always train as if my life and safety are on the line. My training is not a game, a tournament, a duel, or a competition. My training is centered around "oh **** this person is trying to hurt/mame/kill me". My life (may/does) depend on my training.

With this in mind, this is how I interpret these things.

Street Fighting = "Oh **** joe public is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Battlefield Fighting = "Oh **** jihad joe is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Self Defense = "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"

I see it pretty much the same way. In any of the three mentioned above, the opponent will either a) injure or b) kill. I also would lump the self-defense together with the street-fighting. The difference to me is in the way you will be attacked, and with what. The mindsets of the average or above average street attack is different than that of the seasoned military combatant. I am of course referring to the modern day. How people apply training in old school arts to today will vary from school to school. A kick is a kick, but a sniper with a .50 cal with a range of > 1000 yds is unlike anything seen 400 years ago.

So in essense, all of these things mean one thing to me "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me", therefore, I must do whatever I need to do to survive. To me, there is no distinction. They are all life threatening situations.

Sure, the weapons, the terrain, the locations all may be different, but the essence of all of them are my life is on the line. So, if I train as if my life is on the line, I am then training for all of those conditions, no?

Not necessarily. Your essence of what you say you feel when faced with those 3 situations is the same, but your attitude in class is no guarantee for you being trained to handle any type of attack. Training for those 3 types of attacks with the proper attitude will more likely up your odds of "winning".

I think there are 3 types of schools.

1. The Martial Art School
In this school, you preserve traditional battlefield traditions. They may/may not help you in a self defense situation.

2. The Self Defense School
Focuses on common attacks found on the street. If actually tested before hand in the real world, they should up your odds a little in a confrontation.

3. The martial sport school
Has rules and limitations to make it an entertaining activity. Is limiting in the sense that the rule of "no rules" exists on the street.

Good discussion. I look forward to see where it goes...

Mike

 

[Bigshadow]

A kick is a kick, but a sniper with a .50 cal with a range of > 1000 yds is unlike anything seen 400 years ago.

That is understood. I wasn't implying that, when I say battlefield with respect to martial arts, I am talking close quarter, hand to hand, with or with out weapons stuff, not cannon fodder, sniper victims, etc.

Training for those 3 types of attacks with the proper attitude will more likely up your odds of "winning".

Yes, proper attitude and mindset is key.

 

[morph4me]

I always train as if my life and safety are on the line. My training is not a game, a tournament, a duel, or a competition. My training is centered around "oh **** this person is trying to hurt/mame/kill me". My life (may/does) depend on my training.

With this in mind, this is how I interpret these things.

Street Fighting = "Oh **** joe public is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Battlefield Fighting = "Oh **** jihad joe is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Self Defense = "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"

So in essense, all of these things mean one thing to me "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me", therefore, I must do whatever I need to do to survive. To me, there is no distinction. They are all life threatening situations.

Sure, the weapons, the terrain, the locations all may be different, but the essence of all of them are my life is on the line. So, if I train as if my life is on the line, I am then training for all of those conditions, no?

It is said that you don't rise to the level of the situation but you sink to the level of your training. I would say that, if you are training as if you're life is on the line, and if you are training to do whatever is necessary to survive, then you are training for all three situations.

 

[Bigshadow]

as far as the other guy, what happens to him is irrelavent as long as I accomplish my objective.

I like to say.... What happens to my attacker is directly proportionate to his will to continue his attack. Another words, it gets only as bad as he can handle. That is of course if I didn't get taken out.

 

[Cirdan]

My toughts on this:

Battlefield fighting: If two soldiers fight hand to hand, they are complete morons who have both dropped their rifles and left their unit.

Streetfighting: Isn`t this a video game?

Self defense: 99% brains, running and talking, 1% martial arts.

 

[Bigshadow]

My toughts on this:

Battlefield fighting: If two soldiers fight hand to hand, they are complete morons who have both dropped their rifles and left their unit.

Streetfighting: Isn`t this a video game?

Self defense: 99% brains, running and talking, 1% martial arts.

I guess running isn't an option on the battlefield.

 

[Cirdan]

I guess running isn't an option on the battlefield.

Only if commanded to do so :tank:

 

[Rook]

I think you are talking about learning/teaching it in boot camp. Please tell me how on the battlefield, it is different than being attacked on the street, with the exception of weapons. Being in good shape is only a minor influence in how well one can defend their life, it depends on how long the fight goes. Outside of that, how differently would a human soldier attack another human soldier than a human vs human on the street?

I had a longer post that was lost so this is going to be shorter.

1. Soldiers deal with opponents have weapons you are not likely to confront in the street. Grenades, machine guns, RPGs, airstrikes - you have to worry about these things ON TOP OF all the weapons like handguns and knives that normal people have to sometimes deal with. Soldiers on the battlefield are ALWAYS armed, and their opponents are ALWAYS armed.

2. Soldiers use a program designed around a man between 58 and 80 inches tall and within army fitness and obesity standards. Most people are not that fit; women have self defense needs too.

3. Soldiers are assumed to be fighting people roughly their own size. (This may no longer be true. I heard it from a relative who is no longer in the service.)

4. Soldiers are fighting someone who is invariably trying to kill them. There is no possibility of giving up the wallet or anything of the sort.

5. Soldiers are trying to kill the opponent, not trying to escape from him (civilians) or restrain him (police).

6. There is no excessive force restriction or legal issues of that nature to worry about.

7. The military has a very short time to impart the program and the soldiers must be able to maintain skill in it with little practice - not true of most people outside the military.

As an extension of 7, the system has to be standardized and can't adapt to the person very much.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I often see people distinguish between Street Fighting, Battlefield Fighting, and Self Defense. I don't know if it is just the way I look at my training and I misunderstand others or not, so I thought I would make this thread so that people can draw their distinctions between them. I will start off with my opinions.

I always train as if my life and safety are on the line. My training is not a game, a tournament, a duel, or a competition. My training is centered around "oh **** this person is trying to hurt/mame/kill me". My life (may/does) depend on my training.

With this in mind, this is how I interpret these things.

Street Fighting = "Oh **** joe public is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Battlefield Fighting = "Oh **** jihad joe is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Self Defense = "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"

So in essense, all of these things mean one thing to me "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me", therefore, I must do whatever I need to do to survive. To me, there is no distinction. They are all life threatening situations.

Sure, the weapons, the terrain, the locations all may be different, but the essence of all of them are my life is on the line. So, if I train as if my life is on the line, I am then training for all of those conditions, no?

Well those are my thoughts about drawing distinctions between street fighting, battlefield fighting, and self defense.

Way I'd break it down would go like this:

*Self Defense--any planned or random act of violence to which you did not agree.

*Street fighting--Any planned or random act of violence not properly able to be listed under sport competition or military engagement to which you DID agree and are thus culpable for logical consequences of so doing.

*Battlefield fighting--Any planned or random act of violence in which you engage while a member of a regular/irregular military force against another similarly armed/trained group, wherein you continue until you are killed/captured/retreating, your "objective" is achieved, or there are no "enemy" left to kill.

Frankly, if a soldier/Marine/what-have-you has lost his service rifle, lost his sidearm, lost *all* his knives, lost his e-tool, has no paracord or bootlaces to press into service as a garrotte, no tent stakes, no suitably sturdy flashlight, and otherwise has nothing to hit somebody with but his natural weapons and the ground, it would perhaps be the understatement of the millenium to say that our Poor Bastard is in Desperate Straits.

In the other two situations, one learns to fight in unarmed fashion because either it may not be possible/legally justified to begin the defense armed or able to draw whatever one's weapons of choice are, or you may on a temporary or permanent basis depending where you live, be in a situation where legal carry of weapons is not happening, and unarmed is all you have.


In Military engagements the single purpose of unarmed combat is to fight your way back to a weapon ASAP..

 

[Don Roley]

Andy says it pretty well, but I would like to throw in my own definitions.

Battlefield combat- you kill the other guy any way possible. That is your objective from the start.

Self defense- you use as much force as you need to get home alive and no more. Escape ("Run Away! Run Away! :redcaptur ) is a very, very good option. You expect to deal with the legal consequences afterward.

Street fighting- anyone saying that they are street fighters are preparing how to ambush people or be ambushed and how to escape the law afterwards.

And there is an additional catagory I feel.

Police- you can't run away from trouble like the self defense guys and you can't go in for the kill like the battlefield guys. You have to use the minimum amount of force you need to restrain and control the guy and take him to jail. But sometimes you get to do it as a team which the Battlefield and Self Defense folks do not and the street fighters can't do legally.

There was a peice by Marc MacYoung (an ex- thug by his own admision) that talks about what real "Street Fighters" are like. His description of what he used to be does not sound sexy at all. I know it was printed and I will look for a copy on-line.

Edit- here we go.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/streetrat.html

And here is a teaser from the page.

How to tell a real streetfighter
A lot of martial arts instructors claim to be street fighters. They brag about how their system is street effective and even "street proven". To listen to these people they make it sound as if they were real, hard-core street savages. And to give them credit, they may have been bouncers and even brawlers, still that's a totally different league than street fighters.

Simply stated: Most martial arts teachers who claim to have been street fighters don't have the stink.

There is a certain psychic odor that comes from growing up and living in the streets. It's a rot that comes from constant exposure to violence, death, alcoholism, drug addiction, sociopathic behavior, poverty, sadism and viciousness. It's reflected in a person's attitudes, speech patterns, personal interactions and how he looks at the world. It's a certain hardening of the spirit that comes from living years with the attitude of "do unto others before they do unto you." Add to that the chronic paranoia of having spent years looking over your shoulder, lest vengence-minded people you have wronged, slither out of that shadow you just passed.

When I say I was a street fighter, it means that I was a vicious, self-centered, misbehaving drunken, stoned thug among other vicious, self-centered, misbehaving drunken, stoned thugs. We were the worst kind of savages. Man to man, mano y mano was bull. Numbers and weapons were always used to increase our odds whenever possible. Once you realized the other side could and would shoot back, you did everything in your power to make sure he never got the chance. You always stacked the deck in your favor. You hit first, you hit hard enough to make sure he didn't get up. You ran as often as you hit, and you hit from behind as often as you could. Anyone who didn't play that way didn't last too long. The blood, the bullets and the knives were real. In the streets, life and death were determined by whims, pride, intoxicants and sheer stupidity.

Being or having been a street fighter is nothing to be proud of, much less brag about. Nor is it something that you turn on and off. It's not a job that you go to and come home from. It's a way of life (and often death), and it's constant. It's living with being the hunter and the hunted every day and night. Knowing that the next corner you turn could end your life you don't swagger boldly around it, you check first before cautiously turning that corner.

The huffing and puffing about what a bad *** you are you keep for the safety of being around civilians and your homies...people who won't make you walk your talk.

There is more stuff like this if you click on the link.

 

[Fu_Bag]

This is a really good thread! Lots of great posts here.

The site that Don pointed out is excellent and, if you aren't already familiar with it, it definitely wouldn't hurt to become so. I can't say enough good things for that site as I've used much of the information that Mr. MacYoung has graciously shared to help keep my family safe and alive and me out of trouble. He's doing a great service to a lot of people and I hope he keeps the site running for a long time to come.

The only thing I'd add is that there is some occasional profanity on the site so, if that kind of thing upsets you, just read past it and don't let a few strongly worded sentences keep you from learning some really good stuff. I'm looking forward to when I can add his books to my collection!

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Lots of good things said here. One think I'd like to add is the fact that in a street fight or a battleground situation, you are expecting "action" whereas in a self defense situation, it is more of a surprise.

Jeff

 

[Bigshadow]

Lots of good stuff here! Thanks everyone!

 

[Hand Sword]

I often see people distinguish between Street Fighting, Battlefield Fighting, and Self Defense. I don't know if it is just the way I look at my training and I misunderstand others or not, so I thought I would make this thread so that people can draw their distinctions between them. I will start off with my opinions.

I always train as if my life and safety are on the line. My training is not a game, a tournament, a duel, or a competition. My training is centered around "oh **** this person is trying to hurt/mame/kill me". My life (may/does) depend on my training.

With this in mind, this is how I interpret these things.

Street Fighting = "Oh **** joe public is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Battlefield Fighting = "Oh **** jihad joe is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"
Self Defense = "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me"

So in essense, all of these things mean one thing to me "Oh **** someone is trying to hurt/mame/kill me", therefore, I must do whatever I need to do to survive. To me, there is no distinction. They are all life threatening situations.

Sure, the weapons, the terrain, the locations all may be different, but the essence of all of them are my life is on the line. So, if I train as if my life is on the line, I am then training for all of those conditions, no?

Well those are my thoughts about drawing distinctions between street fighting, battlefield fighting, and self defense.

Sounds Good to me.