The Art or The Person

[FearlessFreep]

I feel like I'm asking "would you choose a red car or a blue car", and getting the answer: I like yellow motorcycles.

You are asking the question of whether one likes worms with strawberry sauce or chocolate sauce and the answer is "I don't like to eat worms" and you keep insisting "yeah, but which would you prefer?" It's a question that cannot really be answered because it is orthogonal to how most people in MA think about a potential opponent, whether on the street or in the ring.

There are some arts that lend themselves to certain kinds of fighting or certain kinds of sport, but even within a given art there is as many ways of training as there are reasons for the people to be in the art. Not all arts are created equal, but no art is to be trifled with on the face of it.

I'm going to fear a person far more if he's a nasty SOB with an attitude and a chip on his shoulder far more than I will just because I knew he practices BJJ or Taekwondo or Muy Thai or Karate or anything like that. As a matter of fact, I would *love* to know that he practices just BJJ or just Taekwondo because then I know what he's thinking better and I better know how to counter it.

 

[flashlock]

It would appear that the general consensus is that it is the person and not a particular art or style.



Actually the original question of this thread is "the art or the person" NOT "what style" quit trying to take the thread off topic with your personal obsession with BJJ. If you want the question of what style, start another thread.

There is no general consensus because most people have avoided the question. It doesn't matter if the individual is a more important factor--my question refers to the other factor: style/art. BJJ was not mentioned--as for obessesions, it's strange being yours...

 

[flashlock]

I feel like I'm asking "would you choose a red car or a blue car", and getting the answer: I like yellow motorcycles.

You are asking the question of whether one likes worms with strawberry sauce or chocolate sauce and the answer is "I don't like to eat worms" and you keep insistain "yeah, but which would you prefer" It's a question that cannot really be answered because it is orthogonal to how most people in MA think about a potential opponent, whether on the street or in the ring.

There are some arts that lend themselves to certain kinds of fighting or certain kinds of sport, but even within a given art there is as many ways of training as there are reasons for the people to be in the art. Not all arts are created equal, but no art is to be trifled with on the face of it.

I'm going to fear a person far more if he's a nasty SOB with an attitude and a chip on his shoulder far more than I will just because I knew he practices BJJ or Taekwondo or Muy Thai or Karate or anything like that. As a matter of fact, I would *love* to know that he practices just BJJ or just Taekwondo because then I know what he's thinking better and I better know how to counter it.

You guys win. I give up (I am sorry I couldn't communicate this question more articulately).

 

[Cryozombie]

IF you HAD to pick and MA... alas...

Ok, here ya go

1) Yagu Shinkage ryu.
2) Any JNF school.
3) Apache Knife fighting system.

See a pattern? Anything where my opponent has a big nasty blade. I'll take my chances against a BJJ guy, or a BBT guy, or a TKD guy, if I had reasonable belief that they were empty handed... but those schools above SPECIFICALLY teach one thing... Sharp, Pointy, Cutty things. No thanks.

 

[bydand]

I'm going to fear a person far more if he's a nasty SOB with an attitude and a chip on his shoulder far more than I will just because I knew he practices BJJ or Taekwondo or Muy Thai or Karate or anything like that. As a matter of fact, I would *love* to know that he practices just BJJ or just Taekwondo because then I know what he's thinking better and I better know how to counter it.

Emphasis is mine because it is exactly what I was thinking as well. Though straight Kickers, Strikers, or Grapplers tend to give away their personal fighting style with the way they move in general, it would be great to know for sure.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I am sorry I couldn't communicate this question more articulately

No, you articulated very well a question which was orthogonal to the original topic but also not one that most people thought warrented a direct answer.

 

[Jenna]

You guys win. I give up (I am sorry I couldn't communicate this question more articulately).

Hey Brad sorry I am new to this discussion.. I agree with FF above insofar as I do not think articulation gives you any difficulties you seem more than articulate and but I think maybe it appears that you are asking a leading question or series of leading questions in a kind of goal-oriented way (maybe you are a salesperson??) but I am just trying to point out that it might appear that you are less interested in engaging the other folk who have replied in discussion as you are in achieving your goal answer..

I hope you are not offended at my saying this.. All I meant in my earlier reply is that in a fight situation there is little time for evaluation of styles - especially as there is no feasible way that ANY art can protect its practitioner against every other art the practitioner may encounter - the best we can do is prepare ourselves within OUR OWN art.. I mean in what way might you see benefit to you me or anyone to have a sliding scale or top three list of which arts we most fear? If you explain how that would facilitate better training or give us a better chance in the mess of random factors in a real confrontation then that will be a help to us all.. we are all here to learn something I think.. well I am anyways

Brad I know you are asking a plain and simple question and but to me it seems as if you are taking Mikes original question to the dark eldritch ethereal and forbidden realms of art A vs art B Again I hope this does not come over as all stroppy or anything

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[flashlock]

Hey Brad sorry I am new to this discussion.. I agree with FF above insofar as I do not think articulation gives you any difficulties you seem more than articulate and but I think maybe it appears that you are asking a leading question or series of leading questions in a kind of goal-oriented way (maybe you are a salesperson??) but I am just trying to point out that it might appear that you are less interested in engaging the other folk who have replied in discussion as you are in achieving your goal answer..

I hope you are not offended at my saying this.. All I meant in my earlier reply is that in a fight situation there is little time for evaluation of styles - especially as there is no feasible way that ANY art can protect its practitioner against every other art the practitioner may encounter - the best we can do is prepare ourselves within OUR OWN art.. I mean in what way might you see benefit to you me or anyone to have a sliding scale or top three list of which arts we most fear? If you explain how that would facilitate better training or give us a better chance in the mess of random factors in a real confrontation then that will be a help to us all.. we are all here to learn something I think.. well I am anyways

Brad I know you are asking a plain and simple question and but to me it seems as if you are taking Mikes original question to the dark eldritch ethereal and forbidden realms of art A vs art B Again I hope this does not come over as all stroppy or anything

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

You are very wise, Jenna--and honest! Thank you. The question really does seem leading, doesn't it? It was and it wasn't. I honestly thought people would pick military-oriented styles (some did). My alterior motive was, of course, to bolster my own positions (use your imagination)--but I'm not completely Machiavellian--I sincerely was curious what people feared the most. People who had their own alterior motives played word games around my word games--good for them. I did put it out on the line though, and told people what I feared most and why. I would say my question isn't off topic, but it is on the fringe, and you have to take a big walk to get back to the main idea--so I started a new thread focusing just on this question--but again, no one wanted to play. Then people stated addressing the question here again, so here we are!

You don't have to post your fear here. I can only speak for myself. I hate being held down, restrained--I hate crowds and small spaces, drives me nuts. So, my choice is obvious. No, if someone lunges at me, I don't think, "Thank Christ, he's a TKD guy," no, I just react (or should).

I'm fascinated by fighting theories, and the evolution of the simple problem: "What is the best way for a smaller man to defeat a bigger man"? There are so many styles, people dedicate their whole lives to them--how important are they really? Honestly, for my dollar, the question has recently been solved, and it's very simple: You should fear the most adaptive fighter, i.e., a fighter who is comfortable in ALL RANGES of fighting: striking, clinch, grappling.

Finally, yes, I'm in sales--human sales! (A damn headhunter).

Ta,

 

[bydand]

Flashlock, have something to say, say it in a thread (shoot, start a new thread extolling the evils of Bydand for all I care), no need to send insulting PM's.

 

[MJS]

What if you eliminated the "outside variables"? For example, have a TKD fighter go against a Taijutsu fighter of the same age, sex, height, weight, and years of training? Then the only real factor would be the style. Randomness could be eliminated by having 25 such fights, then looking at the results. If the score is 50/50 (or within 5% points of that), then that proves style was not a factor; TKD and Bujinkan Taijutsu are, despite their vast differences, basically equal.

If you did that with all the major styles, all would have to have similiar results; then we could scientifically say that style is only a minor factor, all things being equal. A 20 year old, 5' 9", 175 pound male Muy Thai figher with 5 years of experience has a 50% chance of beating a 20 year old, 5' 9", 175 lb male fighter w/ 5 yrs of experience from ANY other art--BJJ, Aikdio, Tai Chi, Hopkido--doesn't matter, one happy rainbow!

You could have them fight on various terrains and in various weather conditions (even wheel out that big revolving disk with the spikes from the Flash Gordon movie).

Would all those styles be equal? With such vastly different techniques and training methods?

Can we all agree that the answer is... probably not (or even, for the less mushy, "Hell no!")?

So, between equally trained, equally built individuals, the only real factor IS style--your life could hinge on what style you picked... hope it's a good one!

With all due respect, once again, you're attempting to steer the thread to a different direction. Here is what I said in my OP.

I'm not talking about preset matches, where everyone is paired up with an equal, but in the real world, where things are not equal. What determines that outcome?

 

[MJS]

Thanks, Jenna:

I agree with everything you say. But if you HAD to answer the question, which style of MA would you least like to face, which style would you pick?

Ta,

Didn't you start another thread on this subject? As a member of this thread, I respectfully ask that you stop attempting to steer the thread away from the OP.

 

[MJS]

Seeing that flashlock can't seem to stay on topic, I'm posting this thread that he started to discuss what style you would not want to face.

Mike

 

[Carol]

SECOND MODERATOR WARNING


Attention All Users:

This is the second warning to stay on topic.

The topic of the thread is "The Art or The Person" .

Please return to the original topic of exploring the importance of a particular art vs. a particular practitioner, otherwise this thread may be locked.


Thank you!

- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I agree with you, Matt. And so do others; e.g., check out Shaderon's post #28 in this thread, the relevant quotable quote being



Does anyone remember a book that came out quite a few years ago titled Wiseguys? It was a kind of ethnographic study of organized crime's `foot soldiers', the muscle and shooters who keep the business humming. There's a passage in the book that struck me very forcibly when I first read it: the author talks about what it is that sets wiseguys apart from other people. He notes that they aren't necessarily tougher, or stronger, or more skilled at combat than other people by any means. What distinguishes them, he concludes, is that they have an abnormal capacity for violence. They have no inhibitions about using violence to get what they want, no consciences to speak of, no reservations. To them, the most brutal attack on another person you can imagine has the same emotional impact that switching a light switch on or off has for the rest of us. Those are the guys you have to worry about nasty encounters with...

Sociopaths basically.
The reason that these people are dangerous is not that related to any particular method of fighting or tool of their trade, but rather their complete lack of empathy for the target.

Personally, i figure the biggest threat isn't the murderer or the sociopath. Those are very dangerous, but they are also in their own way professionals, if you are too much hassle, they won't bother with you in the first place.
The desperate amateur is the one you have to look out for. Someone like a junkie, who's head is a screwed up mix of desperation and fear, is going to be like a rat backed into a corner. And when he pops he's going to do it insanely viciously.
So someone like that, with a glass bottle or even a rock, seeing me and thinking that Im all thats standing between him and his next fix, THAT is something I don't want to face.

 

[exile]

Sociopaths basically.
The reason that these people are dangerous is not that related to any particular method of fighting or tool of their trade, but rather their complete lack of empathy for the target.

Yup, exactly.

Personally, i figure the biggest threat isn't the murderer or the sociopath. Those are very dangerous, but they are also in their own way professionals, if you are too much hassle, they won't bother with you in the first place.
The desperate amateur is the one you have to look out for. Someone like a junkie, who's head is a screwed up mix of desperation and fear, is going to be like a rat backed into a corner. And when he pops he's going to do it insanely viciously.
So someone like that, with a glass bottle or even a rock, seeing me and thinking that Im all thats standing between him and his next fix, THAT is something I don't want to face.

The thing that the two have in common is that there is absolutely nothing in the moral sphere that can possibly dissuade them from hurting you. Because their actions have no ethical inhibitions or strings attached, they have no inner restraints that might keep them from total commitment to the most violent possible behavior.

The reason this is germane to the OP is that what makes these people particularly scary has nothing to do with their knowledge base in combat techniques, and everything to do with the fact that you have to think of them almost as belonging to another species, and a completely predatory one at that. There's no common ethical language. No MAist, whatever their style, who shares at least some major ethical ground rules with you is going to be half as dangerous as even an untrained attacker who belongs to this other `species', because while they will be completely uninhibited in their violence, you almost certainly will not be, even knowing your survival is at rist. It's roughly like fighting with one hand tied behind your back...

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Yup, exactly.



The thing that the two have in common is that there is absolutely nothing in the moral sphere that can possibly dissuade them from hurting you. Because their actions have no ethical inhibitions or strings attached, they have no inner restraints that might keep them from total commitment to the most violent possible behavior.

The reason this is germane to the OP is that what makes these people particularly scary has nothing to do with their knowledge base in combat techniques, and everything to do with the fact that you have to think of them almost as belonging to another species, and a completely predatory one at that. There's no common ethical language. No MAist, whatever their style, who shares at least some major ethical ground rules with you is going to be half as dangerous as even an untrained attacker who belongs to this other `species', because while they will be completely uninhibited in their violence, you almost certainly will not be, even knowing your survival is at rist. It's roughly like fighting with one hand tied behind your back...

You could possibly counter-act this by using factors like operant conditioning in your training, as a sort of way of bypassing your own moral restrictions towards violence/killing.
However there's two flaws with that

1. H2H is the single most difficult area to create that type of mental distance/insulation from the situation.
Hence why troops who've had to experience "wet work" often have a higher rate os psychiatric casualties.

2. Who in the hell would want to do that to themselves?

 

[KenpoTex]

1. H2H is the single most difficult area to create that type of mental distance/insulation from the situation.
Hence why troops who've had to experience "wet work" often have a higher rate os psychiatric casualties.

Stats for this? I'm curious.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Stats for this? I'm curious.

You're gonna have to gimme a bit of time on that one, been a while since I looked at it.

Edit- Doing some rooting but having trouble find the data again. Check out a book called on On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. It covers the subject in a fair bit of detail.

 

[exile]

Stats for this? I'm curious.

I think ShotgunBuddha is thinking of David Grossman's landmark book, On Killing, which includes a lot of data on the failure of infantrymen in combat situations to reliably fire their weapons with intent to kill, going back to WWII and looking at both Korea and Vietnam, as I recall. Grossman was an Army colonel who was responsible for psychological programming routines to desenstitize soldiers in very close quarters combat situations to the use of deadly force against individual enemy personnel. He supplies numbers to show that without such special desensitization, a majority of draftees will fail to kill enemy soldiers at close quarters enough times to compromise their own saftety and that of their units. It's available at Amazon and a lot of other places.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I think ShotgunBuddha is thinking of David Grossman's landmark book, On Killing, which includes a lot of data on the failure of infantrymen in combat situations to reliably fire their weapons with intent to kill, going back to WWII and looking at both Korea and Vietnam, as I recall. Grossman was an Army colonel who was responsible for psychological programming routines to desenstitize soldiers in very close quarters combat situations to the use of deadly force against individual enemy personnel. He supplies numbers to show that without such special desensitization, a majority of draftees will fail to kill enemy soldiers at close quarters enough times to compromise their own saftety and that of their units. It's available at Amazon and a lot of other places.

Woo! Go Team!
That was one of the sources I was using alright. Im trying to pick up On Combat as well, which I think he wrote with Loren W Christensen. Meant to be another great book.