The rule sets of combat

[hoshin1600]

This is a repost from my blog. i am curious on peoples thoughts.

The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I quite like it. Every training system assumes some rules (even those that purport not to). In some cases, the "rules" are simply universal assumptions about what is/is not likely to happen. Whether those assumptions are realistic or not in a given context plays a huge role in whether the training is relevant to that context.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I would say there are rules in street fights and its culturally based. Pending where you live, people will jump in to stop you pending what you do.

Boxing is still kind of hanging on with its stand up and trade punches to settle disputes which has a lot of influence in some places and what they perceive as a fight. Definitely have seen some people with the view thats how it should be settled and no groin strikes etc.

People also generally step in to try and stop you killing someone if it goes to that extent sometimes. (be that with a bat to the back of the head or pulling you away from them)

Kind of like how you would settle a legal dispute via a duel with the prescribed requirements and conditions when dueling was allowed.

Probably off topic but people forget cultural acceptance does determine if anyone will jump in and when and in some places the police wont ump in if you both agree to fight.

 

[skribs]

This is a repost from my blog. i am curious on peoples thoughts.

The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

There's a video I watched a while back by Jesse Enkamp (the "Karate Nerd" as he calls himself):

I really like the way he puts it. Now, the analogy starts to break apart a little bit if you compare all of the different styles of fighting. But let's take a boxer, a Taekwondoist, a BJJ fighter, a wrestler, and an MMA fighter.

As beginners, they're all learning the basics of their style. The boxer is doing 4 punches over and over and over. The Taekwondoist is starting with forms, but primarily will focus on 4 basic kicks over and over. I don't know what a BJJ fighter would be learning as a white belt, and it's been too long since I did wrestling to remember what the first few classes cover, but I'm sure they would be learning the basic foundations of their art as well. I'll guess as well for the MMA guy, that he's going to be learning some basic strikes and/or throws, depending on which class he shows up to.

As intermediate fighters, whatever it is they are stereotypical for, they will at least look like they know what they are doing. Going down the list in order, they'll have decent punches and combinations, decent kicks and footwork, a few decent locks and chokes, a few decent throws and pins, or a little bit of everything. They're starting to put the pieces together of what they've learned.

As advanced fighters, they are capable within the scope of their own competitions. The boxer will know how to throw combinations and defend against punches. The Taekwondoist how to read kicks and set up the headshot. The BJJ guy will know how to outmaneuver his opponent on the ground, and the wrestler will know how to control his opponent. The MMA guy will have figured out his strengths and weaknesses, and know where he wants the fight to take place, and have some strategies to keep it there.

Now it is at this point that most people compare the arts. "BJJ is the best because all fights go to the ground." "MMA is the best because it can deal with every situation." "Taekwondo has the best kicks, but that's all they know how to do." Well, at this stage, you are advanced in your areas of focus, but at best intermediate at the other areas you might find yourself in.

As expert fighters, now they are so competent in what they do, that they can make sure the fight goes that way. The boxer and the Taekwondoist can use their footwork and timing to keep a grappler from even getting close. The wrestler or BJJ will know how to slip through those strikes in order to take the other person down. And the MMA guy has simply fought enough people that he'll know what to do in almost any situation.

So where The Karate Nerd has a mountain that everyone is climbing, where everyone will learn all of the techniques, I don't think that's quite the case. However, whatever your chosen fighting style is, the better at it you are, the more you can control the fight. If you're a boxer, and you know how to close in on a kicker, or you can react quick enough to a grappler, you're going to win. If you're a kicker, and you know how to dance, you're going to keep people at range. If you're a grappler, and you know how to close on a striker, it doesn't matter if you know how to strike or not.

But it takes pushing beyond the phase of simply being good enough in your arena, to being good enough at what you do to survive in any arena.

 

[hoshin1600]

asking "what is the best karate style" is similar to what i was saying but i think it is falling into the very trap i was proposing. there is objective and subjective reality. objective being what is the actual truth and subjective being how we as individuals perceive that reality. we can not see reality directly. its to complex. we can only perceive and understand small pieces of the reality that we have direct experience with. outside of our experience it becomes fuzzy and out of focus and the father away it is the lower the resolution of our understanding. when there are missing pieces in our perception the brain will fill in the blanks.
Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?

in order to begin to separate objective from subjective in martial arts we have to first acknowledge and understand our own narrative and step outside of it.

As expert fighters, now they are so competent in what they do, that they can make sure the fight goes that way.

However, whatever your chosen fighting style is, the better at it you are, the more you can control the fight. If you're a boxer, and you know how to close in on a kicker, or you can react quick enough to a grappler, you're going to win. If you're a kicker, and you know how to dance, you're going to keep people at range. If you're a grappler, and you know how to close on a striker, it doesn't matter if you know how to strike or not.

This is a fallacy. it only applies to a small set of realities. In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.

try this experiment. next time your instructor teaches you a technique, ask him how this is going to work against a mass shooter with a semi auto rifle. yeah of course he is going to look at you like "stop being a douche, and just do the technique". some will say its a stupid question because you cant stop bullets. but for yourself, dont let it go so easy. the reason the question makes people uneasy is because it is a different reality. it is worth the effort to think this though and run the scenario out in your mind on what would have to happen for some of your skill set to actually become applicable. what parts would be applicable? how would they have to change? what skills would you have to learn to get what you already know to work?
if you run through this process with many different realities you will start to find pieces of skill sets that work across the most scenarios.

 

[skribs]

asking "what is the best karate style" is similar to what i was saying but i think it is falling into the very trap i was proposing.

Based on this reaction, you didn't watch the video. You just read the title. If you did watch the video, then you missed the message.

This is a fallacy. it only applies to a small set of realities. In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.

In many instances of self defense, the attacker either wants a fight or wants something from you. The time building up to the fight, or the time in which he gives you to give your wallet, is the time in which you can fight back.

If you are aware of your surroundings and are at least on yellow alert, then you should notice the danger before it grabs or punches you.

try this experiment. next time your instructor teaches you a technique, ask him how this is going to work against a mass shooter with a semi auto rifle.

It is a stupid question. It's not a stupid question because "you can't stop bullets". The simple answer is to carry your own gun, and meet force with force. Also, if this is something you fear, to avoid gun-free-zones, since they prevent you from having the tools to fight back.

However, it is a stupid question, because then it takes all other practical discussion off the window. It reminds me of a kid who was getting ready for his 1st degree black belt test, and had the opportunity to practice his stuff, but instead of asking me questions like "can you check my form to make sure I'm doing it right", he was asking questions like "when you're a 7th degree black belt, what do you do on your test." Instead of focusing on his test, he was looking at a different question, and he ended up not doing well on his test.

The same thing applies here. Your article, the video I linked, and the discussion I provided, is centered around the idea that just because a martial art is different, does not mean it is wrong. So we can discuss the pros and cons of martial arts, and see how martial artists can use their strengths to their advantage and prevent their weaknesses from coming into play.

As soon as you bring a semi-auto rifle into the discussion, you've just killed the discussion. It's like arguing over which is the best battle bot, and then saying "but Optimus Prime could destroy them all." It's like arguing over who would win in a race between my middle-school kid and your middle-school kid, and then saying "but Usain Bolt is faster." It's similar to the idea behind Godwin's law, in that at some point in any discussion on the Internet someone will make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, at which point the discussion ends.

It's a viable scenario to bring up, but it's not a valid question when you're weighing the pros and cons of an art and trying to figure out "if I'm a wrestler, what do I do when someone throws a punch?"

 

[jobo]

asking "what is the best karate style" is similar to what i was saying but i think it is falling into the very trap i was proposing. there is objective and subjective reality. objective being what is the actual truth and subjective being how we as individuals perceive that reality. we can not see reality directly. its to complex. we can only perceive and understand small pieces of the reality that we have direct experience with. outside of our experience it becomes fuzzy and out of focus and the father away it is the lower the resolution of our understanding. when there are missing pieces in our perception the brain will fill in the blanks.
Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?

in order to begin to separate objective from subjective in martial arts we have to first acknowledge and understand our own narrative and step outside of it.


This is a fallacy. it only applies to a small set of realities. In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.

try this experiment. next time your instructor teaches you a technique, ask him how this is going to work against a mass shooter with a semi auto rifle. yeah of course he is going to look at you like "stop being a douche, and just do the technique". some will say its a stupid question because you cant stop bullets. but for yourself, dont let it go so easy. the reason the question makes people uneasy is because it is a different reality. it is worth the effort to think this though and run the scenario out in your mind on what would have to happen for some of your skill set to actually become applicable. what parts would be applicable? how would they have to change? what skills would you have to learn to get what you already know to work?
if you run through this process with many different realities you will start to find pieces of skill sets that work across the most scenarios.

you have a point, but you've taken it far to far the other way, to the point of paranoia, there are millions of increasingly unlikely scenarios for which your ma training won't help you,at all, and even for mundane sets of circumstancsets were it is of very limited use directly , .,

but, situational awareness, works just as well for idiot drivers as it does for physical attack, fast reaction and good co irdination pay off in all sorts ofsituations, even if you only drop an egg andcatch it before it hits the floor, or even better your ice cream,physical fitness is always a plus to have when something happens, have to climb a tree to escape a rabid pit bull perhaps and even if the worse happens being physical strong will help you resist damage and recover sooner. there are lots and lots of indirect benifits, which just may make difference

 

[hoshin1600]

Your article, the video I linked, and the discussion I provided, is centered around the idea that just because a martial art is different, does not mean it is wrong. So we can discuss the pros and cons of martial arts, and see how martial artists can use their strengths to their advantage and prevent their weaknesses from coming into play.

that is not exactly what i wrote about. my post was more about the philosophical nature of reality and how that causes issues in our perceptions and in specific the martial arts.

Based on this reaction, you didn't watch the video. You just read the title. If you did watch the video, then you missed the message.

ive watched the video, seen it before too, i also dont disagree with it. but that was not the line of thought i was having. so i would say that you missed the point of my post, not the other way around.

In many instances of self defense, the attacker either wants a fight or wants something from you. The time building up to the fight, or the time in which he gives you to give your wallet, is the time in which you can fight back.

this is the central theme of my thoughts. #1 that every person has a narrative of what a "fight" looks like and how it will happen. #2 that the narrative will change the way the person trains and what they train. so i would ask how many times have you had an assailant fight you for your wallet? once , twice? how many times exactly? my guess is that it has happened Zero times to you... so how can you say what that will look like? you imagined it,, you can see it,, play it out in your minds eye. how did you create that image and why does it look the way it does in your mind, if you do not have any real life experience with it? people need to be honest, did they imagine it happening in a particular way because their instructor (who also has no experience) said so?
this is the central theme of my post.

As soon as you bring a semi-auto rifle into the discussion, you've just killed the discussion

why?
so your saying the military shouldnt train in martial arts, or that their training is useless?

The simple answer is to carry your own gun, and meet force with force.

so then why not just carry the gun everywhere and skip all the martial art training?

It's like arguing over which is the best battle bot, and then saying "but Optimus Prime could destroy them all." It's like arguing over who would win in a race between my middle-school kid and your middle-school kid, and then saying "but Usain Bolt is faster."

what i asked was for people to do an exercise. with a mental thought process. its not the who would win argument, its a how you use your thought process experiement.

 

[drop bear]

You essentially are using rules in the same way I use the term order of priorities.

The part I disagree with is the idea that fighting rules are not interchangeable.

So a monkey dance has a different dynamic to a predatory attack.

Or does it?
Let's look at this example.

 

[hoshin1600]

You essentially are using rules in the same way I use the term order of priorities.

The part I disagree with is the idea that fighting rules are not interchangeable.

So a monkey dance has a different dynamic to a predatory attack.

Or does it?
Let's look at this example.

i do not want to assume what you mean when you mention rules being interchangeable. but i think many rules are universal and its possible some will change as the encounter changes.

i also know that the bear was interviewed after and he said he was "just playing around"

 

[Buka]

In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.

Very important point. Goes over the head of a lot neophytes.

 

[skribs]

@hoshin1600 I would like to change my stance on your article. At first, I agreed with it. Mainly because I read and understood the first couple paragraphs and kind of skimmed through the rest. Upon re-reading it more closely, especially the later paragraphs, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I just don't know what point you're trying to make or what conclusion you're trying to draw, or what purpose the article serves to those reading it. It reads like you trying to sort things out in your head, in a way that makes sense to you, maybe in response to conversations you've been a part of that I haven't.

This is why I based my initial understanding of your article on your first paragraph, and assumed you were talking about the toxic nature of martial arts and the "mine is the best, yours sucks because you don't do everything exactly like we do" mentality. That's a mentality I see sometimes on here, but quite a bit more often on other sites like Reddit and YouTube. It is a very real problem in the online martial arts community.

Instead, you seem to be making some passive-aggressive meta-discussion aimed at people who have made specific claims in the past.

 

[hoshin1600]

I just don't know what point you're trying to make or what conclusion you're trying to draw, or what purpose the article serves to those reading it. It reads like you trying to sort things out in your head,

this is feed back i can use. thank you. in a way your correct, i am sorting things out in my head in so much as the post is a first draft. anything close to coherent writing needs a second and third draft. and if this was anything more than a short post on the internet i would do that.
i will admit it is a very short post trying to condense a lot of information. maybe more then can be expressed and digested in the length of a paragraph or two. perhaps i would do better with a long form rather then a blog post.

I read and understood the first couple paragraphs and kind of skimmed through the rest.

yes this was a mistake because the first paragraph is only a set up or segway into the deeper thoughts that is the main concept.
if people dont understand or think it makes no sense then as the writer i need to know that.

 

[Buka]

I don't know, Hoshin, I think I understand it. I'm actually still thinking about it. I've read it several times.

Same thing goes for a lot of recent posts. Hell, I'm still making notes on the liver video that was recently posted - which was pretty friken' awesome.

Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake.

 

[Danny T]

With good training...what you are training for will dictate how you train and what the emphasis of your training will be.

 

[isshinryuronin]

There's a video I watched a while back by Jesse Enkamp (the "Karate Nerd" as he calls himself):

I really like the way he puts it. Now, the analogy starts to break apart a little bit if you compare all of the different styles of fighting. But let's take a boxer, a Taekwondoist, a BJJ fighter, a wrestler, and an MMA fighter.

As beginners, they're all learning the basics of their style. The boxer is doing 4 punches over and over and over. The Taekwondoist is starting with forms, but primarily will focus on 4 basic kicks over and over. I don't know what a BJJ fighter would be learning as a white belt, and it's been too long since I did wrestling to remember what the first few classes cover, but I'm sure they would be learning the basic foundations of their art as well. I'll guess as well for the MMA guy, that he's going to be learning some basic strikes and/or throws, depending on which class he shows up to.

As intermediate fighters, whatever it is they are stereotypical for, they will at least look like they know what they are doing. Going down the list in order, they'll have decent punches and combinations, decent kicks and footwork, a few decent locks and chokes, a few decent throws and pins, or a little bit of everything. They're starting to put the pieces together of what they've learned.

As advanced fighters, they are capable within the scope of their own competitions. The boxer will know how to throw combinations and defend against punches. The Taekwondoist how to read kicks and set up the headshot. The BJJ guy will know how to outmaneuver his opponent on the ground, and the wrestler will know how to control his opponent. The MMA guy will have figured out his strengths and weaknesses, and know where he wants the fight to take place, and have some strategies to keep it there.

Now it is at this point that most people compare the arts. "BJJ is the best because all fights go to the ground." "MMA is the best because it can deal with every situation." "Taekwondo has the best kicks, but that's all they know how to do." Well, at this stage, you are advanced in your areas of focus, but at best intermediate at the other areas you might find yourself in.

As expert fighters, now they are so competent in what they do, that they can make sure the fight goes that way. The boxer and the Taekwondoist can use their footwork and timing to keep a grappler from even getting close. The wrestler or BJJ will know how to slip through those strikes in order to take the other person down. And the MMA guy has simply fought enough people that he'll know what to do in almost any situation.

So where The Karate Nerd has a mountain that everyone is climbing, where everyone will learn all of the techniques, I don't think that's quite the case. However, whatever your chosen fighting style is, the better at it you are, the more you can control the fight. If you're a boxer, and you know how to close in on a kicker, or you can react quick enough to a grappler, you're going to win. If you're a kicker, and you know how to dance, you're going to keep people at range. If you're a grappler, and you know how to close on a striker, it doesn't matter if you know how to strike or not.

But it takes pushing beyond the phase of simply being good enough in your arena, to being good enough at what you do to survive in any arena.

I enjoyed the video of Jesse! Thanks for posting it. I thought the various paths to the mtn. top converging at the summit was a great metaphor. While the analogy breaks down as you say when you consider boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. keep in mind that they are not karate. They should be considered different mountains with their own set of paths.

I think Jesse's analogy holds true in regards to the karate mtn. The paths do converge at the top for the reasons Jesse stated - and not just the physical elements, but the different karate styles pretty much share the same mental and spiritual elements as well. Not surprising since most all karate styles share the same great-great-grandparents. You can see group photos of the Okinawan masters all together. At the summit, which is where these guys were at, they recognized the commonality of the art they shared.

 

[hoshin1600]

While the analogy breaks down as you say when you consider boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. keep in mind that they are not karate. They should be considered different mountains with their own set of paths.

Let me ask a question. Why does it brake down? If the end use is to be self defense, shouldn't they all be moving to the same goal? One could argue that many people take martial arts for other reasons but that is the individual not the style. The style is still a MA not interpretive dance. the path should still get you to a point of self defense competency even if you have no intention of using it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Let me ask a question. Why does it brake down? If the end use is to be self defense, shouldn't they all be moving to the same goal? One could argue that many people take martial arts for other reasons but that is the individual not the style. The style is still a MA not interpretive dance. the path should still get you to a point of self defense competency even if you have no intention of using it.

They're not all moving towards the same goal. Generally speaking, training in wrestling or boxing isn't intended to do anything other than teach you to win a competitive event under a very specific rule set.

 

[drop bear]

They're not all moving towards the same goal. Generally speaking, training in wrestling or boxing isn't intended to do anything other than teach you to win a competitive event under a very specific rule set.

Sport was how people traditionally trained for self defense, for war and to build warrior ethos. (And other human qualitys.)

Boxing and wrestling are the two oldest martial arts in existence.

Training in boxing or wrestling is intended to teach you the building blocks of fighting.

 

[drop bear]

i do not want to assume what you mean when you mention rules being interchangeable. but i think many rules are universal and its possible some will change as the encounter changes.

i also know that the bear was interviewed after and he said he was "just playing around"

In that instance with the bear. The guy used the rules of primate dominance to deter a predatory attack. And an actual predatory attack.

The separations are not always along the lines people think.