We don't throw straight rights in street fights.

[Dirty Dog]

I never meant that de-escalation efforts should not be undertaken, or cannot be successful. Most karate masters adhere to the concept of using force only as a last resort. But if an aggressor cannot be persuaded to de-escalate and is just wanting to punch somebody - he most likely will not be dissuaded by one's stance. (although there is the old story of the tea master who faced down a Samurai swordsman.) I have not been in hundreds of confrontations, but from the few I've been in or witnessed, most have involved pig-headed aggressors who really wanted to fight.

Your stance can absolutely make a difference. If I'm being confronted, and I drop into an aggressive stance and bring up my fists, do you think that helps or hinders my efforts at deescalation?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The following are the proper steps for de-escalation:

- Look down on the ground and avoid eyes contact.
- Drop your hands next to your knees.
- Shake your body like a fish.
- Pee in your pants if you can.
- Scream like a 5 years girl.
- You then suddenly jump in and eat your opponent alive.

Sun Tzu, "Pretend to be weak, so your enemy may grow arrogant."

 

[JowGaWolf]

If I'm being confronted, and I drop into an aggressive stance and bring up my fists, do you think that helps or hinders my efforts at deescalation?

So lets look at this from a different perspective. An aggressive guy gets into a fighting stance, you put your hands up in order to de-escalate. You say that you don't want to fight. The only reason you did this is because the other guy got into a fighting stance.

If a person thinks you are most likely to back down, then "knuckling up" and appearing dangerous is the fastest way to end the conflict and come out no top. It's a risk but all conflicts are. Everything is not so one sided. If someone got into a fighting stance with you but didn't advance, would you attack first, back off by creating distance, or walk away?


And before I get blasted with post. This isn't how I operate. My whole thing is about creating uncertainty when I'm in a conflict. I don't want my aggressor to really have a clear idea of what I may do unless he backs off. If he's uncertain about his own safety then that's an advantage to me. If he sees a way out to end the conflict without physically fighting then I want him to take it.

When I was in my 20's I worked at a video store. The customer became very aggressive and asked if I wanted to physically fight him. He was ready to fight and had clinched fist as he hit the counter. I backed away (creating distance), got the manager (created more distance) and waited outside the building until the customer was finished with his purchase. Perfect example of how "knuckling" up not only de-escalated the conflict, but it totally forced me to remove myself. Could I have beaten the man, Sure. But at that point I had more to lose than just a fight. He knew that and took advantage of it.

When the guy came outside after his purchase he avoided me. He didn't approach me, because no he understood the rules were different. He didn't say one word to me or even look at me. He got in his car and drove away. At that point for him to approach me would mean he would have more to lose. Because he would physically had to come to me.

There's always two sides to a conflict. If one person is de-escalating then it's usually because the other is escalating and the person that is trying to de-escalate and stop the fight is reacting to what the aggressor is doing. Does it always play out like this. Of course not. But like I said, every conflict is a risk

 

[dvcochran]

Learning to never watch the eyes or feet was something we learned in wrestling. You see the core body move when looking at about the breast line or just a tad lower, allowing for a quicker response to their movement. This allows for very good peripheral vision from head to foot as well. I have used this throughout my MA's, whether in class or the ring. It works well for me and even have been know to use a few 'tweaks' to distract the opponent.

When I was LEO, I had to learn that doing this really pissed off some people. It could be the only 'action' I was doing but was often perceived as being aggressive or escalation. You had to learn how to read people. Some get pissed when/if/how you look them in the eyes, some get pissed if you do not look them in the eyes. There is no 'one size fits all' wrenches for confrontation

 

[dvcochran]

So lets look at this from a different perspective. An aggressive guy gets into a fighting stance, you put your hands up in order to de-escalate. You say that you don't want to fight. The only reason you did this is because the other guy got into a fighting stance.

If a person thinks you are most likely to back down, then "knuckling up" and appearing dangerous is the fastest way to end the conflict and come out no top. It's a risk but all conflicts are. Everything is not so one sided. If someone got into a fighting stance with you but didn't advance, would you attack first, back off by creating distance, or walk away?

This is a great thread, but we are back to the vastness of variables making it very difficult to answer.
If they get in a stance and do not advance nor do they say anything, that could mean they desire a stalemate where they can walk away and not feel like the gave in.
If they get in stance and start spouting their creditiontials, skill in reading peoples psychologic state (SA) is important.
Stance or no stance SA is extremely important. This whole "what if" line of thinking is very good to do but it is very heard to talk about or let alone, practice.
If it is a one on one scenario, REGARDLESS of the what if's to the altercation, I am making distance at first.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is a great thread, but we are back to the vastness of variables making it very difficult to answer.
If they get in a stance and do not advance nor do they say anything, that could mean they desire a stalemate where they can walk away and not feel like the gave in.
If they get in stance and start spouting their creditiontials, skill in reading peoples psychologic state (SA) is important.
Stance or no stance SA is extremely important. This whole "what if" line of thinking is very good to do but it is very heard to talk about or let alone, practice.
If it is a one on one scenario, REGARDLESS of the what if's to the altercation, I am making distance at first.

Exactly.. lots of variables and each situation is different because people are different. The only thing I know of sure, is that if I create distance at first, then I know that the other person has to close the distance in order to reach me. But even then back to the variables. Once that distance is created, there are many ways to maintain that distance.

But I like what you stated. It's good to be able to read people. Out of all of that. I think that's critical. I'm not sure if that's something that can be taught or if that's something that one must practice.

 

[skribs]

So lets look at this from a different perspective. An aggressive guy gets into a fighting stance, you put your hands up in order to de-escalate. You say that you don't want to fight. The only reason you did this is because the other guy got into a fighting stance.

If a person thinks you are most likely to back down, then "knuckling up" and appearing dangerous is the fastest way to end the conflict and come out no top. It's a risk but all conflicts are. Everything is not so one sided. If someone got into a fighting stance with you but didn't advance, would you attack first, back off by creating distance, or walk away?


And before I get blasted with post. This isn't how I operate. My whole thing is about creating uncertainty when I'm in a conflict. I don't want my aggressor to really have a clear idea of what I may do unless he backs off. If he's uncertain about his own safety then that's an advantage to me. If he sees a way out to end the conflict without physically fighting then I want him to take it.

When I was in my 20's I worked at a video store. The customer became very aggressive and asked if I wanted to physically fight him. He was ready to fight and had clinched fist as he hit the counter. I backed away (creating distance), got the manager (created more distance) and waited outside the building until the customer was finished with his purchase. Perfect example of how "knuckling" up not only de-escalated the conflict, but it totally forced me to remove myself. Could I have beaten the man, Sure. But at that point I had more to lose than just a fight. He knew that and took advantage of it.

When the guy came outside after his purchase he avoided me. He didn't approach me, because no he understood the rules were different. He didn't say one word to me or even look at me. He got in his car and drove away. At that point for him to approach me would mean he would have more to lose. Because he would physically had to come to me.

There's always two sides to a conflict. If one person is de-escalating then it's usually because the other is escalating and the person that is trying to de-escalate and stop the fight is reacting to what the aggressor is doing. Does it always play out like this. Of course not. But like I said, every conflict is a risk

The success of this depends on a combination of the confidence of the other person, as well as whether or not they were bluffing. Striking a non-threatening pose, but remaining calm and poised, tends to de-escalate regardless of the other person's confidence or resolve to fight. However, I wouldn't consider scaring someone off to be "de-escalation." (And the main reason is because I need to differentiate between the two in the next paragraph).

You have to weigh the pros and cons of going for intimidation vs. de-escalation. Someone who is after your wallet isn't going to be de-escalated. Someone who is upset at a perceived slight might.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You have to weigh the pros and cons of going for intimidation vs. de-escalation. Someone who is after your wallet isn't going to be de-escalated. Someone who is upset at a perceived slight might.

True words. We always have to weigh the pros and cons.

 

[drop bear]

From my experience, bad kickers don't kick much in street fights - effectively or otherwise (unless the other guy is on the ground). And sure, if someone wants to base their defense on kicking, they probably want to be good at what they're basing it on. If I base mine on grappling, but don't bother to get good at grappling, I'm not sure what I'd be up to.

Well is kung fu Wang a good or bad kicker. Because that will pretty much determine his kick at every opportunity self defense system.

 

[drop bear]

I'd argue that - unless and until you reach a pretty high skill level - there's no direct route to handling skilled grapplers, skilled punchers, and skilled kickers all with one basic method (other than principles like staying out of range).

If your one basic method is reasonably comprehensive and you are training it properly. It is precisely the best way to handle skilled whatever.

I mean I can show you a video of bec beating a judo Olympian after 3 years of training that show exactly that basics done properly are the most efficient way to win fights.

 

[drop bear]

Your stance can absolutely make a difference. If I'm being confronted, and I drop into an aggressive stance and bring up my fists, do you think that helps or hinders my efforts at deescalation?

I have done both. I don't think fists up are the deal breaker people think they are.

I mean I can put them back down without having to hit people with them.

 

[skribs]

I have done both. I don't think fists up are the deal breaker people think they are.

I mean I can put them back down without having to hit people with them.

In that video you showed, the hands are up, but the punch still happens.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Well is kung fu Wang a good or bad kicker. Because that will pretty much determine his kick at every opportunity self defense system.

Ask your training partner to hold a kicking shield and run toward you with full speed. You then try to use your kick to stop your opponent's advance. If you can stop your opponent, you get 1 point. If your opponent's kicking shield pushes you back, you lose 1 point. Repeat this 60 times daily and keep your score. Train this for 1 years and get your final score (365 x 60 = 21,900 kicks).​

The day when your training can give you good score, the moment that you see someone throws a punch at you, the moment you will have a big smile on your face.

Is this the right way to develop any dependable MA skill? You can develop "1 punch drop" this way too.

 

[drop bear]

In that video you showed, the hands are up, but the punch still happens.

And then deescalated.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I have done both. I don't think fists up are the deal breaker people think they are.

As so often, you're responding to something nobody has said. Stance and fists are a couple of factors. There are certainly more. But the more of them that add up to "it's on like Donkey Kong", the more likely that result is going to be.

 

[drop bear]

As so often, you're responding to something nobody has said. Stance and fists are a couple of factors. There are certainly more. But the more of them that add up to "it's on like Donkey Kong", the more likely that result is going to be.

Not really.

I don't think it is that cut and dried.

You seem to be saying there is some sort of scale of fists up and stance that hinders the ability to deescalate a fight.

And I don't think it is determined like that at all.

 

[skribs]

And then deescalated.

If it de-escalates after punches are thrown, then the fight happened.

 

[drop bear]

If it de-escalates after punches are thrown, then the fight happened.

And then deescalated. So if we wanted to suggest that there was some point of no return that deescalation can no longer occur. (At least with a kangaroo) that is not really the case.

 

[skribs]

And then deescalated. So if we wanted to suggest that there was some point of no return that deescalation can no longer occur. (At least with a kangaroo) that is not really the case.

The point of de-escalation is to avoid the fight. If blows are thrown, then the fight has been had and de-escalation failed. That's like saying "I stopped my car after I hit that jaywalker, so they're fine, right?"

 

[drop bear]

The point of de-escalation is to avoid the fight. If blows are thrown, then the fight has been had and de-escalation failed. That's like saying "I stopped my car after I hit that jaywalker, so they're fine, right?"

No. If hitting a guy deescalates the fight. Then the fight has been deescalated.

This is my point. It isn't linear.