# Street Jitsu! Punch Block Series for Self Defense



## FightHACKS (Jun 23, 2017)

Hey guys, hope this is the right place for this. If not, mods please move to appropriate forum. 
Thought I'd share a real quick video on a punch block series with you all! Enjoy!


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 27, 2017)

If you are looking for feedback on your technique, my personal opinion is that a hook punch like that would still curve past your block and hit you. When we're blocking hook punches like this we are taught to step back and turn slightly so that you block the punch at their wrist, giving you more control over their arm and less chance of them hitting you through the block. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## oaktree (Jun 27, 2017)

Am I the only one seeing that the opponent left hand is in position to just strike the guy applying the lock? I think the technique is fine, but me personally I would be off balancing the opponent or striking , or moving off the line of attack but it's a demo so what ever.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Am I the only one seeing that the opponent left hand is in position to just strike the guy applying the lock? I think the technique is fine, but me personally I would be off balancing the opponent or striking , or moving off the line of attack but it's a demo so what ever.


Done correctly those should break the attackers structure enough to keep them from bringing any power from the left hand. And you wouldn't stand there in front of him at the end.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Am I the only one seeing that the opponent left hand is in position to just strike the guy applying the lock? I think the technique is fine, but me personally I would be off balancing the opponent or striking , or moving off the line of attack but it's a demo so what ever.



Remember you don't fight in slow motion.  You block the punch and then gain control of him before he is able to counter.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> If you are looking for feedback on your technique, my personal opinion is that a hook punch like that would still curve past your block and hit you. When we're blocking hook punches like this we are taught to step back and turn slightly so that you block the punch at their wrist, giving you more control over their arm and less chance of them hitting you through the block.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



If you block the shoulder and bicep area you take all the power and torque away from the punch...so even if you are hit there shouldn't be any power behind it.  Blocking at the wrist makes it harder to catch the arm and gai control of your attacker.


----------



## Paul_D (Jun 27, 2017)

If you want to move this to the General Martial Arts section I don’t really have a problem with it.  However, if you want to leave it in General Self Defence…

Self defence isn’t about waiting until someone throws a fist at your face and _then_ doing something. People however do not have Tourette’s of the fist, they don’t generally go around randomly punching people for no reason and with no warning. There is a whole host of events which have to happen before you get to the stage where people start throwing punches. There are therefore several opportunities for you to avoid getting to the point where punches are thrown, that is what self-defence is about.  You can’t just ignore them all (if you are claiming to teach self defence) and skip to the part where fists start flying. 

Why is this guy throwing punches at you?  What was the first sign that there was a problem; a) ok this is how you avoid the situation developing at point a)  if you can’t or it doesn’t work the next thing that happens is b), here’s what you do at point b), if that fails point c) point d) etc until you arrive at the point where punches are thrown. 

The problem with a lot of martial artists is they lack the skills to avoid situations developing to the point where violence starts, and so they have to pretend that self defence is fighting so that they can teach fighting skills as self defence.

Teaching people to do nothing until punches start getting thrown is like teaching children to cross the road by ignoring what we normally teach (avoid getting run over in the first place by; finding a safe place to cross, looking both ways, listen, walk don’t run etc) and instead teaching them to do nothing until they get hit by a car, and then doing a stuntmen roll over the bonnet.

That’s not to say of course that you don’t teach fighting skills as part of SD, of course you do, the point is, you don’t ONLY teach fighting skills.  So “We’re going to do as little self defence”.  No, you’re not, you going to teach a little martial arts, which isn’t the something.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

He is just showing some techniques  to defend against a punch. We shouldn't have to go through the whole gambit of de-escalation discussion before describing a technique.

Nothing wrong with just discussing the technique itself.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2017)

is there an example of this working any where?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you want to move this to the General Martial Arts section I don’t really have a problem with it.  However, if you want to leave it in General Self Defence…
> 
> Self defence isn’t about waiting until someone throws a fist at your face and _then_ doing something. People however do not have Tourette’s of the fist, they don’t generally go around randomly punching people for no reason and with no warning. There is a whole host of events which have to happen before you get to the stage where people start throwing punches. There are therefore several opportunities for you to avoid getting to the point where punches are thrown, that is what self-defence is about.  You can’t just ignore them all (if you are claiming to teach self defence) and skip to the part where fists start flying.
> 
> ...


So, now defensive fighting tactics cannot even be part of self-defense?


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> is there an example of this working any where?



When I first started LEO we were taught to grab the wrist and get control.  Everything was grab the wrist and transition into what ever technique you were going to use.

Now we target the upper arm and shoulder much like how he shows... much easier and safer to gain control.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 27, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you want to move this to the General Martial Arts section I don’t really have a problem with it.  However, if you want to leave it in General Self Defence…
> 
> Self defence isn’t about waiting until someone throws a fist at your face and _then_ doing something. People however do not have Tourette’s of the fist, they don’t generally go around randomly punching people for no reason and with no warning. There is a whole host of events which have to happen before you get to the stage where people start throwing punches. There are therefore several opportunities for you to avoid getting to the point where punches are thrown, that is what self-defence is about.  You can’t just ignore them all (if you are claiming to teach self defence) and skip to the part where fists start flying.
> 
> ...


You're correct, next time I'll be sure to shoot a 10 hour video covering everything from situational awareness to recovery and emotional support after a violent encounter. Sheesh....


----------



## oaktree (Jun 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Done correctly those should break the attackers structure enough to keep them from bringing any power from the left hand. And you wouldn't stand there in front of him at the end.


Maybe or maybe not, if my first fist didn't connect the other one is already swinging by the time he connects with my arm,  hitting him square in the jaw before he can secure the lock.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> is there an example of this working any where?


This is just a tool or technique for your toolbox. Yes they do work, and in many different scenarios. I have used each of these, armlock, shoulder crank, and arm drag successfully against fighting / resisting opponents. 
If you watch the video again, I state that I like to teach these first from a standing position. This is because its easier for a beginner to learn them when they are comfortable. Once they thoroughly understand the technique and it's technical aspects, it's just a matter of looking for the opportunity to apply them in a live / sparring situation. 
Everything I teach is MMA related and must be able to work in a live situation or I won't bother with. Check out my YouTube channel: FightHACKS for more videos.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 27, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> If you are looking for feedback on your technique, my personal opinion is that a hook punch like that would still curve past your block and hit you. When we're blocking hook punches like this we are taught to step back and turn slightly so that you block the punch at their wrist, giving you more control over their arm and less chance of them hitting you through the block.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


Thanks for the critique. I would love to see an example. However, as a general rule for myself, when the opportunity exists, I prefer to step into and "enter" as opposed to stepping back to block a punch. If the opportunity to enter isn't there, then I will either "pull" myself out of range, or just cover to protect from the punch. -FH-


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Maybe or maybe not, if my first fist didn't connect the other one is already swinging by the time he connects with my arm,  hitting him square in the jaw before he can secure the lock.


If the second punch is already coming, you don't continue to attack the shoulder. If your block takes enough structure, there can be an opening to progress to the first technique, which moves you away from where he was already targeting and continues to break structure. All techniques are situational. All of them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Thanks for the critique. I would love to see an example. However, as a general rule for myself, when the opportunity exists, I prefer to step into and "enter" as opposed to stepping back to block a punch. If the opportunity to enter isn't there, then I will either "pull" myself out of range, or just cover to protect from the punch. -FH-


I think he's looking at the block as an arm block (like a knife-hand block), rather than a structure block. This one impinges the attacking arm's movement outside the shoulder with one hand and drives the shoulder with the other - entirely different mechanics protecting you than a knife-hand block.


----------



## oaktree (Jun 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If the second punch is already coming, you don't continue to attack the shoulder. If your block takes enough structure, there can be an opening to progress to the first technique, which moves you away from where he was already targeting and continues to break structure. All techniques are situational. All of them.


That's the problem, if b does this a does this to infinity, I am talking about the one sequence he showed is flawed that is not considering the other arm strike, but but but he could do...ya and the other guy can do.....and so on and so on just proved the point technique is f l a w


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> That's the problem, if b does this a does this to infinity, I am talking about the one sequence he showed is flawed that is not considering the other arm strike, but but but he could do...ya and the other guy can do.....and so on and so on just proved the point technique is f l a w


You can say that for literally anything. There's always something that can make a technique invalid. Counter-punching a punch only works if the other guy isn't already moving in a direction that would make you miss. Changing levels to evade a punch won't work if a front kick is coming in behind the punch. Blocking a round punch only works if it's actually a round punch. There's a good use for the technique shown, and places where it shouldn't be used. Training allows you to automatically select the right response.

I'll say it again, this technique would be applied when, upon blocking, enough structure is taken to reduce the possibility of an effective strike from the other hand. If the entry doesn't break structure, this technique likely won't even present itself.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 27, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> If you block the shoulder and bicep area you take all the power and torque away from the punch...so even if you are hit there shouldn't be any power behind it.  Blocking at the wrist makes it harder to catch the arm and gai control of your attacker.



I see. That makes sense and now that I watch the video again (I first watched it on my phone so didn't see too much) I see what you mean. I'd probably still go for the wrist as I've been taught since it allows you to block with 1 hand, leaving the other hand free to guard or strike at the same time.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 27, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Thanks for the critique. I would love to see an example. However, as a general rule for myself, when the opportunity exists, I prefer to step into and "enter" as opposed to stepping back to block a punch. If the opportunity to enter isn't there, then I will either "pull" myself out of range, or just cover to protect from the punch. -FH-



It's similar to this:







Except when we do it we turn more to the side where the punch is coming from, and the other hand is usually kept in a guard position or strikes as you block. Of course, using both arms to block gives you better control of the arm, but leaves you open to follow-up attacks.


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, now defensive fighting tactics cannot even be part of self-defense?


Depends on how you're defining self defense.  Doesn't it?


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> That's the problem, if b does this a does this to infinity, I am talking about the one sequence he showed is flawed that is not considering the other arm strike, but but but he could do...ya and the other guy can do.....and so on and so on just proved the point technique is f l a w



Everything has a counter....that doesn't mean it is flawed.

But with proper timing and quickness it works good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I see. That makes sense and now that I watch the video again (I first watched it on my phone so didn't see too much) I see what you mean. I'd probably still go for the wrist as I've been taught since it allows you to block with 1 hand, leaving the other hand free to guard or strike at the same time.


I teach both types of blocks. This one is good when you end up closer than you expected, get caught flat-footed, or just want to get in to clinch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

Steve said:


> Depends on how you're defining self defense.  Doesn't it?


It does. Problem is, his definition used to include physical defense, and his complaint was that others (like me) didn't include other material in that definition. Since pretty much everyone I've ever met includes physical defense in the discussion of self-defense, it's a bit odd to complain when someone posts something about physical defense under "self-defense".


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It does. Problem is, his definition used to include physical defense, and his complaint was that others (like me) didn't include other material in that definition. Since pretty much everyone I've ever met includes physical defense in the discussion of self-defense, it's a bit odd to complain when someone posts something about physical defense under "self-defense".


Agreed.  I actually agree with and like Paul d's definition of self defence... At least this one.  I don't know about the history of it.   

But it does highlight the problems with the fluidity of the term.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

To me self defense is the knowledge and/or use of techniques to defend oneself against a physical attack.  De-escalation, conflict resolution, etc... are aspects of human interaction we practice so that we do not have to use self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> When I first started LEO we were taught to grab the wrist and get control.  Everything was grab the wrist and transition into what ever technique you were going to use.
> 
> Now we target the upper arm and shoulder much like how he shows... much easier and safer to gain control.



I was speaking to a cop who trains with us. He thinks none of his police human weapon  training really works. That was my impression when I saw it. Of course that is Australia and police have less authority to escalate. 

Otherwise though from a technical level. Are you stopping punches like that?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> This is just a tool or technique for your toolbox. Yes they do work, and in many different scenarios. I have used each of these, armlock, shoulder crank, and arm drag successfully against fighting / resisting opponents.
> If you watch the video again, I state that I like to teach these first from a standing position. This is because its easier for a beginner to learn them when they are comfortable. Once they thoroughly understand the technique and it's technical aspects, it's just a matter of looking for the opportunity to apply them in a live / sparring situation.
> Everything I teach is MMA related and must be able to work in a live situation or I won't bother with. Check out my YouTube channel: FightHACKS for more videos.



So is there an example of this working in a MMA fight?

Actually I might facebook it and ask my guys.

It is just i could basically never pull moves like that off against anybody even semi decent.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I was speaking to a cop who trains with us. He thinks none of his police human weapon  training really works. That was my impression when I saw it. Of course that is Australia and police have less authority to escalate.
> 
> Otherwise though from a technical level. Are you stopping punches like that?


Yes, it's a commonly taught and effective way to enter your attackers space. The technique itself is a double empty hand block. Another option is to cover your head (bring both hands up to block your head, think helmet) and "crash" into the attacker stopping their momentum and closing the distance to clinch. From the clinch you can control, strike (elbows, knees) or take down. As an LEO, remember, your preferred position should be with the subject on the ground, and you on your feet (if working alone). If working with a partner, then you or your partner can control the subject on the ground (Face down stabilization) while the other provides cover.

FYI - I was Program Manager fof Defensive Tactics / Legal Considerations at a Federal Law Enforcement Academy.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2017)

Steve said:


> Agreed.  I actually agree with and like Paul d's definition of self defence... At least this one.  I don't know about the history of it.
> 
> But it does highlight the problems with the fluidity of the term.



Nah. It is the old what if they have a knife. Or what if there is multiple oponants tripe.

It is not all of self defence. Doesn't invalidate it from self defence.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Yes, it's a commonly taught and effective way to enter your attackers space. The technique itself is a double empty hand block. Another option is to cover your head (bring both hands up to block your head, think helmet) and "crash" into the attacker stopping their momentum and closing the distance to clinch. From the clinch you can control, strike (elbows, knees) or take down. As an LEO, remember, your preferred position should be with the subject on the ground, and you on your feet (if working alone). If working with a partner, then you or your partner can control the subject on the ground (Face down stabilization) while the other provides cover.
> 
> FYI - I was Program Manager fof Defensive Tactics / Legal Considerations at a Federal Law Enforcement Academy.



I have scored the overhook before. Never got the arm bar. I pretty much dont do standing arm bars that way though. I go through the process of good clinching arm drag and then two on one. Because I can do it to guys and guys can do it to me.

I am more inclined to hit things like a beef wellington than something that puts me in front of a guy like that fighting for control.






So. Example of it working?


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So is there an example of this working in a MMA fight?
> 
> Actually I might facebook it and ask my guys.
> 
> It is just i could basically never pull moves like that off against anybody even semi decent.







Shoulder lock - second technique in the sequence.










Arm Drag to Back - Third technique in series, videos are not in a live fight, but technique is very common in combat sports.

Straight Arm Lock - Can't find any video on YouTube, but I myself have hit it many times oner the years in live rolls and live MMA sparring. not from the standing position, but grappling when opponent place their hands on the the ground while inside my guard. 

All three techniques are legit and work in different positions. As stated before, I teach them to beginners from the standing position to help them better understand the technical aspects of the techniques.


----------



## FightHACKS (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have scored the overhook before. Never got the arm bar. I pretty much dont do standing arm bars that way though. I go through the process of good clinching arm drag and then two on one. Because I can do it to guys and guys can do it to me.
> 
> I am more inclined to hit things like a beef wellington than something that puts me in front of a guy like that fighting for control.
> 
> ...


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2017)

Yeah I go overhook head control from there. Fight an armlock on from safety.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I was speaking to a cop who trains with us. He thinks none of his police human weapon  training really works. That was my impression when I saw it. Of course that is Australia and police have less authority to escalate.
> 
> Otherwise though from a technical level. Are you stopping punches like that?



Yes, it allows you to knock them a little off balance and puts you in position for a take down and handcuffing......also realize typically you are putting hands on someone with little to no training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

Steve said:


> Agreed.  I actually agree with and like Paul d's definition of self defence... At least this one.  I don't know about the history of it.
> 
> But it does highlight the problems with the fluidity of the term.


So, you prefer that "self-defense" excludes anything physical? What do you call the physical techniques for defending oneself, then? I don't even know how to describe them in a way that doesn't include "defend" and "self".

Or are you talking about his usual usage? I have no problem with that usage - it's probably more common than my own. I simply divide the actual physical defense from the attack ("self-defense") from the prevention of the attack ("self-protection"), to make the distinction clear. But when someone uses the term "self-defense", I usually assume they're using a definition similar to Paul's.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Yes, it allows you to knock them a little off balance and puts you in position for a take down and handcuffing......also realize typically you are putting hands on someone with little to no training.


There's also a brachial stun handy, with a small adjustment of one arm. An instructor I know who is former LEO and has taught DT for 3 different states (as he moved) teaches this as a basic entry.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> To me self defense is the knowledge and/or use of techniques to defend oneself against a physical attack.  De-escalation, conflict resolution, etc... are aspects of human interaction we practice so that we do not have to use self defense.


This is the same distinction I draw. I think it's probably not the most common view, but they are very different skill sets, so I prefer to use different terms for them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So is there an example of this working in a MMA fight?
> 
> Actually I might facebook it and ask my guys.
> 
> It is just i could basically never pull moves like that off against anybody even semi decent.


I like this, but it's something that's easy to prevent from the beginning if you're reasonably familiar with it. It works on new students, and on folks who don't learn fast. After a while, though, it's going to be a rare find.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 27, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Yes, it's a commonly taught and effective way to enter your attackers space. The technique itself is a double empty hand block. Another option is to cover your head (bring both hands up to block your head, think helmet) and "crash" into the attacker stopping their momentum and closing the distance to clinch. From the clinch you can control, strike (elbows, knees) or take down. As an LEO, remember, your preferred position should be with the subject on the ground, and you on your feet (if working alone). If working with a partner, then you or your partner can control the subject on the ground (Face down stabilization) while the other provides cover.
> 
> FYI - I was Program Manager fof Defensive Tactics / Legal Considerations at a Federal Law Enforcement Academy.


The "crashing" entry is how I teach this to beginners. Later, they learn to use it with more...finesse - more technically.


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you prefer that "self-defense" excludes anything physical? What do you call the physical techniques for defending oneself, then? I don't even know how to describe them in a way that doesn't include "defend" and "self".
> 
> Or are you talking about his usual usage? I have no problem with that usage - it's probably more common than my own. I simply divide the actual physical defense from the attack ("self-defense") from the prevention of the attack ("self-protection"), to make the distinction clear. But when someone uses the term "self-defense", I usually assume they're using a definition similar to Paul's.


I think what you think of as self protection. Is what I think of as self defense.   Thats the stuff that keeps you out of danger barring just bad luck.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think what you think of as self protection. Is what I think of as self defense.   Thats the stuff that keeps you out of danger barring just bad luck.


So, what do you call the stuff you use when that doesn't work - the physical defensive stuff?


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, what do you call the stuff you use when that doesn't work - the physical defensive stuff?


self protection?  Just kidding.  I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part.  I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition.   I've said this before.  We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour.  Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.   We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed.  And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure.  You need specialized training.  But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills?  I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else.  Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> self protection?  Just kidding.  I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part.  I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition.   I've said this before.  We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour.  Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.   We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed.  And that's if you do everything wrong.
> 
> If you're a cop or a soldier, sure.  You need specialized training.  But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills?  I'm skeptical.
> 
> Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else.  Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.


I'm okay with your stance on that, Steve. I disagree, but we both know that.

As for the definitions, you're pretty much in line with Paul - that SD includes both physical defense and the things that make it unnecessary. I use different terms, mostly so folks know easily which I'm referring to.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm okay with your stance on that, Steve. I disagree, but we both know that.
> 
> As for the definitions, you're pretty much in line with Paul - that SD includes both physical defense and the things that make it unnecessary. I use different terms, mostly so folks know easily which I'm referring to.


What do you disagree with?   Do you have data?  If so I would love to see it.  I'm very interested.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> What do you disagree with?   Do you have data?  If so I would love to see it.  I'm very interested.


I don't have data, and don't think it's possible to have it until we have consistently available surveillance footage of enough attacks. I don't differ on that, at all. I simply differ with you on your conclusion that physical SD training (meaning, MA training) likely has no real benefit in physical SD usage. My information is largely anecdotal, but from enough different sources. I've heard from LEO who worked with LEO who had extensive MA training. The former have referred to the higher effectiveness of the latter. That's not really data we can draw statistical conclusions from, but it is information that sways my view.

Of course, as we've discussed before, there are secondary benefits (for some of us, they were or became the primary reasons for training) that can also be had from other sources, as you mentioned. Those may well be at least as important, averaged across a lifetime, as the physical defensive benefits.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2017)

Hold on.  On a phone so can't really reply fully but there is a critical distinction between what I said and how you restated it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 28, 2017)

Not questioning the technique, but I don't like the demo.  It reminds me of some kung fu, TKD, Hapkido type demos.  For example, if the demo boy punches like that in a real fight then he's going to lose.  It's really important when learning how to use a technique that the demo boy or demo gal gives an accurate punch, one that is realistic in structure.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> is there an example of this working any where?


The one video I don't have


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 28, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Maybe or maybe not, if my first fist didn't connect the other one is already swinging by the time he connects with my arm,  hitting him square in the jaw before he can secure the lock.


This is why I always try to disrupt the balance of my opponent before trying to lock anything.


----------



## Buka (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> self protection?  Just kidding.  I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part.  I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition.   I've said this before.  We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour.  Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.   We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed.  And that's if you do everything wrong.
> 
> If you're a cop or a soldier, sure.  You need specialized training.  But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills?  I'm skeptical.
> 
> Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else.  Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.



I have to think about this for a bit.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> self protection?  Just kidding.  I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part.  I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition.   I've said this before.  We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour.  Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.   We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed.  And that's if you do everything wrong.
> 
> If you're a cop or a soldier, sure.  You need specialized training.  But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills?  I'm skeptical.
> 
> Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else.  Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.


its an interesting view point, and I don't  disagree with, I think you can break attackers down in to two main groups, that that want something and are acting rationally , that is they want your money, car,etc

and those who are having some sort of psychosis, who arnt acting rationaly and have just decided to start a fight.

you can out think the first by restricting where you go at what time off day and if you look like your a good victim.

the,second are,impossible to avoid, they can be any where at any time of day and any minor disagreement can,set them off,


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The one video I don't have



Always the way.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> self protection?  Just kidding.  I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part.  I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition.   I've said this before.  We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour.  Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.   We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed.  And that's if you do everything wrong.
> 
> If you're a cop or a soldier, sure.  You need specialized training.  But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills?  I'm skeptical.
> 
> Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else.  Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.



The thing is that is the same suggestion made to people who do fight for a living.

Bouncing is mostly talking to people. Until you can't.

Importance is different to frequency of use. Otherwise a motorcycle helmet would not be considered important. You will only probably fall of a bike once or twice.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The thing is that is the same suggestion made to people who do fight for a living.
> 
> Bouncing is mostly talking to people. Until you can't.
> 
> Importance is different to frequency of use. Otherwise a motorcycle helmet would not be considered important. You will only probably fall of a bike once or twice.


Not quite.  I think having a discussion about who is able to fight better is different from a discussion about who is doing a better job mitigating the dangers of living wherever they do.  whats the measure of success for self defense?  Is it survival?   Not being attacked?


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> its an interesting view point, and I don't  disagree with, I think you can break attackers down in to two main groups, that that want something and are acting rationally , that is they want your money, car,etc
> 
> and those who are having some sort of psychosis, who arnt acting rationaly and have just decided to start a fight.
> 
> ...


True.  Encountering the second is relatively rare, but it happens.   Some  people who survive these encounters have no martial arts training.   Some do.  Some train as ninja warriors (the obstacle course show).  Some just work out.   Some who survive are overweight and out of shape.   I'm not saying that fighting skills don't work in a fight.  I'm saying there is no evidence that martial arts training makes you any more likely to survive.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> Not quite.  I think having a discussion about who is able to fight better is different from a discussion about who is doing a better job mitigating the dangers of living wherever they do.  whats the measure of success for self defense?  Is it survival?   Not being attacked?



Depends how much one effects the other. Motorcycles are a good metaphor. You ride defensively. You wear protective gear.

There is the argument protective gear isn't for riding. It is for falling off.

The argument that you do one one the other becomes a bit weird. Which is where this argument goes.

I mean a discussion on the best helmets are not made void by defensive riding. Unless they actively work against that in some specific way.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2017)

Steve said:


> True.  Encountering the second is relatively rare, but it happens.   Some  people who survive these encounters have no martial arts training.   Some do.  Some train as ninja warriors (the obstacle course show).  Some just work out.   Some who survive are overweight and out of shape.   I'm not saying that fighting skills don't work in a fight.  I'm saying there is no evidence that martial arts training makes you any more likely to survive.


but once you remove all the self defence , don't go out at night, stuff, its then a simple fight and the best fighter wins, that may very well not be the MA, there are a lot of other factors in play height weight strengh speed cardio to name a few. But if the MA has though his training got physical advantages as well as skill, then there is a good chance he will win. What's less convincing is the he may be bigger stronger and faster than me, but my MA skills will win it.

that's why i find the non demanding training of some MA hard to justify , they will get eaten alive by someone who is in good shape


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Depends how much one effects the other. Motorcycles are a good metaphor. You ride defensively. You wear protective gear.
> 
> There is the argument protective gear isn't for riding. It is for falling off.
> 
> ...


I hadn't thought of that metaphor before (odd - I used to teach motorcycle safety), but it does reflect my attitude toward training for physical SD. Like my helmet, I hope never to need it, but anticipate the need - because it's too late when you do need it. And I know folks who survived wrecks without a helmet - because their wreck didn't cause them to hit their head hard.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I hadn't thought of that metaphor before (odd - I used to teach motorcycle safety), but it does reflect my attitude toward training for physical SD. Like my helmet, I hope never to need it, but anticipate the need - because it's too late when you do need it. And I know folks who survived wrecks without a helmet - because their wreck didn't cause them to hit their head hard.


It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important.   First, there is real data regarding motorcycles.   Lots of it.   There are crash statistics, mortality stats,  there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury.   Martial arts don't have any of that.

Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk.  While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe.  Just don't get on one.    The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop.  I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops  are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.

Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station.  Does that work?  I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important.   First, there is real data regarding motorcycles.   Lots of it.   There are crash statistics, mortality stats,  there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury.   Martial arts don't have any of that.
> 
> Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk.  While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe.  Just don't get on one.    The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop.  I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops  are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.
> 
> Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station.  Does that work?  I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.


those rubber strips won't,discharge lighning, in fact they may make a lightning,strike more likely.

if people want to run the the motorbike metaphor, then one behaviour is like the guys who won't ride with out full racing leathers and padding and rides extremely carefully never overtakes or banks over, or the ones who wiz round in shorts and flip flops at serious speed. Nether is rational behaviour . The leathers won't help at all if you are,run over by a truck or crash into a wall or any of the other possible out comes. Besides sliding down the road
Let's call that person MAist who is,so aware of self defence that he takes over the tops actions to reduce risk that he spoils the whole point of riding( or living). And the flip flop guy is the MAist that has so much faith in his own abilities that he is completely recklass as to his own safety, he ignores quite sensible actions as he believes his,skill is supreme

some where in the middle is a,sensible approach where the guy has done an advanced,skills course(MA) and is,aware that,riding like a loony in shorts is a bad idea


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2017)

double post


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important.   First, there is real data regarding motorcycles.   Lots of it.   There are crash statistics, mortality stats,  there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury.   Martial arts don't have any of that.
> 
> Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk.  While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe.  Just don't get on one.    The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop.  I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops  are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.
> 
> Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station.  Does that work?  I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.


Okay, I'll just suggest one change to make it fit my thinking. Assume cars (and public transit) don't exist. Life has risks we can't avoid, and we can't really foresee all of them. That's how I viewed motorcycling, too.

And you are correct about the difference in statistics. Statistics are probably impossible to compile in any reliable fashion about MA and SD situations, given the literally infinite variations. Even if we knew all the important facts about every single SD situation, we'd still have to use arbitrary categorization (what is "SD training", or what is "significant MA experience", what is a "defendable attack" etc.), so two people could both have valid sets of data that provided contradictory conclusions. Given the improbability of ever having reasonable data to use, we have to draw what conclusions we can from what data there is, including reports we get from those who engage more frequently. It's imperfect, to be certain, but it's what we have.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I'll just suggest one change to make it fit my thinking. Assume cars (and public transit) don't exist. Life has risks we can't avoid, and we can't really foresee all of them. That's how I viewed motorcycling, too.
> 
> And you are correct about the difference in statistics. Statistics are probably impossible to compile in any reliable fashion about MA and SD situations, given the literally infinite variations. Even if we knew all the important facts about every single SD situation, we'd still have to use arbitrary categorization (what is "SD training", or what is "significant MA experience", what is a "defendable attack" etc.), so two people could both have valid sets of data that provided contradictory conclusions. Given the improbability of ever having reasonable data to use, we have to draw what conclusions we can from what data there is, including reports we get from those who engage more frequently. It's imperfect, to be certain, but it's what we have.


but we do have data, that being that the,strongest fastest most skilled fighter tends to win fights. If your MA training makes you the strongest fastest most skilled fighter in a fight, you have a very good chance of winning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> but we do have data, that being that the,strongest fastest most skilled fighter tends to win fights. If your MA training makes you the strongest fastest most skilled fighter in a fight, you have a very good chance of winning.


We have that data from competition, but we don't really have that for short, quick, sudden attacks, which are a different dynamic than what we tend to see in the ring. If I turn around and someone is just about to punch/stab/grab/whatever, how much does MA training really help? We don't have statistical data on that, and probably can't ever have data statisticians can even agree upon the usage and categorization of.

On top of that, you've put three superlatives in there. If you have all three, you are certainly more likely to win in a fight. But what if you have one of the three, or two? How much of each is necessary to outweigh the others? That's probably unquantifiable.


----------



## Steve (Jun 29, 2017)

Couple of quick comments.  





gpseymour said:


> We have that data from competition, but we don't really have that for short, quick, sudden attacks, which are a different dynamic than what we tend to see in the ring. If I turn around and someone is just about to punch/stab/grab/whatever, how much does MA training really help? We don't have statistical data on that, and probably can't ever have data statisticians can even agree upon the usage and categorization of.
> 
> On top of that, you've put three superlatives in there. If you have all three, you are certainly more likely to win in a fight. But what if you have one of the three, or two? How much of each is necessary to outweigh the others? That's probably unquantifiable.


Think about this.  We both agree that there is a dearth of data on MA and its real impact on civilian self defense.  We do have studies, at least a few, that give us information about whether self defense programs have an impact.  But overall, it's very difficult to add data points retroactively. 

There is data regarding cops and martial arts, too, which people often point to and say, "See?  This is proof it will work for a civilian."  But you acknowledge there are no meaningful stats for civilian self defense.  So, like the link some point to between competition and real world self defense, we can agree both are speculative.  Right?  Similarly, we might be able to gather meaningful data from other professions, and the relationship between this data would be the same as above. 

I think there are lessons to be learned from each, but I am suggesting that it's healthy to understand the difference between what we know and what we believe. 

One other important note is that self defense is an individual effort.  We approach this point in many ways, whether it's apocryphal statements like, "It's the artist not the art that matters," or in discussions when we acknowledge weight, strength, size, agility, age, skill level and all of the other factors that are involved in a real world situation. 

If we agree on these things, then we can conclude a few things.  First, that competitions are a way for civilians to gather individual performance data relative to a body of date we agree exists.  We also conclude that pulling out the "It works for cops" card is no more or less relevant to a discussion on civilian self defense than saying, "it works in the UFC." 


gpseymour said:


> Okay, I'll just suggest one change to make it fit my thinking. Assume cars (and public transit) don't exist. Life has risks we can't avoid, and we can't really foresee all of them. That's how I viewed motorcycling, too.
> 
> And you are correct about the difference in statistics. Statistics are probably impossible to compile in any reliable fashion about MA and SD situations, given the literally infinite variations. Even if we knew all the important facts about every single SD situation, we'd still have to use arbitrary categorization (what is "SD training", or what is "significant MA experience", what is a "defendable attack" etc.), so two people could both have valid sets of data that provided contradictory conclusions. Given the improbability of ever having reasonable data to use, we have to draw what conclusions we can from what data there is, including reports we get from those who engage more frequently. It's imperfect, to be certain, but it's what we have.


Problem even before this is that your chances of getting into an accident on a motorcycle are high, even if you're a safe driver.  However, you can easily reduce your risk to zero by never getting on a motorcycle.  Conversely, your chances of being assaulted are low, and are almost nil if you don't engage in high risk behaviors.  And your chances of being randomly murdered by a nut is low, as well.  By suggesting that motorcycles are the only means of transportation, you pull it even more out of proportion.  I suggested before that motorcycles are like cops in that both are situations where you are knowingly putting yourself at a higher risk.  I guess you could equate motorcycles to walking in a bad neighborhood at night, flashing a wad of cash.  That would work, too, I guess. 

like any other thing, the value wouldn't be in the single events.  Any meaningful conclusions would need to come from gathering enough data to do so.  The individual marks their own progress against the norm.  I'm of the opinion that we can quibble over the data points to consider, but in the end it's better to get some information than no information. 

Anyway, rambling on.  I hope some of this makes some sense.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 29, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Remember you don't fight in slow motion.  You block the punch and then gain control of him before he is able to counter.



I have always been trained with the idea that "the other hand is coming" which is why I always prefer outside entries.  That said if you have to go inside your entry had better distrub the structure of the opponent enough that the other hand is not knocking you in the head with decent strength as you attempt the lock.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2017)

Steve said:


> Couple of quick comments.  Think about this.  We both agree that there is a dearth of data on MA and its real impact on civilian self defense.  We do have studies, at least a few, that give us information about whether self defense programs have an impact.  But overall, it's very difficult to add data points retroactively.
> 
> There is data regarding cops and martial arts, too, which people often point to and say, "See?  This is proof it will work for a civilian."  But you acknowledge there are no meaningful stats for civilian self defense.  So, like the link some point to between competition and real world self defense, we can agree both are speculative.  Right?  Similarly, we might be able to gather meaningful data from other professions, and the relationship between this data would be the same as above.
> 
> ...


I actually have no problem with any of that. I do think most things that work in UFC are probably useful (with alteration in some cases) for self-defense (my contention is that UFC/MMA is a reasonable inclusionary measure, but not a reasonable exclusionary measure). And I think that most things that work well for LEO are also useful (with alteration in some cases) for civilian self-defense. Neither is a perfect measure, and both can inform our view of what is likely to work.



> Problem even before this is that your chances of getting into an accident on a motorcycle are high, even if you're a safe driver.  However, you can easily reduce your risk to zero by never getting on a motorcycle.  Conversely, your chances of being assaulted are low, and are almost nil if you don't engage in high risk behaviors.  And your chances of being randomly murdered by a nut is low, as well.  By suggesting that motorcycles are the only means of transportation, you pull it even more out of proportion.  I suggested before that motorcycles are like cops in that both are situations where you are knowingly putting yourself at a higher risk.  I guess you could equate motorcycles to walking in a bad neighborhood at night, flashing a wad of cash.  That would work, too, I guess.


Not quite as bad as either walking in a bad neighborhood, nor flashing a wad of cash. Interestingly, the chances of being in a MC accident go down dramatically with experience (specifically on the bike being ridden, though I believe that's confounded) and training. So, for someone with some experience on their bike (more than 6 months), they're not almost-guaranteed to have a wreck (like being in a bad neighborhood flashing money seems it would). They have a higher chance of a wreck than someone in a car, so let's say it's more equivalent to going frequently to bars. If you are around people drinking, your chances of ending up in the middle of something are elevated over those who do not, even if you choose to avoid the worst bars. But your point is valid. We could also decrease our chances of violence by avoiding places where people drink (I've seen people get near-violent in nice restaurants after too many drinks).



> like any other thing, the value wouldn't be in the single events.  Any meaningful conclusions would need to come from gathering enough data to do so.  The individual marks their own progress against the norm.  I'm of the opinion that we can quibble over the data points to consider, but in the end it's better to get some information than no information.
> 
> Anyway, rambling on.  I hope some of this makes some sense.



Agreed. My view is simply this: we use what we have, even when we wish we had better. Unfortunately, what we have doesn't provide a very clear picture (hence, I assume, your statement that data doesn't show an advantage).


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 29, 2017)

you all are missing the point.   for helmet to work the rider has to put it on.  to often it is sitting in the saddle bags or on the back seat rest.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> you all are missing the point.   for helmet to work the rider has to put it on.  to often it is sitting in the saddle bags or on the back seat rest.


I'm not sure how that relates, Hoshin.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 29, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I have always been trained with the idea that "the other hand is coming" which is why I always prefer outside entries.  That said if you have to go inside your entry had better distrub the structure of the opponent enough that the other hand is not knocking you in the head with decent strength as you attempt the lock.



I subscribe more to the idea of when opportunity presents itself act decisively and swiftly handling any additional threats as they present themselves

I will deal with the other hand coming if need be....there is always another something coming.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 29, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I subscribe more to the idea of when opportunity presents itself act decisively and swiftly handling any additional threats as they present themselves
> 
> I will deal with the other hand coming if need be....there is always another something coming.



The thing is this.  Look at the entry in the original video.  If everything on that entry doesn't go perfectly you are actually in a position where you not only have both hands tied up (so you can't address the other hand) it's also likely that you won't even see the other hand until it hits.  

If your entry is such that you have the opportunity to deal with a hit, if need be, cool.  However entries that require everything to line up "just right" because it doesn't give you that opportunity make me nervous as hell.  After over 19 years of dealing with violently resisting people something like in that video only makes sense to me (again just my opinion) in the event of a sucker punch because you don't have any other choice.


----------



## Buka (Jun 29, 2017)

Steve said:


> self protection?  Just kidding.  I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part.  I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition.   I've said this before.  We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour.  Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.   We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed.  And that's if you do everything wrong.
> 
> If you're a cop or a soldier, sure.  You need specialized training.  But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills?  I'm skeptical.
> 
> Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else.  Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.




Oh, sure, easy for you to say, Steve. I know your kind, you're one of those Philoso-raptors!




 

All fine tweed, aged briar, good syntax and Windsor nice nice, until you choke the ever loving ship out of someone. (Gentlemanly, of course.)  I ain't buying, bro.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> We have that data from competition, but we don't really have that for short, quick, sudden attacks, which are a different dynamic than what we tend to see in the ring. If I turn around and someone is just about to punch/stab/grab/whatever, how much does MA training really help? We don't have statistical data on that, and probably can't ever have data statisticians can even agree upon the usage and categorization of.
> 
> On top of that, you've put three superlatives in there. If you have all three, you are certainly more likely to win in a fight. But what if you have one of the three, or two? How much of each is necessary to outweigh the others? That's probably unquantifiable.


well from experience, you can hold your own in a fight if you have any one in significant amounts over your opponent, by hold your own I mean your still up right when someone breaks it up or the guy gets bored. To actually win a fight you need at least two out of the three, unless the one he has in his favour is much  great than yours, ie point 1


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how that relates, Hoshin.


ill get to that in a minute.



Steve said:


> I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.


two different concepts mentioned here.  The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
to say this about the survivability is a legitimate concern.  But it is a concern of personal significance it does not really apply in a general sense.  i struggled with this idea for many years when had just started.  maybe we all ask "will what i am learning actually work?"  it doesnt apply in the macro view.  in general this is an empty argument because we have to much evidence that says otherwise.
the argument that there is no data to support the idea is the equivalent of saying that we cannot say for sure that one billion plus one billion equals two billion because there is no possible way to count each item one by one to come to such a conclusion.  the fact is that we can add one plus one, and we can extrapolate the answer to the larger question.  
We know that to play pro sports takes many hours of practice.  Tiger woods did not get good at golf watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.
the critic would say "well thats sports"
we know for a fact that an EMT will have a higher probability of saving lives if they take a CPR course and practice before hand.
as for combat....
The great war strategist of Roman times, Vegetius  wrote in the year 450 in a letter to the emperor..._"Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training"_

we know study and practice improves the likelihood of success. we know it empirically and intuitively.
The issue then is that the success of martial arts in self defense is a much more of a complicated subject than just skill.  

back to the motor cycle helmet.  _ the helmet gets left in the saddle bags rather that on your head.   _the significance is that these skills need to be brought into play and thats not an easy thing to do.  the skills often get left behind when we need them.   Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE"  after 5 wins.  that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights.  

i have mentioned many times that the brain needs to make connections. there is a lot of MA training out there that does not resemble the kind of situations that we will encounter on the street.  this leaves the brain looking for a proper response and neural connection and it wont find anything. the brain needs to make the connection therefore training must look like what we will encounter.  
practice must resemble the reality.

Mind set and the ability to do violence.  most people naturally do not want to engage in combat.
_After WWII the US military changed the practice targets from a round dot to a human like silhouette. the result was a dramatic increase in the firing rate.  _
Dave Grossman has written a few books on this subject but it is nothing new.  Ardarnt DU Picq wrote about the same conclusion is 1870. ( i have a suspicion that Grossmans conclusion was nothing more than reading Du Picq'a work) 
Yet we know for a fact  historically and have the data to show that PROPER training will and does overcome the reluctance to engage in combat.  This leads to the question on why someone would be reluctant to fight.. the answer is simply fear.  its obvious that if the soldier fires his weapon that return fire is a given result. so it becomes evident that with proper training fear can be overcome.  

the ending question then is "Is your training giving you the tools to be successful"   not an easy question and many do not like the answer.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how that relates, Hoshin.



Wearing a helmet is the least effective method of surviving a crash. So it becomes argument against bothering.

The counter is in very specific circumstances it is the only thing that will lead to surviving a crash.

You won't need to fight until you do. But for it to be useful you need it all the time.

ATGATT.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important.   First, there is real data regarding motorcycles.   Lots of it.   There are crash statistics, mortality stats,  there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury.   Martial arts don't have any of that.
> 
> Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk.  While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe.  Just don't get on one.    The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop.  I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops  are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.
> 
> Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station.  Does that work?  I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.



But we know where martial arts does work. And can work off that. And a lot of safety equipment like helmets use method that only approximate the real thing.

If you look up arguments for creation over Darwinism they take the same tact that you can't really know. But you follow enough different arrows pointing to one place. That is the likely place.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> ill get to that in a minute.
> 
> 
> two different concepts mentioned here.  The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
> ...


you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.
one) troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who refuse to follow orders has been a method of control.

second. The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveopong MA skills also guarantee a high,standard of physical fitness.

that true of soldiers, but not at all a guarantee with a MA school, where it seems many reach high levels with out deveoping a matching degree of fitness.

so the whole MA training works as it works in armies, is based on a false premise


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.
> one) troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who tmtefised to follow orders has been a method of control.
> 
> second. The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveopong MA skills also gautentees a high,standard of physical fitness.
> ...


To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance). 

To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance).
> 
> To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.


well quite capable against who, against you perhaps, but against someone of much greater fitness, perhaps not.
but then your point doesn't stack up. Being in yoir late 50s with a gut doesn't mean you don't have a very good standard of fitness


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> well quite capable against who, against you perhaps, but against someone of much greater fitness, perhaps not.
> but then your point doesn't stack up. Being in yoir late 50s with a gut doesn't mean you don't have a very good standard of fitness


We have to decide to draw a line somewhere. Very few people are concerned about being attacked by a world-class athlete. I'm a guy in his mid-40's in reasonably good shape. I can hike all day, run about 3 miles (depending upon hills), and have reasonable muscle tone (excepting some areas of atrophy from recent injuries) - all knees permitting. If someone can hold their own with me, their ability is good enough for most needs. As for the guys-with-guts in question, they can't run a mile. Given your previous rant about how fitness must be an overall measure, I'm not sure what your point here is.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance).
> 
> To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.


I'm also perplex by you viewing 30seconds worth of fitness, as adequate, if if fight lasts 45secs your lost


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> We have to decide to draw a line somewhere. Very few people are concerned about being attacked by a world-class athlete. I'm a guy in his mid-40's in reasonably good shape. I can hike all day, run about 3 miles (depending upon hills), and have reasonable muscle tone (excepting some areas of atrophy from recent injuries) - all knees permitting. If someone can hold their own with me, their ability is good enough for most needs. As for the guys-with-guts in question, they can't run a mile. Given your previous rant about how fitness must be an overall measure, I'm not sure what your point here is.


some how you always manage to take any post I make about fitness,as a personal a front. You have to admit there are MAs walking about who couldn't blow the skin of a rice pudding

but you latest doesn't make a deal of sence, these fat old dudes are not fit enough to run a mile, but ate fit enough to deal with you, that can only mean that you are not very fit, can't it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm also perplex by you viewing 30seconds worth of fitness, as adequate, if if fight lasts 45secs your lost


I didn't say 30 seconds was adequate. I said it doesn't take a high level of fitness to last 30 seconds, especially with adrenaline. In fact, lasting a minute with adrenaline is feasible for most folks, but it's unlikely an attack will last that long. If you're still fighting off an attacker after 30 seconds, you're in deep, deep stuff. They're committed to taking you down, rather than looking for easy prey, and they're capable of holding off your adrenaline-fueled defense for 30 seconds. That's not good, no matter who you are.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> some how you always manage to take any post I make about fitness,as a personal a front. You have to admit there are MAs walking about who couldn't blow the skin of a rice pudding
> 
> but you latest doesn't make a deal of sence, these fat old dudes are not fit enough to run a mile, but ate fit enough to deal with you, that can only mean that you are not very fit, can't it


Where did I take affront at it? I simply gave some details of my own fitness, because you stated being able to defend against me didn't ensure them against someone more fit. I clarified the point. The likelihood of them facing someone a lot more fit than me is probably not great. And unless the fight/attack lasts a long time, the  opponent's fitness isn't much of an issue, either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> but you latest doesn't make a deal of sence, these fat all dudes sent fit enough to run a mile, but ate fit enough to deal with you, that can only mean that you are not very fit, can't it


And this was the point of my original post. If the fight doesn't last long, my fitness compared to theirs doesn't really enter into it. They are not more fit than me - they are more skilled. If I end up fighting Conor McGregor, his fitness (much higher than mine) won't be what beats me - he's simply more skilled than me. Fitness matters when the skill levels are similar, and the fight lasts a while.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't say 30 seconds was adequate. I said it doesn't take a high level of fitness to last 30 seconds, especially with adrenaline. In fact, lasting a minute with adrenaline is feasible for most folks, but it's unlikely an attack will last that long. If you're still fighting off an attacker after 30 seconds, you're in deep, deep stuff. They're committed to taking you down, rather than looking for easy prey, and they're capable of holding off your adrenaline-fueled defense for 30 seconds. That's not good, no matter who you are.


but that's what a fight is, two blokes using all their fitness to hurt the other one. If your,oppoinent has a reasonable level of ability and fitness then the fight will last to one of you runs out of puff. Having a strategy that you only need to last 30 secs as that's all you need with you skill set, is fool hardy. As if the guy is still up right and punching,after that time, you are indeed in deep doo.

we are not taking about elite athletes, any one who plays basket ball ot,5aside soccer will easily out perform you


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.





jobo said:


> The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveoping MA skills also guarantee a high,standard of physical fitness.



i admit i did not mention fitness.  but it was not my intention to ignore the matter.  there are multiple factors i did not address. this does not mean they are not important. it would just require me to write a book not a thread post.  my last sentence accounts for all the variables when i asked "is your (general your not personal) art giving you the tools you need"    i have never been to a dojo that does not address a persons fitness level, but i am sure they exist.



jobo said:


> troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who refuse to follow orders has been a method of control.


im sorry i dont buy into the idea that soldiers are brain washed to follow orders.  but that does not negate my point in the least even if they were.  good training happens on a neurological level and in the stimuli -response hard wiring of the brain. its about reaction to a stimuli not "running towards danger". 
as example Grossman in his book gives an example of a 50 cal gun man who's training taught him to "roll out" of the gun seat so that the next soldier can take over if needed. in this case the gun man was shot in the head but his training kicked in and his body did as trained and rolled out of the seat, allowing the next soldier to take his spot without having to pull the dead body out of the seat.  this is called operant conditioning. 
and yet again ,does your training give you the necessary tools ?


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And this was the point of my original post. If the fight doesn't last long, my fitness compared to theirs doesn't really enter into it. They are not more fit than me - they are more skilled. If I end up fighting Conor McGregor, his fitness (much higher than mine) won't be what beats me - he's simply more skilled than me. Fitness matters when the skill levels are similar, and the fight lasts a while.


but this is the middle aged fantasy that prevails in MA, it doesn't matter that I'm fat and unfit, I will defeat all attackers with my skills. Well maybe some of them but I wouldn't put my money or my life on that holding up to examination


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i admit i did not mention fitness.  but it was not my intention to ignore the matter.  there are multiple factors i did not address. this does not mean they are not important. it would just require me to write a book not a thread post.  my last sentence accounts for all the variables when i asked "is your (general your not personal) art giving you the tools you need"    i have never been to a dojo that does not address a persons fitness level, but i am sure they exist.
> 
> 
> im sorry i dont buy into the idea that soldiers are brain washed to follow orders.  but that does not negate my point in the least even if they were.  good training happens on a neurological level and in the stimuli -response hard wiring of the brain. its about reaction to a stimuli not "running towards danger".
> ...


well yes you did ignore it, as its a fundamentals' of any fight,
any MAtraining involves fitness, its just what level of fitness is achieved. Fighting is one of the most demanding physical activitys that you can undertake


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Where did I take affront at it? I simply gave some details of my own fitness, because you stated being able to defend against me didn't ensure them against someone more fit. I clarified the point. The likelihood of them facing someone a lot more fit than me is probably not great. And unless the fight/attack lasts a long time, the  opponent's fitness isn't much of an issue, either.


really, you place your self so high up the,fitness standards of the general population, that you view the,chances of them being attacked by someone fitter than you as unlikely


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yes you did ignore it, as its a fundamentals' of any fight,
> any MAtraining involves fitness, its just what level of fitness is achieved. Fighting is one of the most demanding physical activitys that you can undertake


Dude you have to chill.  sometimes you got good posts and other times you hang on the edge of trolling.  i am telling you that you are correct fitness is important.   but my post was aimed at a post from Steve and fitness was not part of his post so i didnt address it directly


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 30, 2017)

What an unusual thread.

From a viable defense to soldiers who are brainwashed but still won't shoot.

The defense will work.  It was pointed out, but people still worry and talk about the left arm, that can do nothing if the defense is applied correctly; especially that part of it which rotates the opponent's left side away from the defender.  Now as I have always said about the grappling I learned, one must be both quick and accurate.  If one is, no worry about the left hand/arm.  If not ...

As to soldiers, I have read what gpsemour talked about.  I had doubts about it then, and still do.  The only way I might see that is if the soldiers interviewed were not combat arms, or if new combat arms soldiers were told to fire from ambush.  But I simply don't believe if experienced combat arms soldiers were told to fire from ambush or respond to being fired on, they would refuse to kill someone who was clearly trying to kill them.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  Maybe I just didn't get around enough.  *;-)*

American soldiers are not brainwashed as I understand the term, but the poster who said that may have experiences with other armies I am not familiar with.  American soldiers are indeed taught to obey orders because not to do so may be more likely to result in their own, or their fellow soldiers unnecessary deaths.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> but that's what a fight is, two blokes using all their fitness to hurt the other one. If your,oppoinent has a reasonable level of ability and fitness then the fight will last to one of you runs out of puff. Having a strategy that you only need to last 30 secs as that's all you need with you skill set, is fool hardy. As if the guy is still up right and punching,after that time, you are indeed in deep doo.
> 
> we are not taking about elite athletes, any one who plays basket ball ot,5aside soccer will easily out perform you


Assumptions, again. But that's nothing new for you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> but this is the middle aged fantasy that prevails in MA, it doesn't matter that I'm fat and unfit, I will defeat all attackers with my skills. Well maybe some of them but I wouldn't put my money or my life on that holding up to examination


That's not fantasy, that's reality. A highly fit person without skills will not defeat someone with more skills, unless their strength (not complete fitness, just strength) is much higher. And even then, that's not a guarantee against good skill. Just look for some of the BJJ challenges where they dealt with folks MUCH stronger (one, a bodybuilder), by handling them with skill.

That fitness will always prevail is a fantasy. Fitness matters, but it does not conquer all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> really, you place your self so high up the,fitness standards of the general population, that you view the,chances of them being attacked by someone fitter than you as unlikely


If we look at what is common among the population, I'm well above average in fitness. So, to find someone "a lot more fit" (my original term, which you attempted to reduce to simply "more fit") is not high. A lot more fit than me is someone training for something serious, or simply seriously into training. That's not going to be a commonplace thing to run into.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If we look at what is common among the population, I'm well above average in fitness. So, to find someone "a lot more fit" (my original term, which you attempted to reduce to simply "more fit") is not high. A lot more fit than me is someone training for something serious, or simply seriously into training. That's not going to be a commonplace thing to run into.


ok, so how are you bench marking tour fitness against the population, you must have done so to make that claim


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not fantasy, that's reality. A highly fit person without skills will not defeat someone with more skills, unless their strength (not complete fitness, just strength) is much higher. And even then, that's not a guarantee against good skill. Just look for some of the BJJ challenges where they dealt with folks MUCH stronger (one, a bodybuilder), by handling them with skill.
> 
> That fitness will always prevail is a fantasy. Fitness matters, but it does not conquer all.


well no not just strengh, cardio,balance reaction, co ordination can all over come some old fat guy, that had some skills.

holding up some bbj guy in peak condition doesn't mean it will Cary over to the old fat guys you spar with


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> two different concepts mentioned here.  The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
> to say this about the survivability is a legitimate concern.  But it is a concern of personal significance it does not really apply in a general sense.  i struggled with this idea for many years when had just started.  maybe we all ask "will what i am learning actually work?"  it doesnt apply in the macro view.  in general this is an empty argument because we have to much evidence that says otherwise.


Totally agree with you that there are two things at play:  the real danger vs the perceived risk.  For example, there is a perception that if you are shot with a gun, you are deadmeat.  But statistically, unless you are shot in the head or the heart, your chances of surviving a gun shot wound are very good.  Over 95% if you make it to the hospital alive.  In this case, I'm with you that there is a difference between the odds of an attack, and the survivability of an attack.  I am strictly pointing out two things.  First that, regardless of one's behaviors, the odds of an attack are very, very low.  I have posted actual numbers in the past, but the stats are easy to find.  AND, as for survivability, even if you are attacked, your odds of surviving an attack are very, very good, regardless of your level of preparedness.   Most people, even if they are woefully unprepared or helpless to defend themselves, will survive an attack.  That's not my opinion.  It's a fact.   





> the argument that there is no data to support the idea is the equivalent of saying that we cannot say for sure that one billion plus one billion equals two billion because there is no possible way to count each item one by one to come to such a conclusion.  the fact is that we can add one plus one, and we can extrapolate the answer to the larger question.


Well, no.  We can actually quantify math.  By definition, math is literally quantifiable.  That's not the same at all and highlights my point.  We can surmise that there is benefit to training, and we can speculate that training might (possibly) help, and that some training could (perhaps) help more than other training.  But we cannot quantify it.  The benefit may be negligible or even non-existent, and we don't know.  





> We know that to play pro sports takes many hours of practice.  Tiger woods did not get good at golf watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.
> the critic would say "well thats sports"


right, but is Tiger Woods good at putt-putt golf?  Or is he good at shuffleboard? 

We have data about how effective cop training is for cops.  They train, then they go use their training.  They get individualized feedback based on their performance and on a macro level, we accumulate data.

We have data about how effective MMA training is for MMAists.  They train, then they go use their training.  They get their feedback and we get data.

We have data about how golfers train for golf in exactly the same way.  But we have no data to suggest that being a great basketball player is good training for golf, even though we know that Michael Jordan is really good at both.  Do you see what I mean?  We might speculate that being an elite level basketball player contributes to golfing skills, but we're moving away from the data and into belief.

And I am in no way saying that cop training or MMA training (or other kinds of self defense training) have no benefit.  I'm saying specifically that we don't know for sure one way or the other, because it's not quantifiable.  I'm not saying there is no benefit.  We believe there is.  And that's not the same thing.   





> back to the motor cycle helmet.  _ the helmet gets left in the saddle bags rather that on your head.   _the significance is that these skills need to be brought into play and thats not an easy thing to do.  the skills often get left behind when we need them.   Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE"  after 5 wins.  that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights.
> 
> i have mentioned many times that the brain needs to make connections. there is a lot of MA training out there that does not resemble the kind of situations that we will encounter on the street.  this leaves the brain looking for a proper response and neural connection and it wont find anything. the brain needs to make the connection therefore training must look like what we will encounter.
> practice must resemble the reality.
> ...


I agree with all of this.  Particularly this passage: _ "Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE"  after 5 wins.  that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights."_

He's talking about the transition to application, something I've gone on about probably more than I should.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.
> one) troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who refuse to follow orders has been a method of control.
> 
> second. The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveopong MA skills also guarantee a high,standard of physical fitness.
> ...



First I think you are stretching out the premise a bit.  People are talking about the training of a skill set, and the Military analogy is fairly close there.  Your idea of "killing you own soldiers who refuse..." has been gone for well over a century though (outside the dramatic moments of Cinema.)  there really were a number of strawman arguments in that post.

As for the fitness bit that has to do with training method.  Example my school.  During the week we have the "skills classes" which includes sparring, pressure testing necessary for those skills to work in real practice.  If you are going to be in a school where there is regular full on sparring then you will get fit, even if it requires you to put in work on your own time.  That said my school, and at least one other in my area have at least one block of time a week where fitness is the goal.  My school, on Saturdays, has a "conditioning class" think a Crossfit designed around the fundamentals of Traditional Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali.  As an example...

start at opposite ends of a large space in the push up position> wait for command and then do X push-ups>  Stand and sprint to middle and meet your partner where sticks lie> pick them up and do sinawali or 10 count sumbrada>  Wait for the call of break > sprint back to start position and drop to the push-up position.

Now the above may be uncommon for a TMA school, but I see this becoming more common now with the emergence of MMA gyms becoming popular because the TMA's schools wish to remain competitive.  They may make these conditioning classes "optional" but the option is there.

That said, I am a damn skinny guy who is on the down hill slope to 50 (you can sorta see the skinny in my profile pic).  I try to stay fit but the 20 and 30 somethings I deal with often work out in the gym everyday because they are in and out of jail and it is a "thing" for them to stay very fit with in their peer group, so they are more fit (no job and family allows for more gym time).  What has it so I can take them down even though they are more fit? My skill set.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance).
> 
> To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.



I have never heard anybody finish a fight wishing they had less cardio.

People will make compromises on their own ability to fight depending on how important fighting success is.

Because I am not likley to get in a fight I have sleep ins and eat pizza. If i was likley to get in a fight. I would be getting fitter.

This is in essence what you are both trying to say exept jojo is trying to drive home that there is no excuse for not being properly prepared. And you are trying to dive home that there are excuses.

It depends how seriously you are taking a potential altercation.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> First I think you are stretching out the premise a bit.  People are talking about the training of a skill set, and the Military analogy is fairly close there.  Your idea of "killing you own soldiers who refuse..." has been gone for well over a century though (outside the dramatic moments of Cinema.)  there really were a number of strawman arguments in that post.
> 
> As for the fitness bit that has to do with training method.  Example my school.  During the week we have the "skills classes" which includes sparring, pressure testing necessary for those skills to work in real practice.  If you are going to be in a school where there is regular full on sparring then you will get fit, even if it requires you to put in work on your own time.  That said my school, and at least one other in my area have at least one block of time a week where fitness is the goal.  My school, on Saturdays, has a "conditioning class" think a Crossfit designed around the fundamentals of Traditional Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali.  As an example...
> 
> ...



And you can legally shoot people.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And you can legally shoot people.



Yes but those situations are ones I would never even have thought about going hands on.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Yes but those situations are ones I would never even have thought about going hands on.



Doesn't matter the threat is stiil there.

How do you defend yourself against a cop?

Take your beating like a man.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Doesn't matter the threat is stiil there.
> 
> How do you defend yourself against a cop?
> 
> Take your beating like a man.


But Do it with a lot of wailing and sobbing and moaning.  If you dont get someone to record it on their phone you might get really messed up. Got to get their attention.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Doesn't matter the threat is stiil there.
> 
> How do you defend yourself against a cop?
> 
> Take your beating like a man.



Not really.  Cops end up in hospital all the time because the initial assualt doesn't rise to the level of lethal force and they get overwhelmed to the point they can't draw a weapon when it would be justified.  Then you have the fights where the officer(s) can hold their own and so lethal force isn't justified.  As an example LE officers in the US according to FBI statistics are the victim of approximately 50,000 assaults a year.  Officers Assaulted

From the report...


Of the 49,851 officers who were assaulted in 2013, 14,565 (29.2 percent) sustained injuries.
31.0 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries.
14.6 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured.
10.9 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured.
27.0 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured.
So the stats say otherwise but myths endure.  The gun is not a magic wand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> well no not just strengh, cardio,balance reaction, co ordination can all over come some old fat guy, that had some skills.
> 
> holding up some bbj guy in peak condition doesn't mean it will Cary over to the old fat guys you spar with


Okay, so now "fitness" includes a lot of things that actually relate to skill (balance, reaction, coordination). You're conflating the two.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> First I think you are stretching out the premise a bit.  People are talking about the training of a skill set, and the Military analogy is fairly close there.  Your idea of "killing you own soldiers who refuse..." has been gone for well over a century though (outside the dramatic moments of Cinema.)  there really were a number of strawman arguments in that post.
> 
> As for the fitness bit that has to do with training method.  Example my school.  During the week we have the "skills classes" which includes sparring, pressure testing necessary for those skills to work in real practice.  If you are going to be in a school where there is regular full on sparring then you will get fit, even if it requires you to put in work on your own time.  That said my school, and at least one other in my area have at least one block of time a week where fitness is the goal.  My school, on Saturdays, has a "conditioning class" think a Crossfit designed around the fundamentals of Traditional Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali.  As an example...
> 
> ...





gpseymour said:


> Okay, so now "fitness" includes a lot of things that actually relate to skill (balance, reaction, coordination). You're conflating the two.


you can have balance, co ordination and fast reactions with out any martial arts skill, that really my point a basket ball player will out perform your fat old men on those counts as well as being stronger and having better cardio


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have never heard anybody finish a fight wishing they had less cardio.
> 
> People will make compromises on their own ability to fight depending on how important fighting success is.
> 
> ...


And how much you expect that difference in fitness to matter.

To me, a reasonable level of fitness for most of those I train is somewhere above average fitness. I prefer to keep a bit ahead of that, myself. I see a diminishing return after that point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> you can have balance, co ordination and fast reactions with out any martial arts skill, that really my point a basket ball player will out perform your fat old men on those counts as well as being stronger and having better cardio


Perhaps a pro basketball player or elite college player would have better reactions, balance, and coordination. Not the typical amateur.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And how much you expect that difference in fitness to matter.
> 
> To me, a reasonable level of fitness for most of those I train is somewhere above average fitness. I prefer to keep a bit ahead of that, myself. I see a diminishing return after that point.


I asked before about how you bench mark your fitness as above average, you didn't answer


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Perhaps a pro basketball player or elite college player would have better reactions, balance, and coordination. Not the typical amateur.


your back in to fantasy land

where only an ELITE athletes is fitter than you and your fat old men


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> your back in to fantasy land
> 
> where only an ELITE athletes is fitter than you and your fat old men


And where, precisely, did I say anything about physical fitness in that post??? You're imagining things. Once again, I think we're done here. This isn't even entertaining to others.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And where, precisely, did I say anything about physical fitness in that post??? You're imagining things. Once again, I think we're done here. This isn't even entertaining to others.


we have already defined physical fitness as reactions,, balance, co ordination cardio and strengh.
you claiming only elite athletes have greater fitness atributes than you and not for the first time


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> you can have balance, co ordination and fast reactions with out any martial arts skill, that really my point a basket ball player will out perform your fat old men on those counts as well as being stronger and having better cardio



In fitness yes but if they don't know how to punch, grapple or throw etc they won't last long enough for that fitness to matter.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> In fitness yes but if they don't know how to punch, grapple or throw etc they won't last long enough for that fitness to matter.


ok so a basket ball player who can punch will take you out
this is back to the il take em out in 30secs, I don't need fitness fantasy


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 30, 2017)

jobo said:


> ok so a basket ball player who can punch will take you out
> this is back to the il take em out in 30secs, I don't need fitness fantasy


You keep moving goal posts.  Really no point in continuing.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Not really.  Cops end up in hospital all the time because the initial assualt doesn't rise to the level of lethal force and they get overwhelmed to the point they can't draw a weapon when it would be justified.  Then you have the fights where the officer(s) can hold their own and so lethal force isn't justified.  As an example LE officers in the US according to FBI statistics are the victim of approximately 50,000 assaults a year.  Officers Assaulted
> 
> From the report...
> 
> ...



Has nothing to do with the level of your ability vs theirs if they are not really fighting you.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And how much you expect that difference in fitness to matter.
> 
> To me, a reasonable level of fitness for most of those I train is somewhere above average fitness. I prefer to keep a bit ahead of that, myself. I see a diminishing return after that point.



How do you know the right level of fitness to settle for?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Has nothing to do with the level of your ability vs theirs if they are not really fighting you.



They are always really fighting you.  They don't think "omg" he's got a gun and if I fight too hard he will shoot me.".  They think "omg I don't want to go to jail" and the stats show that.  Hell they will say as they stand off with you "what are you gonna shoot me?!? Do it!"  

Again you are confusing myth with reality.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> They are always really fighting you.  They don't think "omg" he's got a gun and if I fight too hard he will shoot me.".  They think "omg I don't want to go to jail" and the stats show that.  Hell they will say as they stand off with you "what are you to do shoot me?!?"
> 
> Again you are confusing myth with reality.



Precisely what was discussed on that defense against a cop thread is that your priorities are don't get shot and don't go to jail.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> How do you know the right level of fitness to settle for?


It's a judgement call. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we don't it's a binary choice: couch potato or world-class athlete. I've judged that folks training for self-defense should have better-than-average fitness. Some students don't really even see the need for that - settling for average fitness - and that's their call to make as adults. I prefer to push a bit further, and I'm not even sure that decision is part of my self-defense/martial arts thought process - I just like being that fit.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Precisely what was discussed on that defense against a cop thread is that your priorities are don't get shot and don't go to jail.



And so much of that thread had no connection with the over all reality because the people posting there got their "experience" from a headline and youtube.  Look at those isolated incidents in the face of almost 800,000 uniformed police in the US.  Then you see just how much of a wasted exercise that thread was.  

Long story short, the vast majority of criminals don't even think about the fact the cop has a gun.  If they did fear that there would be no such thing as resisting arrest.  The magic wand would have every crook stop the minute a cop shows up.  Hell I have pointed a taser at sober angry suspects, when I had time to draw it, told them I was going to tase them, and I was still forced by their actions to deploy it because of the culture they live in.  Its a sad culture, where I work.  I will explain why I say that in a moment.  Where I work it is a high crime area where there is a culture on the street that says "if you just threaten force its a bluff" and they call it because if you meant to use force you would have just done it.  So the gun doesn't matter, sometimes even when it is drawn and aimed.  Where I grew up however is a "bedroom community" vs a high crime community.  There mere officer presence, tools and all, usually causes an immediate deescalation with some rare exceptions.   

They don't want to go to jail yes, but they will beat the living crap out of a cop to make that happen.  The stats I posted regarding assaults against, and documented injuries to, LEOs in the US make my point for me, even if you want to avoid the stats because it is inconvenient to your narrative because your narrative doesn't address the high-crime vs bedroom community issue, nor the fact that a majority of physically violent incident incidents involve the suspect being under the influence of drugs or alcohol (where they aren't thinking straight period) etc.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's a judgement call. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we don't it's a binary choice: couch potato or world-class athlete. I've judged that folks training for self-defense should have better-than-average fitness. Some students don't really even see the need for that - settling for average fitness - and that's their call to make as adults. I prefer to push a bit further, and I'm not even sure that decision is part of my self-defense/martial arts thought process - I just like being that fit.



And this is where I think full sparring, even for just a couple 30 to 60 second rounds, can encourage people to be "above average".  At the end of such spars, if your fitness is average or lower, you can be hating life and it is a decent incentive to encourage a bit of working out on the side.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have never heard anybody finish a fight wishing they had less cardio.
> 
> People will make compromises on their own ability to fight depending on how important fighting success is.
> 
> ...


Ive only read one half of the conversation on this thread as I have the other half on ignore, but I feel like this is important to respond to.

I'm going to imagine that I'm the attacker in this scenario. If I was, my main focus would be on appearing threatening and having a weapon on me (this assumption is supported by the people I work with who mugged people in the past). In that case, the weapon is a lot more important than cardio. Against that attacker, the most important thing would be appearing confident, and having the sense to back up. Fighting skill, fitness, and anything else beyond that first moment is secondary. If you appear able to cause them issues, they'll just wait for someone else (again, based on what I've heard from the muggers/attackers). 

So, based on that, if your goal is self-defense, feel free to sleep in and have pizza. What you need to learn is a: humility enough to give the mugger your wallet if asked, b: self defense enough to escape the situation without harm, for a few moments, and c: cardio enough to get to a public area before they change their mind.

only C requires a level of fitness, and in reality youd be better earning that by joining a track club and practicing sprints then going to martial arts class. so I'm more than comfortable ordering pizza and sleeping in than being concerned that someone will attack me.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And so much of that thread had no connection with the over all reality because the people posting there got their "experience" from a headline and youtube.  Look at those isolated incidents in the face of almost 800,000 uniformed police in the US.  Then you see just how much of a wasted exercise that thread was.
> 
> Long story short, the vast majority of criminals don't even think about the fact the cop has a gun.  If they did fear that there would be no such thing as resisting arrest.  The magic wand would have every crook stop the minute a cop shows up.  Hell I have pointed a taser at sober angry suspects, when I had time to draw it, told them I was going to tase them, and I was still forced by their actions to deploy it because of the culture they live in.  Its a sad culture, where I work.  I will explain why I say that in a moment.  Where I work it is a high crime area where there is a culture on the street that says "if you just threaten force its a bluff" and they call it because if you meant to use force you would have just done it.  So the gun doesn't matter, sometimes even when it is drawn and aimed.  Where I grew up however is a "bedroom community" vs a high crime community.  There mere officer presence, tools and all, usually causes an immediate deescalation with some rare exceptions.
> 
> They don't want to go to jail yes, but they will beat the living crap out of a cop to make that happen.  The stats I posted regarding assaults against, and documented injuries to, LEOs in the US make my point for me, even if you want to avoid the stats because it is inconvenient to your narrative because your narrative doesn't address the high-crime vs bedroom community issue, nor the fact that a majority of physically violent incident incidents involve the suspect being under the influence of drugs or alcohol (where they aren't thinking straight period) etc.



You are welcome to believe it is your skill set alone that wins you fights if you want.

The stats are not relevant in this case.


----------

