# Study On Street Fights?



## MardiGras Bandit (May 25, 2006)

One of the biggest criticisms thrown around in martial arts discussion is that an art won't work "on the street". This is used by _every_ side in martial arts arguments; MMA guys bashing TMA, TMA guys bashing grapplers, everybody bashing George Dillman and so on. The counterpoint is usually "You haven't done it _on the street_ so you don't know what's right or wrong". Even though most of us have picked sides in these debates (and are dead set on defending them), many times it seems that little more then speculation is offered up as evidence.

This is because no one seems to know exactly how a street fight will take place. Again, everyone has their theories, but this is often just conjecture and hearsay that can only go so far in ending the debate.

My question is this; has there ever been a study done on street fights and the likely ways in which they occur? I'm not talking about a compilation of anecdotes or some MA's promotional work. I'm talking about a well done, scientific study which could help to reveal the nature of the beast. So far I have never seen one (and could easily see the great diffculty involved in such a work). If there was one however, it could go a long way to resolving the perpetual best MA arguments.

Has anyone seen anything like this? Any thoughts on the idea in general?


----------



## Davejlaw (May 25, 2006)

That's a good question and a good idea if it has not been done. I have seen a book a while ago at Borders that I think is titled "Anatomy of a Street Fight". I personally think that no one martial art is really "better" than another in a street fight, it mostly lies in the practicioner of the art and what he can muster in a difficult situation. As much as I don't like George Dillman and think that some of his teachings are bogus, I'm sure he would beat some muggers down if accosted in an alley. I think that certain martial arts have techniques that are more applicable in a street fight but all are effective if put to use correctly and calmly. I will do some research and get back to you if I can find a study on this. Problem is most of the studies are done by martial artists who are very biased toward their own art being the best, but I will try and find something objective.


----------



## Wynergy (May 25, 2006)

Well, you could only take it in retrospect, and even then, you're not going to get an accurate study. Because of the nature of what it is, they'll occur anywhere. With no training myself, I got into one last summer, got bopped a few times in the jaw and scratched, and then I took the guy to the ground and pinned him (fear the power of a good busboy!). Was too drunk to do anything else, but that alone shows why a "scientific" study would be impossible.

First of all, you'd have to form a hypothesis. What would this be?
Second, you'd need to test it in a scientifically recreatable environment, which the street seems to be the very opposite of. Even then, the factors leading to such scraps are going to vary so wildly that, at least to me, this seems an impossibility.


----------



## Davejlaw (May 25, 2006)

Good point Wynergy! It would be almost impossible to create a controlled environment that would be the same for all arts tested. It is this randomness that makes the streetfight such an unpredictable animal.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 25, 2006)

My question is this... (my opinions follow)

What is it that seems to be so unknown that it requires a study?  

Remember, the assailants are human. The human anatomy has certain set of physical abilities and capacities. In fact it is limited.  There is nothing new that has been discovered about the human anatomy with regards to movement and abilities in centuries.  However, there seems to be a constant battle over "how to defend against a human".  The fact of the matter is, the human anatomy can only do so much, it isn't terribly difficult to conclude that the physics regarding human physical conflict has been worked out for centuries, possibly millenniums.

The only thing that has changed is the force multipliers, thanks to technology.


Now of course if we were attacked by an alien that had 4 arms, 4 light sabers and was 10 feet tall, we would have serious delima on our hands, we would need to develop a new martial art.


----------



## Phadrus00 (May 25, 2006)

hmmm...  an intriguing idea!  While the point about not being able to really "Be there" is excellent, one could still gather valuable data that could be used to form a hypthesis or at least show population of typical scenarios. 

I would conjecture that if one was to interview LEOs, Security Gaurds, Club Security Personnel and review Police Logs that one could assemble a base set of data that would allow hypothesis to be drawn from.

Rob


----------



## Robert Lee (May 25, 2006)

When in a street fight most any thing goes. When in a school you train often with the style type of training. Not as often trained for the wild looping punches  Not trained for the person on drugs or that has been drinking and is bent on trying to hurt you. A person on drugs can be hard to stop as the brain is on over load not a easy knock out the live training in a school can help towards street defence. You have to have the heart to fight on under pressure. No one can say do this do that and it will help you fight a street fight better. You the person have to be willing to train hard and not stop when and if you get in a street fight. Now ways to not fight there are many that educate you on sreet survival. And real fact is after adult hood for many street fights are not as often to happen. hormones have cooled down to control tempors better. Whats hrder today is you fight several people on the streets not just 1 but there friends jump in more often these days.  Guess think hit first hit hard if it comes to that After all all people only have 2 arms and 2 legs. Just some do not stop because they have been hit and fight like they have no tommorow. You can train and train and find out while you look good doing pretty kicks and smooth punches. You never trained being hit and still fighting on You never trained with a person really trying to hurt you You never trained with enough resistive pressure to see what and how you would react So then you get into a fight and now you find out attitude has to be developed. som call it the killer instinct survival mode if you want to call it that. With out it  your chances are less. But agin do we ever know if and when we will have to fight on the streets no We do not.


----------



## Zepp (May 25, 2006)

If a trained statistician had the time, money, and resources, they could collect the information from police case files involving assaults, and compile a study on the most common similarities.  They could probably do something similar with videos of street fights as well.

But the real question you have to ask, as with all observational studies, is who's going to pay for it?  Would the data be worth anything to anyone with the money to fund the study?


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 25, 2006)

Robert Lee said:
			
		

> When in a street fight...


 
This is what I mean when I say much of these debates come down to conjecture. I don't mean to insult your post because you make some good points. But when it comes down to it do we really know that friends are likely to jump in? Maybe after the data is compiled it would turn out the majority of street fights are one on one affairs. That is why I'm interested in seeing if any studies have been done which might give answers to this type of question.

Police reports and studies seem like a good place to look. I might still have access to academic search engines (I graduated college a few weeks ago) so I'll check those. The justice department has done a lot of studies on similar things, so a study on fights might not be to far a stretch to hope for.


----------



## still learning (May 25, 2006)

Hello, Remember a street fight is anything goes, no rules, anyone can jumb in/hit you from the side lines. Anything around you can be use as weopens. Total chaos and no two fights will be the same.

Plus you will get the "adrenline dump" the mind will be racing and sometimes things will be going slow motion. 

The adrenline factor..is something most of us do not get to practice with. Say to your self..if attack..I will fight back...with everything I got..

Everyone fear getting hurt...but if you do not fight back..either way you will get hurt.

Those who have the "Killer Instinct"  ..do not fear getting hurt/injury..they just fight with no tomorrow..because there maybe NO-tomorrow.

Only one way to learn to fight the street fights...is to go and fight in the streets...(This is stupid- you can get kill).  

Next best answer..find a martial arts that trains for the street fighting....any idea's here?

I like Kempo styles..................Aloha


----------



## BallistikMike (May 26, 2006)

Martial Arts that train for the street?

Start with a broad brush that covers the majority of situations you may find yourself in.

1. Learn awareness.
2. Learn to run.
3. Learn to hit hard.
4. Learn to hit hard while being hit hard.

From there you can go into weapon defense, multiman, groundfighting, the art of it (forms, technqiues, the game).

If you can become better then average on those first 4 you can then become excellent any where the journey takes you.

Does your art do this? Does it really do it? Then I think your golden and enjoy the heck out of it and the comradery. 

Im still working on 3 and 4


----------



## Robert Lee (May 26, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> This is what I mean when I say much of these debates come down to conjecture. I don't mean to insult your post because you make some good points. But when it comes down to it do we really know that friends are likely to jump in? Maybe after the data is compiled it would turn out the majority of street fights are one on one affairs. That is why I'm interested in seeing if any studies have been done which might give answers to this type of question.
> 
> Police reports and studies seem like a good place to look. I might still have access to academic search engines (I graduated college a few weeks ago) so I'll check those. The justice department has done a lot of studies on similar things, so a study on fights might not be to far a stretch to hope for.


 But after iut been studied what will it help to improve. Each fight is different and the out come is different each day. 1 day you may come out on top. the next day the same fight you may have not been able to do as well.  No won can predict out comes or methods Sure things could be compared would police reports help Do not think so. Details would be sketchy at best as to what happened. Video yes it would show what happened. How many fights would have to be reseashed to establish methods. Now what provokes and where fights often happen sure police reports can tell you that. It means certion areas of many cities have places of there towns that are more prone to this type of thing. Believe it or not. There are people that can fight very well on the streets andf never train in any art or such They just fight often. and survive well. Any body can fight but the ones that have the heart to fight on. they soon become fighters that survive well. the others become the ones that often end up on the ground because they lack the heart.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 26, 2006)

Robert Lee said:
			
		

> But after iut been studied what will it help to improve...


 
Potentialy alot. While it's true no one can absolutely predict the outcome of a fight, a statistical study can go a long way to predicting the _likely_ outcome. Having such information could affect the way people train.

Lets say that after data was complied it turned out that 95% of street fights end in less then one minute. How would that affect your training? What if it turned out that 95% of fights are at least five minutes long and involve at least four people? How would that affect it? 

I'm not saying either of those statments are true, but if they were they would likely have a profound affect on the way people prepare for self defense. The problem now is that as far as I know there are no such statistics available. The result is that much of the theory behind self defense comes from speculation, not factual analysis. The speculation may be good and based on legitimate experience, but it is still speculation. A study would provide a scientific means to analyze how fights occur and how to train in the best possible way.

I'm still looking for such a study, though no luck so far. BlackBelt had a profile on streetfighters a few months ago (anyone have back issues?), though I'm somewhat skeptical of their ability to publish a legit study. Might be interesting either way. 

Forgive me for all this, I just graduated with a degree in political science. I'm still in the mindset of all my policy evaluation and stats classes.:boing2:


----------



## Don Roley (May 27, 2006)

The problem with this line of thinking is that if you try to run the percentages, you are 1- going to get a flawed study because there is no way to get a good sampling and too many factors in terms of times and areas can be used to get a consistant result. What people do in the suburbs may be different from what is normally done in the ghetto.

And the second reason the idea is flawed is that if you try to play the numbers, you will get a bad result. How many trips to the store in your car do you get into fatal accidents in? The odds seem to say that seatbelts are a useless idea. Yet I buckle in each and every time I get in a car- even before it was the law and in areas where it still is not illeagle.

Quite simply put, if you say that most assaults are not lethal and structure your training to reflect that, then you run the risk of being one of the statistical blips. And with the consequences so great, it just is not logical to do so. We have building regulations, fire regulations, etc all based pretty much on worse case scenarios instead of the typical day at work. Shouldn't martial arts be based on the idea that things may be worse than normal?


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 27, 2006)

If we are in a fight, things are probably already worse then normal. Shouldn't we try to train in the most effective way to deal with such a situation? Training time is finite, and a better understanding of what we are training for can give us a better understanding of how to train. What if knives were only used in .1% of street fights? Wouldn't you spend less time learing knife defense and more time learing how to block a haymaker?

That said I agree it would be hugely difficult to perform such a study, although I don't think it is impossible. Since I've had no luck finding one I've spent some time racking my brains on how it could be done. As of now it's a toss up between police reports, on site interviews and watching Felony Fights videos...


----------



## Don Roley (May 27, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> What if knives were only used in .1% of street fights? Wouldn't you spend less time learing knife defense and more time learing how to block a haymaker?



You discount what I think is called the risk-threat assesment. Excuse me if I can't remember the exact terms. MA Carver's latest thread had me running to the liquor collection so I could croon to "don't answer me" and thus you should blame him, and Carol... and Canada....:drinky: 

But the basic theme is that you may face a haymaker in a 'freindly' fight between friends a lot more than you would an attack by a knife. But if you lose to a haymaker in that case, the results are far from being as bad as one succesfull knife attack.

If you get nailed by a friend throwing a haymaker 99 times out of a hundred, does that justify setting yourself up to getting a knife in the heart that remaining time.

Obviously, there has to be a lot more to this debate than mere statistics. Oh, and have you heard of the quote about statistics by Mark Twain?


----------



## Robert Lee (May 27, 2006)

If the other person has a weapon and you do not THE odds is not that good for you. Even the best fighters get hit a weapon reduces odds. A knife is a easy weapon to use that does real damage. I was told many years ago if you train towardswhat you would think would be the worst type of fight you would have to fight then the lesser of those fights would not be as hard. It boils down to how well prepared you are and the heart to do what has to be done. Fighting is not pretty Heck you can fall down in a fight hit your head and its over for you a person just never knows Dwell on the what ifs and nothing gets done train and live if and when you ever fight that moment tells you what will and does happen. Look at what you see as different training needs and you may be better ready. BUt never under estimate a weapon of any kind if you do not have one and the other person does.


----------



## Dark (Jun 2, 2006)

I was laughing my whole way through this thread. There is a real simple way for looking at street fights, kill or be killed. I don't know how many of you if any have been in allot of street fights. I grew up poor and have had my share of street fights.

    Street fighting breaks down to you bashing the other guys head in before he bashes yours, not a self-defense senario. That means sticks, beer bottles, base ball bats, tire irons and knives. Guns are rare since they are generally too expensive. And if you want a realistic study don't look at LEOs.
   1) It's unrealistic, since when cops arrest you they usually dog pile. (personal expeirences)
   2) Street fighting isn't like anything you've ever seen in any dojo or on a mat anywhere.
  There are a few instructors who are really "ex-streetfighters," even though allot claim they are ,my karate instructor in high school was a good example. His bad rep had him in trouble with the law just at the drop of his name.

check out Marc McYoungs site...
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/streetfighting.html

PS- Couldn't help but add this, a gun on the street is about 3 times it retale value, unless it's been used in a crime before. Your major weapon in a street fight is a knife or a ghetto-switch blade. Those snap off blade box cutter they sale for 4 for a dollar. And everyone carries a weapon even at home.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 2, 2006)

Davejlaw said:
			
		

> Good point Wynergy! It would be almost impossible to create a controlled environment that would be the same for all arts tested. It is this randomness that makes the streetfight such an unpredictable animal.


Exactly; because in a "controlled" environment both opponents would be expecting to fight, expecting physical confrontation. Out on the street you walk out of a bar/theater/resturant and are accosted by someone and words go back and forth and next thing you know you're on the ground or in the ER. Didn't expect that night to go that way did ya? 
In my experience with street fights; personal and as a spectator most of them don't last very long and get rather ugly. I mean ugly as in no picture perfect punches, kicks, holds, throws, joint locks, pins, and so on. Roughly 90% of the time the fighters are going on instinct and experience (and/or lack of it). They're just wanting to "kick that guys' ***" and get the hell out of there. They're not going to be worried about some niceites as scientific studies and how did it "feel"? 
Right now with the internet and with all those "fight" videos is probably the only way an observer scientist will be able to hypotheize what they want to know about "street-fighting".


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 2, 2006)

Damn Dark, you must be a complete badass! How many people have you killed, I mean, you are still alive so you must have killed _some. _After all, a guy who mouths off to you in line at the grocery store is clearly intending on a kill or be killed situation. They sell box cutters at grocery stores too, so there is a good chance he's got a weapon.

Marc McYoung has a decent site, though I think he gets a little Lieutenant X at times. The problem is that even though he presents his arguments about streetfighting well, they are still just conjecture. Much like everyone else, he doesn't have any evidence to back his opinions up. That's why a study would be helpful, it would provide some type of valid basis for these arguments.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 2, 2006)

I've actually tried to find studies on this and found none. I did read a good article in "Combat" magazine that related to it though. It initially was about how grapplers claim the 90% of all fights end up on the ground. That's a bunch of hooey. 

A study done by the Los Angeles police department found that 64% of all attempted apprehensions where the criminal resisted ended up going to the ground. Attempted apprehensions aren't street fights though. 

I think the answer is really simple actually. On any given day, any given person, can defeat any other person. What you can do to increase your chances of survival or victory is to train and practice. I would reccomend doing so in all ranges...striking as well as ground fighting as well as weapon defense and defense against multiple attackers (A former marine in Atlanta just took on 5 would-be gang-bangers killing one and putting another in intensive care. The gang-bangers had a shotgun, a pistol, and a pair of brass knucks...the marine had a pocket knife!) The more you train the better your chances will be...but there is no garauntee...unless you have a crystal ball or something. LOL


----------



## Dark (Jun 2, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Damn Dark, you must be a complete badass! How many people have you killed, I mean, you are still alive so you must have killed _some. _After all, a guy who mouths off to you in line at the grocery store is clearly intending on a kill or be killed situation. They sell box cutters at grocery stores too, so there is a good chance he's got a weapon.


 
    Nope a complete dumbass for being in those situations... There are two types of people barkers and biter. Barkers are the people who assert dominance through talking and acting tough. Biters are the guys who just hit first and talk trash to you unconscious body.
    Streetfighters go around looking for a fight, any pretext or excuse to asert thier dominance. And it's always about dominance, image and being tougher then the next guy.
     If you see every as possibly having a weapon, then you are safer then waiting on them to pull it and prove it right/wrong..? Exspect the worst and hope for the best, and if that fails ask why you weren't cheating harder...



			
				MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Marc McYoung has a decent site, though I think he gets a little Lieutenant X at times. The problem is that even though he presents his arguments about streetfighting well, they are still just conjecture. Much like everyone else, he doesn't have any evidence to back his opinions up. That's why a study would be helpful, it would provide some type of valid basis for these arguments.


 
   The problem is a) your talking streetfighting a different animal then say self-defense situations and b) your talking mentally disturbed individuals. You can't study how many knife fights were for money, robbery or how many were for ego. But you can study the sum total of knife related assaults and murders.
    If you wonna know about street fighting, then go do it. Otherwise a bunch guys with no real experience in the act, discussing ideas on what it might or may be is like a virgin giving sex advise.

Lets make this simple, how do you define a street fight? What is the core definition of a streetfight? And what is the target mental make up of those streetfighting? Lets go with breaking it down a scientific...


----------



## Davejlaw (Jun 2, 2006)

You are forgetting one group in there. The guys that are both barkers AND biters. A lot of guys that are big, drunk, and shooting their mouth off can fight. They may not have a nice fighting style but can win a streetfight with a sucker punch or by just brawling. I would never, ever assume that some guy is all bark and no bite. A lot of guys that bark, do so because they know they can bite.


----------



## Dark (Jun 2, 2006)

Never met a barker who could bite but, met plenty of biters who could bark


----------



## Lisa (Jun 3, 2006)

*Moderator Warning:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Lisa Deneka
MT Senior Moderator*


----------

