# Watching street fight/attack videos ?



## crazydiamond (Sep 19, 2015)

So I have been watching some of the "street fighting" videos on YouTube.  Was trying to see if there is something I could learn from a SD standpoint. My observations so far:

1) Not walking away from agitated person or argument or insults.
2) Not maintaining/controlling distance
3) Getting (or allowing) very close (up in their face) with and angry person  -  while keeping their hands down.
4) Multiple attackers - from a buddy to a girlfriend - coming up from side or behind or jumping in the fight. Not being aware. 
5) Mostly fists -Lots of wild hay makers to head, and occasionally grabbing of head interlocking. No defense (other than on ground and fetal position). Not much other types of strikes, or strategic target points, no kicking, no elbows, no real grappling or locks.
6) Lots of videos from 1) Poor urban areas in America and  2) Russia 
7) Occasional obstacles or situations that cause people to fall - tables/chairs in restaurants, cars/garbage cans, curbs, or other passive bystanders.
8) Most fights last less than 1 min - someone connects hard and the other person goes down. Depending on fight type - most often thats it - but sometimes the hits continue after a person is down. I have seen this is often when a bystander may jump in.
9) Mixture of random violence and also some intended "let's fight" videos. 
10) I feel kind of icky after watching them and want to avoid street confrontations even more then I always have.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 19, 2015)

Hey, any information you can get your hands on is good, even if only so that you can learn what NOT to do. Watching Youtube "fight vids" is more practical than going out and trying to find people punching each other, that's for sure. The failing comes from the limited context provided by a 60 second clip of two guys posturing and then slugging for three seconds.

I haven't spent much time watching Youtube "streetfights" but my personal understanding of the proverbial "real fight," is that generally the first strike that lands wins the fight, whether on its own or by establishing an immediate, immense advantage. My other understanding is that generally the first one to strike is the first one to land a strike.

My takeaway? Don't get hit first.


----------



## Flatfish (Sep 20, 2015)

I have watched a number of these vids,too. I am mostly struck how often your item 4 happens. So many folks getting clobbered from behind unawares.


----------



## mber (Sep 22, 2015)

I agree, and I think a lot of fights fall into two categories -- serious, when at least one person intends to do damage, and "fake" (at least to my mind), when the combatants are simply venting their rage, and rarely do significant harm. 
It's interesting to observe the differences in those situations.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 22, 2015)

#10, yeah, that.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 23, 2015)

mber said:


> I agree, and I think a lot of fights fall into two categories -- serious, when at least one person intends to do damage, and "fake" (at least to my mind), when the combatants are simply venting their rage, and rarely do significant harm.
> It's interesting to observe the differences in those situations.



It's amazing how often this gets overlooked too. What many people consider Self-Defense, I consider informal sparring with a stranger. If you're both posturing and roaring and shaking your horns and stomping your feet, then it's not self-defense when one of you finally swings a punch and you both get to vent and feel manly.

It's self-defense when someone wants to hurt you and makes sure the deck is stacked in their favour before you know anything is up.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2015)

I'm personally surprised how many fights end up on the ground.


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 24, 2015)

Video today making the rounds where it "appears" a bully bigger kid is hitting a smaller blind kid when someone comes up from behind and takes the bully out with a single hit.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I'm personally surprised how many fights end up on the ground.



I'm not.

People are usually pretty good at falling over.


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I'm personally surprised how many fights end up on the ground.


 
Yes and sometimes that's when the friend or GF enters the picture to take a shot.... but I have also seen (usually in agreed street fights) when the crowd steps in to break it up when someone is being pounded or choked on the ground.

I am always instructed to stay off the ground - or get up as soon as possible from the ground - in a street fight.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Sep 24, 2015)

I watch a lot of videos too. It's a great resource.  While Hanzou will point out " most fights go to the ground".  They don't really and if they do it is usually a good example of why you don't want to be there. I particularly like the bid of the two guys rolling in the street and the girl friend comes up and kicks the guy who was on top in the head and knocks him out cold.  I always teach, watch out for friends, relatives and sympathizers.  I also like what I think I heard Buka say once, there are always 2 more punks involved that you didn't see coming.


----------



## mber (Sep 25, 2015)

crazydiamond said:


> Yes and sometimes that's when the friend or GF enters the picture to take a shot.... but I have also seen (usually in agreed street fights) when the crowd steps in to break it up when someone is being pounded or choked on the ground.
> 
> I am always instructed to stay off the ground - or get up as soon as possible from the ground - in a street fight.



It _really _pays to at least be competent at ground fighting. Getting up off the ground may not even be a possibility if you're fighting someone who has more experience on the ground and you can't get them off from on top of you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I'm personally surprised how many fights end up on the ground.


ha starting already I see. Lol


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 25, 2015)

You never know what wrappings people may have on them or when they may try to use it. The more mobility you have the better of you'll be for either fighting multiple people or for escaping.  Fights usually don't last a long time and most people get tired after a minute or two of intense swinging or grappling. I always assume that there is more than one person that poses a danger including people who may pull on my arms to get me out of the fight, which takes away from my ability to defend myself. Fighting in the streets means there are no rules and everything is fair game you shouldn't view street fighting in the same light as UFC sports..


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting in the streets means there are no rules and everything is fair game you shouldn't view street fighting in the same light as UFC sports..


 

I do tend to agree - anything goes in a street fight, but since I train in a type of MMA, one thing that stands out is that what I see in the videos is a lot of "boxing", or rather wild swings and haymakers.  I do see occasional "wrestling" on the ground (but it mostly wild unstructured grabbing and pulling).

A few videos I have seen have someone trained in MMA (or MT or BJJ) but that's not often and those fights look semi-arranged. I never see any of the target striking (knees, groin, throat) or locks or nasty stuff (except hits to back of head).

One of my instructors prefers to give us a lot of basic boxing or modified JKD boxing work specifically to deal with your average schmuck fight. Last night we focused on dealing with haymakers which was practical I think.

I hear lots of concerns about "watch out for MMA moves" in the street like RNC's because everyone is into UFC now (watching or training). So I think boxing or MMA/UFC skills would be helpful in a street fight.


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 25, 2015)

Here is the street fight of a bully hitting a blind kid. Its gone viral.

News has verified it was legit and the bully punching the blind kid has been arrested. 

I wonder if I would have approached it the same way (punching the bully from behind) or used a RNC.  Does not matter really he got what he had coming.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 25, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I watch a lot of videos too. It's a great resource.  While Hanzou will point out " most fights go to the ground".  They don't really and if they do it is usually a good example of why you don't want to be there. I particularly like the bid of the two guys rolling in the street and the girl friend comes up and kicks the guy who was on top in the head and knocks him out cold.  I always teach, watch out for friends, relatives and sympathizers.  I also like what I think I heard Buka say once, there are always 2 more punks involved that you didn't see coming.



In that particular video, the guy clearly wasn't trained, and they weren't "rolling on the ground". He was on top of the other guy punching him in the face. The other guy's gf/cousin/mom/whatever ran up and soccer kicked him in the head to get him off of her guy.

And yeah, you don't want to be on the ground in a street fight with potential multiple attackers, which is why its important to learn how to fight from that position if you're unfortunate enough to wind up there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 25, 2015)

crazydiamond said:


> I do tend to agree - anything goes in a street fight, but since I train in a type of MMA, one thing that stands out is that what I see in the videos is a lot of "boxing", or rather wild swings and haymakers.  I do see occasional "wrestling" on the ground (but it mostly wild unstructured grabbing and pulling).
> 
> A few videos I have seen have someone trained in MMA (or MT or BJJ) but that's not often and those fights look semi-arranged. I never see any of the target striking (knees, groin, throat) or locks or nasty stuff (except hits to back of head).
> 
> ...


I teach self-defense classes from time to time.  My last one was in 2002 before MMA is as big as it is now.  I told the teen students my game plan for that time.  Most people only punch so I'm going to take advantage of someone who wants to knock me out with a punch by kicking their legs.  We would do scenarios where they will fight like they do in the streets.  I kept kicking them in the legs.  At the end of the scenario they said that it wasn't fair that I was kicking them in the legs because they weren't expecting it.  I smiled and said. "That's the point. This is self-defense."  Why would I do an attack that my opponent would expect?

I'm teaching an updated self-defense class next month and it'll cover the MMA and BJJ attacks and how to watch for them. The knees and groin are easy targets even if you don't know a martial arts, you just have to be careful with how you go about attacking those areas. Eyes are easy too as long as you aren't trying to start off with that first or trying to do it once someone has you in an arm bar. Bitting is fair game as well, for me it's a last resort because you don't know what diseases the other person may have.  Breaking fingers is also good.

The thing about self-defense is that you have to get yourself mentally ready to deal with the horror of it. Pressing a finger in my opponent's eye with the purpose of forever blinding that person would make most people's skin crawl. You have to get rid of that feeling when the time comes, yes it's horrible but it could be the difference between life and death.  People like that they can see through their eyes so trying to put one out is going to change your attacker's focus from fighting you to preventing you from blinding him.

Most people care more about seeing out of their eye than fighting.


----------



## Buka (Sep 26, 2015)

I've watched a lot of fights on youtube. (Fills a snowy winter day sometimes. Nice with a cup of coco) Seen a lot of fights up close, both as a bystander and in various protective services. What I usually see is a brawl, usually a short one. I think learning to brawl is important in self defense. Even if you don't want to brawl, if you know how, you're better prepared to defend yourself in one.

Crazydiamond - I feel icky when I see a fight up close. It's never a good thing.

Hoshin - yeah, it was taught to me, _"There's always one more son of a ***** than you counted on._" 
I've found that to be true over the years, there's usually at least one.

Back to brawling for a second. It's while you are in a brawl, right smack dab in the midle of one, when you can execute a great martial technique that you have, whatever that technique might be. It's a great game changer or ender. The problem I've seen most young Martial Artists running into is they aren't used to the chaos of a brawl, they always seem to be trying to set (their feet, hands, distance, whatever) but the brawl is overpowering them and taking them out of their game - actually, it's keeping them out of their game. But if you execute technique while brawling, you'll land it....if you know how to brawl. 

Learn to brawl. Then never get into a fight. Then make coco.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 26, 2015)

Buka said:


> ...It's while you are in a brawl, right smack dab in the midle of one, when you can execute a great martial technique...



Exactly. I've seen a fair amount of guys, mainly in class but also out of it, attempt what should be close-quarters Karate technique, grabs, grapples, takedowns, etc, from a comfy, long-distance sparring range. Sorry, but you're just not going to pull that off. I'd much rather have someone in my face and grabbing than kickboxing from a distance.

They have too much awareness at that range, they have too much time to react, and you have way less opportunity to attempt to control their actions. In close, you can control, if you know what you're doing, out far, everything is much more of a gamble...


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 28, 2015)

Yeah, it doesn't seem that brawling is a big thing in MA schools anymore.  I like the occasional time in class when we practice 3v1 tactics so we don't get tunnel visioned.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 28, 2015)

Sapphire said:


> Yeah, it doesn't seem that brawling is a big thing in MA schools anymore.  I like the occasional time in class when we practice 3v1 tactics so we don't get tunnel visioned.




Doesn't everybody spar pretty much in the same room anyway?

So you have to be aware regardless.


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 28, 2015)

Sapphire said:


> Yeah, it doesn't seem that brawling is a big thing in MA schools anymore.  I like the occasional time in class when we practice 3v1 tactics so we don't get tunnel visioned.


 
We did the 3 vs 1  in one of our classes, Basically hold your ground with three guys punching at you. I would not say I liked it - in fact it was a bit un-nerving and irritating  - but I valued the experience.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting in the streets means there are no rules and everything is fair game you shouldn't view street fighting in the same light as UFC sports..


Here we go again.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm teaching an updated self-defense class next month and it'll cover the MMA and BJJ attacks and how to watch for them.


What makes you qualified to teach MMA/BJJ counters?  I'm not saying your not qualified but some of what you write below throws up some red flags for me.



> The knees and groin are easy targets even if you don't know a martial arts,


Because kicking to the legs is a new concept to MMA?



> you just have to be careful with how you go about attacking those areas. Eyes are easy too as long as you aren't trying to start off with that first or trying to do it once someone has you in an arm bar. Bitting is fair game as well, for me it's a last resort because you don't know what diseases the other person may have.  Breaking fingers is also good.


More red flags.



> The thing about self-defense is that you have to get yourself mentally ready to deal with the horror of it. Pressing a finger in my opponent's eye with the purpose of forever blinding that person would make most people's skin crawl. You have to get rid of that feeling when the time comes, yes it's horrible but it could be the difference between life and death.  People like that they can see through their eyes so trying to put one out is going to change your attacker's focus from fighting you to preventing you from blinding him.
> 
> Most people care more about seeing out of their eye than fighting.


It's actually pretty hard to successfully eye-poke when the other person is busy trying to smash your face in, moving about in chaotic patterns, and actively trying to not allow you to eye-poke.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 28, 2015)

lklawson said:


> What makes you qualified to teach MMA/BJJ counters? I'm not saying your not qualified but some of what you write below throws up some red flags for me.


  I should have been clearer on that since no background was given. The counters that I'll teach aren't advance counters they are basic counters used to help defend against the shoot specifically.  It's not being taught as a "If you do this then you are 100% guaranteed to be safe from it."  Certain things can be done to make shooting in on a person more difficult than just standing right in front of a person with both legs next to each other.  Simple things such as keep distance is effective against a shoot.  It's not rocket science, but if a person isn't trained to fight and they think they are going against a person that knows MMA or BJJ then keeping distance is critical.  You have to keep in mind that self-defense classes usually have people who aren't conditioned to fight so creating that distance is the counter. It's just not a physical counter.  I wouldn't teach them the counters that I know because that requires conditioning and training of various types and it's not something they can learn just from a class.  They will actually experience the amount of energy that it takes to grapple with someone so that they understand their physical limitations. I want them to feel what it takes to actually resist or attack for 2 minutes.  With grappling every movement counts no matter how small.  

They'll also learn some basic guards for defending against punches and kicks as well as a better understanding of where the power is in a kick or a punch so it's not just MMA/BJJ type attacks (the shoot) being discussed. I will also cover everyday items that they can carry with them that can be used to help defend off an attack.  Certain pens make great stabbing tools, while hard objects like rock spheres come in small sizes that are good for throwing at someone or smashing against someone's face.  They'll learn how to take inventory of an environment to identify things that can be used as a weapon or can be used to create distance between the attacker.  So this is the approach that I'm taking.  I don't want to give untrained people the feeling that they can go toe-to-toe with someone who trains to fight. Things like pepper spray are a given.



lklawson said:


> Because kicking to the legs is a new concept to MMA?


 Take a look at all of the street fights on you tube and you'll see that very few people pay attention to their legs or their footing. Most people fight "upstairs" even when sparring. Muay Thai fighters love to bring the fight to the lower part of the body simply because they know most people don't have conditioned legs to withstand the punishment.  Kicking to the legs isn't a new concept, it's just an easy target because most people don't think about doing it. 



lklawson said:


> More red flags.


 You have to keep in mind that self-defense isn't about trying to go toe-to-toe with a person.  Self-defense can be as simple as running into a shop to get away from an attacker.  Scratching eyes, poking eyes, isn't rocket science. If your hands are near their eyes then go for it. You have limited fighting skills and are fighting against an attacker with that may try to kill you, then why wouldn't you go for it? It's literally at your finger tips. Here is where biting has worked. Here's another case where biting worked
I can't tell a person with little to know fighting skills to pull of techniques that require training.  They have to defend using the abilities and tools that they have at the time of the attack. When it comes to self-defense you have to fight with what you have and what you know.  Here is where an eye gouge attempt worked.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 28, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Here we go again.


I'm not putting down UFC.  I'm saying that there are no rules in street fights and sometimes people will get into street fights thinking that there are going to be some set of rules as to what can be done or can't be done. I worked with teens who thought just like that.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 28, 2015)

lklawson said:


> What makes you qualified to teach MMA/BJJ counters?  I'm not saying your not qualified but some of what you write below throws up some red flags for me.
> 
> Because kicking to the legs is a new concept to MMA?
> 
> ...



My coach could eyepoke the hell out of me because he is the better grappler.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> You have to keep in mind that self-defense isn't about trying to go toe-to-toe with a person. Self-defense can be as simple as running into a shop to get away from an attacker. Scratching eyes, poking eyes, isn't rocket science. If your hands are near their eyes then go for it. You have limited fighting skills and are fighting against an attacker with that may try to kill you, then why wouldn't you go for it? It's literally at your finger tips. Here is where biting has worked. Here's another case where biting worked
> I can't tell a person with little to know fighting skills to pull of techniques that require training. They have to defend using the abilities and tools that they have at the time of the attack. When it comes to self-defense you have to fight with what you have and what you know. Here is where an eye gouge attempt worked.



So. A while back a mate of mine got stabbed. And as we were fighting the guy another mate of mine kicked mr stab man in the head as part of a disarm. Now it worked. But it did not require training to pull off.

So if my untrained mate can use that technique live against a weapon. Why would I pay someone to tell me "kick them in the head"

I could have come up with kick them in the head.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 28, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So. A while back a mate of mine got stabbed. And as we were fighting the guy another mate of mine kicked mr stab man in the head as part of a disarm. Now it worked. But it did not require training to pull off.
> 
> So if my untrained mate can use that technique live against a weapon. Why would I pay someone to tell me "kick them in the head"
> 
> I could have come up with kick them in the head.


Not everyone has the ability to kick lol. They have 2 good legs, but they don't have the motor skill to kick someone in the face.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not putting down UFC.  I'm saying that there are no rules in street fights and sometimes people will get into street fights thinking that there are going to be some set of rules as to what can be done or can't be done. I worked with teens who thought just like that.



Yes, there are rules. If you want to stay out of prison, at least.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 28, 2015)

If you think about it, the "no rules" argument is kind of null and void as long as you know your distances fairly well.

When people argue that "street fights are no rules; they're worse than ring fights," they will generally argue for groin kicks and eye gouges.  Now, some will get imaginative which is good, and say "I can basketball your head off the curb," and "I can step on your ankle and shatter it," or "I can german suplex you and yell John Cena," because no rules.  Fair argument, right?

However, not many people have the training to manage that and you can figure out why, lol.  And if you have quality training (meaning distance, timing, accuracy, balance/coordination, combinations and _ferocity_) then you can avoid 99% of the "no rules" techniques such as namely groin kicks.  And I'm sure that 99% of even the most sub-par MA schools train you to stand in such a way that groin kicks aren't easy to land in the first place, so the "no rules" argument can easily be defeated.

Now, that being said, suppose someone has good quality training with all of the factors I listed earlier.  The difference between "ring" and "street" fights doesn't have so much to do with what techniques are available to you and your opponent and the fact that there's no ref, the difference between "ring" and "street" is _predictability. _ When you train in a "ring fight" school, you're in a ring or an octagon practicing combos.  You're going running.  You're lifting heavy weights and shadow boxing.  You're sparring against people better than you, because _*a ring fight is expected.  *_How do you train for a fight you aren't expecting?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I should have been clearer on that since no background was given. The counters that I'll teach aren't advance counters they are basic counters used to help defend against the shoot specifically.  It's not being taught as a "If you do this then you are 100% guaranteed to be safe from it."  Certain things can be done to make shooting in on a person more difficult than just standing right in front of a person with both legs next to each other.  Simple things such as keep distance is effective against a shoot.  It's not rocket science, but if a person isn't trained to fight and they think they are going against a person that knows MMA or BJJ then keeping distance is critical.  You have to keep in mind that self-defense classes usually have people who aren't conditioned to fight so creating that distance is the counter. It's just not a physical counter.  I wouldn't teach them the counters that I know because that requires conditioning and training of various types and it's not something they can learn just from a class.  They will actually experience the amount of energy that it takes to grapple with someone so that they understand their physical limitations. I want them to feel what it takes to actually resist or attack for 2 minutes.  With grappling every movement counts no matter how small.



You do understand that Bjj practitioners, and especially MMA fighters know far more takedowns than just the shoot right? Further, if you're really fighting someone trained in either of those styles, they're going to be masters at closing the distance, even under the pressure of strikes.

I mean, are you going to teach your students how to stop stuff like this;





Those are the kind of takedowns that are popping up in modern Bjj and MMA.

I think you'd be better served by actually getting a Bjj or MMA instructor into your class and actually teaching them that stuff. Why not invite a Bjj black belt down for a seminar?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> You do understand that Bjj practitioners, and especially MMA fighters know far more takedowns than just the shoot right? Further, if you're really fighting someone trained in either of those styles, they're going to be masters at closing the distance, even under the pressure of strikes.



No, they're not. Masters of anything are few and far between, outside of Hollywood and fantasy novels.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, they're not. Masters of anything are few and far between, outside of Hollywood and fantasy novels.



Okay then; They're extremely good at closing the distance, even under the pressure of strikes.

Better?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Okay then; They're extremely good at closing the distance, even under the pressure of strikes.
> 
> Better?



Not really. The average person training in any MA is just that; an average person.
But there are some people who just won't ever get that simple reality.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not really. The average person training in any MA is just that; an average person.
> But there are some people who just won't ever get that simple reality.



A person who happens to do something over and over again until they exceed the ability of an average person.

A person who practices TKD for example, should be able to perform kicks at a level far above that of an average person. 

Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> A person who practices TKD for example, should be able to perform kicks at a level far above that of an average person. Wouldn't you agree?



As a TKD practitioner (although old enough that we're not really very kick-y) I _would_ agree.

However, only with the understanding that people untrained in kicking are generally really, _really, _*really, *bad at kicking. I'm not talking about the natural athletes with an affinity for martial arts that start when they're ten with dedication, but the average guy in a gym/school/dojo that starts at 23, a bit out of shape, and mainly just trains when he comes to class. 

That guy is going to be better at a given aspect of martial arts than one would expect from someone completely untrained, but it doesn't mean that the average TKD guy can kick you in the head three times before you can react.

Just like the average guy in a grappling art can't necessarily get whoever they want on the ground in the first 5 seconds of a fight. 

I think we all here agree that learning to fight is difficult and requires both time and diligence, and also that most practitioners of a given art/style/sport do NOT give it the time/diligence it requires to really be all that much of a game changer. Depending on the specific school, obviously.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> As a TKD practitioner (although old enough that we're not really very kick-y) I _would_ agree.
> 
> However, only with the understanding that people untrained in kicking are generally really, _really, _*really, *bad at kicking. I'm not talking about the natural athletes with an affinity for martial arts that start when they're ten with dedication, but the average guy in a gym/school/dojo that starts at 23, a bit out of shape, and mainly just trains when he comes to class.
> 
> ...



Well we should also take into account that the average person isn't taking any type of martial art at all, and that difference becomes even more stark.

Let's compare your average TKD practitioner at intermediate ranking, and compare their kicking ability to the average person who has probably never risen their knees past their waist line. Is there any doubt that the TKD exponent's kicks would look damn near superhuman in comparison?

The same would apply to a grappler's ability to close distances and perform takedowns. At crazy elite levels, you're doing takedowns like that Inamari gif I posted in the grappling forums. At intermediate levels, you should be able to close the distance and takedown an untrained opponent pretty easily.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> At intermediate levels, you should be able to close the distance and takedown an untrained opponent pretty easily.



Oh yeah, I definitely. I thought you were saying that in a self-defense situation with an aggressor with some grappling training against a trained stylist of a non-grappling art, that they would be able to close the gap and take them down without effort. In that case I would disagree, it's very much going to come down to the relative skill-sets of the two individuals.

If you meant that against an untrained opponent, then I obviously agree, with some reservations.



Hanzou said:


> Let's compare your average TKD practitioner at intermediate ranking, and compare their kicking ability to the average person who has probably never risen their knees past their waist line. Is there any doubt that the TKD exponent's kicks would look damn near superhuman in comparison?



I see your point, and I know what you mean. However, as a TKD guy whose style emphatically does _not_ advocate flashy high kicks, I always have to harp on the fact that some average TKD practitioners only kick _slightly_ more than the average Karate practitioner.

However, there is a big difference between flashy kicks that _look_ superhuman, and being able to effectively use those kicks against someone who doesn't want to be kicked.


....Does anyone remember what we're actually talking about here?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> You do understand that Bjj practitioners, and especially MMA fighters know far more takedowns than just the shoot right? Further, if you're really fighting someone trained in either of those styles, they're going to be masters at closing the distance, even under the pressure of strikes.
> 
> I mean, are you going to teach your students how to stop stuff like this;


Yes.  It's a self-defense class. Weapons are allowed and are recommended to be used against an attacker especially if the person's fighting skills is less than the attacker.  If there is a chair, table, fan, pool stick, broom, or even other people then use them to create the distance.  Use traffic if you have to.  I've been in confrontations where I purposely position myself so that the aggressor would be close to the street all for the purpose of me kicking him into the road while cars are passing by.  When I worked on city property and had to deal with drug dealers, it was against the law to bring weapons on the property, but tools such as screw drivers, awls, baseball bats, crow bars, steak knives, box cutters, steel bars, scissors, forks, canes, tactical pens, and other stuff were all legal. Even a regular pen or a sharp pencil can be utilized.  So yes. I will be teaching them about how to create distance and the dangers of being too close to someone who is posing to attack them. I will also be stressing a 5ft to 6ft distance. Even if they have to use other people or objects in the environment to help create distance.

In my opinion this boy does an excellent job of creating distance.  He actually uses other people to put distance between him and the guy that wants to fight him.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> A person who happens to do something over and over again until they exceed the ability of an average person.
> 
> A person who practices TKD for example, should be able to perform kicks at a level far above that of an average person.
> 
> Wouldn't you agree?



No. Not really. Because the vast majority of people who train in ANY system never get beyond the beginner levels.

Besides, TKD is trained in large part through poomsae, and we all know that (at least according to you) nobody could possibly learn anything from poomsae.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes.  It's a self-defense class. Weapons are allowed and are recommended to be used against an attacker especially if the person's fighting skills is less than the attacker.  If there is a chair, table, fan, pool stick, broom, or even other people then use them to create the distance.  Use traffic if you have to.  I've been in confrontations where I purposely position myself so that the aggressor would be close to the street all for the purpose of me kicking him into the road while cars are passing by.  When I worked on city property and had to deal with drug dealers, it was against the law to bring weapons on the property, but tools such as screw drivers, awls, baseball bats, crow bars, steak knives, box cutters, steel bars, scissors, forks, canes, tactical pens, and other stuff were all legal. Even a regular pen or a sharp pencil can be utilized.  So yes. I will be teaching them about how to create distance and the dangers of being too close to someone who is posing to attack them. I will also be stressing a 5ft to 6ft distance. Even if they have to use other people or objects in the environment to help create distance.
> 
> In my opinion this boy does an excellent job of creating distance.  He actually uses other people to put distance between him and the guy that wants to fight him.



What you're saying above pretty much applies to any attacker that you're trying to get away from (though purposely kicking someone into incoming traffic is a surefire way to get into a ton of trouble). I'm not seeing how any of that really applies specifically to an attacker trained in MMA/Bjj.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> What you're saying above pretty much applies to any attacker that you're trying to get away from (though purposely kicking someone into incoming traffic is a surefire way to get into a ton of trouble). I'm not seeing how any of that really applies specifically to an attacker trained in MMA/Bjj.



Not really, it's not. If I feel that you pose an imminent threat, I can certainly kick you out into traffic and justify it. Let's see you put a RNC on a Buick...


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 28, 2015)

So yeah, grappling versus striking is a cool debate. 

On another note, whatcha all think about the helpfulness of watching youtube videos of (adopt intense, booming, intimidating voice) STREET fights?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. Not really. Because the vast majority of people who train in ANY system never get beyond the beginner levels.



And those who DO get beyond beginner levels, wouldn't their kicks be far above the kicking ability of the average person whom has never taken martial arts?



Dirty Dog said:


> Not really, it's not. If I feel that you pose an imminent threat, I can certainly kick you out into traffic and justify it. Let's see you put a RNC on a Buick...



You do understand that you have a good chance of injuring the driver and any potential passangers of the Buick as well right? So even if you're proven innocent of injuring or killing someone by kicking them out into the street, you also run the risk of injuring and/or killing an innocent person who had nothing to do with the incident at all.

Brilliant tactic.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> So yeah, grappling versus striking is a cool debate.
> 
> On another note, whatcha all think about the helpfulness of watching youtube videos of (adopt intense, booming, intimidating voice) STREET fights?



I think the quality of this street fight is quite stunning;






Also, note how many times the fight went to the ground.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 29, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Also, note how many times the fight went to the ground.



Again, yeah, most people, especially untrained people, are good at falling down. I mean, we're a tall, top heavy body balanced on two long, thin poles...



Hanzou said:


> And those who DO get beyond beginner levels, wouldn't their kicks be far above the kicking ability of the average person whom has never taken martial arts?



Yup. I really don't think that Dirty Dog, (as I recall) a TKD stylist, is insinuating that TKD practitioners can't kick better than untrained people.

But, the whole reason, (again, as I recall) that you brought up the whole, TKD-guys-kick-well thing, was to make a point that well-trained grapplers know and can perform a variety of takedowns.

However, the reason you brought that up, (one last time: as I recall) was to counter JowGaWolf's assertion that he is qualified to teach, in his planned self-defense course, some basic defensive tactics against someone, statistically speaking someone probably largely untrained in grappling arts, trying to grab you and throw you on the ground, as in the first takedown in the above video.

So, while learning to create some space, lean in, and take a wide stance might not really cover too much ground in defending against a trained grappler, that's probably not the aim of JowGaWolf's course, if I were to hazard a guess...

So while I agree with you, I'm fast losing track of why any of this is at all relevant.

On a side note, I am really, _really _not a fan of one day, two week, whatever self-defense courses. I've been training in the martial arts passionately for 60% of my short life thusfar, and *the one thing I've really learned well, is that defending yourself against a really determined aggressor is very, very difficult.
*
Although I've gotta say it again, we have a million threads about the efficacy of striking arts, grappling arts, ground-fighting, whatever, I think it would be really interesting to keep this _one_ thread focused on the efficacy of analyzing recorded real-world violent interactions...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 29, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> And those who DO get beyond beginner levels, wouldn't their kicks be far above the kicking ability of the average person whom has never taken martial arts?



Sure. But your odds of encountering such a person in a street brawl are pretty slim. Your point seemed to be that "Masters" were pretty common place, which would indicate a high likelihood of encountering one in a street brawl. The fact of the matter is that what you're most likely to encounter is a person with little or no training at all.



Hanzou said:


> You do understand that you have a good chance of injuring the driver and any potential passangers of the Buick as well right? So even if you're proven innocent of injuring or killing someone by kicking them out into the street, you also run the risk of injuring and/or killing an innocent person who had nothing to do with the incident at all.
> Brilliant tactic.



You connection to reality seems particularly tenuous these days...

I've treated literally thousands of auto-ped patients. Two this weekend, as a matter of fact. The car wins. Every time. Unless by "good chance", you actually mean "extremely remote chance."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

Sapphire said:


> If you think about it, the "no rules" argument is kind of null and void as long as you know your distances fairly well.
> 
> When people argue that "street fights are no rules; they're worse than ring fights," they will generally argue for groin kicks and eye gouges.  Now, some will get imaginative which is good, and say "I can basketball your head off the curb," and "I can step on your ankle and shatter it," or "I can german suplex you and yell John Cena," because no rules.  Fair argument, right?
> 
> ...


When I say that there are no rules in street fighting I mean just that there are no rules.  No rules aren't limited just for the defender or the attacker. Anything can happen. No rules means no rules.  When someone is attacking you in the street you shouldn't assume that they can't or won't do something horrible. Attackers always make the assumption that they have the advantage over your which is probably why the person was attacked in the first place. Putting up a fierce and unforgiving fight is the last thing that an attacker thinks his victim will do. 
Amanda Russo fends off shank-wielding attacker with well-placed kick

As far as MA schools train you to stand in such a way that groin kicks aren't easy to land in the first place, so the "no rules" argument can easily be defeated.





As far as MMA fighters dealing with no rules you can learn something from them.  
UFC veteran Dan Lauzon has proven once again why it's never a good idea to get into a street fight, even if you're a professional fighter.

You also can't assume that just because you beat someone in a fight that they won't return with a knife or gun. Like you stated.  How do you train for a fight you aren't expecting. You don't. The only thing you can do is try to deescalate long enough for you to get out of a bad situation, avoid a bad situation all together, or fight with all your might and available skills and hope that things like guns, knives, and other weapons don't come into the situation.  Don't get me wrong being trained to fight is a big help because sometimes fights are only hand to hand and 1 vs 1. But don't ever get into a fight thinking that's what it's going to be. 

This is how I see self-defense

*"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him."

"If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him." (this is for sparring and fight competition)  *For self defense I change this to *"if your opponent is temperamental, seek to calm him"*  By calm, I mean as in calming his intended actions, sometimes if you can get someone to think about something else other than hurting you then you may be able to have an out or a moment where he loses focus.
*
 "Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."  *This is my favorite because I'm all about this. People like to throw big punches to the face, they never expect kicks to the legs or with the legs.  In my case I don't know anyone who expects someone to sweep them in a real fight.  Other scenarios are weapons where, your attacker doesn't expect you to fight back with all your effort, or to have a knife, or to try to attack the eyes, or literally grab the genitals and squeeze them with all your might.  When sparring I always say "fighting where your opponent isn't"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> On a side note, I am really, _really _not a fan of one day, two week, whatever self-defense courses. I've been training in the martial arts passionately for 60% of my short life thusfar, and *the one thing I've really learned well, is that defending yourself against a really determined aggressor is very, very difficult.*


  I agree with you on this. Which is why it's a one day 2 hour class.  By the end of the class they should have a really good understanding of their limitations.  They should have a better understanding of how to be more aware of the surroundings and that they should always "know where the exits are"  Where the real dangers are.  An unsupervised drink in the club or bar is likely to more dangerous than a group of guys who look like thugs.  By the end of the class they should be able to really understand that strength and conditioning  is required to do the self-defense techniques from BJJ, Karate, Kung Fu and other fighting systems. They'll also understand what type of teacher they'll need from those systems and how to avoid the McDojos and the lure of paying for black belts.  That way if they decide to actually learn a fighting system they'll be able to do a better job finding a teacher that really cares about their ability to defend themselves.

The amount of physical self-defense is going to be very limited depending on person's conditioning.  If a person can't run 50 yards top speed without being too tired to fight at the end of the run, then I really doubt that basic running away will even be an option.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> What you're saying above pretty much applies to any attacker that you're trying to get away from (though purposely kicking someone into incoming traffic is a surefire way to get into a ton of trouble). I'm not seeing how any of that really applies specifically to an attacker trained in MMA/Bjj.


 In the case that I explained. I couldn't get away.  I was with my 5 year old daughter and wife and I had just stopped a guy a guy from beating on a teenager.  It's not just me that I had to be concerned about.  When I'm dealing with a potential street fight, I don't care about the "ton of trouble" that I may get from the law.  I'm not guaranteed to survive the fight and that's how I treat it and I'll do everything I can to win it, if I can't retreat from or deescalate the situation.  
You may think this is a crock of crap, but I was able to end the confrontation without resulting in an actual fight.  

As for how it relates to a fighting system, it causes changes on what you would have done if you have room vs what you might do if 5 steps back could mean that a car hits you.  Keep in mind he doesn't know what fighting system I know as well or if I have a weapon. Just because a person knows, MMA, BJJ, or even Kung Fu doesn't mean that they can just jump into a fight and think that everything will go their way.  I'm sure this guy thought everything was going his way right up to the point where he got attacked with a weapon. You know what I didn't see in that fight? Grappling and getting on the ground.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I say that there are no rules in street fighting I mean just that there are no rules. No rules aren't limited just for the defender or the attacker. Anything can happen. No rules means no rules. When someone is attacking you in the street you shouldn't assume that they can't or won't do something horrible. Attackers always make the assumption that they have the advantage over your which is probably why the person was attacked in the first place. Putting up a fierce and unforgiving fight is the last thing that an attacker thinks his victim will do.



So you are suggesting a street fight will be just one random encounter after another with no rhyme or reason to it?

You couldn't prepare for that.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 29, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. But your odds of encountering such a person in a street brawl are pretty slim. Your point seemed to be that "Masters" were pretty common place, which would indicate a high likelihood of encountering one in a street brawl. The fact of the matter is that what you're most likely to encounter is a person with little or no training at all.



Sure, but if you're running a self defense course to counter a Bjj/MMA practitioner, or someone using those tactics, wouldn't you be training to stop someone highly skilled in those tactics just in case?

Which is why (again) I suggested bringing in a black belt in Bjj, or a MMA instructor to teach a seminar.



> You connection to reality seems particularly tenuous these days...
> 
> I've treated literally thousands of auto-ped patients. Two this weekend, as a matter of fact. The car wins. Every time. Unless by "good chance", you actually mean "extremely remote chance."



I've seen people slam on brakes and/or swerve wildly in order to avoid hitting a squirrel or raccoon on the road.  I've also witnessed accidents caused by those actions.

Now, if people do that in order to avoid a critter, how do you think someone would react to seeing a person suddenly being kicked out into the path of their vehicle?

Let's also not forget the potential psychological trauma of someone killing or seriously injuring someone else with their car.

Like I said, "brilliant tactic".


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> *"Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected." *This is my favorite because I'm all about this. People like to throw big punches to the face, they never expect kicks to the legs or with the legs. In my case I don't know anyone who expects someone to sweep them in a real fight. Other scenarios are weapons where, your attacker doesn't expect you to fight back with all your effort, or to have a knife, or to try to attack the eyes, or literally grab the genitals and squeeze them with all your might. When sparring I always say "fighting where your opponent isn't"




Wait that is a whole bunch of rules right there.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 29, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Again, yeah, most people, especially untrained people, are good at falling down. I mean, we're a tall, top heavy body balanced on two long, thin poles...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well MMA/BJJ guys ARE trained grapplers, so a SD program based around dealing with MMA/Bjj based assailants should be taking that factor into account.

Which is why I hope that Jow is teaching more grappling counters than simply showing how to stop a sloppy double leg takedown.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> So yeah, grappling versus striking is a cool debate.
> 
> On another note, whatcha all think about the helpfulness of watching youtube videos of (adopt intense, booming, intimidating voice) STREET fights?



Depends what frame of reference you are using. 

Conformation bias.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> In the case that I explained. I couldn't get away. I was with my 5 year old daughter and wife and I had just stopped a guy a guy from beating on a teenager. It's not just me that I had to be concerned about. When I'm dealing with a potential street fight, I don't care about the "ton of trouble" that I may get from the law. I'm not guaranteed to survive the fight and that's how I treat it and I'll do everything I can to win it, if I can't retreat from or deescalate the situation.
> You may think this is a crock of crap, but I was able to end the confrontation without resulting in an actual fight.



Obviously there are circumstances where you might be attacked that don't warrant you trying to kill the guy.


----------



## crazydiamond (Sep 29, 2015)

One thing I read in a well known book on violence is dealing mentally and emotionally with an attack. I have to admit i tend to have natural response to freeze/hesitate or be shocked - I think many people do. Its overwhelming to have someone come at you. Violence is nauseating to many. I sometimes feel the reason I took Martial arts (and the type of Martial arts I took) was not to just learn "50 deadly moves", but to basically overcome a fear of being hit, attacked or real world violence. Watching these videos while icky to me is 50% working on the mental/emotional response. Of course it helps to see the type of attacks (example haymakers) that will come at you from an average drunk or enraged jerk in these street fight videos  I have learned a lot in my sparing classes when the instructor decides to throw in the kind of brawling situations.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> but if a person isn't trained to fight and they think they are going against a person that knows MMA or BJJ then keeping distance is critical.


And almost impossible to do against someone who is trained to fight, such as "a person that knows MMA or BJJ."  This is akin to saying, "if you're going against a person trained in knife fighting, it's critical to not get stabbed or cut."  Well, obviously.  But it's not quick to learn or easy to do and the training required for how to effectively prevent it comes from the same system.



> You have to keep in mind that self-defense classes usually have people who aren't conditioned to fight so creating that distance is the counter.


Guns work more reliably.



> They'll also learn some basic guards for defending against punches and kicks as well as a better understanding of where the power is in a kick or a punch so it's not just MMA/BJJ type attacks (the shoot) being discussed.


I'm not sure where you got the idea but there's a ton more to grappling arts than just the Shoot, even among low-level entries.



> I will also cover everyday items that they can carry with them that can be used to help defend off an attack.  Certain pens make great stabbing tools, while hard objects like rock spheres come in small sizes that are good for throwing at someone or smashing against someone's face.


No they don't.  They all suck.  Improvised Weapons are exactly that: Improvised.  They'll never, ever, be as effective as a weapon designed to the task.  Certain pens make "more-or-less acceptable" stabbing tools.  The wound channels will be small, perforation in nature, and will never bleed as much as getting stabbed with an edged implement of similar dimensions.  Pens also tend to lack effective grips and cross-guards that knives have.  Yes, Improvised Weapons, in general, and pens-for-stabbing in specific, are better than nothing and certainly better than wetting yourself and crying like a little girl, but they're definitely not "great."  They're improvised.



> I don't want to give untrained people the feeling that they can go toe-to-toe with someone who trains to fight.


I'm glad to hear that.  The primary focus of most "Self Defense" should be early detection, prevention, and quick escape. 



> Things like pepper spray are a given.


Pepper sprays have unpredictable results.



> Take a look at all of the street fights on you tube and you'll see that very few people pay attention to their legs or their footing.


But you specified "MMA and BJJ."  While a BJJ trained person may or may not be trained to kick the legs (or kick at all), a person training in MMA most assuredly has been from the first class.



> You have to keep in mind that self-defense isn't about trying to go toe-to-toe with a person.  Self-defense can be as simple as running into a shop to get away from an attacker.  Scratching eyes, poking eyes, isn't rocket science. If your hands are near their eyes then go for it. You have limited fighting skills and are fighting against an attacker with that may try to kill you, then why wouldn't you go for it? It's literally at your finger tips. Here is where biting has worked. Here's another case where biting worked


Eye pokes are much harder to do than is commonly believed, particularly against someone who's had some fight training.



> I can't tell a person with little to know fighting skills to pull of techniques that require training.  They have to defend using the abilities and tools that they have at the time of the attack. When it comes to self-defense you have to fight with what you have and what you know.  Here is where an eye gouge attempt worked.


I keep hearing "eye poke and nut kick" as some sort of panacea that is automatically simple and high percentage, especially in "self defense" advice to women.  I always tell them this, "I've been a guy all my life.  I've had testicles the whole time.  If you know that testicles are sensitive and vulnerable, how much more do you think that *I* know this?  I've had nearly 50 blasted years learning to protect my nuts, do you really think a few minutes in a 'self defense seminar' learning to junk-punch is honestly going to give you the tools to pull this off most of the time?  And that's without considering that some guys just won't feel it or that the pain will pump them up even more."

And it goes the same for eye pokes.  Everyone has lived with their eye's their whole life and they jolly-well know that their eyes are sensitive and vulnerable.  They have instinctive responses for protecting them, fer cry'n out loud.  You wanna eye poke?  You have to have achieved the right position, either through skill or luck.  You can't depend on luck and skill takes time, training, and effort.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not putting down UFC.  I'm saying that there are no rules in street fights and sometimes people will get into street fights thinking that there are going to be some set of rules as to what can be done or can't be done. I worked with teens who thought just like that.


I'm referring to the concept that "there are no rules on 'the street'."  There definitely are.  Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean that there aren't any.  The rules might be (probably are) different from what you're used to, few, less restrictive, and may change based on what street you're standing on, but there usually are "rules."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, they're not. Masters of anything are few and far between, outside of Hollywood and fantasy novels.


Define "Mastery" and then differentiate it between a single technique and an entire system.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> So yeah, grappling versus striking is a cool debate.


No it's not.  It's as ancient as fighting and wearisome in its predictability.  Even in the Modern context it's still decades old.  Does no one but me remember LeBell vs Savage?



> On another note, whatcha all think about the helpfulness of watching youtube videos of (adopt intense, booming, intimidating voice) STREET fights?


It has its uses.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> However, the reason you brought that up, (one last time: as I recall) was to counter JowGaWolf's assertion that he is qualified to teach, in his planned self-defense course, some basic defensive tactics against someone, statistically speaking someone probably largely untrained in grappling arts, trying to grab you and throw you on the ground,


Actually, then gent specified an MMA or BJJ trained fighter.  They are not "largely untrained in grappling arts."  And, to be perfectly honest, the only way to stymie a grappler is either with grappling or with weapons that prevent grappling range.  I have one friend, a skilled Silat player, who's answer for a BJJ takedown attempt is, "I'll stab you."  When confronted with the fact that stabbing a takedown grapple isn't really "anti-grappling" per se, his response was, "I'm too old to take a beating."  OK.  Fair enough.



> So while I agree with you, I'm fast losing track of why any of this is at all relevant.


In one respect, it never was.  "Grappling vs. Striking" fighting is a silly and artificial distinction.  The real answer is "Grappling *AND* Striking."  Which is what MMA (and sometimes BJJ) does.  In another respect, the <ahem> "debate" is relevant because an instructor is saying he is/will offer self defense seminars teaching techniques to effectively prevent attacks by trained MMA/BJJ attackers and is using examples of these defenses that people with experience in grappling seem to believe indicates a lack of understanding and which would likely be ineffective for the specified purpose.



> On a side note, I am really, _really _not a fan of one day, two week, whatever self-defense courses.


Sure.  They suck, generally.



> Although I've gotta say it again, we have a million threads about the efficacy of striking arts, grappling arts, ground-fighting, whatever, I think it would be really interesting to keep this _one_ thread focused on the efficacy of analyzing recorded real-world violent interactions...


Too late.  A thread participant already offered that he teaches self defense seminars and in them teaches techniques (to people who would take a one-day seminar) on how to stymie a MMA/BJJ trained fighter.  Thread's done, man.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I say that there are no rules in street fighting I mean just that there are no rules.


Then you're wrong.



> You also can't assume that just because you beat someone in a fight that they won't return with a knife or gun.


*RETURN*?!?!  $&!+ I frick'n EDC those things.  ...multiples.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So you are suggesting a street fight will be just one random encounter after another with no rhyme or reason to it?
> 
> You couldn't prepare for that.


No I'm not suggesting that we can't be prepared for certain situations I'm just saying that we don't know what will or may happen in a situation and because of this we cannot be 100% prepared for the numerous ways a situation can get worse. 
You tell me this? How do you prepare for this when you don't think it will happen, or that the probability of it happening is low?
I won't put the video but there's. Search youtube for _Girl runs over 5 of her rivals with her car_
One way she could prepared for this is if she actively decided not to be in the street because she thinks someone will hit her with a car.  If she doesn't think someone will hit you with a car then guess where she'll be... In the street. 

Another way she could have prepared for it, is to simply walk away from the confrontation instead of standing in the street yelling. But hey.. what are the chances that some is going to use their car in a fight? so it's a waste of time to prepare for that possibility. Besides who think like that, to use a car in a fight.  Check out the
_Street Fight Turns Into Grand Theft Auto Real Quick _video on youtube.

Sometimes street fights don't go the way we think they will. If possible it's better to use your energy not to be in one right up to the point where you have no choice but to defend yourself.  Never assume that people will follow laws in a confrontation.  Never assume that you only have to be concerned about the person you are directly fighting. Never assume that humans won't do something, Never assume that you are 100% prepared for everything that can happen.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 29, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Actually, then gent specified an MMA or BJJ trained fighter.  They are not "largely untrained in grappling arts."  And, to be perfectly honest, the only way to stymie a grappler is either with grappling or with weapons that prevent grappling range.



Oh. I stand corrected. I had mis-remembered what I read, and thought he was attempting to teach defense against a variety of sloppy, untrained attacks. (Which I am still very opposed to, but that's a different story...) But yeah, if you want to avoid takedowns and grappling, learn grappling. Although your stabby-stabby friend's approach sounds reasonably effective too...



lklawson said:


> In one respect, it never was.  "Grappling vs. Striking" fighting is a silly and artificial distinction.  The real answer is "Grappling *AND* Striking."



100% in agreement with you. Of course, that doesn't seem to stop Grappling versus Striking cropping up in about every other thread I encounter. Strangely enough, it's not a debate I tend to ever see or hear in real life. It seems all the people I actually meet tend to have a grappling or striking or kicking or weapons focus, but to realize that you need some facility at all possible ranges and approaches, and that striking and grappling both work best in support of the other.

Strike to get your grapple-game going, grapple to get your really devastating strikes off, that sort of thing...



lklawson said:


> Too late.  A thread participant already offered that he teaches self defense seminars and in them teaches techniques (to people who would take a one-day seminar) on how to stymie a MMA/BJJ trained fighter.  Thread's done, man.



Yeaaaah, I guess you're right. So many interesting threads seem to end in tatters like this, rather than reaching any sort of maturity and depth, sadly...


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 29, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Depends what frame of reference you are using.
> 
> Conformation bias.
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm relatively aware of the basic mechanism of confirmation bias, but I don't really follow how that relates to my post.

I just meant, "Hey guys, let's talk about the original subject at hand: watching fight videos to learn stuff!"

EDIT: Ooooh, wait, you mean that watching said videos is only helpful if you can avoid your won biases towards confirmation. Nooooow, I gotcha...


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 29, 2015)

Regarding the "No Rules in a Street Fight" concept:

Most "street" fights are, at least in my experience, basically just anger-fueled sparring matches. People don't smash bottles on each other, gouge eyes, fish-hook, bite, groin grab, stomp insteps, or anything like that. They punch each other in the general head region a few times, until one or the other falls over, and then the basically do the same thing on the ground. (Also, any of you guys ever _actually_ tried to get a handful of genitals through jeans? It's not exactly easy. Neither is fish-hooking, eye-poking, etc in many cases...) 

If you get in a little fist-fight scrappy-poo and you pull a knife, stab the other guy, and then run him over with a car as he's passed out on the ground, you've broken some rules, and you're going to be in trouble for doing so.

It does however, make sense to be aware that the rules and limitations _you_ might expect from an encounter may not be the rules the other guy expects.

For example, I've seen and been in "play" fights at parties in which one or more members of the "friendly-sparring" forget just how friendly its supposed to be and get, well, we'll be charitable and say "overly-enthusiastic." 

So in that respect, I agree that there are no codified and unbreakable rules which are equally known and abided by by all present. Of course, watch any sport match and you'll find that the rules aren't always adhered to there, either...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

lklawson said:


> But you specified "MMA and BJJ." While a BJJ trained person may or may not be trained to kick the legs (or kick at all), a person training in MMA most assuredly has been from the first class.


  being trained in a fighting system doesn't mean that the person is good at it. Being trained in a fighting system doesn't mean you are an expert.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> being trained in a fighting system doesn't mean that the person is good at it. Being trained in a fighting system doesn't mean you are an expert.


Sure.  But anybody can succeed against poorly trained idiots.  No special classes required.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2015)

There are always rules.

The difference between the rules in a sporting competition and the rules  in "real-world" violence is that in a sporting event typically you know exactly what the rules are, you know the penalties for breaking them, and the same rules apply to both sides.

In the real world, the applicable rules and penalties may not be spelled out, enforcement of said penalties may be very erratic, the participants may or may not know what they are, and the rules may be different for the different participants.

Local laws always apply, but consequences for violations will vary considerably depending on whether violators get caught, the perceptions of witnesses, the social status of the violators, and the discretion of local law enforcement and prosecutors. Participants may be more or less willing to risk those consequences based on their own circumstances.

Besides the officially laws on the books, there are plenty of unwritten rules that you may or may not be aware of.

Maybe you are surrounded by a crowd that will cheer on a fight, but will jump in to pummel a fighter who uses techniques considered "dirty" by local custom.

Maybe if you have the wrong color skin or are not a local you need to make absolutely sure all witnesses see you trying to avoid the fight or else you will be charged with assault even when you are just defending yourself.

Maybe you need to finish the fight and leave the scene in less than 90 seconds or your opponent's crazy brother will show up with a pistol and start shooting.

Maybe if you _do_ leave the scene before police show up, witnesses will identify you and you will be hauled in for questioning.

Maybe you are confronting a gang member who lives by a rule that he must save face in front of his comrades  - even if he doesn't particularly want to fight.

The possibilities are endless.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There are always rules.
> 
> The difference between the rules in a sporting competition and the rules  in "real-world" violence is that in a sporting event typically you know exactly what the rules are, you know the penalties for breaking them, and the same rules apply to both sides.
> 
> ...



 Don't punch a girl in the throat for example.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Local laws always apply,


 Laws do not always prevent an attack we have tons of criminals in jail that prove that.  Some understand the consequence and will still do the action.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Maybe you are surrounded by a crowd that will cheer on a fight, but will jump in to pummel a fighter who uses techniques considered "dirty" by local custom.
> 
> Maybe if you have the wrong color skin or are not a local you need to make absolutely sure all witnesses see you trying to avoid the fight or else you will be charged with assault even when you are just defending yourself.
> 
> ...



To me these are possibilities and not rules of a street fight or fighting off an attacker.

This is how I see the definition of rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not really, it's not. If I feel that you pose an imminent threat, I can certainly kick you out into traffic and justify it. Let's see you put a RNC on a Buick...



You are paying for the repair to my buick though.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Actually, then gent specified an MMA or BJJ trained fighter. They are not "largely untrained in grappling arts." And, to be perfectly honest, the only way to stymie a grappler is either with grappling or with weapons that prevent grappling range. I have one friend, a skilled Silat player, who's answer for a BJJ takedown attempt is, "I'll stab you." When confronted with the fact that stabbing a takedown grapple isn't really "anti-grappling" per se, his response was, "I'm too old to take a beating." OK. Fair enough.



Here people have to realise that the are turning every fight it. Life or death encounter. Which is increadably high risk.

Not following the rules of society also prevents you from their benifits.

You cant call the cops after you have knifed a guy for tackling you. They can. Or come after you with numbers and weapons. 
Seen both happen.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Laws do not always prevent an attack we have tons of criminals in jail that prove that. Some understand the consequence and will still do the action.



Having rules in a sporting event doesn't mean that people won't break them. It just means that if they get caught they pay the consequences.



JowGaWolf said:


> To me these are possibilities and not rules of a street fight or fighting off an attacker.
> 
> This is how I see the definition of rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere



Sounds reasonable. That covers both laws (explicit) and cultural norms (understood) that affect conduct and provide potential consequences for said conduct. That would cover most of my examples and a whole lot more. As I said, the main difference between sport and "street" is that in sport the rules are more likely to be known to all parties, symmetric, and consistently enforced.


For anyone who insists that "there are no rules in a real fight," I offer this scenario:

You're an umpire for a Little League game. One day you make a call that a player's parent disagrees with and the guy comes up to you, screaming, insulting you, maybe even shoving you. He's clearly looking for a fight, so you grab his neck, pull him into a few hard knee strikes, throw him as hard as you can, then mount him and start raining down punches until you are pulled off.

When you are hauled into court for criminal charges (and the inevitable civil case - did I mention that this guy was a successful businessman before you inflicted permanent disability on him) you proudly tell the judge "It was a fight. There are no rules in a real fight."

Exactly how well do you think that will go over? Think you'll avoid going to jail and having your saving account emptied?

Bear in mind that everything you did would have been perfectly acceptable in the UFC. Surely it can't be the case that "real life" could have rules _more_ restrictive than sport competition?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2015)

In the US it depends on the laws of the state and how they define self defense.
Self-Defense Overview - FindLaw
Stand your ground laws of some states pretty much make it legal for me to do whatever I need to do to protect myself at that moment.
The shove alone is grounds for being charged with assault.  If it had stopped there then I couldn't throw my knees.  However, charging at the ref, after pushing him changes things and the ref would be in the right under "self defense" laws of Georgia, especially with the student being 6ft 5. and black.  People in U.S. have been shot for less with the person who attacked shot them claiming self defense and winning.


----------



## Buka (Sep 29, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Having rules in a sporting event doesn't mean that people won't break them. It just means that if they get caught they pay the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I understand and appreciate what you're pointing out, really, bro. But.

My attorney is one of my old school Black Belts. He is a Criminal Defense Attorney and also a civil litigator. (hey, you can't save them all) He is also a fine Martial Artist who grew up hard. He wouldn't let you state to the judge "It was a fight. There are no rules in a real fight." He wouldn't do that anymore than you would close your eyes and walk backwards into a fight while whistling Dixie and shooting a beer.

And, as far as this goes _"He's clearly looking for a fight, so you grab his neck, pull him into a few hard knee strikes, throw him as hard as you can, then mount him and start raining down punches until you are pulled off."_
You wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that. Nobody you teach or train with would do that and nobody I teach or train with would either. So, who would? Nobody we know, that's for God damn sure. So, who are we talking about? Nobody that we are even remotely associated with. (nice try, though, bro)


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2015)

Buka said:


> I understand and appreciate what you're pointing out, really, bro. But.
> 
> My attorney is one of my old school Black Belts. He is a Criminal Defense Attorney and also a civil litigator. (hey, you can't save them all) He is also a fine Martial Artist who grew up hard. He wouldn't let you state to the judge "It was a fight. There are no rules in a real fight." He wouldn't do that anymore than you would close your eyes and walk backwards into a fight while whistling Dixie and shooting a beer.
> 
> ...


Hey, I was being restrained. Some of the guys who are most insistent about "no rules in a street fight" and "better tried by 12 than carried by 6" are the same ones who like to demonstrate 16-move combinations that start with a chop to the trachea and end with a stomp to the head of a downed opponent. There may be an eye gouge or a neck break somewhere in the middle. 

Heck, JowGaWolf just stated that my theoretical hyper violent umpire would be legally in the clear in many jurisdictions.

Now, you and I wouldn't behave like that. And if we did, we certainly wouldn't tell the judge "it's okay, no rules in a real fight." Probably it's because we're just a couple of namby pamby softies who aren't prepared for harsh reality.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2015)

I can tell you didn't read any of the articles I posted about people successfully defending against an attacker using things like kicks to the groin, biting, and actually running the attacker over with a car and the law saw those actions as being legal in the context of self-defense.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Heck, JowGaWolf just stated that my theoretical hyper violent umpire would be legally in the clear in many jurisdictions.


  Man A yells insults at Man B.  Man A punches Man B in the face in which Man B does not shoot.  Man A leaves the area but shortly returns charging violently at Man B.  Man B shoots Man A.  Man A flees and later dies 6 miles down the road.  It was caught on tape and was done around witnesses. No charges were brought against the shooter. The State Attorney's Office said it was self-defense.  You can read for yourself.  The investigation is also included.  Legally in the clear.  
So how would you behave if a man you don't know pushes or punches yo, pauses and then charges at you, causing you to fear for your life or your safety?



Tony Dismukes said:


> Now, you and I wouldn't behave like that. And if we did, we certainly wouldn't tell the judge "it's okay, no rules in a real fight."


 You don't have to tell a judge that there's no rules in a fight.  He understands the that anything can happen during a violent confrontation.  The only thing he needs to know if the person being attacked was acting out of self-defense or was he the one who started the assault.  And like Buka stated, a lawyer is going to take the self-defense approach.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 30, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> You don't have to tell a judge that there's no rules in a fight. He understands the that anything can happen during a violent confrontation. The only thing he needs to know if the person being attacked was acting out of self-defense or was he the one who started the assault. And like Buka stated, a lawyer is going to take the self-defense approach.



This site concealed carry killers has a PDF file(which is a bit awkward I know) that list every imbecile who thought they knew what self defence was and was wrong. 

Most judges I have delt with kind of think there are rules in a fight. Goes with the whole rules of society thing they do.

How to Use This Site


----------



## lklawson (Sep 30, 2015)

drop bear said:


> This site concealed carry killers has a PDF file(which is a bit awkward I know) that list every imbecile who thought they knew what self defence was and was wrong.


And is so unbelievably biased and skewed as to be worthless.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 30, 2015)

Buka said:


> My attorney is one of my old school Black Belts. He is a Criminal Defense Attorney and also a civil litigator. (hey, you can't save them all) He is also a fine Martial Artist who grew up hard. He wouldn't let you state to the judge "It was a fight. There are no rules in a real fight."



I was actually just about to relate a similar instance. There is a guy that has ties with my school, similar situation, Black Belt, Criminal Defense Attorney (though I believe he used to be prosecution).

This summer at a Martial Arts School Meet-up type thing, he gave an interesting class on this side of self-defense, the you-won-the-fight-now-stay-out-of-jail side of things.

Going through some of his case work, he had an instance of a guy who smashed another guy's jaw to pieces, to the point where the hospital staff refused to believe he hadn't used a weapon (it was actually one punch, apparently) and then bit the guy's ear completely off, spit it out, and fled the scene. Seemed pretty cut and dry, I mean, you break someone's face, bite off their ear, escape unscathed, and run from the cops, you're the bad guy, right?

Except that the side of the story that got left out is that it was a 4 v 1 situation, the outnumbered guy got attacked by a bigger guy, but managed to get one shot in before being tackled to the ground in a bear hug, where he did the only thing he could do in his terror, bit. Then, still being outnumbered and scared, he ran. Realizing it looked bad and the four guys were spreading lies, he kept running.

He managed to get off, but only because the lawyer is a good one, and the other side bungled their case by continually and obviously lying. He's got a lot of bills now. Moral of the story being, _always_ be the one to call the cops.

Secondary moral being, there are rules against fighting, and their are rules in fights, and if you break them, you better have a good, verifiable and justifiable reason.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 30, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> ...16-move combinations that start with a chop to the trachea and end with a stomp to the head of a downed opponent. There may be an eye gouge or a neck break somewhere in the middle...



When I first moved to this area two years back, I checked out the local martial arts scene, and ended up training at one school for several months. They were a big fan of these lengthy combos. The only saving grace was that the combos were completely unrealistic and doomed to fail, and that the training was such that when in the role of the "attacker", if I didn't fall when I was supposed to, or where I was supposed to, or punch how I was supposed to, I was casually and straight-facedly informed that I was "doing it wrong."

Had the training quality and realism components been higher, I would have been seriously worried about and by those guys...

I mean, I grabbed your shirt and your response is to break my nose, my fingers, my arm, kick my knee against the joint, throw me on the concrete, stomp my groin and face and then finish with an eye gouge? Remind me not to tick you off...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2015)

drop bear said:


> This site concealed carry killers has a PDF file(which is a bit awkward I know) that list every imbecile who thought they knew what self defence was and was wrong.
> 
> Most judges I have delt with kind of think there are rules in a fight. Goes with the whole rules of society thing they do.
> 
> How to Use This Site


This statement tells me all I need to know about the site "_Concealed Carry Killers provides detailed information on hundreds of examples of fatal, non-self defense killings by private citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns_."

It also tells me that you aren't reading the definition I've been posting of what the U.S. legal system considers as self-dense and what they look at in order to determine when the act of self-defense begins and when it ends.  I'm pretty sure that all of the cases on that site fail the legal definition of what is considered as self defense.  I'm also sure there are cases where the person doing the killing initiated the attack.  I'm pretty sure that the judges that you dealt with and the lawyers that they deal with listen to cases and present arguments of a person's action as being self-defense vs assault. Based on the events that lead up to the fighting, stabbing, or shooting.  In terms of "street fighting," "Street fighting" is probably illegal in every jurisdiction in the U.S. and the actions found within a street fight are  looked as assault, battery, self-defense , and other terms, but not "street fighting."  

Rules to a fight are going to be classified as sanctioned and non-sanction which deals with an entirely different set of laws and regulations.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> This summer at a Martial Arts School Meet-up type thing, he gave an interesting class on this side of self-defense, the you-won-the-fight-now-stay-out-of-jail side of things.





Zack Cart said:


> He managed to get off, but only because the lawyer is a good one, and the other side bungled their case by continually and obviously lying. He's got a lot of bills now. Moral of the story being, _always_ be the one to call the cops.



When I had to deal with the drug dealers I called the police and made it known about the danger I was in. I also informed my employer the danger I was in as well as include my situation in a written report about me being threatened.  I wanted as much evidence of me reaching out to the police and my employer as much as possible, just in case things took a turn for the worse and I had to defend myself.  If I have some guy yelling at me and he keeps following me, then I'm calling the police to let them know what is going on at that moment. I want as much evidence as possible

As for bills. I'm sure the he rather have the legal bills than the hospital bills + legal bills and possible permanent damage as a result from getting a beat down in a 4 vs 1 scenario.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 30, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> ...I called the police and made it known about the danger I was in....I wanted as much evidence of me reaching out to the police and my employer as much as possible,...I want as much evidence as possible.



Exactly. That's pretty much what the lawyer I was referencing was advocating. If you're in the right, make sure you can demonstrate it.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm sure the he rather have the legal bills than the hospital bills + legal bills and possible permanent damage as a result from getting a beat down in a 4 vs 1 scenario.



Well, yaaaw. I don't think anyone advocates getting injured by virtue of your own pacifism to ensure that you avoid any possible legal action...


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Oct 26, 2015)

To be honest I don't think that would even help. I think sparring is very overrated. It gets you fit but it's still not a good practice for the street because you are going in lighter and you're limited in what you can throw for example you can't kick their knees, gouge out their eyes kick in the groin. Those are probably main things in a street fight. Any untrained guy  can put on gloves and throw down with someone that doesn't make them a good fighter. I think technical training is much better as you learn how to use all the proper weapons and develop muscle memory


----------



## Ironbear24 (Mar 28, 2016)

A lot of these fights happen between two people who know little to nothing about how to fight. That's why they end so quickly. They understand nothing about blocking or avoiding, so because of this who ever lands the first sloppy very fast haymaker will typically win.

People are also not accostumed to getting hit, I know it sounds funny but it's true. When people get hit especially in the face, they either freak out and cover up. Or they get furious and become more aggressive, that or they try to run.

This brings me to ask another question, but I'll save that for another thread because it is a bit off topic here.


----------



## marques (Mar 28, 2016)

> I teach self-defense classes from time to time.  My last one was in 2002 before MMA is as big as it is now.  I told the teen students my game plan for that time.  Most people only punch so I'm going to take advantage of someone who wants to knock me out with a punch by kicking their legs.  We would do scenarios where they will fight like they do in the streets.  I kept kicking them in the legs.


That is an interesting point. Someone here could apply this strategy in self-defence?
I saw it once (Low Kick, in Poland). 
But, in self-defence, I only can use (feel confidence to) use them as distractions, feints. In a sport combat or sparring it's ok. I do it all the time.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 28, 2016)

marques said:


> That is an interesting point. Someone here could apply this strategy in self-defence?
> I saw it once (Low Kick, in Poland).
> But, in self-defence, I only can use (feel confidence to) use them as distractions, feints. In a sport combat or sparring it's ok. I do it all the time.



If you can only apply a low kick as a distraction, then I suspect you're not doing them properly. A low kick to the knee is quite painful, and can be crippling depending on exactly how it's done. A low kick to the outer thigh can (again, if done properly) cause leg cramps, which make it difficult to walk, let alone fight. Ditto inner thigh. A low kick to the groin, (again, if done properly) can make just standing and breathing difficult. A low kick to the calf has the potential to break the leg.
There are lots of ways low kicks can be used other than as a distraction.


----------



## marques (Mar 28, 2016)

@Dirty Dog ,When I say 'as distraction' I mean using them mainly to get into _my_ distance. I may kick or stop in mid-way. Besides that I prefer to have my feets on the ground. My punches can be much faster and easier from _my_ distance. I may use knees. (If it is 'to fight for life'.)

And Low Kick is my favorite, in friendly 'encounters'...  'Low Kick', I mean the Muay Thai Low Kick. Kick to the groin I would call it a lower Front Kick... Anyway I feel the main problem is the miss of confidence itself, after a long training break, because (low) kicks are still largely possible from _my_ distance. Does someone here use kicks in self-defence?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 28, 2016)

marques said:


> Does someone here use kicks in self-defence?




Um, yeah... lots of us. I'd even go so far as to say most of us. 
Anyone who doesn't is certainly severely limiting their options.
And I would certainly prefer to be attacked by someone who doesn't use all the weapons at their disposal.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Mar 28, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Um, yeah... lots of us. I'd even go so far as to say most of us.
> Anyone who doesn't is certainly severely limiting their options.
> And I would certainly prefer to be attacked by someone who doesn't use all the weapons at their disposal.



I do. Especially roundhouses.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 28, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> If you can only apply a low kick as a distraction, then I suspect you're not doing them properly. A low kick to the knee is quite painful, and can be crippling depending on exactly how it's done. A low kick to the outer thigh can (again, if done properly) cause leg cramps, which make it difficult to walk, let alone fight. Ditto inner thigh. A low kick to the groin, (again, if done properly) can make just standing and breathing difficult. A low kick to the calf has the potential to break the leg.
> There are lots of ways low kicks can be used other than as a distraction.



Disagree. If i wanted to finish a guy.  I really would not rely on a low kick to do the job. 

If it does then great.  But i would be throwing it as a set up to get to the head.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Disagree. If i wanted to finish a guy.  I really would not rely on a low kick to do the job.
> 
> If it does then great.  But i would be throwing it as a set up to get to the head.



Who said anything about finishing?
There is a HUGE difference between a setup and a distraction.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 29, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Who said anything about finishing?
> There is a HUGE difference between a setup and a distraction.



Depends on your fighting mentality. For us our distractions are mostly viable techniquestechniques in their own right. The distraction is that they are forced to react.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Disagree. If i wanted to finish a guy. I really would not rely on a low kick to do the job.


A low side kick to the side of the knee would break the leg and finish them for sure (if successful in breaking the leg).


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 29, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> If you can only apply a low kick as a distraction, then I suspect you're not doing them properly. A low kick to the knee is quite painful, and can be crippling depending on exactly how it's done. A low kick to the outer thigh can (again, if done properly) cause leg cramps, which make it difficult to walk, let alone fight. Ditto inner thigh. A low kick to the groin, (again, if done properly) can make just standing and breathing difficult. A low kick to the calf has the potential to break the leg.
> There are lots of ways low kicks can be used other than as a distraction.



Agreed.  As I learned them, low kicks are faster, just as or more strong, and therefor more difficult to defend; we don't stand on our arms or head.  High kicks can do a lot of damage, if they connect.  But as they tend to take more time to connect, they are more easily defended against by either moving toward the opponent, or out of range.


----------



## marques (Mar 29, 2016)

@Dirty Dog and @drop bear , peace. 
Actually, drop bear says what I want to say. By 'distraction' I mean from feint to non-powerful strike, just to stimulate a reaction as said by drop bear.
Setup and distraction is quite the same to me. Sorry about my English skills.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 29, 2016)

marques said:


> @Dirty Dog and @drop bear , peace.
> Actually, drop bear says what I want to say. By 'distraction' I mean from feint to non-powerful strike, just to stimulate a reaction as said by drop bear.
> Setup and distraction is quite the same to me. Sorry about my English skills.



Yes setup and distraction are in union.  Fient and reaction are one of the same. Basically it is called a fight brain, calculates on the fly, but with inherent structure. But of course forget signature moves, just do what is necessary.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 29, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> A low side kick to the side of the knee would break the leg and finish them for sure (if successful in breaking the leg).



Yeah but it probably wont break a guys leg


----------



## drop bear (Mar 29, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Agreed.  As I learned them, low kicks are faster, just as or more strong, and therefor more difficult to defend; we don't stand on our arms or head.  High kicks can do a lot of damage, if they connect.  But as they tend to take more time to connect, they are more easily defended against by either moving toward the opponent, or out of range.



It is also quite hard to follow up on a head kick. Where a low kick is a bit easier.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is also quite hard to follow up on a head kick. Where a low kick is a bit easier.



You're projecting. It is apparently quite hard for you to follow up on a head kick. Not everyone has that problem.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 29, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> You're projecting. It is apparently quite hard for you to follow up on a head kick. Not everyone has that problem.



It is a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but it probably wont break a guys leg


Maybe the way you do it.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 30, 2016)

Buka said:


> then mount him and



Over here one would never tell anyone that you 'mounted' him....just wouldn't.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Maybe the way you do it.



Broken a lot of guys legs have you?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Broken a lot of guys legs have you?


No but I have had mine broken so I know how easy it is to get a leg broken.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 30, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> No but I have had mine broken so I know how easy it is to get a leg broken.



So once in how many years of training?


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but it probably wont break a guys leg



Yes it would bear. Limb deconstruction. Strike through the knee, the leg is broken. A useless limb. Is that broken, of course it is


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So once in how many years of training?



Irrelevant, since we don't TRY to break each others legs during training. We specifically try NOT to hurt each other, and we try really really hard not to cripple our partners.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 30, 2016)

Zack Cart said:


> When I first moved to this area two years back, I checked out the local martial arts scene, and ended up training at one school for several months. They were a big fan of these lengthy combos. The only saving grace was that the combos were completely unrealistic and doomed to fail, and that the training was such that when in the role of the "attacker", if I didn't fall when I was supposed to, or where I was supposed to, or punch how I was supposed to, I was casually and straight-facedly informed that I was "doing it wrong."
> 
> Had the training quality and realism components been higher, I would have been seriously worried about and by those guys...
> 
> I mean, I grabbed your shirt and your response is to break my nose, my fingers, my arm, kick my knee against the joint, throw me on the concrete, stomp my groin and face and then finish with an eye gouge? Remind me not to tick you off...


This sounds familiar to me...


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Irrelevant, since we don't TRY to break each others legs during training. We specifically try NOT to hurt each other, and we try really really hard not to cripple our partners.



Yeah.  I would have thought defending the effectiveness of a technique i have never done pretty irrelevant as well.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 31, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So once in how many years of training?


About 3 or 4.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 31, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I would have thought defending the effectiveness of a technique i have never done pretty irrelevant as well.


So you have never done a low side kick?


----------



## Lameman (Mar 31, 2016)

I like to practice leg breaks on trees. Too small and too easy. You want something that will bend with the force, but still have enough diametor to present a challenge. Start a little small, and work your way up. I look for a two to three inches. Three or more inches, and you are going to be hard pressed to cut it down.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 31, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> So you have never done a low side kick?



Never done a leg breaking one.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 1, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Never done a leg breaking one.


Do you need to actually break someone's leg to know how to break someone's leg?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Do you need to actually break someone's leg to know how to break someone's leg?



Yes.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes.


Fortunately other people do not have that limitation.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 2, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Fortunately other people do not have that limitation.



Most people are limited by reality.


----------



## marques (Apr 2, 2016)

What is the point in breaking legs, when it comes with several legal and financial charges?
Why not just kick well, on the nerves or more sensitive points. Enough to stop the threat. Efficient. No dark side...


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Most people are limited by reality.


Very limited.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes.


I don't need to keep applying pressure and torque to know that If I keep doing so it will break it's common sense, similar to how I don't know need to shoot myself or others to know bullets go through people.
Having broken 9 bones myself a hairline fracture isn't always as noticeable without an x ray and sometimes what appears to be broken x ray confirms or a not. I have broken other's bones however I didn't notice it broke someone's finger during a grab I thought I just extended it to much. So no, you don't have to break someone's bones to know about leveraging and torque.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 3, 2016)

oaktree said:


> I don't need to keep applying pressure and torque to know that If I keep doing so it will break it's common sense, similar to how I don't know need to shoot myself or others to know bullets go through people.
> Having broken 9 bones myself a hairline fracture isn't always as noticeable without an x ray and sometimes what appears to be broken x ray confirms or a not. I have broken other's bones however I didn't notice it broke someone's finger during a grab I thought I just extended it to much. So no, you don't have to break someone's bones to know about leveraging and torque.



I actually have a punch that makes the skull explode. I have never done it of course because it would kill people. But I don't think that is a factor.

I don't have to actually explode skulls to know my technique works.

Anybody who punches people in the head and does not explode the skull is not doing it right.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I actually have a punch that makes the skull explode. I have never done it of course because it would kill people. But I don't think that is a factor.
> 
> I don't have to actually explode skulls to know my technique works.
> 
> Anybody who punches people in the head and does not explode the skull is not doing it right.


Your example is illogical and has no basis in reality. If you can articulate yourself intelligently maybe I would take you seriously


----------



## oaktree (Apr 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I actually have a punch that makes the skull explode. I have never done it of course because it would kill people. But I don't think that is a fact


How do you perform this? What plausible means can you perform this?


drop bear said:


> don't have to actually explode skulls to know my technique works.


No you don't if you have a plausible explanation, same as I don't have to run a sharp sword into someone to kill some one at least mine is plausible.
It goes back to breaking someone's arm how do we know it works because its common sense same as stabbing someone with a knife goes through them, your logic is a fallacy and to debate with someone who can't use logic is a waste of time so drop bear every one sees your post on the subject and you are the one with egg on your face end of discussion son, mic dropped your rebuttal is on deaf ear cause you have been schooled.also drop bear is on my ignore no time for fools in life.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 3, 2016)

oaktree said:


> How do you perform this? What plausible means can you perform this?
> 
> No you don't if you have a plausible explanation, same as I don't have to run a sharp sword into someone to kill some one at least mine is plausible.
> It goes back to breaking someone's arm how do we know it works because its common sense same as stabbing someone with a knife goes through them, your logic is a fallacy and to debate with someone who can't use logic is a waste of time so drop bear every one sees your post on the subject and you are the one with egg on your face end of discussion son, mic dropped your rebuttal is on deals ear cause you have been schooled.also drop bear is on my ignore no time for fools in life.



So exploding skull punches are silly but leg breaking kicks are OK. And you are ignoring me.

Nice.

Your finger break does not hold up. I can effectively execute a finger bending technique without breaking your finger. So I can actually do the technique and know of it's effectivness.

Even in self defence most people don't break arms with arm locks. The technique works anyway. 

I train in an environment where knee kicks are allowed. And they mostly don't break. This is why knee breaking kicks are done by people who never break knees.


----------

