# The "Effectiveness Question" Again...



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

A couple prefaces:
- I'm a 40 year old man, and have nothing to prove by winning a "fair fight" with my hands.  I do conceal carry, and in the event that I'm not armed or the situation doesn't warrant using a firearm, I can easily pick up the nearest heavy object and not feel like "p*ss*" for doing it.
- That said, of the reasons I chose to begin martial arts at my age, "self defense" is tertiary at best.
- Even though self-defense wasn't my primary reason for starting martial arts, it is ultimately what you're being taught to do.  The mindset that I'm there to learn self-defense is kind of starting to creep in, because that's how the techniques are explained in class.

So here's the deal: I Googled this for days - How effective is karate in a street fight, if at all?

Of course, plenty of "what if scenarios" came into play - multiple attackers, knives, etc.

I want to ask something more direct:

Let's say you have a guy who is a 2nd Dan, who has never been in a real fight in his life.  However, he has come out on top in every tournament - he's got the gold medals and the trophies to show for it.

However... he's walking down the sidewalk with his girlfriend, and an exceptionally fit thug attempts to shoot his shot with the girlfriend, and slaps the man when he protests.

This thug, while not formally trained in any martial art, is very well experienced in real fights and anyone in his neighborhood will tell you that he's "got them hands."

In this scenario, no one is armed with anything and no one is else going to jump in.

Who comes out on top?


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Flip a coin


----------



## pdg (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Flip a coin



Is that distraction technique?

Like, flip a coin and punch him while he's looking at it?


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Flip a coin



Does this mean that each has a 50/50 chance?  This answer sounds a little too diplomatic.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Does this mean that each has a 50/50 chance?  This answer sounds a little too diplomatic.


No it's the truth. Fighting is pure luck especially a street fight. You could train for 50 years and someone with 0 training lands a good shot and you go down or go in a position you can't fight back in. Martial arts doesn't turn you into Rambo who can kill a whole army with no issues. Fighting is about who can land first. It's pure luck training or no training. Just because a black belt gets knocked out by someone with no training doesn't mean he's a rubbish martial artist it just means he got caught with a punch.


----------



## Martial D (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> A couple prefaces:
> - I'm a 40 year old man, and have nothing to prove by winning a "fair fight" with my hands.  I do conceal carry, and in the event that I'm not armed or the situation doesn't warrant using a firearm, I can easily pick up the nearest heavy object and not feel like "p*ss*" for doing it.
> - That said, of the reasons I chose to begin martial arts at my age, "self defense" is tertiary at best.
> - Even though self-defense wasn't my primary reason for starting martial arts, it is ultimately what you're being taught to do.  The mindset that I'm there to learn self-defense is kind of starting to creep in, because that's how the techniques are explained in class.
> ...


It's not 'is this style effective' it's 'is this style trained effectively. 

Are the guys gearing up and sparring without choreography? Does this include the possibility of being taken down, and ways to deal with that?

Are there live drills?(ex you try to hit him, he tries to stop you, with real effort)

Can the instructor do what he is teaching in these scenarios?

If any of these answers is 'no', then they aren't training to fight.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Does this mean that each has a 50/50 chance?  This answer sounds a little too diplomatic.


That might be the first time I've heard headhunter be accused of being too diplomatic 
But what he said is basically right. There are too many unknowns involved, about the fights the "street" guy has been in, the quality/type of karate training the other guy has been in, and the luck involved with the actual fights. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't be betting either way on that fight, with just the info you gave.


----------



## Martial D (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> No it's the truth. Fighting is pure luck especially a street fight. You could train for 50 years and someone with 0 training lands a good shot and you go down or go in a position you can't fight back in. Martial arts doesn't turn you into Rambo who can kill a whole army with no issues. Fighting is about who can land first. It's pure luck training or no training. Just because a black belt gets knocked out by someone with no training doesn't mean he's a rubbish martial artist it just means he got caught with a punch.


Yes. Fighting is pure luck.

This is why we regularly see untrained people walking into MMA organizations and KOing the top fighters..
...50% of the time.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 24, 2019)

Martial arts are what you make of it.  Regardless of what style or wherr you train.

And there is no such thing as a fair fight.

Show me the universal rule book on fighting and I might follow it....might.....OK, probably not.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Martial D said:


> It's not 'is this style effective' it's 'is this style trained effectively.
> 
> Are the guys gearing up and sparring without choreography? Does this include the possibility of being taken down, and ways to deal with that?
> 
> ...



For the sake of argument, let's say yes to all of these.  Let's say they do everything, just stopping short of any real full-contact matches (like in boxing).


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Here's an example, albeit an extreme one: to my knowledge, Kimbo Slice never had any formal martial arts training.  However, we've only seen professional mixed martial artist defeat him.

So the scenario in question involves someone who is similar to Kimbo Slice - only not so as extreme as to weigh so heavily in his favor against the karateka.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Martial arts are what you make of it.  Regardless of what style or wherr you train.
> 
> And there is no such thing as a fair fight.
> 
> Show me the universal rule book on fighting and I might follow it....might.....OK, probably not.



When I say "fair fight," I mean one on one, both unarmed.


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 24, 2019)

Let me give you a scenario....

John Doe is a 30 year old average size male who has never been in a real fight.  He is walking down the street when a street thug who loves to fight decides to attack him.

Would John Doe be better off if:

A)  He has had no MA training

B)  He has MA training


Although you might not can handle the Kimbo Slice type fighter....with MA training you might fair a little better against him...you at least increase your chance some.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Yes. Fighting is pure luck.
> 
> This is why we regularly see untrained people walking into MMA organizations and KOing the top fighters..
> ...50% of the time.


I mean real fights. Not sports


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Here's an example, albeit an extreme one: to my knowledge, Kimbo Slice never had any formal martial arts training.  However, we've only seen professional mixed martial artist defeat him.
> 
> So the scenario in question involves someone who is similar to Kimbo Slice - only not so as extreme as to weigh so heavily in his favor against the karateka.


Wrong. Kimbo slice had martial arts training....he was literally on a reality show that involved him training martial arts and also wrong he lost to some out of shape cop


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

What really matters is this: who has the nicest looking gi


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Wrong. Kimbo slice had martial arts training....he was literally on a reality show that involved him training martial arts and also wrong he lost to some out of shape cop



In what?  Because I haven't seen a bio that mentioned it.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> No it's the truth. Fighting is pure luck especially a street fight. You could train for 50 years and someone with 0 training lands a good shot and you go down or go in a position you can't fight back in. Martial arts doesn't turn you into Rambo who can kill a whole army with no issues. Fighting is about who can land first. It's pure luck training or no training. Just because a black belt gets knocked out by someone with no training doesn't mean he's a rubbish martial artist it just means he got caught with a punch.



No it really isn't.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> In what?  Because I haven't seen a bio that mentioned it.


If you're talking about the tv show just look up kimbo you'll find it. For the loss just YouTube kimbo slice loses street fight


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> For the sake of argument, let's say yes to all of these.  Let's say they do everything, just stopping short of any real full-contact matches (like in boxing).


Check out the show bully beatdown, assuming it's legitimate quality martial arts it should be similar (minus the grappling aspect since in general karate sucks at that).


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> If you're talking about the tv show just look up kimbo you'll find it. For the loss just YouTube kimbo slice loses street fight



Or you could just answer the question.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> That might be the first time I've heard headhunter be accused of being too diplomatic
> But what he said is basically right. There are too many unknowns involved, about the fights the "street" guy has been in, the quality/type of karate training the other guy has been in, and the luck involved with the actual fights. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't be betting either way on that fight, with just the info you gave.



I think people are blowing out the idea of uncertainty a bit. 

If you can fight you will probably win more fights than if you can't.

If you are trained to fight you will probably be able to fight better than if you can't.

And street fights are not coin tosses.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> I mean real fights. Not sports



Why does the result become random in a real fight? So what changes?

Where is any evidence at all that a real fight is just a case of random chance?


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Or you could just answer the question.


You're right my friend I could


----------



## pdg (Dec 24, 2019)

Someone once said "there's no such thing as a stupid question"...

I am continually seeing them proved wrong.


I just made up two new superheroes:

Pudding Man and Captain Seatcushion.

Who would win?


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Why does the result become random in a real fight? So what changes?
> 
> Where is any evidence at all that a real fight is just a case of random chance?


Because in sports you play the game. You listen to the referee you stop when the time runs out you don't foul. You get a 1 minute rest period and the match is stopped if you get hurt to badly

In the real world you do what you want. You don't get a 5 minute rest period if you get kicked in the nuts or poked in the eye. You can't look to the ref to save you and call in a doctor to make sure you're okay. You're not fighting a man the same size as you. I've witnessed hundreds of street fights working on the nightclub doors and never do they like a Conor McGregor highlight reel or a Muhammad Ali match. Go look around online. Real fights don't look anything like sports


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> You're right my friend I could


 
And since you won't come, we'll proceed with the discussion as if Kimbo Slice was not trained.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I think people are blowing out the idea of uncertainty a bit.
> 
> If you can fight you will probably win more fights than if you can't.
> 
> ...


The thing is we don't know the quality of the tourney karate guys training. It could be legitimate training and tournaments, or it could be a mcdojo with point tournaments with three people in the circuit, and the other two forty years older than him.

And the street guy could have a ton of experience. Or he could just be fighting a bunch of out of shape dudes that he hits with a brick from behind. Without knowing the quality of the dudes training, or the quality of the other dudes fighting experience, we don't know.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> And since you won't come, we'll proceed with the discussion as if Kimbo Slice was not trained.


Okay....I mean you're wrong but okay yeah a pro boxer and pro Mma fighter never had a days training lol


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Let me give you a scenario....
> 
> John Doe is a 30 year old average size male who has never been in a real fight.  He is walking down the street when a street thug who loves to fight decides to attack him.
> 
> ...



Good response. But there's something quite disturbing about it, and I'll explain.  But let's  changethings up a little bit.

In the scenario I presented, and in John Doe's case, we're talking about someone who has never been in a real fight before.

Let's talk about a scenario of someone who has.  We'll call him Mike.  Let's say that Mike  wasa good kid growing up, and could probably count the number of real fights he's been in on his fingers.  He was an average sized kid who could hold his own against other kids his own size, but was in serious trouble if he ever pissed off a jock.

In the case of John Doe and the hypothetical karateka I mentioned, they didn't know how to do something as simple as kick or punch before martial arts training, and now they do.

In Mike's case, he already had "something" before starting martial arts training.  But that "something" isn't even close what the thug has by a long shot.

Does traditional karate put him over?


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Okay....I mean you're wrong but okay yeah a pro boxer and pro Mma fighter never had a days training lol



Until you refute what I'm saying, it's going to stand.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Until you refute what I'm saying, it's going to stand.


Okay lol really doesn't make any difference to me


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Good response. But there's something quite disturbing about it, and I'll explain.  But let's  changethings up a little bit.
> 
> In the scenario I presented, and in John Doe's case, we're talking about someone who has never been in a real fight before.
> 
> ...


Jeez this is all getting very over complicated. Why does this fake situation really matter? You can't predict a real fights outcome so how can we predict a fake fight lol? Seriously is there a reason you are asking this? Are you doubting your own training and looking for validation that what you train is legit?


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Good response. But there's something quite disturbing about it, and I'll explain.  But let's  changethings up a little bit.
> 
> In the scenario I presented, and in John Doe's case, we're talking about someone who has never been in a real fight before.
> 
> ...



Maybe... maybe not.  Depends on how much Mike puts into training and the individual he is going against.

But does training Karate lessen his chances...I don't think so.  He still has increased his odds.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Jeez this is all getting very over complicated. Why does this fake situation really matter? You can't predict a real fights outcome so how can we predict a fake fight lol? Seriously is there a reason you are asking this? Are you doubting your own training and looking for validation that what you train is legit?



This may come as a surprise to you, but there are thousands of other threads on MT if you don't like this one.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Okay lol really doesn't make any difference to me



Does this mean you have nothing else to add?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The thing is we don't know the quality of the tourney karate guys training. It could be legitimate training and tournaments, or it could be a mcdojo with point tournaments with three people in the circuit, and the other two forty years older than him.
> 
> And the street guy could have a ton of experience. Or he could just be fighting a bunch of out of shape dudes that he hits with a brick from behind. Without knowing the quality of the dudes training, or the quality of the other dudes fighting experience, we don't know.



Ok. Then you take the spirit of the question and start putting conditions on it until you have some sort of sensible answer.

Rather than engaging in this self indulgent martial arts ineffable nonsense. 

Which is one of the reasons so many people have such crap preparation for any sort of conflict.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Then you take the spirit of the question and start putting conditions on it until you have some sort of sensible answer.
> 
> Rather than engaging in this self indulgent martial arts ineffable nonsense.
> 
> Which is one of the reasons so many people have such crap preparation for any sort of conflict.



Usually, when they keep asking for more info like that, they have no intention of ever answering the question.  That is, unless you give a piece of info that clearly puts one guy over the other.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Usually, when they keep asking for more info like that, they have no intention of ever answering the question.


Well when your question is this silly there really isn't an answer....basically your question is the same as: who'd win in a fight between Kung fu panda and master splinter from teenage mutant ninja turtles. This's basically what this question is


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Because in sports you play the game. You listen to the referee you stop when the time runs out you don't foul. You get a 1 minute rest period and the match is stopped if you get hurt to badly
> 
> In the real world you do what you want. You don't get a 5 minute rest period if you get kicked in the nuts or poked in the eye. You can't look to the ref to save you and call in a doctor to make sure you're okay. You're not fighting a man the same size as you. I've witnessed hundreds of street fights working on the nightclub doors and never do they like a Conor McGregor highlight reel or a Muhammad Ali match. Go look around online. Real fights don't look anything like sports



Real fights do look exactly like sports.





And there are many examples I could use to show this. So if I put two untrained guys in a sports fight it would look a little closer to the fights that you may have witnessed by untrained guys in a pub. 

I could show videos of people who train grappling effectively grappling in a street fight.

And also people who train striking effectively striking in a street fight basically presenting a pretty persuasive argument that trained fighters employ exactly what is successful in a sports fight in a street fight. 

Now you said basically a street fight is a coin toss. 

But your differences between sports fights and street fights that you mentioned are too general to really be true.

So a referee for example won't really change the outcome of a fight under most circumstances.

Same with a minute break. 

And even the same with fouls if both fighters have access to them. 

Having a huge guy vs a small guy will. But then we would still see a consistent result and not a coin toss. 

There are a whole bunch of self defence tropes that are demonstrably wrong. Or are logical fallacies.

Even the "I have seen hundreds of fights" fallacy doesn't really add up to an argument. 

And why in these sorts of discussions while sounding nice are in reality everything that is wrong with a martial arts mindset.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> This may come as a surprise to you, but there are thousands of other threads on MT if you don't like this one.


So you don't fancy answering why you need to know this answer so bad? Because my first thought reading this question is that your starting to doubt what you're learning and looking for reassurance that what you're learning is effective. No shame in it plenty of people go through that stage in the early days. But these hypothetical questions really have no legit answer. It's all opinions and guess work. If I ask on here who's going to win in the next UFC event. That's guess work to because fighting has to many variables to predict. That's why it's called gambling...Because it's a gamble you never who'll win. So if we can't accurately predict between 2 real fighters how are we supposed to predict a winner between fake karate guy and fake street fighter?


----------



## CB Jones (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Well when your question is this silly there really isn't an answer....basically your question is the same as: who'd win in a fight between Kung fu panda and master splinter from teenage mutant ninja turtles. This's basically what this question is



Po because....Ski-doosh.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Usually, when they keep asking for more info like that, they have no intention of ever answering the question.  That is, unless you give a piece of info that clearly puts one guy over the other.



Yeah. I gives you a general indication on the sort of critical thinking method they are going to use to base their experience on. 

I mean yes your question needed work. But this is a forum we can ask a question get feed back then redefine the question untill we come up with a really cognizant thought on the matter. 

But we kind of won't because that is not how a lot of martial arts operates. This is intentional to make a person who has little knowledge sound like he has more knowledge.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> So you don't fancy answering why you need to know this answer so bad? Because my first thought reading this question is that your starting to doubt what you're learning and looking for reassurance that what you're learning is effective. No shame in it plenty of people go through that stage in the early days. But these hypothetical questions really have no legit answer. It's all opinions and guess work. If I ask on here who's going to win in the next UFC event. That's guess work to because fighting has to many variables to predict. That's why it's called gambling...Because it's a gamble you never who'll win. So if we can't accurately predict between 2 real fighters how are we supposed to predict a winner between fake karate guy and fake street fighter?



Does why I "need" to know the answer have any bearing on what the answer is going to be?

And did I ever say that I "need" to know the answer, let alone "so bad?"

I think that what I said in my OP should have clearly indicated that I don't need karate to work on the streets.  I've got other things for that.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

So let's look at one example of a trained martial artist who fights random strangers for a living.






Bearing in mind people who live and work on outback farms are not generally soft stock.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Does why I "need" to know the answer have any bearing on what the answer is going to be?
> 
> And did I ever say that I "need" to know the answer, let alone "so bad?"
> 
> I think that what I said in my OP should have clearly indicated that I don't need karate to work on the streets.  I've got other things for that.


Nope because as I've said there is no answer


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Then you take the spirit of the question and start putting conditions on it until you have some sort of sensible answer.
> 
> Rather than engaging in this self indulgent martial arts ineffable nonsense.
> 
> Which is one of the reasons so many people have such crap preparation for any sort of conflict.





Rusty B said:


> Usually, when they keep asking for more info like that, they have no intention of ever answering the question.  That is, unless you give a piece of info that clearly puts one guy over the other.



Nah. Those questions were actually important to my answer. Basically with both-if one is actively better than the other (legitimate good karate or fighting experience against strong/tough people), then that's where the win is. And I actually did give my answer with the reference to bully beatdown. Assuming its legitimate training, the martial artist should win. If you look up the show and watch a few episodes, you'll see why.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I gives you a general indication on the sort of critical thinking method they are going to use to base their experience on.
> 
> I mean yes your question needed work. But this is a forum we can ask a question get feed back then redefine the question untill we come up with a really cognizant thought on the matter.
> 
> But we kind of won't because that is not how a lot of martial arts operates. This is intentional to make a person who has little knowledge sound like he has more knowledge.


Working on the question to a working one was exactly what i was doing which you apparently took issue with. Nothing about trying to hide knowledge or pretending I have more knowledge than i do.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Nah. Those questions were actually important to my answer. Basically with both-if one is actively better than the other (legitimate good karate or fighting experience against strong/tough people), then that's where the win is. And I actually did give my answer with the reference to bully beatdown. Assuming its legitimate training, the martial artist should win. If you look up the show and watch a few episodes, you'll see why.



What question was that?

"The thing is we don't know the quality of the tourney karate guys training. It could be legitimate training and tournaments, or it could be a mcdojo with point tournaments with three people in the circuit, and the other two forty years older than him.

And the street guy could have a ton of experience. Or he could just be fighting a bunch of out of shape dudes that he hits with a brick from behind. Without knowing the quality of the dudes training, or the quality of the other dudes fighting experience, we don't know."

Because that reads as a statement.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Working on the question to a working one was exactly what i was doing which you apparently took issue with. Nothing about trying to hide knowledge or pretending I have more knowledge than i do.


Ok.

And how were you going about that?


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 24, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So let's look at one example of a trained martial artist who fights random strangers for a living.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only caveat to this is that he has years of actual fighting experience.  For all intents and purposes, he's basically an MMA fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> The only caveat to this is that he has years of actual fighting experience.  For all intents and purposes, he's basically an MMA fighter.



Correct. But we have started with a benchmark suggesting that it is possible with martial arts to basically handle your average Joe in a fight. 

Then all we need is to kind of work out level of effort you are willing to invest vs level of effect you want.


----------



## Martial D (Dec 24, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> I mean real fights. Not sports


Ya. So a much lower level of skill..which is my point.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 24, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> That might be the first time I've heard headhunter be accused of being too diplomatic
> But what he said is basically right. There are too many unknowns involved, about the fights the "street" guy has been in, the quality/type of karate training the other guy has been in, and the luck involved with the actual fights. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't be betting either way on that fight, with just the info you gave.


If I was a betting man  I would go with who lands the first punch.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> A couple prefaces:
> - I'm a 40 year old man, and have nothing to prove by winning a "fair fight" with my hands.  I do conceal carry, and in the event that I'm not armed or the situation doesn't warrant using a firearm, I can easily pick up the nearest heavy object and not feel like "p*ss*" for doing it.
> - That said, of the reasons I chose to begin martial arts at my age, "self defense" is tertiary at best.
> - Even though self-defense wasn't my primary reason for starting martial arts, it is ultimately what you're being taught to do.  The mindset that I'm there to learn self-defense is kind of starting to creep in, because that's how the techniques are explained in class.
> ...



First, excellent work on the mental progression in your workouts. 
You are correct that any MA class/school worth it salt is teaching self defense to at least some degree. Beyond that it is about 80% up to the practitioner what they grasp and get out of it. 
It is a very broad reaching question to give any kind of answer of value to. My opinion is if the street guy is really experienced and gets a good first blow in they are going to win every time. If the MA person has a chance to counter and still has their wits about them, then it is more to do with their training, time training, how they are trained, and so on. 
I feel a lot has to do with their own makeup as well. Some people are just 'tougher' than others, whether through upbringing, environment or genetics. In a good program some of this, but will all be factored out most often. Kind of like the kid who overcame being picked on and became the tough kid in school. 

I grew up in the south. All my life our family has 'fought' for fun; it is just the way we are brought up. It usually starts out as harmless wrestling and then one side gets pissed and it escalates. It is never any kind of mortal danger but bruises are the norm. So I am used to 'fighting'. I have been in a lot of tournaments as well. 
Several years ago I was in LA walking down Sunset strip. I was being the typical tourist taking in everything. Out of nowhere a guy came out of an alley and nailed me. I went down to one knee but not out. When I stood up the guy was running back down the alley. Laid my eye open enough to get 8 or 10 stitches and totally closed shut for a day or so. To this day I don't know if it was out of pure meanness or if he thought I would be knocked out and he was going to roll me.  

I say all this to say it could go either way. I think it has a Lot to do with mentality and conditioning and less to do training. 

Great post.


----------



## Buka (Dec 24, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> A couple prefaces:
> - I'm a 40 year old man, and have nothing to prove by winning a "fair fight" with my hands.  I do conceal carry, and in the event that I'm not armed or the situation doesn't warrant using a firearm, I can easily pick up the nearest heavy object and not feel like "p*ss*" for doing it.
> - That said, of the reasons I chose to begin martial arts at my age, "self defense" is tertiary at best.
> - Even though self-defense wasn't my primary reason for starting martial arts, it is ultimately what you're being taught to do.  The mindset that I'm there to learn self-defense is kind of starting to creep in, because that's how the techniques are explained in class.
> ...



A no brainer. The Karate guy comes out on top.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 24, 2019)

"Karate man bleeds on the inside!"


----------



## Luminouschrome (Dec 25, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> A couple prefaces:
> - I'm a 40 year old man, and have nothing to prove by winning a "fair fight" with my hands.  I do conceal carry, and in the event that I'm not armed or the situation doesn't warrant using a firearm, I can easily pick up the nearest heavy object and not feel like "p*ss*" for doing it.
> - That said, of the reasons I chose to begin martial arts at my age, "self defense" is tertiary at best.
> - Even though self-defense wasn't my primary reason for starting martial arts, it is ultimately what you're being taught to do.  The mindset that I'm there to learn self-defense is kind of starting to creep in, because that's how the techniques are explained in class.
> ...



Why do you ask about someone winning gold? That's less than 1% of the karate population and not representative even if he wins or not


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 25, 2019)

Luminouschrome said:


> Why do you ask about someone winning gold? That's less than 1% of the karate population and not representative even if he wins or not



Because I tried to present him as someone who, although lacking any real fighting experience, had done everything that was asked of him in his training and then some.

The motive behind this, of course, was to prevent whole bunch of "what if" questions and "that depends on" distractions.  Clearly, that didn't work.


----------



## jobo (Dec 25, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Because I tried to present him as someone who, although lacking any real fighting experience, had done everything that was asked of him in his training and then some.
> 
> The motive behind this, of course, was to prevent whole bunch of "what if" questions and "that depends on" distractions.  Clearly, that didn't work.


 thats because its a loaded question that goes straight to the heart of there own training effectiveness.

i look at it this way, 80% of the population are average or below, if your training makes you above average then you only have 20% of the population to worry about. if you suspect your not in the top 20% then you really have to consider if your training and i mean all aspects not just ma skills training is doing its job, if your not well in the top 50 % then your training looks no better than chance and yud get much the same results playing basket ball


----------



## JP3 (Dec 25, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Because I tried to present him as someone who, although lacking any real fighting experience, had done everything that was asked of him in his training and then some.
> 
> The motive behind this, of course, was to prevent whole bunch of "what if" questions and "that depends on" distractions.  Clearly, that didn't work.


Yep. It's sort of what lots of folks do here.

I can take your initial post, tweak it to add a bit of flavor, and then answer it, but I don't think you'll be any closer to a satisfying conclusion to the discussion.

BTW, Merry Christmas everybody. Up on my PC with Christmas coffee in hand, awaiting the merry tinkling of little feet and my lady's sweet calls... Or not, LOL!

Take Karate Man's resume as you've explained it above, really good 2nd dan, tournament circuit winner, all that.  Add one word to the "type of tournament," ... KYOKUSHIN.  Not the be-all, end-all of the concept, but it conveys a certain type of training for a certain type of tournament bout, i.e. no pad, full-contact. I'm sure most of you have watched youtube clips of the knockouts from those tournaments... which to me seems about right for that rule set.

Yes, I get it that the street fight has no such rule set.

Turn to Street Fighter (I can't stop myself from calling out that sound from the game AHRUKEN!  ... stupid... sorry).  If this guy, who you've indicated, "Has got dem hands..." so we'll have to say he's got "some" training of his own, even if it is only practical experience and figuring it out on a trial by fire basis, but maybe the guy next door did some boxing int he day and he's "showed him a few things," then here's where I am.

They are Both trained martial artists.  The one who has trained more effectively for the type of conflict they're about to get into is most likely going to win, provided that a chance misstep doesn't come into play (as it very often does. Mr. Murphy is a trickster).

See? Unsatisfying.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 25, 2019)

JP3 said:


> Yep. It's sort of what lots of folks do here.
> 
> I can take your initial post, tweak it to add a bit of flavor, and then answer it, but I don't think you'll be any closer to a satisfying conclusion to the discussion.
> 
> ...



Merry Christmas to you and yours JP3


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 25, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Because I tried to present him as someone who, although lacking any real fighting experience, had done everything that was asked of him in his training and then some.
> 
> The motive behind this, of course, was to prevent whole bunch of "what if" questions and "that depends on" distractions.  Clearly, that didn't work.


It is very easy to define the terms and parameters in such a way as to favor one guy or the other.  However, It does not eliminate the “what if” factor.   Because in any authentic violent encounter, we cannot predict with certainty what will happen.

So if you are looking for a certain answer, then it is easy to script the encounter in that particular direction.

I think it’s good that those who have given you an answer have not allowed that kind of scripting to go unchallenged.


----------



## Luminouschrome (Dec 25, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Because I tried to present him as someone who, although lacking any real fighting experience, had done everything that was asked of him in his training and then some.
> 
> The motive behind this, of course, was to prevent whole bunch of "what if" questions and "that depends on" distractions.  Clearly, that didn't work.



Well asuming there's no giant size difference, I would think he wins


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Because in sports you play the game. You listen to the referee you stop when the time runs out you don't foul. You get a 1 minute rest period and the match is stopped if you get hurt to badly
> 
> In the real world you do what you want. You don't get a 5 minute rest period if you get kicked in the nuts or poked in the eye. You can't look to the ref to save you and call in a doctor to make sure you're okay. You're not fighting a man the same size as you. I've witnessed hundreds of street fights working on the nightclub doors and never do they like a Conor McGregor highlight reel or a Muhammad Ali match. Go look around online. Real fights don't look anything like sports


While that adds an element of uncertainty, it certainly doesn't lower the controls to a level of pure random chance. Just because it looks ugly, that doesn't mean their skill has no effect whatsoever.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Good response. But there's something quite disturbing about it, and I'll explain.  But let's  changethings up a little bit.
> 
> In the scenario I presented, and in John Doe's case, we're talking about someone who has never been in a real fight before.
> 
> ...


I think you're confusing "best" with "having some effect". Let me explain. If this guy learns to punch - and I mean if that's ALL he learns to do - it gives him an incremental improvement in his chances. If he manages to land that punch, it has a better chance of ending the fight than he had before he learned to punch. Now add in some training on movement, protection, etc. Even if all of that was for point sparring, it will have some effect on his ability to defend himself. This is a continuum of nearly infinite variables we're talking about, not a binary outcome.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> If I was a betting man  I would go with who lands the first punch.


And I'd tend to bet on the trained person having a better chance of landing that first punch (assuming they're not sucker-punched).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Okay....I mean you're wrong but okay yeah a pro boxer and pro Mma fighter never had a days training lol




A bit of research shows that he was trained by Bas Rutten in MMA and boxing instructor Randy Khatami. 




Rusty B said:


> This may come as a surprise to you, but there are thousands of other threads on MT if you don't like this one.



and a great many actually have the same questions and answers as this one  It's subject that gets rehashed a lot. As you said 'again' in your title.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> A bit of research shows that he was trained by Bas Rutten in MMA and boxing instructor Randy Khatami.



Yeah, AFTER becoming a professional MMA fighter.  When you've gone pro, having a trainer is par for the course.  But as far as what he was doing on the streets in grainy fight videos BEFORE going pro... there's nothing on the internet saying that he was taught how to any of that in a gym or dojo.  What you're looking at in those grainy street fight videos is pure street experience.



> and a great many actually have the same questions and answers as this one  It's subject that gets rehashed a lot. As you said 'again' in your title.



Right, but every time I did a Google search of "Does x martial work on the streets," the answers always include explanations of weapons and multiple attackers.

I'm trying to keep the focus on going up against an untrained, but exceptional, fighter.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 26, 2019)

pdg said:


> Someone once said "there's no such thing as a stupid question"...
> 
> I am continually seeing them proved wrong.
> 
> ...


In my calculus 1 class, a student raised her hand and said “Stupid question, but...” The professor cut her off and said “There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. What’s your question?”

One of my favorite lines of all time.


----------



## jobo (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Yeah, AFTER becoming a professional MMA fighter.  When you've gone pro, having a trainer is par for the course.  But as far as what he was doing on the streets in grainy fight videos BEFORE going pro... there's nothing on the internet saying that he was taught how to any of that in a gym or dojo.  What you're looking at in those grainy street fight videos is pure street experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 but your insisting on a really narrow set of circumstances, to prove a point, which is far from unusual on here. exceptional ( you may need to define that) but untrained fighter are a considerable rarity, but then exceptional trained fighters are too, by definition,

does an exceptional trained fighter beat an exceptional untrained fighter, probably, dependent on circumstances and what they are trained in and there size and fitness being comparable


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> A bit of research shows that he was trained by Bas Rutten in MMA and boxing instructor Randy Khatami.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah apparently people are to lazy to even google these days. The reason I didn't answer is because I haven't spoon fed anyone since my kids were small. Also I wasn't even referencing them I was referencing the ultimate fighter.. A tv show that's literally all about training martial arts.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Yeah, AFTER becoming a professional MMA fighter.  When you've gone pro, having a trainer is par for the course.  But as far as what he was doing on the streets in grainy fight videos BEFORE going pro... there's nothing on the internet saying that he was taught how to any of that in a gym or dojo.  What you're looking at in those grainy street fight videos is pure street experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sooooo you think that he had his first professional fight THEN started to train AFTER the fight?....lol


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Sooooo you think that he had his first professional fight THEN started to train AFTER the fight?....lol



Sooooo you think dudes on the street are training?....lol


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Yeah apparently people are to lazy to even google these days. The reason I didn't answer is because I haven't spoon fed anyone since my kids were small. Also I wasn't even referencing them I was referencing the ultimate fighter.. A tv show that's literally all about training martial arts.



No, when you're engaged in discourse and you make a statement, YOU are responsible for backing up YOUR statement.  Not the guy you're talking to.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> No, when you're engaged in discourse and you make a statement, YOU are responsible with backing up YOUR statement.  Not the guy you're talking to.


Lol are you over the age of 18 or 21? Is so then you're an adult you can do your own research


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Lol are you over the age of 18 or 21? Is so then you're an adult you can do your own research



If you're an adult, and you're unwilling or unable to back up what you say, then you should know to keep your trap shut.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Sooooo you think dudes on the street are training?....lol


Why wouldn't they be? You seem to have this silly idea just because they get in street fights that means they don't train?....they can easily train boxing or whatever during the week then go out and get in street fights at the weekend. There was a guy in my area who was a Muay Thai who was known for it. Getting drunk and picking fights. The real world isn't a karate kid movie where all martial artists are saints and believe in peace and love


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> If you're an adult, and you're unwilling or unable to back up what you say, then you should know to keep your trap shut.


where's the rule that says I have to do that? Until you show me one I'll keep talking as much as I want and have a good time doing it


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Why wouldn't they be? You seem to have this silly idea just because they get in street fights that means they don't train?....they can easily train boxing or whatever during the week then go out and get in street fights at the weekend. There was a guy in my area who was a Muay Thai who was known for it. Getting drunk and picking fights. The real world isn't a karate kid movie where all martial artists are saints and believe in peace and love



LOL, you're clearly ignorant of what's going with most of these guys.

As an FYI, I lived the first nine years of my life in public housing, and lived in neighborhoods where the majority received some form of public assistance until I joined the Navy at the age of 20.

I can tell you for a fact that the majority of the dudes who are known to have "got dem hands" aren't training at boxing gym or any other formal setting for that matter.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> where's the rule that says I have to do that? Until you show me one I'll keep talking as much as I want and have a good time doing it



Then you're clearly not an adult.  Both for the reason that I stated, and for the fact that you're admitting right here that you're not going to behave the way you should without someone in a position of authority telling you that you have to.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> LOL, you're clearly ignorant of what's going with most of these guys.
> 
> As an FYI, I lived the first nine years of my life in public housing, and lived in neighborhoods where the majority received some form of public assistance until I joined the Navy at the age of 20.
> 
> I can tell you for a fact that the majority of the dudes who are known to have "got dem hands" aren't training at boxing gym or any other formal setting for that matter.


I really don't know why any of where you lived or when you joined the navy matters to anything but okay cool I guess.

In your area maybe not but I've travelled and worked in a lot of areas and there's a large number that does train and get in fights especially these days when martial arts are more readily available then back in say the 60s or 70s


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> I really don't know why any of where you lived or when you joined the navy matters to anything but okay cool I guess.
> 
> In your area maybe not but I've travelled and worked in a lot of areas and there's a large number that does train and get in fights especially these days when martial arts are more readily available then back in say the 60s or 70s



The ready availability means nothing to those that don't have the $100 - $200 a month to pay for it.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Then you're clearly not adult.  Both for the reason that I stated, and the for the fact that you're admitting right here that you're not behave the way you should without someone in a position of authority telling you that you have to.


Lol you're a funny guy. The way I SHOULD act...says who you? Lol why would I act in a certain way just because some guy I don't know says that's how I should act. Lol I'm not one of those who bows down and just takes what people says.i do what I believe is right for me and don't care what anyone has to say about me. So if you want start trying to tell how I should be acting I'm not going to listen to a word you say


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Lol you're a funny guy. The way I SHOULD act...says who you? Lol why would I act in a certain way just because some guy I don't know says that's how I should act. Lol I'm not one of those who bows down and just takes what people says.i do what I believe is right for me and don't care what anyone has to say about me. So if you want start trying to tell how I should be acting I'm not going to listen to a word you say



Translation:  "You can't tell me what to do!  You're not the boss of me!"

Just like a child.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Translation:  "You can't tell me what to do!  You're not the boss of me!"
> 
> Just like a child.


Lol okay thanks for the amusement


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Lol okay thanks for the amusement



...if you've got nothing else, then have a good day.


----------



## jobo (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Sooooo you think dudes on the street are training?....lol


your using the term '' on the street'' like it has some defined meaning.

if you mean people whos well being/safety profession is helped considerably by '' training'' then yes a good number are, a considerable number of people training hitting punch bags and or lifting weights. then can usually punch hard and true and are well above averagely strong, both of which helps considerably


----------



## Martial D (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Because in sports you play the game. You listen to the referee you stop when the time runs out you don't foul. You get a 1 minute rest period and the match is stopped if you get hurt to badly
> 
> In the real world you do what you want. You don't get a 5 minute rest period if you get kicked in the nuts or poked in the eye. You can't look to the ref to save you and call in a doctor to make sure you're okay. You're not fighting a man the same size as you. I've witnessed hundreds of street fights working on the nightclub doors and never do they like a Conor McGregor highlight reel or a Muhammad Ali match. Go look around online. Real fights don't look anything like sports


Not if the guys fighting aren't trained they don't. Which, most people(including most 'martial artists') are not.

So yes, it naturally follows that most fights will look like clumsy spastic flailfests...

...because the people involved are just winging it.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> "got dem hands"




I assume that's American slang for something?

Actual fights in streets are usually just brawls by drunk idiots, people like to say they 'street fight' because it makes them sound hard. One can be a brawler ( not necessarily a derogatory term)  or one can be a bare knuckle fighter, we have a lot of them around, even have proper fight nights as well as the car park gypsy/traveller arranged fights. then there's the football lot, out for a fight, some train some don't. 'Street' fights though are a term that actually doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I assume that's American slang for something?



I try to avoid saying "street fight," because it implies that something more than an unarmed one-on-one fight can occur, or is occurring.

When we say that someone has "got dem hands," we mean that they're very skilled and talented with the fists - whether they're trained in a martial art or not.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I assume that's American slang for something?
> 
> Actual fights in streets are usually just brawls by drunk idiots, people like to say they 'street fight' because it makes them sound hard. One can be a brawler ( not necessarily a derogatory term)  or one can be a bare knuckle fighter, we have a lot of them around, even have proper fight nights as well as the car park gypsy/traveller arranged fights. then there's the football lot, out for a fight, some train some don't. 'Street' fights though are a term that actually doesn't mean anything.


I think it's just people trying to sound cool by intentially  mispelling the word them...I think they think it makes them sound cool....but to me it makes them sound stupid


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Not if the guys fighting aren't trained they don't. Which, most people(including most 'martial artists') are not.
> 
> So yes, it naturally follows that most fights will look like clumsy spastic flailfests...
> 
> ...because the people involved are just winging it.


A bit unrelated but since your big into Mma and real fighting....how did bj penns last street fight end up?....that's all I have to say....guy tried to be Ali and showboat and got put down. Guys just lucky he didn't get his head stomped on


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I try to avoid saying "street fight," because it implies that something more than an unarmed one-on-one fight can occur, or is occurring.
> 
> When we say that someone has "got dem hands," we mean that they're very skilled and talented with the fists - whether they're trained in a martial art or not.




Thank you for the explanation, there's quite a few non Americans on this site so slang terms aren't such a good idea, confuses the issue.

I've seen a lot of fights between random strangers, perhaps you have even been  down Union Street in Plymouth ( Raleigh and Drake's home port) lol, civilians like to take on the Royal Marines. Where I am the local civvies like to take on the squaddies, sometimes the squaddies take on other squaddies if they are different regiments or corps. I've had the pleasure of breaking up a few of them. 

When people say 'street fight' to me it sounds pretentious, people trying to make out they are something they aren't. Besides, Street is a very nice town in the south west of the UK, they rarely have fights.


----------



## Martial D (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> A bit unrelated but since your big into Mma and real fighting....how did bj penns last street fight end up?....that's all I have to say....guy tried to be Ali and showboat and got put down. Guys just lucky he didn't get his head stomped on


BJ Penn has been washed up for many years, and was never a top level striker, or even a good one.

So you are saying basically that because an older man with brain damage can get sucker punched by a man that that outweighs him by 50 pounds that means fight training doesn't work, and fights are just luck?


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 26, 2019)

Martial D said:


> BJ Penn has been washed up for many years, and was never a top level striker, or even a good one.
> 
> So you are saying basically that because an older man with brain damage can get sucker punched by a man that that outweighs him by 50 pounds that means fight training doesn't work, and fights are just luck?


I dont think getting punched in the face after putting your hands down and yelling come on hit me counts as a sucker punch


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Sooooo you think dudes on the street are training?....lol


Yes I do. Not in the formal classroom sense but they are training, even it that means getting beat on for years. 
I know nothing about the person you are talking about but I would be my life savings that he was Not suddenly good at fighting. He was conditioned (trained) somehow. Sure, maybe it was not formal but he was trained.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Lol you're a funny guy. The way I SHOULD act...says who you? Lol why would I act in a certain way just because some guy I don't know says that's how I should act. Lol I'm not one of those who bows down and just takes what people says.i do what I believe is right for me and don't care what anyone has to say about me. So if you want start trying to tell how I should be acting I'm not going to listen to a word you say



It is not whether you should act one way or the other but without evidence your statement isn't true.

*Hitchens's razor* is an epistemological razorexpressed by writer Christopher Hitchens, asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 26, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Why wouldn't they be? You seem to have this silly idea just because they get in street fights that means they don't train?....they can easily train boxing or whatever during the week then go out and get in street fights at the weekend. There was a guy in my area who was a Muay Thai who was known for it. Getting drunk and picking fights. The real world isn't a karate kid movie where all martial artists are saints and believe in peace and love


If the guy was getting in enough 'street' fights to get some of them on video, I say he was getting a Lot of training.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Sooooo you think dudes on the street are training?....lol



Ok. Terms like street and self defense are called weasel words and will get dismissed as too vague when it suits people. It is a clever but dishonest strategy to market a product. 

Then the same people will get upset if you mention they are using weasel words. 

In other words you are basically getting badly trolled by people who think they are being clever.

This is a very common martial arts thing because it ties in to the ineffable and mysterious rubbish martial artists quite often want to project.

Ultimately if someone is engaging in this sort of rubbish it is a red flag regarding their martial arts.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you for the explanation, there's quite a few non Americans on this site so slang terms aren't such a good idea, confuses the issue.
> 
> I've seen a lot of fights between random strangers, perhaps you have even been  down Union Street in Plymouth ( Raleigh and Drake's home port) lol, civilians like to take on the Royal Marines. Where I am the local civvies like to take on the squaddies, sometimes the squaddies take on other squaddies if they are different regiments or corps. I've had the pleasure of breaking up a few of them.
> 
> When people say 'street fight' to me it sounds pretentious, people trying to make out they are something they aren't. Besides, Street is a very nice town in the south west of the UK, they rarely have fights.


Street fight, bar room brawl, back alley match; I hope we can all agree the OP intended the same meaning.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 26, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> LOL, you're clearly ignorant of what's going with most of these guys.
> 
> As an FYI, I lived the first nine years of my life in public housing, and lived in neighborhoods where the majority received some form of public assistance until I joined the Navy at the age of 20.
> 
> I can tell you for a fact that the majority of the dudes who are known to have "got dem hands" aren't training at boxing gym or any other formal setting for that matter.


Again, check out the show bully beatdown. Plenty of the guys in that show were involved in streetfights/the local badasses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is a clever but dishonest strategy to market a product.


Sigh. I don't think anyone in this thread is marketing anything, DB. They're using a term that's actually pretty common (even fairly common outside the groups marketing or being marketed to).


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Sigh. I don't think anyone in this thread is marketing anything, DB. They're using a term that's actually pretty common (even fairly common outside the groups marketing or being marketed to).



It is that bruce lee martial arts sounding nonsense that people try on because they think it makes them sound wise.





The groupies eat that kind of thing up. And it avoids any sort of sensible discussion on the subject.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Street fight, bar room brawl, back alley match; I hope we can all agree the OP intended the same meaning.





Actually I wasn't talking about the OP rather I was making a general comment about the use of the expression, street fights/ers by people who think they are hard.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Again, check out the show bully beatdown. Plenty of the guys in that show were involved in streetfights/the local badasses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is that bruce lee martial arts sounding nonsense that people try on because they think it makes them sound wise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You often make these kind of purposely inflammatory claims, painting entire groups with a negative brush, without evidence it’s true of all of them (or even the majority). You must have had a very bad experience to carry this stereotype so far.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 27, 2019)

Ugggh....

Too many unknown factors.  If someone is known for "having hands" because they have a lot of experience in fighting, then they are trained.  What did people do before "styles" happened?  They got into fights and if they did something that worked, they trained it and kept adding on to it until finally people got together and formally taught it as a "style".  But, that is different than "formal training" under a coach or teacher in a gym setting.

Kimbo Slice was a trained fighter PERIOD.  Now, if you want to make the argument that he didn't have any "formal training" in a school before his MMA career that's different.  Kimbo was also a bouncer and bodyguard before he started underground fighting.  So, he was not untrained by any means.  

The mythical "streetfight", which I will define as something outside of a sporting competition in which only one person wants to fight.  90% is awareness of your surroundings and not going to places where a lot of fights happen.  The next most important part is setting your ego aside and learning to talk to de-escalate.  Unless, added to their curriculum, most martial arts don't have that.  The actual physical skills play only a small percentage in keeping you safe.

Most of the videos floating around that point to fights looking like MMA/boxing matches are two guys who have their ego wrapped up in the situation and are both consenting to the fight, which is why they are squaring up and posturing and have a "ring distance" before they start.

So, back to the original question.  Who wins?  Depends on how savvy each person is.  The "street brawler" probably has tons of experience at running his mouth and getting into range to use his sucker punch.  A trained tournament fighter who isn't used to that may not understand the signs and understand that he is already in a fight before the first punch is thrown is going to lose.  But, if the trained "karate guy" has also trained aspects of street/crime awareness and pre-fight indicators, and when he sees the other guy attempting to close the distance and keeps back then it is a different story.  There is a reason that in assaults usually the first person who strikes is the winner.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 27, 2019)

Okay, so... I'm sure this question is going to ruffle some feathers and, I promise you, that's not the intent.  All I want is an honest answer.

Why are some insisting that Kimbo Slice is a trained fighter, and that experiences on streets constitutes "training?"

Is it so that we can feel better about ourselves if such a person beats a traditional martial artist in a fight?


----------



## jobo (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so... I'm sure this question is going to ruffle some feathers and, I promise you, that's not the intent.  All I want is an honest answer.
> 
> Why are some insisting that Kimbo Slice is a trained fighter, and that experiences on streets constitutes "training?"
> 
> Is it so that we can feel better about ourselves if such a person beats a traditional martial artist in a fight?


because you keep changing definitions, a trained fighter is one who trains to fight. the best training for fights is,,,, fighting

there are some very dangerous people walking around, who have never had any formal instruction, some people are intuitively good at fighting, like some are intuitively good at soccer or chess

no amount of training can make up for a deficit of natural talent or indeed old age.

there's an awful lot of ''untrained fighters'' who can beat me up, i suspect, though quite possibly far fewer than if i didn't train

that said ive seen quite a few hard men walk off the street with inflated egos and biceps and get taken down a peg or two, by someone two third of their size, but none of them was kimbo, so we are no nearer a solution


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> because you keep changing definitions, a trained fighter is one who trains to fight. the best training for fights is,,,, fighting



I'm not changing definitions.  When I say "trained fighter," I'm referring to someone who has formally trained in a codified style.

It's other people saying experience is training.

Here's the problem with this:

When I was younger, and I used to change the brake pads on my car, I used to miss one important step: I didn't bleed the system of the brake fluid.  I merely poured in the brake fluid, and waited over the course of a few days for the brakes to get hard again.  Why did I do this?  Because I thought that's how it was supposed to be done.  By the way, I did it this way before 15 years before I learned the hard way that I was doing it wrong (the brakes won't work AT ALL on a 1997 Chevy Lumina if you don't bleed them).

My point is that is that just because you have experience doing something doesn't mean that you're doing it correctly.  Especially if you were not taught the correct way to do it.


----------



## jobo (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I'm not changing definitions.  When I say "training fighter," I'm referring to someone who has formally trained in a codified style.
> 
> It's other people saying experience is training.
> 
> ...


 and other people cant fix cars no matter who instructs them and for how long.

most things have an immediate feedback loop, if you can't tell your brakes don't work when you drive the car then that's a significant cognitive defect in you, if you concluded your supposed to drive round with no brakes for two weeks while gravity worked it magic, then you have far greater problems to work on. that's not at all failure of people's ability to learn things without formal instruction, that's you not being capable of working a box of matches


fighting like fixing cars has an immediate feedback loop, ''that hurt, won't do that again'' '', that hurt him, do that again''

its also more than possible to pick up good technique by watching others, even watching boxing or mma is showing good technique that you can then develop by trial and error

which is really only a slightly altered version of someone demonstrating a technique in formal training and you going off to practice

formal training has distinked limits, you cant get more out than their natural talent will allow, thats general why talented children become talented adults.

if your putting forward that there are people who have spent years being instructed in martial arts that cant fight their way out of a paper bag, then i agree. if you saying that no one who trains TMA can fight then your very very wrong

nb its very rare , if you do it correctly, that you need to bleed brakes after changing the pads, that didn't need bleeding before hand, it does take a short while to bed the brakes in, perhaps that what confused you. or you were just doing the whole thing wrong


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You often make these kind of purposely inflammatory claims, painting entire groups with a negative brush, without evidence it’s true of all of them (or even the majority). You must have had a very bad experience to carry this stereotype so far.



How would you react if this was medical advice?


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so... I'm sure this question is going to ruffle some feathers and, I promise you, that's not the intent.  All I want is an honest answer.
> 
> Why are some insisting that Kimbo Slice is a trained fighter, and that experiences on streets constitutes "training?"
> 
> Is it so that we can feel better about ourselves if such a person beats a traditional martial artist in a fight?


No.....it's because he was trained,,..as was said before he was trained by former heavyweight champion bas rutten and former light heavyweight champion rampage Jackson. Then he moved to American top team which is one of the top Mma gyms in the world....hence....trained fighter. I don't need to feel better about myself I know 100% I could get beaten by someone with no training. If they come up behind me and punch me or just walk up when I'm not aware they could hit me and they could knock me out of course it can happen it's dumb for anyone to say it couldn't


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I'm not changing definitions.  When I say "trained fighter," I'm referring to someone who has formally trained in a codified style.
> 
> It's other people saying experience is training.
> 
> ...


Fixing a car isn't fighting.....the way to know your doing fighting correctly is by winning fights so if you win fights then it doesn't matter how you win them as long as you win


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 27, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> No.....it's because he was trained,,..as was said before he was trained by former heavyweight champion bas rutten and former light heavyweight champion rampage Jackson. Then he moved to American top team which is one of the top Mma gyms in the world....hence....trained fighter.



I've already addressed this earlier, and you're repeating it.  Now you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own.



> I don't need to feel better about myself I know 100% I could get beaten by someone with no training. If they come up behind me and punch me or just walk up when I'm not aware they could hit me and they could knock me out of course it can happen it's dumb for anyone to say it couldn't



If you would have stopped at the first sentence in this quote, you'd be taken seriously.  But when you add the second... what you're really saying is that you won't think lesser of yourself, as long as you have an excuse.  As long as you don't have to come to terms with the fact that the untrained guy was the better fighter.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 27, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Fixing a car isn't fighting.....the way to know your doing fighting correctly is by winning fights so if you win fights then it doesn't matter how you win them as long as you win



Only in real life, there are no ten counts or pinfalls.  More often then not, who "won" will be determined by the people who saw it - and are usually biased.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I'm not changing definitions.  When I say "trained fighter," I'm referring to someone who has formally trained in a codified style.
> 
> It's other people saying experience is training.
> 
> ...


There is absolutely zero reason to open up the hydraulic (fluid)system when changing brake pads.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> Fixing a car isn't fighting.....the way to know your doing fighting correctly is by winning fights so if you win fights then it doesn't matter how you win them as long as you win



In the context that the car not having brakes after working on it causes you to crash the car, you could argue that this is analogous to getting punched by an opponent.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I've already addressed this earlier, and you're repeating it.  Now you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own.
> 
> 
> 
> If you would have stopped at the first sentence in this quote, you'd be taken seriously.  But when you add the second... what you're really saying is that you won't think lesser of yourself, as long as you have an excuse.  As long as you don't have to come to terms with the fact that the untrained guy was the better fighter.


lol if I got attacked and beaten I wouldn't be spending time thinking about who's a better fighter because frankly that's stupid and a waste of time and anyway I'm smart enough not to even be getting in fights. Also just so you know I couldn't care less if some random guy on the Internet with like 3 months training takes me seriously or not


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is that bruce lee martial arts sounding nonsense that people try on because they think it makes them sound wise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be fair, that may have been true 20-30 years ago. There will always be 'those people' in every kind of hobby/sport but I don't think that is the norm now-a-days. At least I hope it's not.


----------



## Rusty B (Dec 27, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> lol if I got attacked and beaten I wouldn't be spending time thinking about who's a better fighter because frankly that's stupid and a waste of time and anyway I'm smart enough not to even be getting in fights. Also just so you know I couldn't care less if some random guy on the Internet with like 3 months training takes me seriously or not



I could have zero days of it, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with me being able to tell that you have an ego problem and the inability to be honest with yourself.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I'm not changing definitions.  When I say "trained fighter," I'm referring to someone who has formally trained in a codified style.
> 
> It's other people saying experience is training.
> 
> ...



It is not necessary to bleed the brakes when changing the pads. If your system is loosing that much fluid, you have other problems other than worn pads. Change the pads, pump the pedal a couple times to compress the piston, and you're done.
So in point of fact, you WERE doing it correctly, and there was something completely different wrong with your car.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> To be fair, that may have been true 20-30 years ago. There will always be 'those people' in every kind of hobby/sport but I don't think that is the norm now-a-days. At least I hope it's not.



I was directly relating it to the sorts of comments being made on this thread.

I mean we started this thread with the idea fighting was the equivalent of a coin toss.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> and other people cant fix cars no matter who instructs them and for how long.
> 
> most things have an immediate feedback loop, if you can't tell your brakes don't work when you drive the car then that's a significant cognitive defect in you, if you concluded your supposed to drive round with no brakes for two weeks while gravity worked it magic, then you have far greater problems to work on. that's not at all failure of people's ability to learn things without formal instruction, that's you not being capable of working a box of matches
> 
> ...



Nah. Historical medical practice is the best example. Where people from experience have some idea  of what works and some of what they think works but his plainly rubbish. And that is passed on as fact.

This is also why people think dowsing works.

And this is why we have scientific method to determine fact from anecdote.
.


----------



## jobo (Dec 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Nah. Historical medical practice is the best example. Where people from experience have some idea  of what works and some of what they think works but his plainly rubbish. And that is passed on as fact.
> 
> This is also why people think dowsing works.
> 
> ...


that's why I mentioned feed back loops, have you ever wondered how the y found out which mushrooms are poisonous? i

that seems an exceptional example of the scientific method, used 8n olden times.


----------



## jobo (Dec 27, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> It is not necessary to bleed the brakes when changing the pads. If your system is loosing that much fluid, you have other problems other than worn pads. Change the pads, pump the pedal a couple times to compress the piston, and you're done.
> So in point of fact, you WERE doing it correctly, and there was something completely different wrong with your car.


people crack t.he bleed nipple to get the pistons back and get air in the system , the trick is to have the world's biggest tyre iron and force them back withthat


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> people crack t.he bleed nipple to get the pistons back and get air in the system , the trick is to have the world's biggest tyre iron and force them back withthat



All you really need is a C-Clamp to compress the pistons.


----------



## jobo (Dec 27, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> All you really need is a C-Clamp to compress the pistons.


or a big tyre iron, if you have twin pistons,  if you clamp one the other pops out and vice versa for ever, besides which I already own a tyre iron


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's why I mentioned feed back loops, have you ever wondered how the y found out which mushrooms are poisonous? i
> 
> that seems an exceptional example of the scientific method, used 8n olden times.



It is not that they didn't get things right it is that they also got things wrong and basically struggled to tell the difference. 

Dowsing is still being promoted as viable through the same method people used to detect poisonous mushrooms.

I mean imagine you tried that but had someone who was allergic?

It would throw your method out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> Okay, so... I'm sure this question is going to ruffle some feathers and, I promise you, that's not the intent.  All I want is an honest answer.
> 
> Why are some insisting that Kimbo Slice is a trained fighter, and that experiences on streets constitutes "training?"
> 
> Is it so that we can feel better about ourselves if such a person beats a traditional martial artist in a fight?


They say it because it’s logical.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2019)

Rusty B said:


> I'm not changing definitions.  When I say "trained fighter," I'm referring to someone who has formally trained in a codified style.
> 
> It's other people saying experience is training.
> 
> ...


So you’re talking about someone trained in a specific style, rather than just trained. You’re narrowing the definition to exclude some training, to support the narrative you’re trying to get people to agree to by asking questions you think they’ll answer a certain way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> How would you react if this was medical advice?


If what was medical advice?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If what was medical advice?



If martial arts was medical advice.

If results mattered.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If martial arts was medical advice.
> 
> If results mattered.


I’m not following where this came from. But I’ll play along. Where folks are interested in learning to fight for self defense (as opposed to sport, where some rules eliminate most real risk), it should be approached with a real attempt to test results. Otherwise (folks training for fun and fitness, for instance), that need not apply.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So you’re talking about someone trained in a specific style, rather than just trained. You’re narrowing the definition to exclude some training, to support the narrative you’re trying to get people to agree to by asking questions you think they’ll answer a certain way.



No that is another false accusation.

It doesn't support a narrative. But defines his original question.

Which was basically trained karate guy vs untrained street fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I’m not following where this came from. But I’ll play along. Where folks are interested in learning to fight for self defense (as opposed to sport, where some rules eliminate most real risk), it should be approached with a real attempt to test results. Otherwise (folks training for fun and fitness, for instance), that need not apply.



Would you care if I started giving out cancer cures for money?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> It is not necessary to bleed the brakes when changing the pads. If your system is loosing that much fluid, you have other problems other than worn pads. Change the pads, pump the pedal a couple times to compress the piston, and you're done.
> So in point of fact, you WERE doing it correctly, and there was something completely different wrong with your car.


When I read Rusty B's post I figured he/she is one of the countless people to never learn you do Not have take the calipers completely off the car, crack the lines to change the pads. A decent C-clamp and one of the old pads to push the pistons back usually does it. If that doesn't work your calipers have frozen up and have to be rebuilt/replaced. 
Kind of reminds me of the definition of insanity where a person does the same thing over and over expecting different results.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> people crack t.he bleed nipple to get the pistons back and get air in the system , the trick is to have the world's biggest tyre iron and force them back withthat





gpseymour said:


> So you’re talking about someone trained in a specific style, rather than just trained. You’re narrowing the definition to exclude some training, to support the narrative you’re trying to get people to agree to by asking questions you think they’ll answer a certain way.


I think he means 'formally' trained (regardless of style(s)) but for some reason has not presented the question that way. Just keep running in circles.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> or a big tyre iron, if you have twin pistons,  if you clamp one the other pops out and vice versa for ever, besides which I already own a tyre iron



I use a C-Clamp on the Vette, which has 4-piston calipers. Just lay a strip of metal across the pistons and compress them all at the same time.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 27, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I use a C-Clamp on the Vette, which has 4-piston calipers. Just lay a strip of metal across the pistons and compress them all at the same time.


 I always use an old pad since it has the shape of the caliper.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> No that is another false accusation.
> 
> It doesn't support a narrative. But defines his original question.
> 
> Which was basically trained karate guy vs untrained street fighter.


If you insist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Would you care if I started giving out cancer cures for money?


You’re obviously trying to make a point. Why not just make it? I foresee a false equivalency, but I hope to be wrong on that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I think he means 'formally' trained (regardless of style(s)) but for some reason has not presented the question that way. Just keep running in circles.


I get the sense he means “traditionally trained”. Which - in my opinion- is a somewhat meaningless distinction.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is not that they didn't get things right it is that they also got things wrong and basically struggled to tell the difference.
> 
> Dowsing is still being promoted as viable through the same method people used to detect poisonous mushrooms.
> 
> ...


false positives are allowed for in the scientific method


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> false positives are allowed for in the scientific method


False positives are a reality in measurement. It is the result of an equation. Sometimes the input data is flawed/contaminated and effects the results. 
When you say they are 'allowed' it sounds like they are intentionally induced. Not so. They just happen as part of the measurement and/or error in measurement. 
Figuring out that they are indeed false can be a challenge sometimes.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> False positives are a reality in measurement. It is the result of an equation. Sometimes the input data is flawed/contaminated and effects the results.
> When you say they are 'allowed' it sounds like they are intentionally induced. Not so. They just happen as part of the measurement and/or error in measurement.
> Figuring out that they are indeed false can be a challenge sometimes.


allowed and INTENTIONALLY introduced are clearly different concepts, they are '' FIGURED'' out by repeatability

my point is the '' scientific method'' has been around since the beginning of human civilisation` otherwise we would still be living in caves and eating poisonous mushrooms


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> allowed and INTENTIONALLY introduced are clearly different concepts, they are '' FIGURED'' out by repeatability
> 
> my point is the '' scientific method'' has been around since the beginning of human civilisation` otherwise we would still be living in caves and eating poisonous mushrooms


Agree. In the context that we understand it today, SM has not been around all that long. Much of 'civilization' was just figuring out how to survive. So few variables were known, it is understandable how much of history got off on tangents based on a few peoples very strong, but very wrong belief's. The Salem witch trials or Flat earth (which is still a belief by some???)are  good examples. 
Very often profit drives human expansion/contraction regardless of the SM evidence. The false positive is used as a product in and of itself. That can make some weird stuff happen.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. In the context that we understand it today, SM has not been around all that long. Much of 'civilization' was just figuring out how to survive. So few variables were known, it is understandable how much of history got off on tangents based on a few peoples very strong, but very wrong belief's. The Salem witch trials or Flat earth (which is still a belief by some???)are  good examples.
> Very often profit drives human expansion/contraction regardless of the SM evidence. The false positive is used as a product in and of itself. That can make some weird stuff happen.


 no the scientific method is exactly the same now as its always been, it just took a lot longer to gather the data and usually resulted in a lot more death and injury, unless its the pharmaceutical industry we are talking about, they still seem to wait 20 years and count the dead to decide if something was a good idea or not

That there's people who have deep superstition in positions of power is still a significant barrier to the progress of man kind as its always been. i remember a deep shiver of terror going down my spine when i found out that the man with his finger on the nuclear button (GWB) was known to pray for gods guidance on matters of international affairs (like who to nuke) his partner in '' crime'' our very own tony blair admitted that he invaded iraq as its was gods work he was doing


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> False positives are a reality in measurement. It is the result of an equation. Sometimes the input data is flawed/contaminated and effects the results.
> When you say they are 'allowed' it sounds like they are intentionally induced. Not so. They just happen as part of the measurement and/or error in measurement.
> Figuring out that they are indeed false can be a challenge sometimes.


I think he meant "accounted for". Which a good scientific approach attempts to do, at least.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is not that they didn't get things right it is that they also got things wrong and basically struggled to tell the difference.
> 
> Dowsing is still being promoted as viable through the same method people used to detect poisonous mushrooms.
> 
> ...


 your dismissal of dowsing is the very opposite of the scientific method, you could say dowsing has never been shown to work under controlled conditions, but you would be wrong, it has, if a very small number of people getting a  greater return than allowed by chance is a positive result

there's also the fact trained water engineers in this country do, or at least did very recently use dowsing to find pipes and leaks, presumably because they found it to worked, digging a lot of holes in completely the wrong place would soon put a stop to the practise if it didn't

that then leaves you with a phenomena that science cannot as yet adequately explain. that has been the driver behind scientific discovery since the year dot

it may be that there are other sensory factors and prior knowledge and experience in play that allow pipes to be found and that dowsing is mostly irrelevant to the exercise and that the controlled conditions cut these off. but if wandering around with two sticks in your hand allows you a positive out come, then its hard to say it doesn't work, even if its just a method of focusing other aspects


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think he meant "accounted for". Which a good scientific approach attempts to do, at least.


no i meant ALLOWED, if you dont allow false positives ( ie things that disagree with your hypothesis) into your data set set, then there's significant conformational bias in your study


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> no the scientific method is exactly the same now as its always been, it just took a lot longer to gather the data and usually resulted in a lot more death and injury, unless its the pharmaceutical industry we are talking about, they still seem to wait 20 years and count the dead to decide if something was a good idea or not
> 
> That there's people who have deep superstition in positions of power is still a significant barrier to the progress of man kind as its always been. i remember a deep shiver of terror going down my spine when i found out that the man with his finger on the nuclear button (GWB) was known to pray for gods guidance on matters of international affairs (like who to nuke) his partner in '' crime'' our very own tony blair admitted that he invaded iraq as its was gods work he was doing



Using your analogy, how long do you think the pharmaceutical industry, or even witch doctors have been around? Mankind goes back much further, well before any semblance of SM. 
That you feel praying is illogical is not at all surprising. I want the leaders of our country's making  life decisions for millions of people without any and all types of counsel; yea that is what I want. 
Go ahead and give me your jaded response that we all know is coming.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Using your analogy, how long do you think the pharmaceutical industry, or even witch doctors have been around? Mankind goes back much further, well before any semblance of SM.
> That you feel praying is illogical is not at all surprising. I want the leaders of our country's making  life decisions for millions of people without any and all types of counsel; yea that is what I want.
> Go ahead and give me your jaded response that we all know is coming.


im rightly suspicious of people who have imaginary friends, its cute but a bit sad with loney children, its down right a worry if they have life and death power over you,

its not even that they believe in a higher power that's the main worry, its that they think the higher power talks to  them. surely he or she would be to busy running the cosmos to worry where you've left your car keys or if you should nuke north korea

there's some frighteningly high % of the american public who believe the book genesis is literal, finding that level of ignorant supersticion in goat herders in afghanistan is one thing, in the most technological nation on earth it takes some getting your head round


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Using your analogy, how long do you think the pharmaceutical industry, or even witch doctors have been around? Mankind goes back much further, well before any semblance of SM.
> That you feel praying is illogical is not at all surprising. I want the leaders of our country's making  life decisions for millions of people without any and all types of counsel; yea that is what I want.
> Go ahead and give me your jaded response that we all know is coming.


rudimentary medical treatment goes back to the beginning of mankind, if you want to call them witch doctors ok,


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> rudimentary medical treatment goes back to the beginning of mankind, if you want to call them witch doctors ok,


Wildly different from SM.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> im rightly suspicious of people who have imaginary friends, its cute but a bit sad with loney children, its down right a worry if they have life and death power over you,
> 
> its not even that they believe in a higher power that's the main worry, its that they think the higher power talks to  them. surely he or she would be to busy running the cosmos to worry where you've left your car keys or if you should nuke north korea
> 
> there's some frighteningly high % of the american public who believe the book genesis is literal, finding that level of ignorant supersticion in goat herders in afghanistan is one thing, in the most technological nation on earth it takes some getting your head round


Most technological nation on earth. Coincidence?


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Wildly different from SM.


im beginning to think we can add '' the scientific method'' to the list of things you don't understand !

why don't you tell me what you think it is therefore and why rudentary medical advances in the pliocene, does not count as the SM


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> im beginning to think we can add '' the scientific method'' to the list of things you don't understand !
> 
> why don't you tell me what you think it is therefore and why rudentary medical advances in the pliocene, does not count as the SM


I never said anything of the sort. I merely said it is not nearly as old as you incorrectly imply. Answer a question with an answer; what it Your definition of SM? (it seems your mind is indecently going somewhere else) 
I use it regularly in my line of work, it cannot be performed without using scientific method to define process.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Most technological nation on earth. Coincidence?


what, you think gods give you the gift of technoligy cause you pray a lot ?

meanwhile afghanistan who also pray a lot get invaded by your advanced technology, with a frightening death toll, i suppose god takes sides and its their fault for choosing the wrong dessert religion to follow

the level of delusion get more scary by the minute


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I never said anything of the sort. I merely said it is not nearly as old as you incorrectly imply. Answer a question with an answer; what it Your definition of SM? (it seems your mind is indecently going somewhere else)
> I use it regularly in my line of work, it cannot be performed without using scientific method to define process.


so tell me exactly how old it is.?

i'm not implying anything i've stated it goes back to the pliocene, your turn, how old do you think it is


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> so tell me exactly how old it is.?
> 
> i'm not implying anything i've stated it goes back to the pliocene, your turn, how old do you think it is


If memory serves, we were taught in college that it began around the 17th century.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> what, you think gods give you the gift of technoligy cause you pray a lot ?
> 
> meanwhile afghanistan who also pray a lot get invaded by your advanced technology, with a frightening death toll, i suppose god takes sides and its their fault for choosing the wrong dessert religion to follow
> 
> the level of delusion get more scary by the minute


Run with you ideas; just remember they are Your ideas, not anyone else's. People who refuse to consider higher minded ideas are often similar to you. Sad, mad, disenfranchised people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> no i meant ALLOWED, if you dont allow false positives ( ie things that disagree with your hypothesis) into your data set set, then there's significant conformational bias in your study


Once you know they're false, they're no longer false positives, I think. My head's not clear right now, so I may not be thinking that through, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> im beginning to think we can add '' the scientific method'' to the list of things you don't understand !
> 
> why don't you tell me what you think it is therefore and why rudentary medical advances in the pliocene, does not count as the SM


I think the issue is control for variables and attempt to falsify (test) one's own hypothesis. For much of mankind's existence, those weren't much done. Folks just used what seemed to work, often developing superstitious beliefs because of non-causal coincidences.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Run with you ideas; just remember they are Your ideas, not anyone else's. People who refuse to consider higher minded ideas are often similar to you. Sad, mad, disenfranchised people.


I'm neither sad, just a bit melancholy sometimes, nor particularly mad in comparison to people who believe in fairys and the only time I've been disenfranchised was when I was banned frthe McDonalds for complaining there wasnt any cream in the ice cream

but I'm fascinated how you can lecture me on the scientific method whilst applying no intellectual rigur to your talking sky fairy idea


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Once you know they're false, they're no longer false positives, I think. My head's not clear right now, so I may not be thinking that through, though.


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think the issue is control for variables and attempt to falsify (test) one's own hypothesis. For much of mankind's existence, those weren't much done. Folks just used what seemed to work, often developing superstitious beliefs because of non-causal coincidences.


no that's not how it works, people develop superstitions and then look for coincidences to support the superstition, not the other way round

hypothesis, if I tie two bit of wood to my broken leg, it will mend straight,
how do I test that ? I know il tie two bits of wood to my broken leg, oops the wood broke, get better wood and try again, get better rope and try again, tie rope tighter and try again yes that worked, I think il call them splints, think il invent the crutch next

what not scientific about that method?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2019)

jobo said:


> no that's not how it works, people develop superstitions and then look for coincidences to support the superstition, not the other way round
> 
> hypothesis, if I tie two bit of wood to my broken leg, it will mend straight,
> how do I test that ? I know il tie two bits of wood to my broken leg, oops the wood broke, get better wood and try again, get better rope and try again, yes that worked, I think il call them splints
> ...



Ok.

Then what happened to medicine that sent it off the rails?

We can look back in history and see some pretty silly stuff.

I mean we can even look at is spinal manipulation effective?

Anecdotal says yes. Science says probably not.
Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> If memory serves, we were taught in college that it began around the 17th century.knowledge
> 
> 
> dvcochran said:
> ...


, the, age of reason meant a big leap forward, in science, but not because they had discovered the scientific method, that had been round for countless millennium, what do you think the Greeks were using ?  just the religious bigots stop executing scientist for as heretics, so thwit could get on with it


----------



## jobo (Dec 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok.
> 
> Then what happened to medicine that sent it off the rails?
> 
> ...


it took a long time to test the hypothesis and gather data and of course they had no way to predict the existence of anything they couldn't see with the eye and knowledge of anatomy  was made difficult by religious practises

that said a lot of folk remedies had a lot of truth in them, a number of these were taken, patented and refined by drug companies

8m sure in a 100 years or so, they will be laughing at how stupid, primitive we are


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> no that's not how it works, people develop superstitions and then look for coincidences to support the superstition, not the other way round
> 
> hypothesis, if I tie two bit of wood to my broken leg, it will mend straight,
> how do I test that ? I know il tie two bits of wood to my broken leg, oops the wood broke, get better wood and try again, get better rope and try again, tie rope tighter and try again yes that worked, I think il call them splints, think il invent the crutch next
> ...


Actually, no. Superstitions are often attempts to understand. We can actually recreate a similar process in animal behavior experiments. The rationalization happens as folks later try to hold onto those superstitious beliefs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2019)

REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:

Religious discussion is not allowed on MartialTalk, per the user guidelines you agreed to when you registered. 

——-
Gerry Seymour 
MartialTalk Moderator
@gpseymour


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, no. Superstitions are often attempts to understand. We can actually recreate a similar process in animal behavior experiments. The rationalization happens as folks later try to hold onto those superstitious beliefs.


 i take it were ok with superstition,? though i'm not at all sure what the differences is


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> i take it were ok with superstition,? though i'm not at all sure what the differences is


Whether we are okay with superstition or not isn’t relevant to the process by which they form. The salient point is that - absent any attempt to control and falsify - superstition is a false assignment of causality, backed by confirmation bias. It is very much not in keeping with the principles of the scientific method.


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Whether we are okay with superstition or not isn’t relevant to the process by which they form. The salient point is that - absent any attempt to control and falsify - superstition is a false assignment of causality, backed by confirmation bias. It is very much not in keeping with the principles of the scientific method.


 i ment in regard to your instruction on '' religious' discussion.

though the fact you've continued the discussion about superstition  answers the query


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> i ment in regard to your instruction on '' religious' discussion.
> 
> though the fact you've continued the discussion about superstition  answers the query


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Whether we are okay with superstition or not isn’t relevant to the process by which they form. The salient point is that - absent any attempt to control and falsify - superstition is a false assignment of causality, backed by confirmation bias. It is very much not in keeping with the principles of the scientific method.


ok lets take a well known superstition, say walking under a ladder.

there's no false causation in that belief as the vast majority have no experienced any ill effects, and as they never walk under a ladder are unlikely to ever do so. yet some people continue to believe that its unlucky purley because someone told them it was

the ones i grew up with was throwing spilled salt over your left shoulder to blind the devil and never ever put shoes on the table, even brand new shoes still in the box, for reasons i'm not completely sure about. i was however assured it was extremely unlucky,

i still follow these superstitions, as i'm indoctrinated with these irrational beliefs,ive also passed them onto children in my care. so where is the false causation ?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> , the, age of reason meant a big leap forward, in science, but not because they had discovered the scientific method, that had been round for countless millennium, what do you think the Greeks were using ?  just the religious bigots stop executing scientist for as heretics, so thwit could get on with it


The are of reason is Totally different from SM Quite trying to change the frame of your argument.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> i ment in regard to your instruction on '' religious' discussion.
> 
> though the fact you've continued the discussion about superstition  answers the query


I believe the warning referred to a few post before the superstition comment where you mentioned praying.


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> The are of reason is Totally different from SM Quite trying to change the frame of your argument.


i'm not changing the frame of my argument, just a minor diversion to point out your claim that the SM was invented in the seventeenth century was wrong, its even more wrong as you age of reason occured in the 18th century the 1700s but i let that slide

if you've got some other thing that the SM was developed in the 17th century lets see it, all you've othered is some vague memory from your time at college


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I believe the warning referred to a few post before the superstition comment where you mentioned praying.


but thats superstition, clearly by any definition


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> ok lets take a well known superstition, say walking under a ladder.
> 
> there's no false causation in that belief as the vast majority have no experienced any ill effects, and as they never walk under a ladder are unlikely to ever do so. yet some people continue to believe that its unlucky purley because someone told them it was
> 
> ...


Let's use the 'walking under a ladder' analogy. After trial and error or exposure, have you not figured out that walking under a ladder it a bad idea because something/someone could fall on you, or the ladder itself could fall? This is when superstition simply becomes common sense. Why certain things like this were thought to be a 'superstition' I believe was the innate fear of things that could cause bodily injury. 
Yes, in hindsight many of them are very irrational, such as your salt over the shoulder superstition. Why would you continue to do something that you know is irrational? You continuing to spread the same ideology you have been railing against most of this thread. Irrational.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> but thats superstition, clearly by any definition


Please explain.


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Let's use the 'walking under a ladder' analogy. After trial and error or exposure, have you not figured out that walking under a ladder it a bad idea because something/someone could fall on you, or the ladder itself could fall? This is when superstition simply becomes common sense. Why certain things like this were thought to be a 'superstition' I believe was the innate fear of things that could cause bodily injury.
> Yes, in hindsight many of them are very irrational, such as your salt over the shoulder superstition. Why would you continue to do something that you know is irrational? You continuing to spread the same ideology you have been railing against most of this thread. Irrational.




be cause i've been indoctrinated as child, much the same reason as you continue to pray i suspect, though i at least admit to its irrationality

 well yes, but the you would decided superstition was common sense, what other conclusion could you come to with your world view

the reasons ladders are considered unlucky is the breaking of the triangle of the holy trinity


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> i'm not changing the frame of my argument, just a minor diversion to point out your claim that the SM was invented in the seventeenth century was wrong, its even more wrong as you age of reason occured in the 18th century the 1700s but i let that slide
> 
> if you've got some other thing that the SM was developed in the 17th century lets see it, all you've othered is some vague memory from your time at college


There is this awesome thing called the internet. Search, just search. Use SM.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> the reasons ladders are considered unlucky is the breaking of the triangle of the holy trinity


That may be where the superstition was started, I cannot say. But did you not learn the common sense in not walking under a ladder?


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Please explain.


really, throwing salt over ones shoulder, an irrational belive in the connection between salt and the devil, which obviously also needs an irrational belief in the existence of the devil devil

praying an irrational belief in the connection between praying and god, that also needs an irrational belief in the existence of god

 both are superstitions,
a belief in a flat earth which you mocked earlier, is less irrational than either as at least it looks flat


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That may be where the superstition was started, I cannot say. But did you not learn the common sense in not walking under a ladder?


of course you cant say, you constantly give opinions with no background knowledge at all


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> There is this awesome thing called the internet. Search, just search. Use SM.


its not my job to do your research mate,

its your claim it was invented in the 17th century, thats the 1600s, you back it up


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> really, throwing salt over ones shoulder, an irrational belive in the connection between salt and the devil, which obviously also needs an irrational belief in the existence of the devil devil
> 
> praying an irrational belief in the connection between praying and god, that also needs an irrational belief in the existence of god
> 
> ...


 to get back to my original point, that human beings have a predisposition to believe in superstitions, rather than concluding that its a reasonably explanation to something they cant explain.

i've noted that superstitious people are generally happier than rational people, clearly part of they is they only have a thin grasp of reality, and even when tragedy strikes they can blame it on, the fact they broke a mirror, are cursed or indeed that its all part of gods plan. this seems easier than acceptance that its all random chance with no purpose to there suffering at all
once you accept that neither you nor some deity have any power at all over your life, it can be a bit depressing


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> ok lets take a well known superstition, say walking under a ladder.
> 
> there's no false causation in that belief as the vast majority have no experienced any ill effects, and as they never walk under a ladder are unlikely to ever do so. yet some people continue to believe that its unlucky purley because someone told them it was
> 
> ...


Actually, we don't know there's no false causality, simply because there're so few incidents of coincidence. Confirmation bias tends to make the infrequency of coincidence less obvious. On top of that, our brains tend to apply greater signficance to coincidence that is highly emotional (relatively speaking). Thus, if someone has something bad happen to them after walking under a ladder, they may ascribe it to them walking under the ladder.

Or, it may be that the superstition about ladders is just an overextension of justifiable caution. Things fall off ladders more often than places where ladders are not, so your chances of injury go up if you go around walking under ladders (especially if those happen to be occupied at the time). Some superstitions are just this - extensions of good sense into nonsense.

Once a superstition has been formed, that's when other processes take over. One is the passing it along (as you mentioned). The next generation doesn't have that false causality - just the shared superstition, usually learned as a child. Sometimes folks will rationalize their superstition to hold onto it, and other times they'll revise their beliefs as the lack of causal link becomes clear.


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, we don't know there's no false causality, simply because there're so few incidents of coincidence. Confirmation bias tends to make the infrequency of coincidence less obvious. On top of that, our brains tend to apply greater signficance to coincidence that is highly emotional (relatively speaking). Thus, if someone has something bad happen to them after walking under a ladder, they may ascribe it to them walking under the ladder.
> 
> Or, it may be that the superstition about ladders is just an overextension of justifiable caution. Things fall off ladders more often than places where ladders are not, so your chances of injury go up if you go around walking under ladders (especially if those happen to be occupied at the time). Some superstitions are just this - extensions of good sense into nonsense.
> 
> Once a superstition has been formed, that's when other processes take over. One is the passing it along (as you mentioned). The next generation doesn't have that false causality - just the shared superstition, usually learned as a child. Sometimes folks will rationalize their superstition to hold onto it, and other times they'll revise their beliefs as the lack of causal link becomes clear.


as i explained above people who don't walk under ladders as they believe it unlucky, have no causality false or otherwise as they never walk under ladders

mostly people would considered walking across the road with your eyes closed to be ill advised, they don't regard people who do this as unlucky, just stupid if they get run over, hence there's no walking about blind is unlucky superstition


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> as i explained above people who don't walk under ladders as they believe it unlucky, have no causality false or otherwise as they never walk under ladders
> 
> mostly people would considered walking across the road with your eyes closed to be ill advised, they don't regard people who do this as unlucky, just stupid if they get run over, hence there's no walking about blind is unlucky superstition


As I said, some superstitious beliefs are passed along - the false causality came much earlier.


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, some superstitious beliefs are passed along - the false causality came much earlier.


well you may have top prove that, again as above the ladder issue arises not from a fear of ladders but a fear of breaking a triangle, this representing the holy trinity, so that would need you to show that someone broke t5he triangle of the holly trinity and suffered some miss fortune, leading to this belief, can you do that ? that's why even to this day you very seldom see a triangle doorway

ive convinced several generations of children that killing spiders is very unlucky, as many of these now have kids of their own i'm supposing that this supersticion made up by me with no causality at all has maybe been passed on, i just like spiders


----------



## Buka (Dec 29, 2019)

Sometimes superstitions are just fun, kind of tongue in cheek. Which is why the superstition of getting uppercutted while not really meaning what one is saying or writing can be painful.

So that's the superstition I'm starting right now. I can't wait to tell some children.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> as i explained above people who don't walk under ladders as they believe it unlucky, have no causality false or otherwise as they never walk under ladders
> 
> mostly people would considered walking across the road with your eyes closed to be ill advised, they don't regard people who do this as unlucky, just stupid if they get run over, hence there's no walking about blind is unlucky superstition


As I said above, people do not walk under ladders if they have even a modicum of common sense. It has nothing to do with 'feeling' unlucky. If they choose to walk under a ladder it is because of a lack of common sense, naivete, or a calculated risk.
I understand that the superstition is thousand's of years old but we are not. What this particular superstition meant 5000 years ago has zero bearing today.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> well you may have top prove that, again as above the ladder issue arises not from a fear of ladders but a fear of breaking a triangle, this representing the holy trinity, so that would need you to show that someone broke t5he triangle of the holly trinity and suffered some miss fortune, leading to this belief, can you do that ? that's why even to this day you very seldom see a triangle doorway
> 
> ive convinced several generations of children that killing spiders is very unlucky, as many of these now have kids of their own i'm supposing that this supersticion made up by me with no causality at all has maybe been passed on, i just like spiders


You, as usual, are ignoring the actual point. And it’s not worth trying to guide you there.


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> As I said above, people do not walk under ladders if they have even a modicum of common sense. It has nothing to do with 'feeling' unlucky. If they choose to walk under a ladder it is because of a lack of common sense, naivete, or a calculated risk.
> I understand that the superstition is thousand's of years old but we are not. What this particular superstition meant 5000 years ago has zero bearing today.


but sup erscitions are irrational,  if it's not irrational it's not a superstition.

you seem a about as gullible as it's possible to be and not be institutionalised and even you dont believe walking under ladders brings you bad luck u


----------



## jobo (Dec 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You, as usual, are ignoring the actual point. And it’s not worth trying to guide you there.


I'm not ignoring it, you've joined the other guy in making claims you cant back up,

it's a simple task if what you say is true to prove it,


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> but sup erscitions are irrational,  if it's not irrational it's not a superstition.
> 
> you seem a about as gullible as it's possible to be and not be institutionalised and even you dont believe walking under ladders brings you bad luck u


Irrational, as in you continuing to teach superstitions to generations of your children. I hope that apple falls Very far from the tree for their sake.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2019)

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

