# Which better for self defense?



## cfr (Oct 3, 2006)

Based on recent experience, I am inclined to make this request: Please DO NOT make this post "my style vs. your style", "TMA vs. MMA", etc.. Im not trying to be anal or controlling, but I really dont want this thread locked out.

For the purposes of this post:

1; Self defense = Guy 1 becomes aggressive to Guy 2; i.e. (Gets him suddenly in a headlock before Guy 2 knows whats happening. Suddenly pins Guy 2 up against the wall. Grabs Guy 2's wrist/ arm in an attempt to move him into a corner, etc.) It's up to Guy 2 to figure out his way out of these spots. 

2; Fighting = Both people know that a fight is on. Both people have had a second to square up and gain their composure. 

Theres a high possibility that number 1 will lead to number 2, so without those SD skills, you may never get to number 2. 

Theres also a possbility that number 1 will never happen (bar, English soccer game, chasing down a guy that almost runs over your family, etc.) and that only the skills from number 2 will be needed? This being said, Guy 2 would be better off spending more training time for number 2. 

For self defense purposes, which of the above do you think you should be better prepared for? Im not really a huge self defense nut and train more for fun, but was just pondering.


----------



## exile (Oct 3, 2006)

cfr said:


> Based on recent experience, I am inclined to make this request: Please DO NOT make this post "my style vs. your style", "TMA vs. MMA", etc.. Im not trying to be anal or controlling, but I really dont want this thread locked out.
> 
> For the purposes of this post:
> 
> ...



Cfr---this isn't a trick question, is it?? ;-)

My first inclination is to say that anything which will serve Guy 2 well in situation 1 will also work in situation 2. The way you've set it up, situation 1 is a really awkward close-quarter encounter where Guy 2 will need not just striking and grappling skills but also a sense of how to use parts of the environment opportunistically to derail Guy 1's plans (such as they are). Those are exactly the skills that will keep Guy 2 ahead of the game in situation 2, and the way you've outlined it, there's at least the chance that Guy 2 in situation 2 will be able to keep Guy 1 from closing the distance, if his preferred strategy involves a relatively distant fighting range. So 
my guess is, if Guy 2 is really capable of handling himself effectively in situation 1, situation 2 _should_ be a piece of cake for him.


----------



## cfr (Oct 3, 2006)

exile said:


> Cfr---this isn't a trick question, is it?? ;-)


 
hahaha... no.


----------



## exile (Oct 3, 2006)

cfr said:


> hahaha... no.



See, the reason I ask is because of your reference to `recent experience'... makes me suspect you already know the answer (or at least _an_ answer). After you've had enough responses, are you gonna tell us just what the experience was that led to the question---the _punch_line, so to speak?


----------



## cfr (Oct 3, 2006)

exile said:


> See, the reason I ask is because of your reference to `recent experience'... makes me suspect you already know the answer (or at least _an_ answer). After you've had enough responses, are you gonna tell us just what the experience was that led to the question---the _punch_line, so to speak?


 
My "recent experience" was my post being high jacked by the "TMA vs. MMA" crowd, and being permanenetly locked out by the admins after several warnings. 

No experience led to this question, no right answer or punchline, just interested in others thoughts. To be honest, I dont even know that I have an answer, and may be the reason for the question.


----------



## Robert Lee (Oct 3, 2006)

There are options But if you fail to think or apply theses option it does not work. Now both are in a clinch going to grappling. No 2 is aginst a wall Hand arm neck being worked by No. 1 Can no 2 use his knees can he bite Can he use eye pokes. Can he go to the ground to gain a better postion. What no. 2 does has to come down to how he trained and how he can think to respond It is not style at all MMa or TMA its about how the person traine and performs. And A ringside fighter can only say about the what ifs and could dos No 2 has to get it together to do that.


----------



## cfr (Oct 3, 2006)

Huh?


----------



## Ybot (Oct 3, 2006)

I think situation 1 and 2 (the examples you give) can be trained for pretty much the same way.  The difference should be the final objective.  In situation 1 (self defence) the main objective should be defend the attack, then do what ever it takes to avoid further injury.  This may include some fighting, but only enough to end the confrontation, or better yet escape the confrontation.

Situation 2 is different in that it is a fight.  You shouldn't ever be in one on the street, IMO.  If you are able to square off you have choosen to fight, escape is not an objective, dominance over your opponent is.  A lot of the same training will help, though.


----------



## zDom (Oct 3, 2006)

Three rules of self defense: Avoidance, escape, application of technique

In situation 1, you have already made some self defense mistakes: you have let someone who is aggressive close the distance and initiate contact (failed to avoid and escape).

Granted, sometimes people are just attacked out of nowhere. But I generally don't let ANYONE except close friends and family get within my "personal space" unless it is unavoidable (some public crowd situations).

In situation 2, you are likely to go to jail as you may be perceived as being a willing participant in the crime of third degree assault.

If you have time to "gain your composure" and square up, you had better be doing your best to avoid it.



			
				cfr said:
			
		

> Theres a high possibility that number 1 will lead to number 2, so without those SD skills, you may never get to number 2.



I gotta disagree. If someone has laid their hands on me in an aggressive manner, I am not going to try to extricate myself so I can square up and "prepare to fight." Once they have touched me in that way, it IS a fight.

First priority: put the attacker DOWN, hurt them bad enough they don't try to re-engage.

Second priority: look for an escape route and any additional attackers preventing you from escaping

Third priority: call the authorities and report being assaulted.



			
				cfr said:
			
		

> Theres also a possbility that number 1 will never happen (bar, English soccer game, chasing down a guy that almost runs over your family, etc.) and that only the skills from number 2 will be needed? This being said, Guy 2 would be better off spending more training time for number 2.



Situations like Number 1 are sometimes unavoidable. Situations like number 2 are usually situations that are definately avoidable.

You say, "Look, I don't want any trouble with you -- I don't want to fight." And look for a safe way out. You either find your way out safely, or situation No. 1 develops.

So, IMO, you are better off preparing for situation 1 (which should, as pointed out above, prepare you for situation 2). Again, it is very likely that if you don't avoid situation No. 2, it will BECOME situation No. 1.


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 3, 2006)

_Mod. Note._ 
Please, return to the original topic.
-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 4, 2006)

Asst. Admin. Note:

Thread moved to Self-Defense forum.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT A.A.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2006)

English soccer game? What on earth do you think the players do to each other? The violence at soccer matches has nothing to do with the game but is usually a pre arranged fight between two 'firms' who fight very dirty, rarely in the soccer ground usually in a nearby street. You are unlikely to be involved with them unless you are very unlucky. Fighting in one of these or getting caught up with one you'd need defences against head butts, gouging, fish hooking, kicks, stomps, groin grabs etc.


----------



## cfr (Oct 20, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> English soccer game? What on earth do you think the players do to each other? The violence at soccer matches has nothing to do with the game but is usually a pre arranged fight between two 'firms' who fight very dirty, rarely in the soccer ground usually in a nearby street. You are unlikely to be involved with them unless you are very unlucky. Fighting in one of these or getting caught up with one you'd need defences against head butts, gouging, fish hooking, kicks, stomps, groin grabs etc.


 

Apparently I touched a raw nerve. :ultracool You do realize this was an example, right?


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

cfr said:


> 1; Self defense = Guy 1 becomes aggressive to Guy 2; i.e. (Gets him suddenly in a headlock before Guy 2 knows whats happening. Suddenly pins Guy 2 up against the wall. Grabs Guy 2's wrist/ arm in an attempt to move him into a corner, etc.) It's up to Guy 2 to figure out his way out of these spots.
> 
> 2; Fighting = Both people know that a fight is on. Both people have had a second to square up and gain their composure.
> 
> ...



95% of fights gotto ground anyway so i'd say number 1. Pin guy 2 up against the wall n fight for underhook so he lets go of headlcok (I presume it'd be bulldog headlock as this is the type of move that primitives with no grappling experience usually go for anyway), put all your weight on his mid section then scoop his legs from underneath him n soccer kick the bastard.


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> English soccer game? What on earth do you think the players do to each other? The violence at soccer matches has nothing to do with the game but is usually a pre arranged fight between two 'firms' who fight very dirty, rarely in the soccer ground usually in a nearby street. You are unlikely to be involved with them unless you are very unlucky. Fighting in one of these or getting caught up with one you'd need defences against head butts, gouging, fish hooking, kicks, stomps, groin grabs etc.



Hello Irene


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> 95% of fights gotto ground anyway


 
I'm sure quite a few would disagree with that.


----------



## Mustafa (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> I'm sure quite a few would disagree with that.


I think of it as: 
One IS one a higher peg and someone IS on a lower peg. Each has its advantages and each its disadvantages.
And it is like, on can rise up independent of the other part whoever it is of them. OR push down the other part, which usally comes to an end as it swings forth and back.


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

Mustafa said:


> I think of it as:
> One IS one a higher peg and someone IS on a lower peg. Each has its advantages and each its disadvantages.
> And it is like, on can rise up independent of the other part whoever it is of them. OR push down the other part, which usally comes to an end as it swings forth and back.


 
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about!  If you want to contribute, then do so, but making posts just for the sake of making them, is taking away from the discussion.  

Mike


----------



## Mustafa (Oct 23, 2006)

> > > 95% of fights gotto ground
> >
> >
> > I'm sure quite a few would disagree with that.
> ...


Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about! If you want to contribute, then do so, but making posts just for the sake of making them, is taking away from the discussion. 

Mike[/quote]
If we say that ground is the lowest point of ones height.
Then i am thinking, how can you put you opponent to ground if he is on ground already? And there are advandates and disadvantages for both high and low it seems to me.
My point is that one can push his opponent to ground, but the bigger the difference is, the more effect it is caused by the opponents action. (Though the other does nothing)
If one trancends over the need to push the other person to ground, then what can the person on the ground do? ... except attacking in rage (And showing the difference between a state of nothingness and no action)

Theory.... There is a catch however. If you don't apply it "correctly" in physical action, you will be doomed as after your faliure, IF, you'd be  in deep trouble. And i mean very deep.


----------



## charyuop (Oct 23, 2006)

I remember once, I was in middle school (I was around 12 years old). I was walking in my classroom when all of a sudden a classmate took me from behind and since we were near a wall pinned me with my back against the wall with one hand on my throat. Using the other hand he started punching my face.
I still remember now, the shock, surprise (still today I don't know the reason), the fear and worrying about getting hit trying to get away. Back then I had no idea what MA was except few movies I had watched and a little Japanese wrestling that I watched hiding from my parents (Antonio Hinoki BombaYe....oops sorry)., and fortunately after few punches the teacher got him from behind and stopped him (she also got a punch on the nose LOL).
Why I said this story? Easy...when it all starts like in situation Number 1 you have to put into account a huge amount of factors (like surprise, fear, adrenaline, pain....and more). You won't have the mind very clear and if you do it will be for a short time. Concentrate on finding a weak point in the opponent which will cause him huge pain and give you chance to run. Sometimes it is not necessary to know 2,000 moves and technique, but 1 and used at the right moment is all you need.
Had it happened today to me what happened in middle school, instead of worrying about the punches or looking for a fancy move to get out of there I would probably just go for the elbow...one of my hand blocking firmly his hand at my throat and the other hitting his elbow as hard as I can (if you break it better).


Conclusion...in my opinion too many people worry about style and what moves to study losing to the focus of the situation. In a real fight is not like in a dojo. Do not worry if you know 1 move or 1,000 if it is CMA or MMA, if you have to train alot grappling or not. Fights don't last very long and usually if the opponent places the first 2 or 3 punches very well it is hard to overcome the fight. What you need is knowing moves and mastering them so that they come out automatically in moment of need.


Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> I'm sure quite a few would disagree with that.



Not surprisingly, Im sure quite a few would.


----------



## zDom (Oct 23, 2006)

charyuop said:


> Conclusion...in my opinion too many people worry about style and what moves to study losing to the focus of the situation. In a real fight is not like in a dojo. Do not worry if you know 1 move or 1,000 if it is CMA or MMA, if you have to train alot grappling or not. Fights don't last very long and usually if the opponent places the first 2 or 3 punches very well it is hard to overcome the fight. What you need is knowing moves and mastering them so that they come out automatically in moment of need.



I recall one situation in which what I trained in the dojang (Korean dojo ) was EXACTLY what happened in the fight. In this case it was training what to do when being taken to the ground, including pulling them into the guard position.

Remember, "You fight like you train."

With enough training, you CAN overcome an opponent, even if he places a couple of good punches.

Some of the best Pride Fight matches I have watched were the ones in which one competitor, after weathering a barrage of punches from his opponent, turned the fight around to win.

Indomitable spirt + training hard in preparation for bad situations

can indeed result in victory even under some horrible circumstances.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 23, 2006)

zDom said:


> I recall one situation in which what I trained in the dojang (Korean dojo ) was EXACTLY what happened in the fight. In this case it was training what to do when being taken to the ground, including pulling them into the guard position.
> 
> Remember, "You fight like you train."
> 
> ...


 
I agree Scott and that is a good post.  Spirit + hard training prepares you well for those dangerous violent encounters.  It does not ensure success but it does prepare you.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 16, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Hello Irene


 
Just saw this! hello! Pm me!


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 16, 2006)

i think training for number 1 is the only valuable training.

who on earth gets into number 2 without having plenty of number 2 for brains?

to be clear, i'm not talking about sport fighters.  that's a game and games are fun.  but if you're actually training with the intent of winning a stand-up, toe-to-toe fight like you're still in high school, you probably shouldn't be training.

situation number 2 can be avoided with good sense.  a trained martial artist will exercise that good sense.

again, i'm not talking about sport fighters.  so please, sport fighters, don't take that the wrong way.


----------



## dok (Nov 16, 2006)

> think training for number 1 is the only valuable training.
> 
> who on earth gets into number 2 without having plenty of number 2 for brains?
> 
> to be clear, i'm not talking about sport fighters. that's a game and games are fun. but if you're actually training with the intent of winning a stand-up, toe-to-toe fight like you're still in high school, you probably shouldn't be training.



I agree.  

there are plenty of "moves" designed to get out of chokeholds/grabs/pins and so forth.  I think drilling these in various states of awareness and different circumstances is a decent way to be prepared.  This is a self defense class curriculum.  

In addition, while I'm not a competition fighter - I do think there is something to be said for sport fighting as a preparation for self defense, particularly for adrenalin control - in addition to getting used to taking a certain amount of physical damage.

again, I couldnt agree with bushidomartialarts more.  Training for the ring, or training for real self defense seems to be the only responsible way to go.


----------

