# All rights. Face punching point scoring and self defence.



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2015)

Because this will get complicated and there is no need to crap up a guys thread.

OK. So this is the concept.

"Why would you learn a sports martial art that isn't designed to deal with civilian violence, in order to help you deal with civilian violence?

Sports aim their punches at general areas (head/body) as anywhere in these areas score points. However, once you start looking at punching for self defence it's a whole different ball game. Punch someone in the nose in the ring, you score a point, punch someone in the nose in the street and it may stop them, or if they are have a lot of drugs/alcohol/adrenalin in their system it may just piss them off make enrage them further. Ok so you are not entering competitions, but you will just be told to aim your punches at these general 'scoring zones" in training, not at specific areas designed to incapacitate.



There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them, they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them. Training in an art which is not sports based, or training specifically to deal with civilian violence will teach you to get off line, keeping them in your line of attack, whilst getting off their line of attack.

There are just two points, there are others, but the point is it's apples/oranges. If you want to train for sport then do a sport MA, if you want to train to deal with civilian violence, then train to deal with civilian violence.

Taking a sport martial art to deal with civilian violence is like taking table tennis lessons because you have decided to enter Wimbledon. Yeah, looks the same to the laymen, just hitting a ball over a net with a bat right? But in reality it's not."

Which is ironically basically correct advice except for a few bits of information that is just missed and is wrong. Which then makes everything said wrong in context.

So. Here is a novel concept. You can win sports fights by stopping the other guy. Happens all the time. This is done by effective vital point striking. So vital point striking wins competitions.

Don't believe me? Here is a ko compilation showing vital point striking being used effectively to win competitions.






OK the reason you don't stand in front of someone in a fight is so you can punch them better than they can punch you. So angles win competitions.

So if you are concerned about these issues in self defence then they are a main component of sports fighting. 

It would be like learning table tennis to play table tennis.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 5, 2015)

Just to avoid confusion, here is the original post that drop bear is referencing:



Paul_D said:


> Neither.
> 
> Why would you learn a sports martial art that isn't  designed to deal with civilian violence, in order to help you deal with civilian violence?
> 
> ...




Drop bear is pretty much on target, but I wanted to emphasize this bit:



Paul_D said:


> There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them,  they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them.  Training in an art which is not sports based, or training specifically to deal with civilian violence will teach you to get off line, keeping them in your line of attack, whilst getting off their line of attack.



No competent instructor of a combat sport* teaches you "to stand directly in front of an opponent." Boxers, wrestlers, jiu-jitieros, karateka, MMA fighters, etc will all try to establish a dominant angle on an opponent in order to protect themselves and better launch their own attacks.  The reason you see fighters in competition standing in front of each other is that both fighters are doing their best to not let the other guy get the superior angle on them. As soon as one fighter gets off-line and has the superior angle the other will be doing his best to take away that angle.

It's not like a demo you see in some arts where a compliant uke throws a punch and then stands frozen in place with his arm outstretched so that his partner can step offline and deliver a 15-count combination. In order to get offline and deliver attacks from a superior angle against a skilled opponent in the time before he recovers you have to be really good and it will probably happen so quickly that the untutored spectator will often miss it.

*(The only exception I can think of is modern sport fencing, where moving off line is against the rules.)


----------



## Buka (Nov 5, 2015)

Hold on now.

Maybe I'm living in the past but training is training, it all deals with fighting. I don't really know any schools that only teach sport stuff. Except...I spent a lot of time boxing. That's a sport, right? Worked all right for us when it had to. Spent a lot of time in Martial Arts. Worked even better when it had to. Competed a lot, but never confused competition with anything in the real world. I suppose some folks did, but they never stuck around long.

As for standing directly in front of someone, used to do that in police work all the time. It's how you talk to them. At least that's how it starts. Talked to a lot of people over the years, just that very way.

As for me, for fighting, I like to stand in front of someone. Smack dab, directly in front of them. Right there in their sights. Right there in their wheelhouse, right there in their kitchen.....you know why? Because it's MY kitchen. 
The way I look at it is - I want you to fire right there in front  - so I can position off angle when you move, which I live for. OR - right down your center, right into you. You move I move. It's been working for forty years. So far so good.

As for "_No competent instructor of a combat sport* teaches you "to stand directly in front of an opponent_." 

Do you mean directly in front of a person - with your feet squared off like you were looking at a painting in a museum? Well, no, of course not. 
But if I'm training you, the very first thing I'm going to teach you is to fight in the kitchen, right there in front of the threat.
In fact, as I think about it, every instructor I've ever had, did exaclty that same thing. Be it in striking or grappling, that's where we started. And they were pretty darn good combat instructors.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 5, 2015)

You haven't posted the link to the video which explained striking to certain area's of the head which work better than others for Self defence.  That was kind of pivotal 

When you trian for sport you get told to target Jodan (head) or chuden (body) it doesn't (or didn't; in my experience) get any more specific than that. 

Also, I am not disputing sports can work on occasions, my point was if you want to train for civilian violence, which the poster did, why would you train sport which isn't designed to deal with civilian violence.  If you want to train for sport, train sport, if you want to train for CV then train for it.  Why train for one when your training goal is the other?

Sure you can get a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer, but if your goal is to get a screw into a piece of wood, use a screwdriver.  That doesn't mean hammers don't work, or can't be made to work, it just means if you want to hammer nails in use a hammer, if you want to screw screws in use a screw driver.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 5, 2015)

From my experience very few people really understand street violence and what that entails. However most martial artists think they know all about it.  There is a big difference between the two and most martial artist I have come across don't really know the difference but see both thru the biased lens of their own particular training or style.


----------



## Rmada (Nov 5, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> From my experience very few people really understand street violence and what that entails. However most martial artists think they know all about it.  There is a big difference between the two and most martial artist I have come across don't really know the difference but see both thru the biased lens of their own particular training or style.



I'm asking this as an "outsider looking in" since i have little martial arts training, so would you say this is because of the students lack of understanding (what they are trying to achieve) or teachers not conveying the reality of (end results) what they are offering?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 5, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> When you trian for sport you get told to target Jodan (head) or chuden (body) it doesn't (or didn't; in my experience) get any more specific than that.


I guess it depends on your sport and your coach. In boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA you do train to target specific points to maximize the chance for a knockout. I can't speak for whatever sport you practiced.



Buka said:


> As for me, for fighting, I like to stand in front of someone. Smack dab, directly in front of them. Right there in their sights. Right there in their wheelhouse, right there in their kitchen.....you know why? Because it's MY kitchen.
> The way I look at it is - I want you to fire right there in front - so I can position off angle when you move, which I live for. OR - right down your center, right into you. You move I move. It's been working for forty years. So far so good.
> 
> As for "_No competent instructor of a combat sport* teaches you "to stand directly in front of an opponent_."
> ...



Perhaps I phrased my point poorly. Obviously you need to be comfortable fighting directly in front of your opponent, because that's where you are going to be most of the time unless you're really skilled and/or lucky. Given the opportunity, however, you would _prefer_ to be off-line so that you are facing your opponent and he isn't facing you. Maybe you can get there by moving your opponent, maybe you can get there by moving yourself. Doesn't matter whether you're doing boxing, karate, or BJJ, your odds of success go way up if you can achieve that superior angle. Paul D's original statement made it sound either like sport fighters don't know about getting to a superior angle or would prefer not to get to one, which is nonsense.



Buka said:


> I want you to fire right there in front -* so I can position off angle when you move*, which I live for.



Exactly!


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 5, 2015)

Rmada said:


> I'm asking this as an "outsider looking in" since i have little martial arts training, so would you say this is because of the students lack of understanding (what they are trying to achieve) or teachers not conveying the reality of (end results) what they are offering?


It's because most teachers teach what they have been taught in the dojo or in the ring.  If you ask, most do not have a lot of experience in street violence.  So it's a combination of learning to swim by reading a book and then teaching the next generation as well as the problem of the hammer only seeing nails.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2015)

Rmada said:


> I'm asking this as an "outsider looking in" since i have little martial arts training, so would you say this is because of the students lack of understanding (what they are trying to achieve) or teachers not conveying the reality of (end results) what they are offering?



There is a lot of guess work and not enough evidence. It is all anecdotes and stories.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Also, I am not disputing sports can work on occasions, my point was if you want to train for civilian violence, which the poster did, why would you train sport which isn't designed to deal with civilian violence. If you want to train for sport, train sport, if you want to train for CV then train for it. Why train for one when your training goal is the other?



Sometimes the basic tool is better than the specialised tool. And especially if that basic tool has proven performance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 5, 2015)

In CMA even if you train sport, you still train "black hand" to deal with unfriendly challengers (similar to street fight).

- To hit on the back of your opponent's head, or
- To twist your opponent's knee joint side way,

will always work in street situation.

One guy that I know who loves to train "illegal sport moves". He believes that's the MA treasure.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 6, 2015)

[QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1730757, member: 32360" Paul D's original statement made it sound either like sport fighters don't know about getting to a superior angle or would prefer not to get to one, which is nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
I probably didn't phrase it properly then, my bad ;-)


----------



## DaveB (Nov 6, 2015)

Yes sports combat systems teach you how to fight effectively.

They are still second best for self defense because self defense is more than just fighting.

This has been gone over so many times that rather than re-listing all the differences I will just ask, why all the non punch/kick/wrestle, non one on one elements get ignored in order to make this point.

If not glossed over, you have to outright avoid every relevant part of self defense training to hold onto the idea that sport fighting is as good as training specifically designed for self defense.

Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be *better at dealing with* weapons or multiple assailants. Tell us which bit of the pre fight training covers legal implications and obligations. What elements of Muay Thai are designed to get your girlfriend away from a group of thugs?

Reducing self defense to ringfighting is naive and irresponsible.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Yes sports combat systems teach you how to fight effectively.
> 
> They are still second best for self defense because self defense is more than just fighting.
> 
> This has been gone over so many times that rather than re-listing all the differences I will just ask, why all the non punch/kick/wrestle, non one on one elements get ignored in order to make this point. You literally have to outright avoid every relevant part of self defense training to hold onto the idea that sport fighting is as good as training specifically designed for self defense.



Because most people don't start fights who are looking for self defence. So it becomes a moot point. People who want self defence basically don't want to get bashed.

People who don't want to get bashed avoid fighting anyway. Had a whole lifetime of doing it.don't need to learn much more of it.

People who do fight are pretty much at peace with getting bashed or they wouldn't fight. So probably should learn how to avoid fights but won't.

So when most people want self defence they want to know how to fight. So then they are empowered with choice.

Basically for the most part avoidance is selling ice to Eskimos.

Now having said that. If the delivery system for avoidance and deescalation was any good then it would be a worthwhile skill. But it rarely is any better than just learning to fight.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 6, 2015)

Your response is a perfect example of avoidance: I didn't mention avoidance once, but you have ignored all the things I did mention and attempted to reduce the many counter points to just that one.

On the subject of avoidance, what you think you need in relation to self defense doesn't change what is universally relevant to the subject. In other words you can't speak for everyone else just because you think you are a  natural at avoidance. 

Second you've made your whole point moot because what you are talking about is people who want to fight learning to fight (consensual 
violence). This is the antithesis of self defense and the essence of sports fighting. Thus the point of training in the area you want to act in still holds true.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 6, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> [QUOTE="hoshin1600, post: 1730757, member: 32360" Paul D's original statement made it sound either like sport fighters don't know about getting to a superior angle or would prefer not to get to one, which is nonsense.


I probably didn't phrase it properly then, my bad ;-)[/QUOTE]
If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then please clarify it you don't mind. I don't want to waste my time arguing against a point that wasn't what you meant.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Your response is a perfect example of avoidance: I didn't mention avoidance once, but you have ignored all the things I did mention and attempted to reduce the many counter points to just that one.
> 
> On the subject of avoidance, what you think you need in relation to self defense doesn't change what is universally relevant to the subject. In other words you can't speak for everyone else just because you think you are a  natural at avoidance.
> 
> ...


There were two counter points. One was multiples one was the non fighting skills like swimming or navigation. Oh wait mabye you don't teach those as self defence.OK um.. Avoidance and deescalation then.

So if avoidance is the important part of self defence then why is the system of avoidance in martial arts the equivalent of making stuff up in the back yard?

What is the linage of your avoidance method?

What is the competition base to your avoidance method?

What service/military/police system has your avoidance method come from?


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 6, 2015)

I suspect the OP was referring to some sport arts often not being well rounded, due to being constrained by rules.
One example is TKD not typically emphasizing ground fighting.  Once knocked down, your opponent can't pursue you.  If a real fight goes to the ground, they may not be fully prepared to fight there. 
Or a judoka not being as practiced in punches and kicks, as their sport doesn't allow those.  So in a stand up fight, they may be at a disadvantage.
However, if it comes to having a real fight with a highly trained practitioner of any "sport art", I'd still prefer not to fight them.  They're likely to just steer the fight toward the stuff they are really good at and beat you with that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 6, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> I suspect the OP was referring to some sport arts often not being well rounded, due to being constrained by rules.
> One example is TKD not typically emphasizing ground fighting.  Once knocked down, your opponent can't pursue you.  If a real fight goes to the ground, they may not be fully prepared to fight there.
> Or a judoka not being as practiced in punches and kicks, as their sport doesn't allow those.  So in a stand up fight, they may be at a disadvantage.


I'd have no problem with that suggestion. Everybody has holes in their game, unless they train 40+ hours per week with access to a holodeck. Regardless of your art, it's worth exploring where those gaps in your training are.

What I objected to was the suggestions that "sport martial artists" don't understand getting off the line of attack or aiming at specific targets to maximize damage. Those points are demonstrably false.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 6, 2015)

I do hate having to quote from a post on the same page but:



DaveB said:


> Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be *better at dealing with* weapons or multiple assailants. Tell us which bit of the pre fight training covers legal implications and obligations. What elements of Muay Thai are designed to get your girlfriend away from a group of thugs?
> 
> Reducing self defense to ringfighting is naive and irresponsible.



So, we have a weapons awareness in combat sports question, a protecting a principal in combat sports question and a legal implications question.

Deescalation and avoidance are also areas lacking, but not one's I asked about.

Your post lost coherence for me but you seem to be asking where I learned self.defence. The answer hasn't changed from the last time you avoided inconvenient points on this topic: the Metropolitan Police. For 10 years. Not.that it matters. People far more qualified than I make the same point. 

Incidentally you're also avoiding the fact that you mooted your own argument. If this were a self defense situation your technique would be awesome.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

DaveB said:


> I do hate having to quote from a post on the same page but:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fine then weapons and multiple oponants. What are we stacking boxing up against?

Let's try to find real world examples of boxing used against weapons and multiple s vs  any SD system you want.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

So here is my two. And both pensioners to boot.

72 Year Old Retired Boxer Beats Up A Robber

BuckeyeSports.com - Ohio State Buckeyes Football, Basketball, Recruiting, News, Rumors & Forums Front Page

So now show your self defence system working against multiples or weapons.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ...the point is it's apples/oranges. If you want to train for sport then do a sport MA, if you want to train to deal with civilian violence, then train to deal with civilian violence.



The thing is, it's _not_ just apples and oranges. Let's say that real world serious violent encounters are oranges. Now, there are a range of oranges; navels, temples, juicing oranges, and then some that people tend to forget about and misidentify, like tangerines, satsuma... An orange is not just one thing.

Now, _some_ sport combat is definitely apples. I would say hard contact but range limited sports like Boxing, BJJ, Kickboxing, WTF TKD, Kyokushin, etc, are all apples, whether Braeburn, McIntosh, Jazz, Gala, Honey Crisp, or Golden Delicious. If all you've ever eaten is apples, your first orange might surprise you when you you bite into the skin and it's bitter and tough, or when you find segments with seeds rather than a core. However, it's still a spherical fruit with skin, a stem, seeds, and edible flesh, and it still grows on a tree, and there's a good chance you'll still figure out you can pick it, and how to eat it. You just might have some unpleasant surprises on the way.

Some sports, like point sparring, no contact sparring, (and probably some others, I'm not as familiar here), honestly, are probably more like I dunno, lettuce. Again, there's Romaine, Green Leaf, Red Leaf, Escarole, Friseé, but it's all leafy greens. If you eat mainly Boston Butter Lettuce, you'll probably be pretty good at figuring out what to do with dandelion greens or collards even if you've never seen them before, but oranges are going to through you for a loop. There's a good chance you're going to eat the leaves of the tree, rather than the fruit. You might figure it out, you might not. That thick peal is definitely going to pose a challenge.

Some sports and arts, on the other hand, when well trained, are not apples or lettuce. Things like MMA. Things like most traditional arts trained for civilian defense. RBSD. They're not oranges either. They're, Lemons, Limes, Grapefruit, Pommelos and Ugli Fruit. They have that same thick bitter skin, they have that same sweet-sour flesh, divided into segments with seeds, they have pulp, they grow on similar trees... Sure, if you've only ever eaten Grapefruit, oranges might disappoint you with their more simple flavour, they skin might be a bit harder to get through than you expected, it might take significantly less time to eat them than you might be used to. But at the end of the day, a Grapefruit and an orange are relatively good approximations of one another. They are not and will never be the same, but they're pretty close.

On the other hand, if you cut an orange in half, bisecting the segments, put it in a bowl, and try to eat it with a spoon, well, good luck with that.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> The thing is, it's _not_ just apples and oranges. Let's say that real world serious violent encounters are oranges. Now, there are a range of oranges; navels, temples, juicing oranges, and then some that people tend to forget about and misidentify, like tangerines, satsuma... An orange is not just one thing.
> 
> Now, _some_ sport combat is definitely apples. I would say hard contact but range limited sports like Boxing, BJJ, Kickboxing, WTF TKD, Kyokushin, etc, are all apples, whether Braeburn, McIntosh, Jazz, Gala, Honey Crisp, or Golden Delicious. If all you've ever eaten is apples, your first orange might surprise you when you you bite into the skin and it's bitter and tough, or when you find segments with seeds rather than a core. However, it's still a spherical fruit with skin, a stem, seeds, and edible flesh, and it still grows on a tree, and there's a good chance you'll still figure out you can pick it, and how to eat it. You just might have some unpleasant surprises on the way.
> 
> ...



I want to know why we can't compare apples and oranges anyway?

I like apple I don't really like oranges. They are the second rate fruit.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 6, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> The thing is, it's _not_ just apples and oranges. Let's say that real world serious violent encounters are oranges. Now, there are a range of oranges; navels, temples, juicing oranges, and then some that people tend to forget about and misidentify, like tangerines, satsuma... An orange is not just one thing.
> 
> Now, _some_ sport combat is definitely apples. I would say hard contact but range limited sports like Boxing, BJJ, Kickboxing, WTF TKD, Kyokushin, etc, are all apples, whether Braeburn, McIntosh, Jazz, Gala, Honey Crisp, or Golden Delicious. If all you've ever eaten is apples, your first orange might surprise you when you you bite into the skin and it's bitter and tough, or when you find segments with seeds rather than a core. However, it's still a spherical fruit with skin, a stem, seeds, and edible flesh, and it still grows on a tree, and there's a good chance you'll still figure out you can pick it, and how to eat it. You just might have some unpleasant surprises on the way.
> 
> ...


Is this where we post the fruit or vegetable that our art corresponds to? If so, I'm going to claim bananas for BJJ. Mostly because I like bananas and can eat them every day. BJJ can stand for "Bananas are Just Joyful."


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I want to know why we can't compare apples and oranges anyway?
> 
> I like apple I don't really like oranges. They are the second rate fruit.



They have different flavours, uses, and growing ranges and seasons. Aside from that, I'm perfectly happy with either or both in my fruit salad.

The thing is, you _can't train oranges_. I mean, not without being evil in the most literal of senses. All you can do is train other citrus, and aim for grapefruit rather than Kumquats.

Put another way, if I'm the notorious Baddy on the infamous Street, and I had a choice of marks I'd pick the untrained person first, then the tag-sparrer, then the limited sport fighter if I'm dumb and desperate, and I'd avoid at all costs someone who's been training a sport or defensive art that trains hard and comprehensively.

And more on topic, yeah, a sport that counts any sort of contact with the head as the same thing is going to encourage things like forehead punching, and treating a liver shot or a hit to the celiac plexus as equal to a punch to the center of the abs is obviously suboptimal. And yes, if contact to the back of the head/neck, groin, and biting is all dissalowed in your training, there is a chance you will leave that stuff more exposed than you would if you constantly trained with that in mind. Every training style has limitations, most of them pretty blatant and game changing.

Most importantly, my art would be muffins. My all time favorite fruit.


----------



## Buka (Nov 6, 2015)

I had to look up Boston Butter Lettuce. (I need to get out more)

And I'll take oranges over apples any day. Maybe because I have an apple tree in the yard. But now you guys have me thinking of food. So....

My dinner last night - oh, man, so fantastic! Had to be much better than yours.

You don't know what I had, do you? It was the same dinner you had. Maybe yours was cooked better. Maybe mine was.

Maybe they were different versions of the same dinner. Yeah, but my side dishes complimented mine better than yours. No, wait, maybe your side dishes were better.

But yours was spiced better. Mine was plated better, though. But the wine with yours was superb.

Ah, but see, my body was more in need of protein last night, so mine was obviously more important. If only I had some bread, especially a good bread like yours. And I really wish we had spoons last night. Kind of sucked eating my soup with a fork.

Or maybe we had wildly different meals. And we probably have different tastes, different palates, maybe different needs. Probably different stoves and different pots and pans. Different stores we shop at.

Kinda like the Martial Arts we all do.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Why would you learn a sports martial art that isn't designed to deal with civilian violence, in order to help you deal with civilian violence?


 For me I wouldn't do this because the training is going to be focused on the sporting aspect which has clear rules.

Sports martial arts example. Point sparring and Olympic TKD



Buka said:


> Maybe I'm living in the past but training is training, it all deals with fighting. I don't really know any schools that only teach sport stuff.


People train according to purpose. A guy that does a 100 yard sprint does not train the same way a person who is training for a marathon.  It's all running but different focus and different purpose.  Martial arts is the same way.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> People train according to purpose. A guy that does a 100 yard sprint does not train the same way a person who is training for a marathon. It's all running but different focus and different purpose. Martial arts is the same way.



So self defence sprinting would be better for self defence than just sprinting.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 6, 2015)

I 


drop bear said:


> Fine then weapons and multiple oponants.



And protecting a third party, and legal implications and since you raised them avoidance and deescalation...



> What are we stacking boxing up against?



What? The question was where are these things taught in boxing clubs? Not "'oo's the 'ardest?".



> Let's try to find real world examples of boxing used against weapons and multiple s vs  any SD system you want.



Why on earth would I do that? My whole point has been that while combat sports are good at teaching you to fight, there is much more to self defense which makes learning self defense at a self defense school the better option. 

By your logic a diplomacy course would be totally sufficient for self defense because they teach one of the skills used in SD.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Why on earth would I do that? My whole point has been that while combat sports are good at teaching you to fight, there is much more to self defense which makes learning self defense at a self defense school the better option.
> 
> By your logic a diplomacy course would be totally sufficient for self defense because they teach one of the skills used in SD.



You said specifically multiples and weapons. I will find the quote.

"Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be *better at dealing with*weapons or multiple assailants."

Because it is proven against multiples and weapons.

Now take up your own challenge.

Otherwise learning self defence is probably best done away from self defence schools. And left to people who are experts in whatever field you consider necessary. Same as you did with the policing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So self defence sprinting would be better for self defence than just sprinting.


Not to be funny but I recently I did a self defense class where students had to avoid a knife attack. Here are the real life options.
1. Do an all out sprint to get away and hope the attacker isn't faster than you
2. Stay and try to fight the attacker.
3. Do a short sprint to the nearest obstacle (large bush, car, hedges)

When I attacked someone slower than me I could catch up and easily stab them.  Even if I didn't have a knife the victim was too tired to resist after sprinting.
When I attacked someone slower than me and they sprinted to the nearest large object (which they used to keep between me and them,) I could never get them. We went around, if I went to the left or right they would move to the right or left always keeping the object in between.  They used less energy to stay away from me and no matter how hard I tried she could prevent me from catch her.

So in that light.. Yes.  if you are slow runner and your attacker is faster then as you say "self defense running" is safer than just sprinting.  It makes no sense to try to outrun someone if you only have 20 yards worth of hard sprint in you.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 6, 2015)

This thread, I think, was aimed at discussing the differences inherent between sport combat and self defense combat, rather than the broader field of self defense, encompassing deescalation, trip planning, awareness, knowledge of local social norms, lane position, proper lifting, and dietary recommendations.

For example, does the requirement for non-avoidance in a sporting context hurt or benefit training, do generalized target zones versus specialized hurt training, does the long range of two tactical strikers ill prepare one for closer combat and grappling, do gloves overly detract from sophistication in striking or do they allow for more committed live training, and so on.

I'm not saying the conversation should be limited to solely generalized versus specified targets on the face, but _some_ centralized topic is needed, otherwise we're basically discussing, well, really _all_ of an absolutely enormous topic...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 6, 2015)

For the record, bananas and strawberries are my fruit of choice because they go the best with my bowl of ice cream.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 6, 2015)

as i posted earlier....we all see the issue through the biased lens of our own training and the posts in this thread seem to prove that.  topics like this always end up being a reactionary response to try and validate and defend what we do and how we train. the issue i see is that everyone feels the need to measure their training with the yard stick of street effectiveness.  tai chi, tae- bo, shintaido, reiki or whatever people train in regardless of how removed from street fighting it is, still feel the need to validate themselves by saying " oh yeah its also good for self defense"...  a video clip on a boxer knocking someone out in a street fight does not validate boxing as a system intended and effective for self defense. it only shows the individual has a good punch and was able to hit someone.  as martial artists we ALL punch and we All kick .  news flash ...untrained people also know how to punch and kick.  there are lots of videos of untrained thugs knocking people out.  you could put a Hells Angel in a tutu and ballet shoes and he will still knock someone out if they touched his bike. doesnt make ballet street effective.  im not saying boxing is not street effective . im just pointing out that training gives you a skill set and some skills are transferable to be used in a violent street encounter but this does not make the system as a whole geared towards self defense.  i believe this was the point that was trying to be made.


----------



## Drose427 (Nov 6, 2015)

The flurry of straight punches to the face(as no competent point fighter will throw on or two and then stop) that you see in TMA's, are also  pretty common in MMA, Boxing, etc.

Especially when the opponent isnt moving properly or backing up.

Why?

Overrunning like that works, if your opponent isnt moving properly, you have the dominant position cause there are only so many ways he can block before he gets hit.

The same situation occurs in street fights with those who dont train. 

so its really as simple as that.

There are things that get divided by the Sport/SD line, but I dont feel this specific thing is one.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 7, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> The flurry of straight punches to the face(as no competent point fighter will throw on or two and then stop) that you see in TMA's, are also  pretty common in MMA, Boxing, etc.
> 
> Especially when the opponent isnt moving properly or backing up.
> 
> ...



There is some truth to that, a flurry of punches to the face is a good way to gain the advantage. Introduce chaos until things are going well for you.

However, it really does depend on the sport. I have seen and experienced first hand that in light contact point sparring, a common target is the forehead. A flurry of punches to the forehead is probably better than nothing, but if I'm determined, even without training I can still haul of and slug you hard, especially if you're not training to penetrate.

A flurry of punches to the general face area is better, but not ideal. A flurry of punches to the chin, jawline, side of the neck, and so on is better yet. It's not that a flurry of general head-area strikes is useless, it's that a flurry of directed, targeted strikes is better.

I mean, any flurry to the general head area will generally cause some form of balance and/or momentum in your favor, but isn't a barrage of strikes that _also_ have the ability to do real damage or potentially cause a knockout better? And in terms of self-defense, I would say opting for the better option is pretty well nigh paramount.

That said, I've never been much of a "flurry" type guy at all. Not even a little, so I'm somewhat just speculating here.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 7, 2015)

On the topic of "flurry punches" there's no solid rule to the effectiveness of them. It requires skill to use them and skill to deal with them. Flurry punches only work against fighters that panic and can't stay calm or focus, fighters who are afraid to get hit, and fighters who don't fight at angles.  Flurry punches won't work against someone who does the opposite of those three things. 

I actually like flurry punches because I know i can sit in the storm, take one or 2 hits and then counter.  The one or 2 hits on me will help me to determine how committed you are to the punches. By taking a hit I don't mean leaving my face wide open for someone to hit.  If you are committed to throwing a lot of punches my face then I know you aren't thinking about blocking.
This video shows both how "flurry punches" can work and fail.  If I'm only committed to blocking "flurry punches" then I'm not thinking about attacking.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 7, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> BJJ can stand for "Bananas are Just Joyful."


Tomatoes Kick Derriere.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You said specifically multiples and weapons. I will find the quote.
> 
> "Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be *better at dealing with*weapons or multiple assailants."
> 
> ...



Again with the cherry picking?

1. Boxing is NOT proven against anything but boxing. All the examples on the Internet would not constitute proof in any sense. 
2. Showing that boxing can work is not showing that it is better. Everyone has agreed from the off that combat sports training is helpful in a fight.
3. You are still trying to reduce SD to fighting when my whole argument is that there is more.to learn. The point of my challenge was to find out what your sports teach with relation to the other areas of SD. You are still avoiding this masterfully. 
4. You still haven't addressed the fact that you mooted your whole argument by suggesting that the audience you are speaking to are looking to go out and get into fights. Which is illegal. 
Lastly. Even if I wanted to play your game, ignore every other concern and discuss fighting using SD based systems, I couldn't show you any examples. Because when they worked they avoided the fight altogether.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 7, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Again with the cherry picking?


Sticking with the fruit/vegetable references.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Again with the cherry picking?
> 
> 1. Boxing is NOT proven against anything but boxing. All the examples on the Internet would not constitute proof in any sense.
> 2. Showing that boxing can work is not showing that it is better. Everyone has agreed from the off that combat sports training is helpful in a fight.
> ...



There would have to be some example of your self defence working against multiple attackers or some sort of evidence your self defence works against multiples or weapons? That was what you asked of me.

So far you have provided no proof or even reasonable logic except some fruit references. So my proof as poor as it is would still be more valid I imagine.

OK the other areas of self defence I don't learn from a self defence class. Because they are notoriously bad at teaching those skills. The most reliable method to learn skills like defensive driving or law or how to have positive interactions with people how to make a police statement what locks to should use to prevent break ins and all the other skills you might need to get through life is to go to the people who actually use those skills.

And lastly no. You missed the point. Not wanting to get bashed is not the same as wanting to fight people.


----------



## Steve (Nov 7, 2015)

DaveB said:


> I
> 
> 
> And protecting a third party, and legal implications and since you raised them avoidance and deescalation...
> ...


for what it's worth, I do think communications skills are more helpful for self defense than martial arts.  Martial arts for self defense is like earthquake preparedness for routine home maintenance.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

Steve said:


> for what it's worth, I do think communications skills are more helpful for self defense than martial arts.  Martial arts for self defense is like earthquake preparedness for routine home maintenance.



Then why isnt actual effort put into training it? 

Ok it is just never in martial arts. As an explanation go look at a pick up forum and see how they deal with conflict from guys.  Then look at the systems we use and suddenly ours seem very poor in comparison.


----------



## Steve (Nov 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Then why isnt actual effort put into training it?
> 
> Ok it is just never in martial arts. As an explanation go look at a pick up forum and see how they deal with conflict from guys.  Then look at the systems we use and suddenly ours seem very poor in comparison.


Hey.  I agree.  But it would be hard to sell your self defense system if you acknowledge that what you spend 99% of your time teaching people will likely never be more useful to them for self defense than tae bo, regardless of how effectively you can fight.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

Steve said:


> Hey.  I agree.  But it would be hard to sell your self defense system if you acknowledge that what you spend 99% of your time teaching people will likely never be more useful to them for self defense than tae bo, regardless of how effectively you can fight.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Not really. Being able to fight empowers you as a person. And empowerment is fundamental to self defence.

There is a big difference between deescalating a conflict where you are doing them the favor. As opposed to where they are doing you one.

You read about it on the forums all the time. Where people suffer from the emotional toxicity of backing out of a fight.


----------



## Steve (Nov 7, 2015)

Lots if things are empowering.  Tea bo gets you in shape.  Being fit is empowering. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

Steve said:


> Lots if things are empowering.  Tea bo gets you in shape.  Being fit is empowering.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I agree. And that is why guys roid up if they are concerned about conflict. Martial arts is one method of many.


----------



## Steve (Nov 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I agree. And that is why guys roid up if they are concerned about conflict. Martial arts is one method of many.


Right.  Nothing wrong with knowing how to handle yourself.  But for self defense, it's more psychology than practicality.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> There would have to be some example of your self defence working against multiple attackers or some sort of evidence your self defence works against multiples or weapons? That was what you asked of me.



No it wasn't. For the third time I asked you what boxing teaches in regards to these elements of self defense. I'm not interested in YouTube clips of people fighting. I'm not interested in proving or disproving what style is most effective since it is a pointless question with no answer.



> So far you have provided no proof or even reasonable logic except some fruit references. So my proof as poor as it is would still be more valid I imagine.



You're imagination is misinformed.
Examples that do not constitute evidence are of equal value to not presenting evidence.

As for reasonable logic, what could be more logical than, "if you want to learn self defence, go to a self defence school." Itis the definition of a logical argument. As is the supporting reasoning that there are specialist elements (as named repeatedly through the thread) that self defence specialists will be able to instruct on that will be missed by schools that only teach sport fighting.



> OK the other areas of self defence I don't learn from a self defence class. Because they are notoriously bad at teaching those skills. The most reliable method to learn skills like defensive driving or law or how to have positive interactions with people how to make a police statement what locks to should use to prevent break ins and all the other skills you might need to get through life is to go to the people who actually use those skills.



So you finally raise a counter argument. It does not support your premis; SD schools being bad at "soft" SD skills does not make combat sports better, which was your contention.
Furthermore, I disagree based on my own experiences, but as a more relatable point for you to consider, who do you think teaches police forces and other violent encounter proffessionals?



> And lastly no. You missed the point. Not wanting to get bashed is not the same as wanting to fight people.



You are right, I did misunderstand you. However I disagree with your assumptions. I think there are a great many people who want to feel safer through knowledge of what to do and when, but don't want to train kungfu or boxing. I think the vast majority who take up such arts/sports for self defence simply don't realise that self defence is a wider field. I certainly didn't until I had many years of martial arts geekdom under my obi.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

DaveB said:


> , who do you think teaches police forces and other violent encounter proffessionals?



Here it is a mma guy from Brisbane.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

DaveB said:


> You're imagination is misinformed.
> Examples that do not constitute evidence are of equal value to not presenting evidence.



You could find one example somewhere couldnt you? I found two examples in about ten seconds. I mean there is more than just your say so. There would have to be.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

DaveB said:


> As for reasonable logic, what could be more logical than, "if you want to learn self defence, go to a self defence school." Itis the definition of a logical argument. As is the supporting reasoning that there are specialist elements (as named repeatedly through the thread) that self defence specialists will be able to instruct on that will be missed by schools that only teach sport fighting.



Ok so say a sport fighting coach says he is a self defence specialist and teaches all the skills needed to defend yourself. Nothing stopping them coming up with no examples of their method working.  Like what you are suggesting.

It is reasonable then to suggest their soft skills are as effective as yours.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

Wait. Wait ignore all that. I think I have figured out the essence of my point.

The best martial art for self defence is not based on what it promises it is based on what it delivers.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 8, 2015)

Silly and ineffective as I find the whole "Vids or it didn't happen" mindset, this thread seems to be straying past that into "vids or it can't happen." Which is, well, a bit weird. I get the idea that claims require proof, but I would have thought the variety of arts practiced here have, well, mainly proved themselves. Many times.

So again, silly as I found it, I did a quick search for "armed attack karate." The following are, literally, all from the first page of results. The remaining results were two results for MMA, which no one has calle dinto question, one result for boxing, and then a variety of "how to" articles. Unfortunately most news seems to go with generic "Karate"and "Kung fu" so it's hard to say what styles these are in particular. Anyway, now that we have proof that at least some practitioners of some martial arts have in fact defended themselves against multiple attackers, armed attackers, and even multiple armed attackers, maybe we can get past "vids or nothing"?

Armed Robber Stopped by Martial Art Instructor (Kung Fu)
Albanian Gunmen Thwarted by Karate
Knifeman Attacks Marine Martial Arts Instructor Karate Black Belt
Robber tries to Rob Karate Instructor
Muggers defeated by karate, 6 vs 2

So yeah, there we go. It took more time to post the links than it did to find them. Moving on?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Silly and ineffective as I find the whole "Vids or it didn't happen" mindset, this thread seems to be straying past that into "vids or it can't happen." Which is, well, a bit weird. I get the idea that claims require proof, but I would have thought the variety of arts practiced here have, well, mainly proved



Yes but were they fighting or self defence?


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yes but were they fighting or self defence?



Well, fighting as last ditch self defence, I suppose. Which is where I thought we were going, based on the boxing examples given earlier. No?


----------



## DaveB (Nov 8, 2015)

Can the erroneous questions be put to bed now?

It proves nothing because it is too small of a sample. Not everything is captured on video. No Internet discussion will ever prove or disprove anything no matter how many clips are posted on it.

The best we can do is make a sound argument for those reading to weigh the merits.

You are absolutely correct that the quality of any ma is in it's performance when tested, but no individual has ever done the research necessary to make the kind of assumptions or generalisations that you are making. Which is why I focus on the quality of your argument: what is it your boxing club or mma club teaches in relation to the other aspects of self defense?
Your avoidance is as good as an admission of inadequacy.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Well, fighting as last ditch self defence, I suppose. Which is where I thought we were going, based on the boxing examples given earlier. No?



I just thought i would try out this open ended self defence argument. I mean all of those cases are good for what they are.  But i wouldn't recommend them as self defence arts as they are two different things.

I mean they did not fully utilise skills like awarness or horse riding that are essential self defence skills


See what i did there?


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I just thought i would try out this open ended self defence argument. I mean all of those cases are good for what they are.  But i wouldn't recommend them as self defence arts as they are two different things.
> 
> I mean they did not fully utilise skills like awarness or horse riding that are essential self defence skills



I do see what you did there. Again, I'm not really interested in questioning or proving the efficacy of one style or another. However, since the topic of "proof" keeps derailing the original topic of training general targets versus specific ones, I hoped satisfying the stated requirements might lubricate the conversation a bit more.



drop bear said:


> So here is my two. And both pensioners to boot.
> 
> 72 Year Old Retired Boxer Beats Up A Robber
> 
> ...



This was the originally supplied proof, the challenge being to find evidence of a system's efficacy when, if I may quote you verbatim, "working against multiples or weapons."



drop bear said:


> You said specifically multiples and weapons. I will find the quote.
> 
> "Take up the challenge: explain why boxing in a ring is going to be better at dealing with*weapons or multiple assailants*."
> 
> ...



Here again, I was reacting to your request to, again, verbatim, "take up your own challenge," of, as you state in the first sentence of your post, "specifically weapons and multiples." Or, as you quote in the third sentence, "dealing withweapons or multiple assailants." And as you mention again in the next sentence, "proven against multiples and weapons."



drop bear said:


> There would have to be some example of your self defence working against *multiple attackers *or some sort of evidence your self defence works against *multiples or weapons?* That was what you asked of me.
> 
> So far you have provided no proof or even reasonable logic except some fruit references. So my proof as poor as it is would still be more valid I imagine..



In this post you again demanded "proof or reasonable logic." You then referenced your two articles of boxers winning fights as "still more valid." Again, this is in the context of, in your own words, "sort of evidence your self defence works against multiples or weapons."



drop bear said:


> You could find one example somewhere couldn't you? I found two examples in about ten seconds. I mean there is more than just your say so. There would have to be.



And again here, you reference your two examples, and again ask for comparable evidence. Somehow, I guess I got the vague idea that you were asking for evidence of, as in your own proof, actual combat, not avoidance, and also, as you mentioned many times, in instances of _multiple assailants and weapons. _A brief reminder, your own evidence consisted of an older boxer beating up a knife wielding assailant, and in the second case, three assailants.

Under my apparently false understanding of the request for proof, I've linked to examples of multiple assailants, and armed assailants, and even multiple armed assailants. Since that was, to anyone reading the thread, the sort of evidence being demanded, I hoped that spending three minutes providing it might steer the conversation to more fruitful waters.

Now, if the entire reason you provided proof and then spent three pages of the thread asking for comparable proof from other arts was so you could when presented with proof say, "AHA, so they DID actually have to fight," and then grin mischievously, then OK, well played, jokes on me.

If however, you wrote all those posts asking for evidence of combat effectiveness against weapons and multiples because you were actually looking for said evidence, then moving the target in a n attempt to pretend the evidence was poor is, well, not a very convincing argument.

You may remember, in my oh-so-fruity post, I clearly stated that I find MMA style training to be among the best training methods for dealing with actual violence, closely followed by other contact training such as boxing.

On a side note, I find the fruit metaphors entertaining.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> I do see what you did there. Again, I'm not really interested in questioning or proving the efficacy of one style or another. However, since the topic of "proof" keeps derailing the original topic of training general targets versus specific ones, I hoped satisfying the stated requirements might lubricate the conversation a bit more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And well done with the proof.  Now we go back and look at why  i went with the response i did.
We have the ultimate shifting goal posts of self defence. I have allways aknowledged other martial arts can fight.  What i was presenting in response to your post is how self defence becomes a get out of jail free card.  And eventually isolated the concept down to it is not what a martial art promises but what it delivers.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And well done with the proof.



I would actually argue that my "proof" only proves that the what, six guys mentioned were either good at fighting, ruthless, or lucky, and that it says absolutely nothing about the efficacy of any style of karate or kung fu. It proves that some of the millions opf martial arts practitioners can actually defend themselves in combat, at least some of the time. And I think everyone in this thread already knew that...

In other words, I think my proving was not only poorly done, but actually not proof at all. But that's neither here nor there.



drop bear said:


> What i was presenting in response to your post is how self defence becomes a get out of jail free card.  And eventually isolated the concept down to it is not what a martial art promises but what it delivers.



I'll be honest, I often find it difficult to understand the language in your posts, so forgive me if I respond to something you're not trying to say. Rereading the thread for context has not enlightened me...

In what way is self defense a get out of jail free card? Do you mean:
A. Non-combat self defense is a good way to avoid having to learn combat; just don't fight, and you won't have to. Or:
B. The concept of Self Defense is thrown out by crappy teachers so they don;'t have to teach viable martial arts.

If it's A, then I think we're all in agreement. Not getting punched at is better than getting punched  at but winning the fight. However, it's not infallible. I'm a pretty inoffensive guy, in person, but sometimes someone just _really_ wants tot hit you. That's when being able to hit, yourself, is useful.

If it's B, then it sounds you you really _don't_ think other martial arts "can fight" but that they are rather hiding behind the false "get out of jail free card' of claiming to be teaching self defense.

IN which case, you've lost me. I've definitely read your posts many times on other threads claiming that non-violent self-defense is so complex that most people can't teach it. I agree.

However, I may have misunderstood you, but I thought you've made the claim many times that you and others ARE qualified to teach it. In which case, how is that not a valuable addition to martial arts training?

Again, I usually struggle a bit to figure out what your meaning is, so I may be misinterpreting you, generally. At this point, I'm pretty lost.

It is, however, your thread.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 9, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And well done with the proof.  Now we go back and look at why  i went with the response i did.
> We have the ultimate shifting goal posts of self defence. I have allways aknowledged other martial arts can fight.  What i was presenting in response to your post is how self defence becomes a get out of jail free card.  And eventually isolated the concept down to it is not what a martial art promises but what it delivers.



So carry on the logic, don't just stop at a snappy line. We know that what is important is what is delivered. So how do you prove on a Web forum what all groups of martial arts and combat sports actually deliver for self defense? 

Three people have told you that a few YouTube clips cannot constitute proof. So what comes next? 

Your opinion of self defense schools is noted, but pretending it is more than just one person's opinion is misleading.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2015)

DaveB said:


> So carry on the logic, don't just stop at a snappy line. We know that what is important is what is delivered. So how do you prove on a Web forum what all groups of martial arts and combat sports actually deliver for self defense?
> 
> Three people have told you that a few YouTube clips cannot constitute proof. So what comes next?
> 
> Your opinion of self defense schools is noted, but pretending it is more than just one person's opinion is misleading.


Not just the internet but anywhere.

You can only prove what you can prove.  Boxing as an example will make you better at hitting people.you can physically check the school.  See their records of sucess. Spar their coach.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> If it's B, then it sounds you you really _don't_ think other martial arts "can fight" but that they are rather hiding behind the false "get out of jail free card' of claiming to be teaching self defense.



Regardless whether a martial arts can fight or cant.  They can hide behind the self defence get out of jail free card.  There is no indication one concept effects the other at all as far as i can see.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 9, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I probably didn't phrase it properly then, my bad ;-)


If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then please clarify it you don't mind. I don't want to waste my time arguing against a point that wasn't what you meant.[/QUOTE]
Sport teaches you some angular attacks, no one said it didn’t but sport teaches you to spend the majority of your time facing your opponent (as opposed to spending the majority if your item at 45 ro 90 degress to an assailant) therefore it is not the ideal (and the word here is *ideal*) way to train for SD.   To argue sports MA is the ideal way to train for SD is like arguing oranges are ideal for make lemonade.

Yes some of the skills learnt in one are transferable to the other (a good punch is always a good punch) but the flip side of that is some of the skills you will learn in sport MA are the exact opposite of the skills needed for success in SD and vice versa (although there is not enough time or space to go into them all here).

If you say to someone who does Kendo “Your sport isn’t the ideal way to prepare for SD, do you think they would trying to argue the point, no they’d say ”Well of course it’s not, no one said it was”.  Similarly if you said to someone who trains solely for SD, “Your art isn’t the best way to prepare for sport competition,” they’d say the same thing.  However, say to someone who does any other sporting MA (especially MMA) and that isn’t what they hear, what they hear is “Your art is no good for anything”. It happens every time, I have no idea why, but that that isn’t what is being said.

That does not mean that no one ever anywhere has ever been able to use sports MA for SD, that’s not what is being said, what is being said is it not the *ideal* way to prepare.  If people are going to try to argue that training purely for sport is the ideal way to prepare for civilian violence, then you need to equally argue that training purely to deal with civilian violence is the best way to prepare for success in sport competition, but you wouldn’t do that as it’s clearly not true.

The original poster wanted to train for SD, but was asking which sports arts was the best for that.  My reply to him was sports arts aren’t the ideal way to train for that.  There is nothing wrong with sport MA, there is nothing wrong with SD training, the problem comes when people think training for one prepares them for the other.  You cannot argue that the* ideal* way to train for success in one field is by training in another, that doesn't make sense on any level.  There is no argument, or further discussion to be had and so I see no reason to spend further time doing so.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 9, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> Sport teaches you some angular attacks, no one said it didn’t but sport teaches you to spend the majority of your time facing your opponent (as opposed to spending the majority if your item at 45 ro 90 degress to an assailant) therefore it is not the ideal (and the word here is *ideal*) way to train for SD.



I don't want to misinterpret you again, so let's make sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that a "self-defense" art would teach you to spend the majority of a fight at a superior angle to an opponent, while a "sport" art would teach you to spend the majority of the fight facing an opponent (perhaps with some angular attacks thrown in on occasion)?

If that's your point, then the "self-defense" art in question is teaching a fantasy. Obtaining a superior angle in a fight is an important skill. _Maintaining_ that angle for the whole fight isn't going to happen unless you are able to immediately use that angle to knock out your opponent or establish a grappling control that he can't escape from.



Paul_D said:


> The original poster wanted to train for SD, but was asking which sports arts was the best for that. My reply to him was sports arts aren’t the ideal way to train for that. There is nothing wrong with sport MA, there is nothing wrong with SD training, the problem comes when people think training for one prepares them for the other. You cannot argue that the* ideal* way to train for success in one field is by training in another, that doesn't make sense on any level.



It depends on what you mean both by "self-defense" training and "sport arts." For the record, the original discussion was regarding Shinkyokushin and Shito-Ryu karate, neither of which were regarded by their founders (or probably most practitioners) as primarily sport arts.

"Self-defense" is a huge topic of study which can involve threat assessment, weapons usage, de-escalation, escape and evasion, unarmed fighting, emotional self-control, understanding local laws, communicating effectively with police, and much more. Most martial arts schools that advertise themselves as teaching self-defense address most of these topics minimally if at all.



Zack Cart said:


> Again, I usually struggle a bit to figure out what your meaning is, so I may be misinterpreting you, generally. At this point, I'm pretty lost.



Drop bear frequently has interesting points to make, but his communication style tends to muddy the waters. I'm going to take the liberty of summarizing the points I think he's trying to make. Hopefully he'll correct me if I get it wrong.

1) Advocates of self-proclaimed "self-defense" arts often tout their training as superior for self-defense over that of "sport" arts, often pointing to elements not typically found in competition, such as multiple attackers, weapons, de-escalation, threat avoidance, escape and evasion, dealing with the legal system, etc.

2) Despite this, instructors in those arts very likely don't have the expertise or ability to effectively teach most of those elements.  

3) Rather than take the word of instructors who claim to teach these topics, drop bear would prefer to see evidence that what they teach is effective. For example:

If you say your art teaches unarmed defense against weapons, do your students have a proven track record of successfully defending against weapons in real life (more so than someone who just learns to fight in a "sport" setting)?

If you say your art teaches effective threat avoidance and de-escalation, do your students end up in fewer fights than people who haven't had that training?

Obviously, evidence for the effectiveness on some of these matters is going to be hard to come by. That doesn't prove such training isn't effective, but it does suggest that we should be humble in evaluating our ability to teach these elements of self-defense and question skeptically the claims of others. (I'll add my own thoughts on teaching such matters in another post.)


----------



## Steve (Nov 9, 2015)

Paul_D said:


> If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then please clarify it you don't mind. I don't want to waste my time arguing against a point that wasn't what you meant.
> 
> Sport teaches you some angular attacks, no one said it didn’t but sport teaches you to spend the majority of your time facing your opponent (as opposed to spending the majority if your item at 45 ro 90 degress to an assailant) therefore it is not the ideal (and the word here is *ideal*) way to train for SD.   To argue sports MA is the ideal way to train for SD is like arguing oranges are ideal for make lemonade.


What's really funny to me is that I agree with you completely, but at the same time, I think you are far to myopic.  I mean, you make good points, but they are just as true for non-sports MAs, as well.  Because self defense is an abstract that can be used to justify literally anything, the bar is nebulous. Every single thing you say in your post can be applied to every style of MA, period.  Every style.  Just take out sports MA and put whatever style of MA you take.

My opinion is that the ideal way training for self defense would flip the entire model around.  Truly, if self defense is the single, preeminent goal for a person who has 6 hours per week to train, the IDEAL would be to purchase a gun, a Taser, a retractable baton, pepper spray or some other portable tool and spend an hour per week. every week, learning how to use it.  To be clear, for most people, this is to make you *feel* safer, and will likely never be used.

Spend the *other* five hours per week on things that will actually help you, like taking 'use of force' classes, going to the gym so you are healthy, working on your self esteem and confidence, improve your communications skills, work on getting a better job.  For some people, self defense is going to AA or into rehab.  For others, self defense is going to a therapist so that you can overcome the negative body image that leads you to putting yourself in risky situations where you drink too much and end up being victimized.  For others still, it's about going back to school to learn a trade or to learn skills that will translate to a little more money in the bank, to let you get a security system for your home or better still, move to a better neighborhood.

Anyone who spends 6 or more hours in an MA for other than just the sheer fun of it is just wasting time that could otherwise be spent doing things that will make them safer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 9, 2015)

Looking at things from my own perspective as a BJJ instructor, I don't prefer to identify what I do as a sport or a self-defense art. I would say that BJJ (as I teach and practice it) is a *fighting* art. That art can be applied in various sports contexts (MMA or submission grappling competitions with various rules) or in a variety of non-sportive violent encounters, some of which would fall under the category of self-defense.

There are a lot of aspects of self-defense that I don't directly teach. I've been successful in de-escalating some bad situations over the years, but I don't know that I could effectively teach whatever skills I have in that department. I've learned some tips and tricks for avoiding trouble, but I don't have the knowledge or experience base to make an ongoing course out of those tidbits. There are huge areas that I know I wouldn't be qualified to teach effectively. I couldn't teach women how to recognize that a potential date is likely to turn out to be a rapist. I'm not qualified to teach how to talk down someone having a psychotic break who is about to turn violent.

What I *can* do is teach my students to apply their BJJ skills in a manner *that is appropriate for the context at hand*. The immediate tactical requirements for applying BJJ in a grappling tournament are different from applying it in a MMA match are different from applying it if you've been sucker punched in a bar are different from applying it when you have to restrain your drunk uncle who has gotten out of control at the family picnic. Someone who always trains for the same context may respond inappropriately in the heat of the moment if thrust into a situation they had not previously considered or prepared for. I'm trying to help my students develop the mental flexibility to use the tools they have in a manner appropriate to the context.


----------



## Steve (Nov 9, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Looking at things from my own perspective as a BJJ instructor, I don't prefer to identify what I do as a sport or a self-defense art. I would say that BJJ (as I teach and practice it) is a *fighting* art. That art can be applied in various sports contexts (MMA or submission grappling competitions with various rules) or in a variety of non-sportive violent encounters, some of which would fall under the category of self-defense.
> 
> There are a lot of aspects of self-defense that I don't directly teach. I've been successful in de-escalating some bad situations over the years, but I don't know that I could effectively teach whatever skills I have in that department. I've learned some tips and tricks for avoiding trouble, but I don't have the knowledge or experience base to make an ongoing course out of those tidbits. There are huge areas that I know I wouldn't be qualified to teach effectively. I couldn't teach women how to recognize that a potential date is likely to turn out to be a rapist. I'm not qualified to teach how to talk down someone having a psychotic break who is about to turn violent.
> 
> What I *can* do is teach my students to apply their BJJ skills in a manner *that is appropriate for the context at hand*. The immediate tactical requirements for applying BJJ in a grappling tournament are different from applying it in a MMA match are different from applying it if you've been sucker punched in a bar are different from applying it when you have to restrain your drunk uncle who has gotten out of control at the family picnic. Someone who always trains for the same context may respond inappropriately in the heat of the moment if thrust into a situation they had not previously considered or prepared for. I'm trying to help my students develop the mental flexibility to use the tools they have in a manner appropriate to the context.


Yes, and because you do these things, Tony, you can draw a pretty direct line between what you teach people to do and what they can ACTUALLY do.

I believe (but may be wrong) that this is where Drop Bear is at, too, and is something I've been saying around here for years.

I am very glad to hear when someone uses their MA skills to defend themselves from danger.  That's truly great.  But, correlation does not equal causation.  People who are completely untrained ALSO successfully defend themselves.  And conversely, some people with MA training are, sadly, murdered or assaulted and are unable to defend themselves.  This is true regardless of style.  BJJ guys have been murdered.  MMA guys.  WC guys.  TKD guys.  Krav Maga guys, too.

What you can be sure about is whether the student can do what you are teaching them to do.  I won't rehash my old posts on this, but I have posted at length in the past about this lack of specificity, and how it is used (by some intentionally) to sell a product grounded in unreasonable fear.


----------



## geezer (Nov 9, 2015)

Steve said:


> ....I have posted at length in the past about this lack of specificity, and how it is used (by some intentionally) to sell a product grounded in *unreasonable fear*.



_Excellent_ discussion. And a real problem in my art  of WC. The system (in all its branches) _as a whole_ does not have a good format for pressure testing (although individual instructors may). One of the justifications often heard is the "Well we don't train for sport, we train for self defense" line. I don't buy it.

Oh, there are some instances where I admit_ I myself_ have used that line on a student. For example, one older guy (like me) complained that he couldn't close effectively on an evasive partner who kept retreating out of range. I told him that that was a problem only in sparring since in a self-defense situation I really doubted if the attacker would keep retreating like that! Still, by and large, the physicality involved in sport competition, or at least in sparring with_ diverse_ opponents is very directly linked to self defense.

And I say that with absolute hypocrisy ...since I don't spar much these days. Hey just 'cause I'm on the internet is no reason to_ lie_, right?  Anyway, It's something I plan to work on 'cause, 60 ain't _that _old.

Now for a bit of randomness: What the heck is _unreasonable fear?_ I have a couple of acquaintances that never leave home without being armed ... with concealed firearms, several concealed knives, etc., all on top of their martial arts training. Their houses are fortified, and they have arsenals of weapons inside along with enough food and water, pet food, etc. to get through at least a few weeks of the impending apocalypse.

They warn me that I am being very foolish not to do the same. Why don't I see the dangers all around us in these terrible times? Apparently I live in a state of _delusional naivete._


----------



## Steve (Nov 9, 2015)

geezer said:


> Now for a bit of randomness: What the heck is _unreasonable fear?_


Thanks geezer, for all of your thoughts.  I really appreciate them all, but snipped out the one question here.  What is unreasonable fear?

Well, I can share what I mean when I use the term.  I mean spending a disproportionate amount of time mitigating risk that doesn't actually exist.  It's irrational fear.  Shark attacks, being murdered, contracting Ebola.  We do this, but tend to be pretty cavalier with the things that are an actual threat to us, but are within our power to mitigate:  poor diet, lack of exercise, failing to get a flu shot, mammograms or cancer screenings, driving a car while texting/smoking/fiddling with the radio (actually driving in general).

There are lots of articles on WHY we do this (i.e., the psychology of irrational fears article posted last year when we were all certain we were about to die from Ebola), but the end result is that playing to these fears is about selling a product.  It's a position grounded in selling someone something that, at best, can be described as "peace of mind."  At worst, it's fear-mongering.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 9, 2015)

Tony and Steve you guys are spot on regarding self defense and how it's trained.

The problem I have with drop bear's view is that it's every bit as blinkered as the proverbial ultra traditionalist but for sports ma. Furthermore it is a dangerous mentality to spread: the idea that self defense = fighting is not one that should be propagated without challenge.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't want to misinterpret you again, so let's make sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that a "self-defense" art would teach you to spend the majority of a fight at a superior angle to an opponent, while a "sport" art would teach you to spend the majority of the fight facing an opponent (perhaps with some angular attacks thrown in on occasion)?
> 
> If that's your point, then the "self-defense" art in question is teaching a fantasy. Obtaining a superior angle in a fight is an important skill. _Maintaining_ that angle for the whole fight isn't going to happen unless you are able to immediately use that angle to knock out your opponent or establish a grappling control that he can't escape from.
> 
> ...



Yeah part of my reasonong at the end there was thinking about those martial arts that you read about in the magazines. 

The ones that will end fights in seconds stop black belts and street fighters and teach you the 10 amazing fight winning moves that most people don  know.

I mean technically that would be the best self defence to learn.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2015)

Steve said:


> What's really funny to me is that I agree with you completely, but at the same time, I think you are far to myopic.  I mean, you make good points, but they are just as true for non-sports MAs, as well.  Because self defense is an abstract that can be used to justify literally anything, the bar is nebulous. Every single thing you say in your post can be applied to every style of MA, period.  Every style.  Just take out sports MA and put whatever style of MA you take.
> 
> My opinion is that the ideal way training for self defense would flip the entire model around.  Truly, if self defense is the single, preeminent goal for a person who has 6 hours per week to train, the IDEAL would be to purchase a gun, a Taser, a retractable baton, pepper spray or some other portable tool and spend an hour per week. every week, learning how to use it.  To be clear, for most people, this is to make you *feel* safer, and will likely never be used.
> 
> ...



More time spent at the hardware store learning about locks. Than learning to fight.

The hardwear store is also more likley to deliver on a promise


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Tony and Steve you guys are spot on regarding self defense and how it's trained.
> 
> The problem I have with drop bear's view is that it's every bit as blinkered as the proverbial ultra traditionalist but for sports ma. Furthermore it is a dangerous mentality to spread: the idea that self defense = fighting is not one that should be propagated without challenge.



Not really.  If you had a good system i would be more open. 

I look for these other aspects.  I just tend not to find them in martial arts.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 9, 2015)

I think we all agree that actually fighting is pretty the much _the_ _worst _methodology for Self Defense, no?
I think we all agree that defense against violence should be:

1. Avoid the situation through planning. If that fails...
2. Try to calm the situation down and defuse it. If that fails...
3. Try to get away from the situation. If that's not possible...
4. Ok, _then_ you get to punch the guy in the face.
I think we all agree that giving lip service to the above concepts for thirty seconds, and then proceeding to teach people how to fight is not a comprehensive Self Defense syllabus.

But really, we seem to have that conversation in pretty much every thread in the general area. Someone talks about specifics of martial art, and someone else says, "ah, but _true_ self defense is not about fighting." Then we all agree, but continue to try to discuss specific tactics in the area of Self Defense demonstrated in Martial Arts, but every specific is countered with some version on, "ah, but _true _self defense is not about fighting." And we all agree, so then we once again try to discuss specifics of combat, but someone counters with, "ah, but _true_ self defense..."

This thread intended to discuss, not all of self defense, not locks on doors, not keeping your money out of sight, not deescalation, not route planning, not which taxi services are safer, not avoidance through appropriate body language, not which bus stops are more public, not any of that. It fairly obviously began as a discussion of the actual combat found in various traditional and sport martial arts, and how it corresponds with the actual combat found in violence.

This is still an immensely broad topic, as Kyokushin, Full contact Shotokan, MMA, BJJ, Judo, WTF TKD, and geared-up point/tag sparring for six year olds are all sport martial arts. However, it's a slightly more approachable topic than, "what constitutes all of what we may consider to be self-defense?"

The two examples given were:



drop bear said:


> Sports aim their punches at general areas (head/body) as anywhere in these areas score points.



This is true, but it's really only true in striking sports where you win on tags rather than effectiveness. So, to my limited experience, that would be light-contact point sparring. I'm not familiar with MMA scoring, but in my experience, they don't train to hit the pectoral muscles and call it as good as the short ribs. if the sport has contact, this point is generally null and void...



drop bear said:


> There are other issue too, sport martial arts will teach you to stand directly in front of the opponent, which for civilian violence is absolute the worst possible place you can be, as if you are stood directly in front of them, they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them.



Again, we all agree that no striking sport teaches you to stand center to center and trade. That's just dumb. Yeah, you spend time in front of the other guy, but guess what? That's because they are attempting to get off line just as much as you. I don't think even the average tag-fighter _intends_ to stand and trade the whole match.



drop bear said:


> So. Here is a novel concept. You can win sports fights by stopping the other guy. Happens all the time. This is done by effective vital point striking. So vital point striking wins competitions.
> 
> So if you are concerned about these issues in self defense then they are a main component of sports fighting.



Definitely, I think we all agree. Most sport fighting relies on you being able to well, fight effectively.

However, there are aspects of combat in every sport, just like every traditional martial art, that are to various degrees removed from combat in actual violence. I think most of these stem from fighting people who fight like you.

Perhaps the two most obvious examples:
WTF TKD players develop skillsets based on the rules of the game that leave them extremely prone to falling at no penalty, getting punched in the head, basically any hand techniques, etc. I think we all agree there.
Boxing, when I briefly went to a local gym, really unnerved me because of how defenseless I was to takedowns, grappling and kicks, as well as how differently the techniques functioned without the enormous gloves. There may be some contention on this one...

Or take Win Chun guys, some of who practice mainly from a starting position of intial arm contact, expecting lots of chi sau. they get very good at fighting other Win Chun guys, who are doing Win Chun stuff.

If you train martially oriented Tai Chi, you may become very good at twisting the subtleties of weight of your equally tricksy opponent, tying each other up in knots and gently dropping one another to the ground. You may become fantastic at attacking and defending fro other tai Chi Chuan practitioners, but you may find you have difficulty against, counter-intuitively, some who not only has crappy control and balance, but also doesn't even make the attempt, but just swings, wildly.

If you only train stand up, you might get a surprise when you get pinned. If you only train ground you might get a surprise when you meet someone who's got good takedown defense and a nasty striking game. If you train ground without strikes, someone who trains a heavily grapple-strike mix on the ground might give you a run for your money.

These things are obviously problems in all martial arts, not just those which are sport-oriented, but I think it is safe to say that the _majority _of schools that actively attempt to train against fighting tactics from outside their style are non-sport. If you're training to box, you don't waste time on kick defense or ground work. If you're training for competition in a sport that forbids takedowns and leg attacks, you probably don't spend time training to avoid those things.

The training paradigm of always training against your own tactics and techniques means that you are learning to defend against, primarily, people who fight like you, and you're learning to attack in ways which are effective against people like you.

I think it is, honestly _more common_ to find that schools and gyms that actively say, "well we don't really train X, but we need to learn to defend against it," are non-sport schools. Again, if your focus is Sport Taekwondo, why would you train takedown defense and groundwork? But, if your focus is non-sport Taekwondo, then you probably _are._

We can argue about whether you probably have a need to learn to fight in self defense or not, and whether training empty hand is the best method for self defense fighting, that's for sure.

And yes, you can certainly verbally defend your bullocks technique by pulling the "too lethal" or "this is Self Defense" card, but honestly that's not something I've seen much of. Most people I know are professing to teach Karate, or TKD, or BJJ, or Aikido, not "Self Defense." The sign out front says "Kung Fu," not "Defend Yourself."

----------------------

However, the question of sport paradigms versus non-sport paradigms versus actual violence is a completely different question from "Is learning to fight a valid self-protection method."

Because it's not a valid method. It may be _part_ of a valid method, but it's like moving to a flood plain, building your house on silt, forgoing all sand bags, leaving all your valuables on the first floor, and then saying, "hey, it's ok, I've got an inflatable raft." Great, but you could have just built a post home. Or, you know, _not_ moved to a flood plain. The raft may still be a good idea, but it's pretty last ditch, no matter how good it is. It might make more sense to keep your raft for summer days on the lake.

But, here's the thing. This _is_ afterall, a forum about inflatable rafts, whether as flood insurance or as pleasure craft, so I think we can justify ourselves if we sometimes talk about the raft itself, instead of how we don't really need a raft.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 10, 2015)

geezer said:


> one older guy (like me) complained that he couldn't close effectively on an evasive partner who kept retreating out of range. I told him that that was a problem only in sparring since in a self-defense situation I really doubted if the attacker would keep retreating like that!


 If an attacker did keep retreating, I'd consider that a good thing.  Once you start chasing them down to beat them, you've escalated past SD.  You should hope they stay out of range, and thus the fight is concluded.


geezer said:


> What the heck is _unreasonable fear?_ I have a couple of acquaintances that never leave home without being armed ... with concealed firearms, several concealed knives, etc., all on top of their martial arts training. Their houses are fortified, and they have arsenals of weapons inside along with enough food and water, pet food, etc. to get through at least a few weeks of the impending apocalypse.


I see a lot of that as general preparedness.  I do some of this, although not nearly as much as some people. 
My MA training makes me safer if a fistfight starts, but it has also taught me my own limitations... hence having a CCW option on me much of the time.  No guarantee, but I've shifted the odds in my favor a bit.
I also have a couple week food backup at the house, although I concede I will probably (hopefully) never NEED it.  I guess some people take these things to an extreme, as is demonstrated by prepper shows.
I look at it just like having insurance (health, auto, life, etc)... you don't really want to use them, but they're nice to have when needed.  And if you need them, the better your insurance, the better the outcome may be.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 10, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> If an attacker did keep retreating, I'd consider that a good thing.  Once you start chasing them down to beat them, you've escalated past SD.



I find myself strongly disagreeing with this. Perhaps they've stepped back to get into their preferred range. Or they're stepping back to interrupt your attack. Or to draw a weapon. Or to move into a position that allows their friend to join the fight. Reasons for retreating in a fight are countless.
Once a conflict becomes physical, you do not stop until the other person is no longer a threat. That might mean dead. It might mean unconscious. It might mean injured too badly to continue. It might mean subdued and restrained. It might mean they ran away.
But merely moving backwards absolutely does not stop them from being a threat.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 10, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I find myself strongly disagreeing with this. Perhaps they've stepped back to get into their preferred range. Or they're stepping back to interrupt your attack. Or to draw a weapon. Or to move into a position that allows their friend to join the fight. Reasons for retreating in a fight are countless.
> Once a conflict becomes physical, you do not stop until the other person is no longer a threat. That might mean dead. It might mean unconscious. It might mean injured too badly to continue. It might mean subdued and restrained. It might mean they ran away.
> But merely moving backwards absolutely does not stop them from being a threat.


I've had fights where the other person was retreating after deciding they'd had enough.  That was what I was referring to.  They started the fight, but if I had chased them down once they've surrendured and were fleeing (there were witnesses), I'd have potentially lost the claim to self defense and had now become the agressor.   
If, as you were saying, they were just re-setting their range or going for a weapon, the fight is still on, and I'd keep moving forward on them and doing what needs done. 
Since there are infinite variables and dynamics, it difficult to state online for a given scenario without it being wrong for others.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 10, 2015)

@DaveB , it's fine if you disagree with my post. But, let's hear why. 
Since my point was that merely moving away during a fight does not stop a person from being a threat, I'd love to hear you defend the opinion that it does.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 10, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I find myself strongly disagreeing with this. Perhaps they've stepped back to get into their preferred range. Or they're stepping back to interrupt your attack. Or to draw a weapon. Or to move into a position that allows their friend to join the fight. Reasons for retreating in a fight are countless.
> Once a conflict becomes physical, you do not stop until the other person is no longer a threat. That might mean dead. It might mean unconscious. It might mean injured too badly to continue. It might mean subdued and restrained. It might mean they ran away.
> But merely moving backwards absolutely does not stop them from being a threat.



Also if it is the said monkey dance they can be ten feet away hurling the threats waiting for friends or just  being a duche.

We had a guy in a fight a couple of weeks ago across the road throwing rocks at guards.

So yeah it does happen.  And it depends where you are.  He could have just clocked your friend seen you and backed off waiting for his next oportunity.  I have gone right after guys under those conditions sometimes.  And had to chase them down over hundreds of meters.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 10, 2015)

Man guilty over punching Sydney bouncer

And as a real example of backing off but still being a threat.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 11, 2015)

The thing is that threat assessment is a continuous cycle based on the information you are getting.

If someone retreats then you have to assess it, not just barrel in, precisely because they may be making room for something more dangerous (like a truck if your in the road).

However, as Gi-yu points out it may just be that the aggressor has had enough, in which case pressing the attack makes you the aggressor and responsible for what comes next.
This to me is another potential problem with treating SD as though it were ring fighting. Awareness of changes in environment and circumstances are not a consideration as the point of a ring is a uniform unchanging environment.

Djrtydog, your post began by disagreeing that the enemy backing away might be a reason to ease off from the fighting. It's viewing it in that frame of reference that causes me to disagree since you must be ready for new and renewed threats, but you must also be ready and aware of opportunities to end the conflict peacefully.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 11, 2015)

DaveB said:


> However, as Gi-yu points out it may just be that the aggressor has had enough, in which case pressing the attack makes you the aggressor and responsible for what comes next.
> This to me is another potential problem with treating SD as though it were ring fighting. Awareness of changes in environment and circumstances are not a consideration as the point of a ring is a uniform unchanging environment.



Exept for most people it is.  If you are sparring in a room full of guys with stuff everywhere and a.certain responsibility for their saftey.  It is a fairly fluid environment.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Djrtydog, your post began by disagreeing that the enemy backing away might be a reason to ease off from the fighting. It's viewing it in that frame of reference that causes me to disagree since you must be ready for new and renewed threats, but you must also be ready and aware of opportunities to end the conflict peacefully.



No, I disagreed with a statement that the other guy backing away IS reason to stop. Not might be. _*I*_ was the one who pointed out that it only _*might*_ be, and might very well not be.

So what is it that I said that you're disagreeing with?


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2015)

Jesus. Guys.  Who cares?  People can disagree with whatever they want and owe no one an explanation.


----------



## Buka (Nov 11, 2015)

Steve said:


> Jesus. Guys.  Who cares?  People can disagree with whatever they want and owe no one an explanation.



I disagree, no, wait.


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2015)

Buka said:


> I disagree, no, wait.


You're such a disagreeable cuss, buka.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2015)

Steve said:


> Jesus. Guys.  Who cares?  People can disagree with whatever they want and owe no one an explanation.



It's a discussion forum, Steve. Explaining your position is one of the main reasons for having it. 
If someone disagrees with me, fine. But if someone says they disagree, while making a post that says exactly the same thing I said, then I'm inclined to wonder what the disagreement is.

I'm honestly not sure what's got you all worked up, Steve, but I hope you can find resolution to whatever it is.


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2015)

Hey, dd, I'm not worked up at all but appreciate your concern.  I think there is a difference between discussion and being called out for using a feature of the site you don't like.  As I said, no one owes you any explanation for disagreeing with a post and. I think you're wrong for calling that person out.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 11, 2015)

Steve said:


> Hey, dd, I'm not worked up at all but appreciate your concern.  I think there is a difference between discussion and being called out for using a feature of the site you don't like.  As I said, no one owes you any explanation for disagreeing with a post and. I think you're wrong for calling that person out.



What feature is it that I don't like?
So by your definition, asking someone to explain their position is "calling [them] out?"

Oooops. I asked you a question. I guess I'm calling you out now.


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2015)

As I said earlier.  Let it go.  Much drama about nothing.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveB (Nov 12, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, I disagreed with a statement that the other guy backing away IS reason to stop. Not might be. _*I*_ was the one who pointed out that it only _*might*_ be, and might very well not be.
> 
> So what is it that I said that you're disagreeing with?



The idea that you should chase a retreating opponent. 

I don't see how you can strongly disagree with something you think can be as likely right as wrong. Which may be why I felt that your post was advocating pursuit in all cases, more than the other one advocated relaxing because of repeated retreat. Of the two positions I agree. with neither; not as absolutes at least.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2015)

DaveB said:


> The idea that you should chase a retreating opponent.
> 
> I don't see how you can strongly disagree with something you think can be as likely right as wrong. Which may be why I felt that your post was advocating pursuit in all cases, more than the other one advocated relaxing because of repeated retreat. Of the two positions I agree. with neither; not as absolutes at least.



It is not "as likely to be right". There are far more reasons why your opponent would move away while remaining a threat than there are reasons why they would move away while ceasing to be a threat. 

If I believed you should pursue a fleeing opponent, I would not have specifically included 'they're running away' as a case in which they are no longer a threat.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 13, 2015)

So.

Has an agreement been reached?

Sounds like chasing someone down to teach that ****er a lesson is generally considered something which is likely to be bad, but that someone merely backing up might be a "surrender" of sorts, but is also quite likely to be clearing space to attack fresh, quite possibly with support and or tools, so vigilance and appropriate responsiveness is likely to be good.

Agreed.

More on the original topic, I'd say this is one aspect of most sport combat that is _very_ close to self defense requirements. Nobody in a sparring match thinks for a second that the other guy is giving up just because they back up, you assume their backing up so they can jump back in. Which is probably a good assumption to make on that most infamous of places, the Street.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 13, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Has an agreement been reached?
> 
> Sounds like chasing someone down to teach that ****er a lesson is generally considered something which is likely to be bad, but that someone merely backing up might be a "surrender" of sorts, but is also quite likely to be clearing space to attack fresh, quite possibly with support and or tools, so vigilance and appropriate responsiveness is likely to be good.
> 
> Agreed.


 I believe this is the case.  (unless there are no witnesses... then it's whatever you can get away with)


----------



## DaveB (Nov 13, 2015)

Zack Cart said:
			
		

> More on the original topic, I'd say this is one aspect of most sport combat that is _very_ close to self defense requirements. Nobody in a sparring match thinks for a second that the other guy is giving up just because they back up, you assume their backing up so they can jump back in. Which is probably a good assumption to make on that most infamous of places, the Street.



Except that no school of martial arts, be it traditional or RBSD fails to encourage this, so it's hardly a unique feature of sports martial arts. 

Also the exclusivity of focus that is actively honed by combat sports people is at odds with the global awareness one should aim for, if training towards self defense.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 13, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Except that no school of martial arts, be it traditional or RBSD fails to encourage this, so it's hardly a unique feature of sports martial arts.



True. But this was specifically a thread about examining potential bad habits introduced by sport martial arts when viewed as self defense training, not a thread comparing sport to non-sport martial arts. The fact that non-sport martial arts may _also_ do a thing doesn't detract from the benefit of doing it in a sport context.



DaveB said:


> Also the exclusivity of focus that is actively honed by combat sports people is at odds with the global awareness one should aim for, if training towards self defense.



This is very true. I won't argue with that at a general level. I will note that plenty of non-sport schools fall into the same trap of only examining one on one technique, and that I personally know plenty of sport-sparring schools that do team sparring, two on one practice and the like. One group does what they call the Boston Brawl, which is either two massive teams, or just an everyone vs everyone game, otherwise operating very much under sport karate guidelines.

Sport and traditional practices are by definition quite different, but there's a lot of overlap, and a lot of variance from style to style and group to group. We all use flawed and unrealistic training methods when examined through the paradigm of self defense. It's the only way to keep the majority of practitioners out of the ER after every session.


----------

