# Sport vs. Street



## FriedRice

These seems to be Amateur level, MMA fighters to maybe semi-pros who all,  probably has no chance to ever make it in even the lowest card of the UFC. Not even Bellator.

Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> These seems to be Amateur level, MMA fighters to maybe semi-pros who all,  probably has no chance to ever make it in even the lowest card of the UFC. Not even Bellator.
> 
> Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?


That depends how you define a "win".  If the self defence guys run away in the street that's a win, if they run away in the ring they get disqualified.


----------



## Headhunter

Oh boy I have a feeling this could be a very long thread


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> These seems to be Amateur level, MMA fighters to maybe semi-pros who all,  probably has no chance to ever make it in even the lowest card of the UFC. Not even Bellator.
> 
> Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?


Can you throw the tires on the opponents head or bash his skull with the tires?


----------



## JP3

[QUOTE="FriedRice, post: 1826897, member: 24070"Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?[/QUOTE]

OK, define "win."  Also, define rules of engagement, e.g. street, meaning anyone can do nything? Or sport, meaning there are rules in place so participants don't get maimed?

My guys would be afraid, therefighting street style vs. guys who all they do is train and try to fight for money, I'm telling you. I'd not put it past a regular old dude against a trained MMA ring guy in a straight-up street fight, with all the "cheating" available in the street.

Put them in a ring with people who train for the ring though? my guys probably lose handily.  Because they'd either do things poorly, or get DQ'ed.


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> OK, define "win."  Also, define rules of engagement, e.g. street, meaning anyone can do nything? Or sport, meaning there are rules in place so participants don't get maimed?



In this "sport", we already have one guy pinning down someone for his buddy to soccer kick and stomp on his head. How much more realism do you want?

And are you saying that there are no rules in the streets, even unwritten ones? I've been in over 10 street fights, and of the ones that I won....I never went for that extra goal of manslaughter and/or second degree murder....hell, not even malicious maiming. Have you? I have at least 1,000 videos of real street fights, categorized. And only about  0.010 percent, involves death....and half of these deaths were accidental....almost all due to a 1 punch KO where the guy cracked his head on the cement on the way down, and died at the hospital.

People rarely to almost never, fight to the death or even maiming in the streets. They stop on their own or the fight gets stopped by bystanders. Many times, it's the Winner who stops on their own....usually when someone gets KO'ed. Also common is when the losing guy says he's done and the winner cease the beatdown.



> I'd not put it past a regular old dude against a trained MMA ring guy in a straight-up street fight, with all the "cheating" available in the street.



You think that trained MMA fighters can't cheat or do whatever they wanted in a street fight neither? Now you have someone much more: stronger, younger, resilient, precise, trained, experienced, etc. that can also cheat with weapons, improvised weapons, etc. vs. a regular old dude. Sure, the old dude has a chance just as long as he doesn't think that he's the only one with a gun or something.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> These seems to be Amateur level, MMA fighters to maybe semi-pros who all,  probably has no chance to ever make it in even the lowest card of the UFC. Not even Bellator.
> 
> Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?


Ah, this explains a lot.


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> Can you throw the tires on the opponents head or bash his skull with the tires?



Do you feel it would change the result if you could?


----------



## drop bear

Movig closer to street are these organised gang fights.






Interesting some of the methods they employ.

I assume they are linked up like that so nobody runs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Movig closer to street are these organised gang fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting some of the methods they employ.
> 
> I assume they are linked up like that so nobody runs.


Now THAT is a multiple-attacker scenario. Holy crap.


----------



## oaktree

drop bear said:


> Do you feel it would change the result if you could?


Yes because using a weapon would obviously change the outcome.  Stabbing someone, using a brick to the head, pulling a gun all change the outcome. These competition are just that sport competition and are not what a street encounter is. 
A real encounter is someone trying to kill you who has no regard for your life. Have you ever had someone tried to kill you? Have you had a gun to your head? If so, then there is no way you would think that this is real. 
Ever been raped? That's real so stop thinking this pathetic competition crap is real because people who have been in life and death altercations will tell you this is Disney world compared to the horrors of kill or be killed.


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> In this "sport", we already have one guy pinning down someone for his buddy to soccer kick and stomp on his head. How much more realism do you want?
> 
> And are you saying that there are no rules in the streets, even unwritten ones? I've been in over 10 street fights, and of the ones that I won....I never went for that extra goal of manslaughter and/or second degree murder....hell, not even malicious maiming. Have you? I have at least 1,000 videos of real street fights, categorized. And only about  0.010 percent, involves death....and half of these deaths were accidental....almost all due to a 1 punch KO where the guy cracked his head on the cement on the way down, and died at the hospital.
> 
> People rarely to almost never, fight to the death or even maiming in the streets. They stop on their own or the fight gets stopped by bystanders. Many times, it's the Winner who stops on their own....usually when someone gets KO'ed. Also common is when the losing guy says he's done and the winner cease the beatdown.
> 
> 
> 
> You think that trained MMA fighters can't cheat or do whatever they wanted in a street fight neither? Now you have someone much more: stronger, younger, resilient, precise, trained, experienced, etc. that can also cheat with weapons, improvised weapons, etc. vs. a regular old dude. Sure, the old dude has a chance just as long as he doesn't think that he's the only one with a gun or something.


I want bottles bricks golf club bats to the body thats real. I want broken ribs and the guy not getting up his arms broken his face beaten to a pulp. There are no rules in a street fight I have been in many as well people use knives, belt buckles, bats, bricks.
I never go and say I'm going to kill or not kill this guy I am going to stab and stab till I say it's over or he isn't moving, the other guy maybe he does the same to me. But if I think we'll maybe he won't kill me maybe he won't cheat and use a weapon that is a deadly assumption. You don't know if the other guy is planning to kill you or not but i rather be prepared that he plans on killing me call me paranoid but I have had people Try to kill me or threatened to kill me.


----------



## oaktree

Let me tell you this story I have said it before about the thug who wanted to fight me fist to fist when I was doing my martial arts. I said see my hand, look empty but between my fingers is my knife, now you try to punch me maybe you get me, but my knife is going straight to your neck. See son you think we fight fair, you think we fight and we trade blows and one of us goes down, but see I got to get home, I have a baby that depends on me to provide food and shelter a wife that needs me, so I have to make it home and that's what I am fighting for to make it home alive, you, you just want to prove your manhood do you see the difference? Do you understand what fighting is real fighting it's about making it home no matter what.


----------



## Steve

oaktree said:


> Let me tell you this story I have said it before about the thug who wanted to fight me fist to fist when I was doing my martial arts. I said see my hand, look empty but between my fingers is my knife, now you try to punch me maybe you get me, but my knife is going straight to your neck. See son you think we fight fair, you think we fight and we trade blows and one of us goes down, but see I got to get home, I have a baby that depends on me to provide food and shelter a wife that needs me, so I have to make it home and that's what I am fighting for to make it home alive, you, you just want to prove your manhood do you see the difference? Do you understand what fighting is real fighting it's about making it home no matter what.


judged by 12; not carried by 6, and all that.   But that seems pretty close to a bright line.


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> Let me tell you this story I have said it before about the thug who wanted to fight me fist to fist when I was doing my martial arts. I said see my hand, look empty but between my fingers is my knife, now you try to punch me maybe you get me, but my knife is going straight to your neck. See son you think we fight fair, you think we fight and we trade blows and one of us goes down, but see I got to get home, I have a baby that depends on me to provide food and shelter a wife that needs me, so I have to make it home and that's what I am fighting for to make it home alive, you, you just want to prove your manhood do you see the difference? Do you understand what fighting is real fighting it's about making it home no matter what.



um....

I have made it home after every fight as well. And I haven't had to stab dudes in the neck to do it.



oaktree said:


> Yes because using a weapon would obviously change the outcome.  Stabbing someone, using a brick to the head, pulling a gun all change the outcome. These competition are just that sport competition and are not what a street encounter is.
> A real encounter is someone trying to kill you who has no regard for your life. Have you ever had someone tried to kill you? Have you had a gun to your head? If so, then there is no way you would think that this is real.
> Ever been raped? That's real so stop thinking this pathetic competition crap is real because people who have been in life and death altercations will tell you this is Disney world compared to the horrors of kill or be killed.



Ok. but both sides could thow tires. so it should kind of cancel out.

Ok. so is this real? there is a real broken bottle involved. but the obviously sports style punches and kicks were not? 

Did mabye the broken bottle turn an altercation that was not real into one that was?






People who have been in life or death altercations dont necessarily fight any better than people who haven't. It isn't that sort of a scale. I knew a guy who had been shot. which is about as bad as it gets. Then I saw him get dropped with a punch.

Facing the super deadly doesn't protect you from the non deadly.

Jumping in a sport with someone trying to punch your head off still hurts. Regardless of how real it technically isn't.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Now THAT is a multiple-attacker scenario. Holy crap.



Yeah there is a lot of interesting real world ideas in that as well. Like this idea that there would be this massive melee and then it organically sort of breaks up to a stale mate.

Now I have done some decent 50-60 man fights. And they sort of do run out of momentum. That sort of organization is pretty clever how they keep everyone together and organized. 

And if you lose organization there you will lose the fight.


----------



## oaktree

drop bear said:


> um....
> 
> I have made it home after every fight as well. And I haven't had to stab dudes in the neck to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. but both sides could thow tires. so it should kind of cancel out.
> 
> Ok. so is this real? there is a real broken bottle involved. but the obviously sports style punches and kicks were not?
> 
> Did mabye the broken bottle turn an altercation that was not real into one that was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who have been in life or death altercations dont necessarily fight any better than people who haven't. It isn't that sort of a scale. I knew a guy who had been shot. which is about as bad as it gets. Then I saw him get dropped with a punch.
> 
> Facing the super deadly doesn't protect you from the non deadly.
> 
> Jumping in a sport with someone trying to punch your head off still hurts. Regardless of how real it technically isn't.


Well lucky you that you haven't had to stab someone yet, I have which is why I asked have you had someone actually try to kill you as in his intent is to kill you? 

A real fight is a fight that anything can go and the chances of being killed are there. It is foolish to think your opponent in the street has any concern for your wellbeing, let me put it this way for you if we were to engage in a fight on the street you would most likely try to use MMA against me and I would most likely take a bat to your knee cap do you see the difference? 



 I know a guy who is shot as well hell I have had guns to my head I don't have any friends why because they are all dead or in jail. What you don't seem to understand is it has nothing to do with fighting better or technique it has to do with real violence is and what a cage fight is. Do you not understand IT IS A SPORT! stop trying to compare a sport to things involving life or death altercations. 

 So telling me that a sport with rules and a ref is real is BS. Facing the Super deadly makes you aware that cage fighting is a controlled setting and is not reality.


----------



## oaktree

Here is reality.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> In this "sport", we already have one guy pinning down someone for his buddy to soccer kick and stomp on his head. How much more realism do you want?
> 
> *And are you saying that there are no rules in the streets, even unwritten ones? *I've been in over 10 street fights, and of the ones that I won....I never went for that extra goal of manslaughter and/or second degree murder....hell, not even malicious maiming. Have you? I have at least 1,000 videos of real street fights, categorized. And only about  0.010 percent, involves death....and half of these deaths were accidental....almost all due to a 1 punch KO where the guy cracked his head on the cement on the way down, and died at the hospital.
> 
> People rarely to almost never, fight to the death or even maiming in the streets. They stop on their own or the fight gets stopped by bystanders. Many times, it's the Winner who stops on their own....usually when someone gets KO'ed. Also common is when the losing guy says he's done and the winner cease the beatdown.
> 
> 
> 
> You think that trained MMA fighters can't cheat or do whatever they wanted in a street fight neither? Now you have someone much more: stronger, younger, resilient, precise, trained, experienced, etc. that can also cheat with weapons, improvised weapons, etc. vs. a regular old dude. Sure, the old dude has a chance just as long as he doesn't think that he's the only one with a gun or something.



Yes.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

The main difference between sport fighting and street fighting is that street fighting is far more unpredictable. When you go into a sport fight you have a least a vague idea of what will happen, and how your opponent will conduct themselves in the ring, whereas on the street a lot more is unknown and literally anything can happen. This can really mess with someone's mind and cause them to lose control out of fear of the unknown. And if course when that happens people are more likely to die even if the combatants don't intend to kill.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Yes.



Wrong then.


----------



## FriedRice

drop bear said:


> Movig closer to street are these organised gang fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting some of the methods they employ.
> 
> I assume they are linked up like that so nobody runs.



I remember fighting like this in my gang days. We'd meet up in a field far behind the high school. It was wild to see teacher that we know, run out and pick up students and body slam them into the ground. I had no idea how much stronger grown, old men in a shirt & tie were, compared to us HS teenagers.  But we didn't link up so no one runs....that's very smart. First I thought it was some kind of mimicking of the Roman Centurian type formation or something.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Yes because using a weapon would obviously change the outcome.  Stabbing someone, using a brick to the head, pulling a gun all change the outcome. These competition are just that sport competition and are not what a street encounter is.
> A real encounter is someone trying to kill you who has no regard for your life. Have you ever had someone tried to kill you? Have you had a gun to your head? If so, then there is no way you would think that this is real.
> Ever been raped? That's real so stop thinking this pathetic competition crap is real because people who have been in life and death altercations will tell you this is Disney world compared to the horrors of kill or be killed.



Yea but  you asked about using that "tire" that's tied down. What the hell would picking up a tire do, other than supplement your CrossFit workout, as one of these guys beats you down severely....because you know.... you're holding a giant, clumsy rubber object with both hands.

All of the other stuff you're talking about are just fantasy scenarios where you role play with rubber knives and rubber guns. Not everything is always life or death, like in the movies and in LARPING self defense classes.  We carried guns and knives in school, it was necessary. But not every time weapons were brandished that it meant someone was going to get shot.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> I want bottles bricks golf club bats to the body thats real. I want broken ribs and the guy not getting up his arms broken his face beaten to a pulp. There are no rules in a street fight I have been in many as well people use knives, belt buckles, bats, bricks.
> I never go and say I'm going to kill or not kill this guy I am going to stab and stab till I say it's over or he isn't moving, the other guy maybe he does the same to me. But if I think we'll maybe he won't kill me maybe he won't cheat and use a weapon that is a deadly assumption. You don't know if the other guy is planning to kill you or not but i rather be prepared that he plans on killing me call me paranoid but I have had people Try to kill me or threatened to kill me.



Is that what they teach you in LARPING? I've fought in the street plenty of times. Sometimes with weapons. Some of the times were in gang fights. But nobody died. We still had rules in full out  rumbles. "Some people" had guns but they didn't bring them. Because the cops would come later and F us all up. You watch way too many movies and thinking they're real.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Let me tell you this story I have said it before about the thug who wanted to fight me fist to fist when I was doing my martial arts. I said see my hand, look empty but between my fingers is my knife, now you try to punch me maybe you get me, but my knife is going straight to your neck. See son you think we fight fair, you think we fight and we trade blows and one of us goes down, but see I got to get home, I have a baby that depends on me to provide food and shelter a wife that needs me, so I have to make it home and that's what I am fighting for to make it home alive, you, you just want to prove your manhood do you see the difference? Do you understand what fighting is real fighting it's about making it home no matter what.



Sounded more like you pissed off that lady really, really bad and she was not really a "thug". By your other larping scenarios, a real thug would have surprised you from the shadows of a dark alley, with 5 of his buddies....all with baseball bats, bicycle chains, cue ball in a bandana, etc.  If someone really wanted to get you, it would involve  a scope. Committing a crime is pretty easy...it's the getting away with it, now that's the hard part.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Here is reality.



That's reality for that guy and the other guy that he's fighting, but it doesn't make it any more real than other realities where nobody gets stabbed or where some coward pulled out a weapon. Believe it or not, many of us do settle things with fists only in the street, with honor.

Here's a video of at least FIFTEEN MORE realities than your ONE, all compiled neatly in 1 video.

Does this mean that these 15 realities trump or negates your 1 reality?


----------



## FriedRice

Midnight-shadow said:


> The main difference between sport fighting and street fighting is that street fighting is far more unpredictable. When you go into a sport fight you have a least a vague idea of what will happen, and how your opponent will conduct themselves in the ring, whereas on the street a lot more is unknown and literally anything can happen. This can really mess with someone's mind and cause them to lose control out of fear of the unknown. And if course when that happens people are more likely to die even if the combatants don't intend to kill.



Yea, that's why I carry a 9mm and a knife with a 5.5" blade.  But I can't just brandish my gun over everything and anything, ie. some dude getting mad at me over a parking space at Walmart or something. And if he starts swinging, I'm not going to pull out my gun and kill him. This is where my experience fighting in the ring comes in. I may not even have to hit him. I'd rather not, especially w/all the cameras, CCTV and witnesses.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> Wrong then.



No I am not. Actuall experience tells me otherwise, not some YouTube vid.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> Yea, that's why I carry a 9mm and a knife with a 5.5" blade.  But I can't just brandish my gun over everything and anything, ie. some dude getting mad at me over a parking space at Walmart or something. And if he starts swinging, I'm not going to pull out my gun and kill him. This is where my experience fighting in the ring comes in.



Experience of fighting in the ring? No application on the street fella.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

That's all well and good but remember that your opponent may not be as well trained and disciplined as you.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Experience of fighting in the ring? No application on the street fella.



Sorry bro, I've fought plenty in the streets including gang rumbles when I was under 18.  When it comes to real application, Larping in the gym with rubber weapons and tapping contact < trying to knock someone out  as common training.


----------



## FriedRice

Midnight-shadow said:


> That's all well and good but remember that your opponent may not be as well trained and disciplined as you.



Yes, that's always a risk. Just like Cops can't just flat out shoot someone just b/c they're fearing for their lives.....you too, can't just go full out SD larping and bite someone's nose off just because they're cussing and yelling at you from close range. Sometimes you may need to take a few lumps as part of your "tactical situation assessment". This is where real fight experience (not just training) in MMA works better than anything else.

Or just turn and run. This almost all of the time, would solve just about everything. But people just lie to themselves as to why they couldn't do this.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> No I am not. Actuall experience tells me otherwise, not some YouTube vid.



Yes you are. Actual experience tell me otherwise also, as well as YouTube vids.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> That's reality for that guy and the other guy that he's fighting, but it doesn't make it any more real than other realities where nobody gets stabbed or where some coward pulled out a weapon. Believe it or not, many of us do settle things with fists only in the street, with honor.
> 
> Here's a video of at least FIFTEEN MORE realities than your ONE, all compiled neatly in 1 video.
> 
> Does this mean that these 15 realities trump or negates your 1 reality?


I didn't watch the whole video (metered connection), but the first was a mutual fight, meaning they were angry and fighting. That's not what self-defense training is for. There are some dynamics that are the same, but not all of them, by a long shot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Experience of fighting in the ring? No application on the street fella.


I disagree. There's a lot of application on the street. There's a huge overlap between skills for competition and skills for self-defense.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> I disagree. There's a lot of application on the street. There's a huge overlap between skills for competition and skills for self-defense.



Then I would respectfully have to disagree. Giving a street skilled fighter a leeson in application does not exsist. You may as well shut a wolf in a pen of sheep for entertainment.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I didn't watch the whole video (metered connection), but the first was a mutual fight, meaning they were angry and fighting. That's not what self-defense training is for. There are some dynamics that are the same, but not all of them, by a long shot.



Then self defence training needs to broaden its application. So it at least could be used to engage someone.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> Sorry bro, I've fought plenty in the streets including gang rumbles when I was under 18.  When it comes to real application, Larping in the gym with rubber weapons and tapping contact < trying to knock someone out  as common training.



Yeah me too. Just must have been different streets. I obviously misunderstood what have conveyed. Then again, a street is not necessarily the same as another.


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> Well lucky you that you haven't had to stab someone yet, I have which is why I asked have you had someone actually try to kill you as in his intent is to kill you?
> 
> A real fight is a fight that anything can go and the chances of being killed are there. It is foolish to think your opponent in the street has any concern for your wellbeing, let me put it this way for you if we were to engage in a fight on the street you would most likely try to use MMA against me and I would most likely take a bat to your knee cap do you see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> I know a guy who is shot as well hell I have had guns to my head I don't have any friends why because they are all dead or in jail. What you don't seem to understand is it has nothing to do with fighting better or technique it has to do with real violence is and what a cage fight is. Do you not understand IT IS A SPORT! stop trying to compare a sport to things involving life or death altercations.
> 
> So telling me that a sport with rules and a ref is real is BS. Facing the Super deadly makes you aware that cage fighting is a controlled setting and is not reality.



You haven't had to stab somone yet either. You chose to knife a guy in a fist fight. 

So far the difference between a real fight and a not real fight is your inability to to understand how much force is needed to control a situation.

Your friends are dead or in jail because this idea of going full retard in every fight raises the risk of them being dead or in jail. Mabye if your first response isn't to try to kill everybody you would have an easier time of it.

Sorry but MMA is actually real. Real punches and kicks,real people 
,real damage. It is reality.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> No I am not. Actuall experience tells me otherwise, not some YouTube vid.



Ok. how many fights have you had to how many deaths?

I mean for me if i killed everyone i fought it would move into genocide.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Then again, a street is not necessarily the same as another.



You're the one who actually implied that they were as you made no distinction  between your street(s) and the streets of others.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> I didn't watch the whole video (metered connection), but the first was a mutual fight, meaning they were angry and fighting. That's not what self-defense training is for. There are some dynamics that are the same, but not all of them, by a long shot.



Are you the Final Authority on what is, Self Defense?  And by your own admission, you didn't even watch the full video.  Next.


----------



## Jenna

In my experience there is a difference between street fighting and fighting in the street.. I work with communities in which street fighting is a thing almost ritualised.. men who engage this are highly adept at what they do and highly clear on their intent. Every thing else is fighting in the street and happen in disorganised way rare -in my experience- to encounter any one with more than a modicum of fight savvy..


----------



## Midnight-shadow

FriedRice said:


> Are you the Final Authority on what is, Self Defense?  And by your own admission, you didn't even watch the full video.  Next.



Reading this, I'm curious about your definition of self-defence compared to street fighting. To me, in self-defence the main aim is to escape the situation without anyone getting hurt. That is the ideal solution. On the contrary, in a street fight the participants are usually aiming to beat their opponent, forcing them to submit defeat. 

So even though street fighting and self-defence might employ similar techniques, the intent of those techniques is completely different. That's what Seymour meant in his post.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Then I would respectfully have to disagree. Giving a street skilled fighter a leeson in application does not exsist. You may as well shut a wolf in a pen of sheep for entertainment.



Sounds like you never fought in the ring nor spar at full power vs. experienced sports fighters.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> In my experience there is a difference between street fighting and fighting in the street.. I work with communities in which street fighting is a thing almost ritualised.. men who engage this are highly adept at what they do and highly clear on their intent. Every thing else is fighting in the street and happen in disorganised way rare -in my experience- to encounter any one with more than a modicum of fight savvy..



Understanding what sort of fight you are in is important as well.


----------



## drop bear

Midnight-shadow said:


> Reading this, I'm curious about your definition of self-defence compared to street fighting. To me, in self-defence the main aim is to escape the situation without anyone getting hurt. That is the ideal solution. On the contrary, in a street fight the participants are usually aiming to beat their opponent, forcing them to submit defeat.
> 
> So even though street fighting and self-defence might employ similar techniques, the intent of those techniques is completely different. That's what Seymour meant in his post.



It depends you may really want to or need to beat a guy in a self defence situation but not a beat a guy in a street fight.

Prople are complicated.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> Are you the Final Authority on what is, Self Defense? .


The law is usually quite clear on these matters. 

Agreeing to fight someone in the street, either for money (as a friend of mine does) or because you have had an arguement in a bar is illegal.

Self defence (self protection from non consensual criminal violence) is not illegal.

So quick rule of thumb, if what you are doing is illegal, it's not self defence.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> The law is usually quite clear on these matters.
> 
> Agreeing to fight someone in the street, either for money (as a friend of mine does) or because you have had an arguement in a bar is illegal.
> 
> Self defence (self protection from non consensual criminal violence) is not illegal.
> 
> So quick rule of thumb, if what you are doing is illegal, it's not self defence.


Actually a little backwards.   Isn't it?  Legally, self defense only comes into play when you've done something that is illegal, and are arguing that you had no choice.   "I killed that guy (which is murder), but if I hadn't, I believe he would have killed me (self defense)."

So, can we say that, as a quick rule of thumb, If what you're doing is legal, it's not self defense?  Seems closer to the mark.  But even that seems simplistic.


----------



## FriedRice

Jenna said:


> In my experience there is a difference between street fighting and fighting in the street.. I work with communities in which street fighting is a thing almost ritualised.. men who engage this are highly adept at what they do and highly clear on their intent. Every thing else is fighting in the street and happen in disorganised way rare -in my experience- to encounter any one with more than a modicum of fight savvy..



You know what you're talking about.

Like this one older Black guy who's also a former Pro Boxer (nothing notable)... and he also lived in a rough area all of his life said to me: "most of us grew up learning how to Box in the street; as it was necessary for daily life/survival".

Punching someone in the face, really, really, really hard in trying to knock them the F out; works just the same in the street as it does in the ring. And both ring and street fights, usually starts with 'dem handz.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> Actually a little backwards.   Isn't it?  Legally, self defense only comes into play when you've done something that is illegal.


No, defending yourself is legal, not illegal.


----------



## FriedRice

Midnight-shadow said:


> Reading this, I'm curious about your definition of self-defence compared to street fighting. To me, in self-defence the main aim is to escape the situation without anyone getting hurt. That is the ideal solution. On the contrary, in a street fight the participants are usually aiming to beat their opponent, forcing them to submit defeat.
> 
> So even though street fighting and self-defence might employ similar techniques, the intent of those techniques is completely different. That's what Seymour meant in his post.



While I don't necessarily disagree completely with what you said, his error was that he made it as a matter of fact that he has the only true definition to what SD is.

And the reality is, many people lie to themselves. If they really believe that running away is the best option,  then all they'd have to do is turn and run the moment that there's a slight sign of aggression. Say in a parking spot dispute and someone walks up to you inside your just parked car....all puffed up saying that you took his spot. Would you just say ok, and move out and far, far way into another spot right away w/o any thing else said? If you want to stay and talk about it with him, therefore, arguing....then by the above definition, you are wanting a verbal fight that may likely escalate into a fist fight.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Ok. how many fights have you had to how many deaths?
> 
> I mean for me if i killed everyone i fought it would move into genocide.



Okay. I am a little disturbed here


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> The law is usually quite clear on these matters.
> 
> Agreeing to fight someone in the street, either for money (as a friend of mine does) or because you have had an arguement in a bar is illegal.
> 
> Self defence (self protection from non consensual criminal violence) is not illegal.
> 
> So quick rule of thumb, if what you are doing is illegal, it's not self defence.



I didn't say anything about agreeing to fight in the street or for money.

Although it seems to also depends on where you live.  Here, it looks like the cops are even sanctioning this street fight in Washington State.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> You're the one who actually implied that they were as you made no distinction  between your street(s) and the streets of others.



Yeah I get it. For someone who talks quite a lot, perhaps you could slow down a bit. Street is the street obviously. Don't quite get what you're beef here?


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> I didn't say anything about agreeing to fight in the street or for money.
> 
> Although it seems to also depends on where you live.  Here, it looks like the cops are even sanctioning this street fight in Washington State.


I never said you did, I am just trying to point out tha the law makes it clear what is self defence and what is not.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Yeah I get it. For someone who talks quite a lot, perhaps you could slow down a bit. Street is the street obviously. Don't quite get what you're beef here?



No it was you who brought this up though.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> I never said you did, I am just trying to point out tha the law makes it clear what is self defence and what is not.



No, the law is not very clear at all.   Especially if factor in the how good of a lawyer(s) that one can afford.

And I just showed you an actual video of COPS allowing a street fight on public streets...so how can you be right with your absolute statement?


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> No it was you who brought this up though.



Okay sorry if I have offended you, but WTF!


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> No, the law is not very clear at all.   Especially if factor in the how good of a lawyer(s) that one can afford.
> 
> And I just showed you an actual video of COPS allowing a street fight on public streets...so how can you be right with your absolute statement?



Because you clearly don't understand.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Because you clearly don't understand.



No, you don't understand.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> And I just showed you an actual video of COPS allowing a street fight on public streets...so how can you be right with your absolute statement?


Becaus the only LEO that decides the law is Judge Dredd.  In the real world laws are made by Governments (not LEOs) and courts (not LEOs) decide if a persons actions broke those laws or not.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Okay sorry if I have offended you, but WTF!



That's ok...and I love you!


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Becaus the only LEO that decides the law is Judge Dredd.  In the real world laws are made by Governments (not LEOs) and courts (not LEOs) decide if a persons actions broke those laws or not.



Well in the real world, laws can be argued against. And that video wasn't the real world? What's unreal about it?


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> No, you don't understand.



Yeah whatever.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> Well in the real world, laws can be argued against. And that video wasn't the real world? What's unreal about it?


Yes they can be argued, but it's still not an LEOs job to make those decisions or arguments, you posted that video in an attempt to support your claim of that.


----------



## Buka

This is a very strange thread.


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> Sounded more like you pissed off that lady really, really bad and she was not really a "thug". By your other larping scenarios, a real thug would have surprised you from the shadows of a dark alley, with 5 of his buddies....all with baseball bats, bicycle chains, cue ball in a bandana, etc.  If someone really wanted to get you, it would involve  a scope. Committing a crime is pretty easy...it's the getting away with it, now that's the hard part.


Wasn't a woman, and I don't larp. For the record I have had someone hit me in the back from behind with a golf club robbed me of $6 and a cassette tape. To be honest I don't practice martial arts for self defense I practice for peace of mind I got enough broken bones and injuries, I left all that street life in my past but i can comment that a ring and an altercation are different, just like I posted that video of the guy getting stabbed just two different worlds. Have a nice day


----------



## Gerry Seymour

gpseymour said:


> I disagree. There's a lot of application on the street. There's a huge overlap between skills for competition and skills for self-defense.


So, @Paul_D, by disagreeing with this, are you asserting that when fighting to defend oneself from an attack, there are no skills there that can also be used when fighting for competition? Can't punch the same way? Can't use the same throws, locks, and pins?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Then self defence training needs to broaden its application. So it at least could be used to engage someone.


Some styles of MA can be used for self-defense and can engage (by which, I assume you mean initiate the fight, when it becomes clear it is unavoidable). In fact, most can. That has nothing to do with the fact that there are many kinds of self-defense encounters, and few will have the dynamics of a shared fight, like that one. In a case like that, good self-defense is to get out when possible. There were plenty of opportunities to try that, but neither combatant appeared to give it a shot. The large crowd surrounding them, yelling, is also uncommon in a self-defense situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Are you the Final Authority on what is, Self Defense?  And by your own admission, you didn't even watch the full video.  Next.


Do you listen to yourself?


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Okay. I am a little disturbed here



I am not the one having life or death fights. 

The people who are claiming life or death really should have a stack of bodies to their name. 

Or it really isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> While I don't necessarily disagree completely with what you said, his error was that he made it as a matter of fact that he has the only true definition to what SD is.
> 
> And the reality is, many people lie to themselves. If they really believe that running away is the best option,  then all they'd have to do is turn and run the moment that there's a slight sign of aggression. Say in a parking spot dispute and someone walks up to you inside your just parked car....all puffed up saying that you took his spot. Would you just say ok, and move out and far, far way into another spot right away w/o any thing else said? If you want to stay and talk about it with him, therefore, arguing....then by the above definition, you are wanting a verbal fight that may likely escalate into a fist fight.


Show me where I said I had "the only true definition". I simply pointed out that an agreed fight is not the same as self-defense. If you have a position that is counter to that, make it, support it, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, you're just throwing insults for the sake of trolling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> No, the law is not very clear at all.   Especially if factor in the how good of a lawyer(s) that one can afford.
> 
> And I just showed you an actual video of COPS allowing a street fight on public streets...so how can you be right with your absolute statement?


Just because cops don't stop something, that doesn't change the law. Sometimes cops use their judgment on what to enforce and what not to (like when they decide which speeder to pull over on a highway where almost nobody is going under the limit).


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> I am not the one having life or death fights.
> The people who are claiming life or death really should have a stack of bodies to their name.
> Or it really isn't.



Yes, you are. Or at least, I suspect you are.
If it were necessary to kill someone in order to be the one walking away from a fight, would you? If so, then you're in a life or death fight. Sure, at least 99% of the time you won't have to. But if you're willing to kill, then it's a life or death fight, even if you're in that happy majority of cases that provide more than just one option.
I don't have a stack of bodies (one quadriplegic, but no deaths), but if I'm in a real fight, then yes, killing is an option.
You like to act as if being willing to kill means you always do. And that's just silly. It's merely one of many possible results. And, generally speaking, the least common.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Some styles of MA can be used for self-defense and can engage (by which, I assume you mean initiate the fight, when it becomes clear it is unavoidable). In fact, most can. That has nothing to do with the fact that there are many kinds of self-defense encounters, and few will have the dynamics of a shared fight, like that one. In a case like that, good self-defense is to get out when possible. There were plenty of opportunities to try that, but neither combatant appeared to give it a shot. The large crowd surrounding them, yelling, is also uncommon in a self-defense situation.



And they will be wearing different t shirts and other non essential differences. 

So the differences are so far a crowd. And both participants wanted to fight? 

In self defence (your cut and dried he is stealing my hand bag stuff ) I would suggest a mindset that is about forcing the other guy to not want fight.  The "Not today" mindset that girl adopted when she was being raped. 

The guys in that Russian gang fight.  And from my own experience If you have to face down a bad guy you want to at least look like you want to be there. 

In competition we call this the will game. 

What is the mindset you are creating with this self defence rather than kick this guys bum difference? How does that lead to self defense success?


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes, you are. Or at least, I suspect you are.
> If it were necessary to kill someone in order to be the one walking away from a fight, would you? If so, then you're in a life or death fight. Sure, at least 99% of the time you won't have to. But if you're willing to kill, then it's a life or death fight, even if you're in that happy majority of cases that provide more than just one option.
> I don't have a stack of bodies (one quadriplegic, but no deaths), but if I'm in a real fight, then yes, killing is an option.
> You like to act as if being willing to kill means you always do. And that's just silly. It's merely one of many possible results. And, generally speaking, the least common.



So you subscribe to the Ivan Drago philosophy.






Oh wait thats sport.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> So, @Paul_D, by disagreeing with this, are you asserting that when fighting to defend oneself from an attack, there are no skills there that can also be used when fighting for competition? Can't punch the same way? Can't use the same throws, locks, and pins?


I'm not asserting "no skills" no, not at all. There is a small overlap of course, after all a good punch is always a good punch.  But you didn't say "small overlap" you said there was a "huge overlap".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> I'm not asserting "no skills" no, not at all. There is a small overlap of course, after all a good punch is always a good punch.  But you didn't say "small overlap" you said there was a "huge overlap".


Okay, am I right that the difference in your position and mine is the difference in our definition, as usual? When I talk about that skill overlap, I'm only talking about the physical defensive combat skills, not the larger area of non-combat skills (which I usually refer to as "self-protection").


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> I'm only talking about the physical defensive combat skills


So am I.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And they will be wearing different t shirts and other non essential differences.
> 
> So the differences are so far a crowd. And both participants wanted to fight?
> 
> In self defence (your cut and dried he is stealing my hand bag stuff ) I would suggest a mindset that is about forcing the other guy to not want fight.  The "Not today" mindset that girl adopted when she was being raped.
> 
> The guys in that Russian gang fight.  And from my own experience If you have to face down a bad guy you want to at least look like you want to be there.
> 
> In competition we call this the will game.
> 
> What is the mindset you are creating with this self defence rather than kick this guys bum difference? How does that lead to self defense success?


I don't disagree with that concept. The environment and circumstances are still different, as is the mindset of the partcipant/defender which was my point.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> So you subscribe to the Ivan Drago philosophy.



No. But I'm not at all shocked to see you dismiss the psychological difficulty of killing someone, or inflicting permanent injury on them, in such an obnoxious way.
I'm willing to kill. Because if I don't , I'll be dead, and killing them is better than dying. 
That doesn't mean (as I made perfectly clear to anyone not being intentionally obtuse) that I'm not doing my best to find an option short of killing or crippling them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> So am I.


Then we have a vast disagreement about that. Almost every physical skill that is used in hard sparring/grappling competitions has application on the street.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't disagree with that concept. The environment and circumstances are still different, as is the mindset of the partcipant/defender which was my point.



Well each person has a different mindset depending on the fight. So Which defender do are you talking about?

what do you think this persons mind set was?


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> Then we have a vast disagreement about that. .


I know, that's why I disagreed with you.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> No. But I'm not at all shocked to see you dismiss the psychological difficulty of killing someone, or inflicting permanent injury on them, in such an obnoxious way.
> I'm willing to kill. Because if I don't , I'll be dead, and killing them is better than dying.
> That doesn't mean (as I made perfectly clear to anyone not being intentionally obtuse) that I'm not doing my best to find an option short of killing or crippling them.



Obtuse would be saying life or death in a circumstance that very rarely results in life or death.

You get told it in reality class. And believe it. But if you think about what you actually see it is not there. Yes you can be killed or crippled but statistically you probably wont.

And now even your mind set is not kill or be killed. Which is not a suprise that is most peoples mind sets. Even most bad people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well each person has a different mindset depending on the fight. So Which defender do are you talking about?
> 
> what do you think this persons mind set was?


Fear, then anger. Amygdala response. Most people will start from fear (of some level) in a defense situation. Some (not all, apparently) move to anger once they start taking action. What's your point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> I know, that's why I disagreed with you.


Care to elucidate on what you think is vastly different between the two physical skillsets?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Fear, then anger. Amygdala response. Most people will start from fear (of some level) in a defense situation. Some (not all, apparently) move to anger once they start taking action. What's your point?



Well was it self defence or no? His mind set should technically be wrong as he was not looking for an escape.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well was it self defence or no? His mind set should technically be wrong as he was not looking for an escape.


Strawman, and you know it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Strawman, and you know it.



big gaping inconsistency in your origional premis and you know it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> big gaping inconsistency in your origional premis and you know it.


No, it isn't. There was no escape, and he knows that in advance. You presented a situation you knew danged well fit that description. So, no inconsistency, at all.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> Care to elucidate on what you think is vastly different between the two physical skillsets?


This will do a much better job than I ever could.

Thinking like a Criminal (podcast) | Iain Abernethy


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, it isn't. There was no escape, and he knows that in advance. You presented a situation you knew danged well fit that description. So, no inconsistency, at all.



That is because there are situations that danged well fit the description. Self defence is not the formulated script that you are suggesting it to be.

Self defence is a manufactured concept to begin with. And then you are manufacturing it again to support your arguments.

Unfortunately conflict does not fall as neatly into sport fight,self defence,agreed fight as you would like to have people believe.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> I am not the one having life or death fights.
> 
> The people who are claiming life or death really should have a stack of bodies to their name.
> 
> Or it really isn't.



Agreed. Well they do. Thankfully most of them are doing lots of time due to that stack of bodies.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> That is because there are situations that danged well fit the description. Self defence is not the formulated script that you are suggesting it to be.
> 
> Self defence is a manufactured concept to begin with. And then you are manufacturing it again to support your arguments.
> 
> Unfortunately conflict does not fall as neatly into sport fight,self defence,agreed fight as you would like to have people believe.



I actually agree with this. Self defence has nothing to do with martial skills. For example, a TKD kick! Just gonna get your knee fucked


----------



## Transk53

Paul_D said:


> This will do a much better job than I ever could.
> 
> Thinking like a Criminal (podcast) | Iain Abernethy



Yeah a Tez does have a way.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> That is because there are situations that danged well fit the description. Self defence is not the formulated script that you are suggesting it to be.
> 
> Self defence is a manufactured concept to begin with. And then you are manufacturing it again to support your arguments.
> 
> Unfortunately conflict does not fall as neatly into sport fight,self defence,agreed fight as you would like to have people believe.



Yes I agree. Being in the mix tells many things things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is because there are situations that danged well fit the description. Self defence is not the formulated script that you are suggesting it to be.
> 
> Self defence is a manufactured concept to begin with. And then you are manufacturing it again to support your arguments.
> 
> Unfortunately conflict does not fall as neatly into sport fight,self defence,agreed fight as you would like to have people believe.


Where did I ever say self-defense was a script. I've said quite the opposite a number of times. I'm not sure what you mean by "manufactured concept". Self-defense is, indeed, a concept - most things people discuss are such. It's fairly easy to agree upon a working definition if one is not being argumentative. That situation was clearly self-defense, though we'd have to question whether it transitioned to something else near the end. There's definitely some grey area where it's hard to draw the line - that's true of all concepts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> I actually agree with this. Self defence has nothing to do with martial skills. For example, a TKD kick! Just gonna get your knee fucked


What of the videos we can find of people delivering TKD kicks to defend themselves? It wouldn't be my first choice, but it can be effective in the right situation.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> What of the videos we can find of people delivering TKD kicks to defend themselves? It wouldn't be my first choice, but it can be effective in the right situation.



Vidoes are what they are. Flashy moves. Kick you are telegraphing as always, knees are under the radar, thus setting up, and shock value.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> This will do a much better job than I ever could.
> 
> Thinking like a Criminal (podcast) | Iain Abernethy


Okay, that discusses the criminal's mindset, and the approach to fighting in self-defense/self-protection vs. competition. He makes excellent points, but I don't hear him saying anywhere that the same punches, etc. used in competition won't work in defensive situations. He makes points about awareness (not a physical skill), baiting (not a physical skill), escape (some new physical skills), multiple attackers (maybe some new physical skills), the different "goal" (not a physical skill), the the differential effectiveness of flash (physical skills, though I disagree with his assertion that flashy is highly useful in competition), the difference in use of guard (physical skill, if you accept that this is different than how hands are used during close engagement in competition), dealing with trained fighters (no specific physical skills mentioned, the difference between defensive application vs. competition (only a few physical skills mentioned, and most of those can actually be useful in self-defense, though would be of less importance in that context), and why highly skilled fighters can be taken out (no mention of specific physical skills, mostly about things like awareness and surprise). 

None of those points appears to exclude large swaths of physical skills/techniques from the useful repertoire. He does overstate some of the points, as we all tend to do when presenting our side. His best point, and one I've made before, is that a criminal attacker is not a lesser version of a trained fighter, but a different animal. This is one of the points I think he overstates, but I agree with it in concept. He actually says in the closing of that podcast that there are a lot of commonalities in the physical skills.

_(On a side note, I couldn't find a way to subscribe to his podcast, so it would show in my Podcasts app. Grumble...)_


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Vidoes are what they are. Flashy moves. Kick you are telegraphing as always, knees are under the radar, thus setting up, and shock value.


I'm not talking about demonstration videos. I'm talking about videos of people actually using high kicks (head) to take people out. If you're talking about spinning/jumping kicks, etc., those don't get used in most sparring competition much, either.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> though I disagree with his assertion that flashy is highly useful in competition



Oh it is, loud kiais are known to win points, exaggerated moves look 'exciting' and coupled with those loud noises make it look like you are aggressive striking your opponent. It's actually quite sad.



gpseymour said:


> _(On a side note, I couldn't find a way to subscribe to his podcast, so it would show in my Podcasts app. Grumble...)_



Iain Abernethy | The practical application of Karate

sign up for his newsletters and forum too.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> I don't hear him saying anywhere that the same punches, etc. used in competition won't work in defensive situations.


He's not, no one is, no one would.  I don't even know where you've got this idea from.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Oh it is, loud kiais are known to win points, exaggerated moves look 'exciting' and coupled with those loud noises make it look like you are aggressive striking your opponent. It's actually quite sad.


Okay, I agree with that. I'm referring more to the harde-contact competitions. I think MMA makes the best argument in this area. Flashy isn't terribly useful there in most cases. There are a few examples where it has been surprising (like the high jumping kick off the fence), but those come back to bite people who use them, too.



> Iain Abernethy | The practical application of Karate
> 
> sign up for his newsletters and forum too.


Unfortunately, that link doesn't work for subscribing from the app, nor does the RSS feed at the bottom of his page. I've sent him an email - perhaps he has a solution.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> He's not, no one is, no one would.  I don't even know where you've got this idea from.


That was my point in my earlier post. There's an overlap in the physical skills. Most of the physical skills used in competition have application in defensive use.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Flashy isn't terribly useful there in most cases. There are a few examples where it has been surprising (like the high jumping kick off the fence), but those come back to bite people who use them, too.




Oh but flashy is very good in MMA...for selling tickets to fanboys. It may be no good for an actual fight but promoters dearly love a flashy fighter, they divide opinion causing talk which is publicity by another name. Some will come to see the flashy fighter fail others to see what they think is a great fighter, it's a win-win for promoters the fighters not so much but like a good many things in the entertainment industry the actual people who earn those promoters don't really matter.



gpseymour said:


> Unfortunately, that link doesn't work for subscribing from the app, nor does the RSS feed at the bottom of his page. I've sent him an email - perhaps he has a solution.



I expect he will, unless sleep deprivation from the new baby gets in the way lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Oh but flashy is very good in MMA...for selling tickets to fanboys. It may be no good for an actual fight but promoters dearly love a flashy fighter, they divide opinion causing talk which is publicity by another name. Some will come to see the flashy fighter fail others to see what they think is a great fighter, it's a win-win for promoters the fighters not so much but like a good many things in the entertainment industry the actual people who earn those promoters don't really matter.


Okay, that's a valid point. I'm talking more from the point of winning in competition. There's value to the business, and to the fighter, in being flashy (income, regardless of outcome). There's not much value for winning. There are some exceptions (some of the Kyokushin moves) that look flashy and can also be useful, but I'd put those in the "use very sparingly" container for MMA competition, as well.




> I expect he will, unless sleep deprivation from the new baby gets in the way lol.


I missed that they have a new baby. I look forward to sleep-deprived hallucinations showing up in a future podcast.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Yeah whatever.



Thanks for agreeing. I love you.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Yes they can be argued, but it's still not an LEOs job to make those decisions or arguments, you posted that video in an attempt to support your claim of that.



Incorrect. The video showed that the LEO's honored a statute that they perceived to have existed, and therefor enforced it, which is their job.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Wasn't a woman, and I don't larp. For the record I have had someone hit me in the back from behind with a golf club robbed me of $6 and a cassette tape. To be honest I don't practice martial arts for self defense I practice for peace of mind I got enough broken bones and injuries, I left all that street life in my past but i can comment that a ring and an altercation are different, just like I posted that video of the guy getting stabbed just two different worlds. Have a nice day



That's nice. But why do all of your personal experiences of street fights and whatever it is that you consider "that street life" that you "left in your past".....trump all of my personal experiences of street fighting, self defense, gang rumbles, etc.?  Are you somehow the final authority on the exact definition of what Street Fighting is?


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Do you listen to yourself?



Do you?


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Show me where I said I had "the only true definition". I simply pointed out that an agreed fight is not the same as self-defense. If you have a position that is counter to that, make it, support it, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, you're just throwing insults for the sake of trolling.



Not all street fights are necessarily, mutually agreed upon, next.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Just because cops don't stop something, that doesn't change the law. Sometimes cops use their judgment on what to enforce and what not to (like when they decide which speeder to pull over on a highway where almost nobody is going under the limit).



No technology exist yet where each cop can pull over and ticket more than 1 car at a time.


----------



## FriedRice

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes, you are. Or at least, I suspect you are.
> If it were necessary to kill someone in order to be the one walking away from a fight, would you? If so, then you're in a life or death fight. Sure, at least 99% of the time you won't have to. But if you're willing to kill, then it's a life or death fight, even if you're in that happy majority of cases that provide more than just one option.
> I don't have a stack of bodies (one quadriplegic, but no deaths), but if I'm in a real fight, then yes, killing is an option.
> You like to act as if being willing to kill means you always do. And that's just silly. It's merely one of many possible results. And, generally speaking, the least common.



Willing to kill? Have you ever beaten the hell out of someone before? Usually when they're done... they'd  go into fetal position and cover up. Or they just get knock the F out and lie there motionless. Are you saying that you're willing to, say, stomp on the head of an unconscious man, on the ground, repeatedly until his skull cracks and brain oozes out so he'd die? Or something like that?  Is this what, "willing to kill" means?  Why can't you just walk away after the KO?

Otherwise, you're just throwing strikes to the best of your capabilities, up the point where the fight/conflict, ceases....and a KO is almost a guaranteed stoppage in the street, which makes it sound really a lot like a sports fight in the ring.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> I actually agree with this. Self defence has nothing to do with martial skills. For example, a TKD kick! Just gonna get your knee fucked



Are you serious?     "A TKD kick"?  This is almost like saying, "I train UFC"...but usually when people say it, they're joking about it and especially when not trying to make a technical argument.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> Are you serious?     "A TKD kick"?  This is almost like saying, "I train UFC"...but usually when people say it, they're joking about it and especially when not trying to make a technical argument.



Her is a video of a former TKD champion using a kick to disable an aggressor. Say what you will, but it looked like it hurt.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

Also (This part is directed to the discussion, not to anyone specific.), on the subject of martial arts usefulness in self-defence, the training from (most) martial arts can come down to knowing where, and what to hit to get the desired result. It can make the difference between having to punch (or kick) the attacker once, vs having to randomly punch many times. I know that there are 1 hit ko's ( youtube is full of them), but the majority of those fighters are not trained in position. They simply know "If I hit here hard enough, something will happen."
So, I would think of Martial arts as a scope for a gun. You don't need it to pull the trigger, but it makes hitting the target the First time a lot easier.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> Incorrect. The video showed that the LEO's honored a statute that they perceived to have existed, and therefor enforced it, which is their job.


Which is related to the point you were originally trying to argue in what way?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Not all street fights are necessarily, mutually agreed upon, next.


Then you and I are using the term differently. To me, that's what a "street fight" is. If you're including fighting to defend against an attack, that will explain part of our disagreement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> No technology exist yet where each cop can pull over and ticket more than 1 car at a time.


Yes, but they could pull one at random. Or spend every possible moment pulling one over. Yet, they do not. They let many pass who are only speeding a little, and wait for someone who is speeding more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Willing to kill? Have you ever beaten the hell out of someone before? Usually when they're done... they'd  go into fetal position and cover up. Or they just get knock the F out and lie there motionless. Are you saying that you're willing to, say, stomp on the head of an unconscious man, on the ground, repeatedly until his skull cracks and brain oozes out so he'd die? Or something like that?  Is this what, "willing to kill" means?  Why can't you just walk away after the KO?
> 
> Otherwise, you're just throwing strikes to the best of your capabilities, up the point where the fight/conflict, ceases....and a KO is almost a guaranteed stoppage in the street, which makes it sound really a lot like a sports fight in the ring.


Willing to kill doesn't mean willing to kill in every circumstance. I think his point was that he's willing to kill if it is necessary. Thankfully, it almost never reaches that point.


----------



## Martial_Kumite




----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> That was my point in my earlier post. There's an overlap in the physical skills. Most of the physical skills used in competition have application in defensive use.


There is an overlap yes, we just disagree on the amount of that overlap.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> Are you serious?     "A TKD kick"?  This is almost like saying, "I train UFC"...but usually when people say it, they're joking about it and especially when not trying to make a technical argument.





Paul_D said:


> Which is related to the point you were originally trying to argue in what way?



Yeah both of these. You really do miss the point, and yeah you seem to like the soind of your own voice.


----------



## oaktree

Willing to kill is a mindset and an attitude, every fight I go into I go in with the possibility that me or  my opponent may be killed.
Thinking that my opponent may stop or is aim isn't to kill me is a foolish assumption, even unintended he still may kill me.


----------



## CB Jones

This might be the craziest thread I have read on Martial Talk to date.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

CB Jones said:


> This might be the craziest thread I have read on Martial Talk to date.


I have read crazier, but this one is definitely one of the most heated I have seen. (not in a good way).


----------



## CB Jones

Video of my last fight.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

CB Jones said:


> Video of my last fight.



OH MAY GOSH, WHO DID YOU FIGHT.

and how are you reading this thread without a head?


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> Not all street fights are necessarily, mutually agreed upon, next.


Then they are not fights, they are assaults.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial_Kumite said:


> and how are you reading this thread without a head?



I have transcended my body achieving ultimate enlightenment... of course


----------



## Transk53

Paul_D said:


> Then they are not fights, they are assaults.



I assume the reference is to gang culture where they polish their tools a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> There is an overlap yes, we just disagree on the amount of that overlap.


My assertion is that most techniques that are usable in hard competition (using MMA as a reasonable example) will find application in self-defense. They may require alteration, but they'll still be useful. That's the overlap I see - nearly everything from one side can be used in the other. Of course, there's a fair amount that can be useful for self-defense that doesn't really have a home in competition, and that's most of the non-overlap in physical skills.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Her is a video of a former TKD champion using a kick to disable an aggressor. Say what you will, but it looked like it hurt.



What am I saying, do you know?


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> My assertion is that most techniques that are usable in hard competition (using MMA as a reasonable example) will find application in self-defense. They may require alteration, but they'll still be useful. That's the overlap I see - nearly everything from one side can be used in the other. Of course, there's a fair amount that can be useful for self-defense that doesn't really have a home in competition, and that's most of the non-overlap in physical skills.


Ah, now this is different.  Now you are talking about techniques.  

Before you were talking about skills.  

If we are talking about techniques then yes I'd agree more with you there.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> My assertion is that most techniques that are usable in hard competition (using MMA as a reasonable example) will find application in self-defense. They may require alteration, but they'll still be useful. That's the overlap I see - nearly everything from one side can be used in the other. Of course, there's a fair amount that can be useful for self-defense that doesn't really have a home in competition, and that's most of the non-overlap in physical skills.



You are probably right in that. The overlap though, just is another tool, and not one to be taken as consciousness thought. I mean if one is stupid enough to think a fancy kick is in order, the overlap is a window of opportunity. Yes a person can learn SD, yes a person can learn to fight, but the deire is another thing. Overlap in skills, there is no overlap.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Which is related to the point you were originally trying to argue in what way?



That the LEO's honored a statute that they perceived to have existed, and therefor enforced it, which is their job.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Then you and I are using the term differently. To me, that's what a "street fight" is. If you're including fighting to defend against an attack, that will explain part of our disagreement.


 
Well since you admitted to not having watched the video that you're directly making an argument about, then how is what you're saying, credible?


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> That the LEO's honored a statute that they perceived to have existed, and therefor enforced it, which is their job.



So you are a wannbe Sheriff or something. I wonder if you're perception of enforcement fits a rational human being?


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> That the LEO's honored a statute that they perceived to have existed, and therefor enforced it, which is their job.


Which wasn't actually your original arguement at all.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but they could pull one at random. Or spend every possible moment pulling one over. Yet, they do not. They let many pass who are only speeding a little, and wait for someone who is speeding more.



Sounds like a logical plan to increase public safety to  me, and I've driven over 150mph on highways before....not often, but not that rare neither.  100mph, not a big deal.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Willing to kill doesn't mean willing to kill in every circumstance. I think his point was that he's willing to kill if it is necessary. Thankfully, it almost never reaches that point.



You missed the point. Unless you think that there are secret sauce, death strikes....only reserved for when "it is necessary".


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Yeah both of these. You really do miss the point, and yeah you seem to like the soind of your own voice.



What point? That you're making up martial arts terminology?


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Willing to kill is a mindset and an attitude, every fight I go into I go in with the possibility that me or  my opponent may be killed.
> Thinking that my opponent may stop or is aim isn't to kill me is a foolish assumption, even unintended he still may kill me.



Isn't it quite foolish to assume that someone who's knocked out and on the ground, can intend to kill you?


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> What point? That you're making up martial arts terminology?



That is, er WTF!!


----------



## Paul_D

Transk53 said:


> That is, er WTF!!


I'm pleased I'm not the only one that thought that.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Then they are not fights, they are assaults.


 
No, they are not assaults....they're unplanned, coerced, tactical engagements....we call it, UCTE.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> No, they are not assaults....they're unplanned, coerced, tactical engagements....we call it, UCTE.


But you were just arguing they were called fights.  Make your mind up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Ah, now this is different.  Now you are talking about techniques.
> 
> Before you were talking about skills.
> 
> If we are talking about techniques then yes I'd agree more with you there.


Okay, that might be where we have a difference in vocabulary. Define the difference between "skill" and "technique" as you use it, please.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> You are probably right in that. The overlap though, just is another tool, and not one to be taken as consciousness thought. I mean if one is stupid enough to think a fancy kick is in order, the overlap is a window of opportunity. Yes a person can learn SD, yes a person can learn to fight, but the deire is another thing. Overlap in skills, there is no overlap.


So, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Paul for: please define your difference between "technique" and "skill".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Well since you admitted to not having watched the video that you're directly making an argument about, then how is what you're saying, credible?


Actually, I clearly commented on the first fight in the video, because that's what I watched. Care to comment on how I can't credibly comment on that?

Ever thought of using a less-confrontational approach?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> No, they are not assaults....they're unplanned, coerced, tactical engagements....we call it, UCTE.


Okay, so you use use that term, and Paul uses the term "assaults". So, what happened to the "fights" you were saying weren't mutually agreed upon?


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> So you are a wannbe Sheriff or something. I wonder if you're perception of enforcement fits a rational human being?



Now you're just making things up out of anger b/c I've exposed your ignorance about that "TKD Kick".


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Which wasn't actually your original arguement at all.



Yes it was. But what did you think my original argument was then?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Sounds like a logical plan to increase public safety to  me, and I've driven over 150mph on highways before....not often, but not that rare neither.  100mph, not a big deal.


Yes, logical. And it requires they exercise judgment, which was precisely my point.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> Okay, that might be where we have a difference in vocabulary. Define the difference between "skill" and "technique" as you use it, please.


A technique would be punch/kick/lock/throw etc.  Which could all potentially be used in self defence.

A skill would be the ability to move in and out of striking range (which in the context of our discussion is a useful fighting skill, but of little use in self defence as self defence does not take place at sparring distance).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> You missed the point. Unless you think that there are secret sauce, death strikes....only reserved for when "it is necessary".


Nobody has referred even once to those, so no need to go there. I was referring to the comment someone else made. No need to act so condescending to everyone who disagrees. It is entirely possible to disagree with people and be civil. (Take a look at Paul's approach in our disagreement in this same thread.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Isn't it quite foolish to assume that someone who's knocked out and on the ground, can intend to kill you?


Isn't it foolish to say someone is saying something they aren't?


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> That is, er WTF!!



Then did you want to tell us what this "TKD Kick" is then?


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> But you were just arguing they were called fights.  Make your mind up.



Fight is the layman's term...like for people who says things such as, "TKD kicks".


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> Yes it was. But what did you think my original argument was then?


I think you need to go back and read your own posts.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I clearly commented on the first fight in the video, because that's what I watched. Care to comment on how I can't credibly comment on that?
> 
> Ever thought of using a less-confrontational approach?



First fight was very much self defense/street-fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> A technique would be punch/kick/lock/throw etc.  Which could all potentially be used in self defence.
> 
> A skill would be the ability to move in and out of striking range (which in the context of our discussion is a useful fighting skill, but of little use in self defence as self defence does not take place at sparring distance).


Okay, I can see that distinction. Just to be clear, I'll make two points:

1) When I use the term "skill" it is "the ability to apply technique". Moving in is accomplished via techniques, and they are all lumped together in to the "skill of moving in".

2) There will be situations where controlling the distance will be useful. If my first response to an attack creates space (I manage to deflect the attack and only get them off-balance enough to send them a step or two away, and maybe am off-balance at the time so can't follow up immediately), then I can either wait for them to close again, or I can close. Being able to close that distance myself will give more options, and will use some of the same techniques as someone in a competition might use for that purpose.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so you use use that term, and Paul uses the term "assaults". So, what happened to the "fights" you were saying weren't mutually agreed upon?



"Fight" is the layman's term. I'm a professional. I train tactical responses while wearing camou clothing + combat boots; even on expensive wrestling mats b/c I'm just hardcore like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> First fight was very much self defense/street-fight.


Um. No. Both combatants had plenty of opportunity to leave, and both chose to stay and fight. It was a street fight, not self-defense. If you have a different view of that, please explain it, because all you've done so far is make unsupported statements, and that doesn't get our discussion anywhere.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Isn't it foolish to say someone is saying something they aren't?



"No need to act so condescending to everyone who disagrees. It is entirely possible to disagree with people and be civil."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> "Fight" is the layman's term. I'm a professional. I train tactical responses while wearing camou clothing + combat boots; even on expensive wrestling mats b/c I'm just hardcore like that.


And, so, I repeat, "So, what happened to the 'fights' you were saying weren't mutually agreed upon?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> "No need to act so condescending to everyone who disagrees. It is entirely possible to disagree with people and be civil."


Nice, or you could try being civil, perhaps. Unlikely.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> I think you need to go back and read your own posts.



= you don't know what you were arguing about?


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I can see that distinction. Just to be clear, I'll make two points:
> 
> 1) When I use the term "skill" it is "the ability to apply technique". Moving in is accomplished via techniques, and they are all lumped together in to the "skill of moving in".


Then we are probably not as far apart as we originally thought.


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> Isn't it quite foolish to assume that someone who's knocked out and on the ground, can intend to kill you?


No, because if you did not do a weapon sweep and they wake up they can still shoot you.  I always assume a couple of things, one he wants to kill me, he has friends, three he has a weapon and four he will fight dirty.

See your approach is a ring setting knock outs, squaring off, trading punches, you don't have the intent or mindset to kill, I on the other hand am coming to fight to kill or be killed so when you square off in your fighting stance I'm waiting for you to come in so I can stab you. Just like my video I posted showing a guy let's say a grappler and I'm in top mound stabbing repeatly. .

What I want you to be aware of is some people simply will do what ever it takes in a fight including kill if need be and that is the difference between a sport fighter and a kill or be killed mindset. Anyway we most likely will never agree whatever you think works for you great go for it. I choose the most pussyfooting arts like taijiquan and things as my martial arts because it's not the art it's the mindset.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Um. No. Both combatants had plenty of opportunity to leave, and both chose to stay and fight. It was a street fight, not self-defense. If you have a different view of that, please explain it, because all you've done so far is make unsupported statements, and that doesn't get our discussion anywhere.



No. 1 guy was sucker punched. Now look up "Stand Your Ground" provisions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Then we are probably not as far apart as we originally thought.


I find that many of the disagreements on here end up being different use of terms. You and I have certainly run into that before. I'm learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> No. 1 guy was sucker punched. Now look up "Stand Your Ground" provisions.


I'm not talking about the legal definition. He stayed when he could have left, when the other person was not attacking him. That is not looking out for one's protection at that point.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> And, so, I repeat, "So, what happened to the 'fights' you were saying weren't mutually agreed upon?"



What do you mean?


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> I'm not talking about the legal definition. He stayed when he could have left, when the other person was not attacking him. That is not looking out for one's protection at that point.



Like I just said, look up "Stand You Ground" provisions.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not talking about the legal definition. He stayed when he could have left, when the other person was not attacking him. That is not looking out for one's protection at that point.



So mutually agreed upon fight here then. Because the cleaner could have left.
Cleaner's desperate fight with armed robber in Townsville bowling alley caught on video


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Like I just said, look up "Stand You Ground" provisions.


Just like I said, I'm not talking about legal definitions.

Oh, and it's worth noting that "stand your ground" provisions are far from universal. In some states, there still exists a "duty to retreat". Certainly mouthing off for a while before re-engaging reduces the legal defensibility of the action.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Um. No. Both combatants had plenty of opportunity to leave, and both chose to stay and fight. It was a street fight, not self-defense. If you have a different view of that, please explain it, because all you've done so far is make unsupported statements, and that doesn't get our discussion anywhere.


Is having an opportunity to leave a defining characteristic of "self defense?"  If one has an opportunity to leave and doesn't, does that shift a situation to something other than self defense?  

I thought we all agreed that self defense is a term that applies to a legal defense where you have done something illegal, such as assault or murder.   

How does this "ability to leave" test apply to cops or bouncers?  I once suggested that what a cop encounters isn't self defense, but was taken to the woodshed.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> No, because if you did not do a weapon sweep and they wake up they can still shoot you.  I always assume a couple of things, one he wants to kill me, he has friends, three he has a weapon and four he will fight dirty.



Are you serious? You're saying that someone who you just knocked out cold and lying on the ground unconscious, needs to be swept for weapons in order for you to safely walk, run or even briskly jog way or something? And if you're so scared of the movie possibilities of other attackers nearby, wouldn't it be a bad idea to get on your knees and feel up some dude (that may have friends) that's snoring on the cement?



> See your approach is a ring setting knock outs, squaring off, trading punches, you don't have the intent or mindset to kill, I on the other hand am coming to fight to kill or be killed so when you square off in your fighting stance I'm waiting for you to come in so I can stab you. Just like my video I posted showing a guy let's say a grappler and I'm in top mound stabbing repeatly. .



If things look fishy, I'd just back up draw my 9mm. Tactical enough for you?



> What I want you to be aware of is some people simply will do what ever it takes in a fight including kill if need be and that is the difference between a sport fighter and a kill or be killed mindset. Anyway we most likely will never agree whatever you think works for you great go for it. I choose the most pussyfooting arts like taijiquan and things as my martial arts because it's not the art it's the mindset.



I've shot at and have been shot at before, do these count?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Just like I said, I'm not talking about legal definitions.
> 
> Oh, and it's worth noting that "stand your ground" provisions are far from universal. In some states, there still exists a "duty to retreat". Certainly mouthing off for a while before re-engaging reduces the legal defensibility of the action.


Oh, so self defense in this thread is something other than a legal term.  Hard to keep up.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> = you don't know what you were arguing about?


Actually I was just bowing out gracefully as I can't be arsed to discuss anything with you further.  You have steadfastly refused to listen to anything anyone else has said that does not correspond 100% with your own thoughts.  Even when numerous people all tell you the same thing, you refuse to accept you may be mistaken, or even that other people may hold differing views to your own.  We all get like that from time to time, including me, but with you it's 100% of the time.

You are not here to learn from others who are wiser and more experienced, hell you're not even here to listen to what anyone else has to say.  You have no intention of considering differing points of view in an attempt to learn or re-examine your own view point.

You are simply here to be obtuse and obstreperous, further you are incapable of formulating a coherent counter argument to pretty much all of the time, and so stoop to accusing people of "making up" words, concepts and things.

I'd get more of a coherent discussion from my cat.

But yeah, tell yourself I don't know what I'm talking about if it makes you feel better, and makes you think you "won", because "winning" arguments rather than learning from discussions seems to be he only reason you are here.

Also, welcome to ignore list.  If you're not sure what that means, it means I have clicked the option to ignore all of your posts.  Which means your posts won't show up on the site for me.  Nor will I receive an alert when you reply to this, or any other post I make.  So enjoy arguing to yourself, as that's what you will be doing.  I won't see what your reply to this, or fortunately anything else you post on the site.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> I'm not talking about the legal definition. He stayed when he could have left, when the other person was not attacking him. That is not looking out for one's protection at that point.



That's your personal rules of conduct and how you personally define, SD. Obviously, not those guys in the 1st fight of that video.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So mutually agreed upon fight here then. Because the cleaner could have left.
> Cleaner's desperate fight with armed robber in Townsville bowling alley caught on video


No, he didn't hang around and mouth off for a period of time. He chose to defend in that location (his place of work). There's a different dynamic here (part of that grey area I mentioned earlier). He could have left, but would have left others (I assume) to the robber. It's like when you are working the door and deal with someone. It's not a mutually agreed fight when you start moving them out (as this guy did) because you're not asking to fight, just controlling the situation. When he then escalates to violence (as this robber did), you respond with defense. That's not the same as if you were in a parking lot and some guy mouthed off and you hung around mouthing off back until it escalated. Nor would it be the same as if someone punched you, you two were separated, and you then got free and went after him. Once the attack is ended, it's no longer self-defense. 

In a place of work or your home, the dynamic is different, because that's someplace you really shouldn't have to leave because of a threat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> That's your personal rules of conduct and how you personally define, SD. Obviously, not those guys in the 1st fight of that video.


I think it's a relatively common definition of SD. If you have a different one, I'm listening. So far, you've shot down ideas but not presented much of your own.


----------



## CB Jones

FriedRice said:


> Like I just said, look up "Stand You Ground" provisions.



Stand Your Ground Laws are state laws and are different for every state.


On a side note, this thread is confusing enough that I'm pretty sure it's giving me a brain bleed.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Where did I ever say self-defense was a script. I've said quite the opposite a number of times. I'm not sure what you mean by "manufactured concept". Self-defense is, indeed, a concept - most things people discuss are such. It's fairly easy to agree upon a working definition if one is not being argumentative. That situation was clearly self-defense, though we'd have to question whether it transitioned to something else near the end. There's definitely some grey area where it's hard to draw the line - that's true of all concepts.



Self defence is fitting whatever terms you seem to want to make it. Based on your own opinion.

Which makes any argument of self defence void pretty much. Because it is determined by your own impression of what self defence is. It would be like asking at this point what fight was prettier. You just decide.

And then to suggest it is easy just to go with your impression of what is self defence is probably not going to happen.

You are even determining whether a person could have removed themselves from a fight without knowing anything about that fight.

There is a legal determination of self defence and there is a legal determination of amicable contest. Which you throw out the window for your determination of both.

Now the legal term is manufactured. Someone just came up with the idea. Then you manufactured,came up with a new idea, a different version of self defence that applies to you.

And are having issues with other people being argumentitive?


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Just like I said, I'm not talking about legal definitions.



Then you're merely expressing your own opinion, for your own self which is irrelevant to those people in the video and myself who don't agree with you as to what SD is.



> Oh, and it's worth noting that "stand your ground" provisions are far from universal. In some states, there still exists a "duty to retreat". Certainly mouthing off for a while before re-engaging reduces the legal defensibility of the action.



I didn't say they were universal.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Actually I was just bowing out gracefully as I can't be arsed to discuss anything with you further.  You have steadfastly refused to listen to anything anyone else has said that does not correspond 100% with your own thoughts.  Even when numerous people all tell you the same thing, you refuse to accept you may be mistaken, or even that other people may hold differing views to your own.  We all get like that from time to time, including me, but with you it's 100% of the time.
> 
> You are not here to learn from others who are wiser and more experienced, hell you're not even here to listen to what anyone else has to say.  You have no intention of considering differing points of view in an attempt to learn or re-examine your own view point.
> 
> You are simply here to be obtuse and obstreperous, further you are incapable of formulating a coherent counter argument to pretty much all of the time, and so stoop to accusing people of "making up" words, concepts and things.
> 
> I'd get more of a coherent discussion from my cat.
> 
> But yeah, tell yourself I don't know what I'm talking about if it makes you feel better, and makes you think you "won", because "winning" arguments rather than learning from discussions seems to be he only reason you are here.
> 
> Also, welcome to ignore list.  If you're not sure what that means, it means I have clicked the option to ignore all of your posts.  Which means your posts won't show up on the site for me.  Nor will I receive an alert when you reply to this, or any other post I make.  So enjoy arguing to yourself, as that's what you will be doing.  I won't see what your reply to this, or fortunately anything else you post on the site.



Skimming through this, I just see a bunch of complaints. Most people with better things to do, just put me on ignore w/o the farewell speech.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Is having an opportunity to leave a defining characteristic of "self defense?"  If one has an opportunity to leave and doesn't, does that shift a situation to something other than self defense?
> 
> I thought we all agreed that self defense is a term that applies to a legal defense where you have done something illegal, such as assault or murder.
> 
> How does this "ability to leave" test apply to cops or bouncers?  I once suggested that what a cop encounters isn't self defense, but was taken to the woodshed.


To some extent, the ability to exit does shift things. It's not a hard line (like the video DB posted).

I'm not one to stick to the legal definition. I'm talking about the same concept the legal definition is, but it's far more nuanced than the law can easily handle in writing. If I am attacked, and can safely leave the situation without leaving others in danger, it is not self-defense (the concept) to remain and fight. Change any of the assumptions (no known escape route, others may be left in danger), and that changes everything. There's also another side that's hard to define. It has to do with "should". Someone shouldn't have to leave their home - it's most people's sanctum. So, the best defense of self might still be to leave, but I have a hard time saying someone isn't defending themselves when they choose to not be driven from their home. And I'm not sure why I can't draw a line there - it just _should_ be that way, IMO. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for a place of work.

As for cops and bouncers, this is where some of the discussion gets off the rails. Some of what they do isn't strictly self-defense. Much of it ends up being self-defense (when someone attacks them for doing their job). In either case, much of the technique they use can also be applied in self-defense situations by others (assuming the same tools in a given situation). Their choices will be different, as are some of their goals, and they have different choices to make. Both groups took jobs where they essentially agreed not to escape as often as the pure concept of self-defense would suggest. I think we can reasonably agree that there's still an element of self-defense in that situation, when someone is trying to hurt them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, he didn't hang around and mouth off for a period of time. He chose to defend in that location (his place of work). There's a different dynamic here (part of that grey area I mentioned earlier). He could have left, but would have left others (I assume) to the robber. It's like when you are working the door and deal with someone. It's not a mutually agreed fight when you start moving them out (as this guy did) because you're not asking to fight, just controlling the situation. When he then escalates to violence (as this robber did), you respond with defense. That's not the same as if you were in a parking lot and some guy mouthed off and you hung around mouthing off back until it escalated. Nor would it be the same as if someone punched you, you two were separated, and you then got free and went after him. Once the attack is ended, it's no longer self-defense.
> 
> In a place of work or your home, the dynamic is different, because that's someplace you really shouldn't have to leave because of a threat.



Yeah. look work on your theory and get back to me. in the mean time I will just call everything that is a fight a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Oh, so self defense in this thread is something other than a legal term.  Hard to keep up.


Agreed. I do see folks standing on the legal definition. I have no problem with that, but I come from the conceptual side. It's harder to define, and leads to more disagreements, so maybe there's a good reason some folks choose to stick to the legal definition on such a contentious topic.


----------



## CB Jones

If most people are putting you on ignore that should tell you something. 


Reminds me of a qoute from Paul Thorn, "if you can't get a Jehovah Witness to have a conversation with you....it's time to brush up on your social skills."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. look work on your theory and get back to me. in the mean time I will just call everything that is a fight a fight.


I'm actually okay with that usage, DB. I tend to draw a distinction between a mutually-agreed fight (and there is room for disagreement as to what that is, of course), versus attacks (which lead to self-defense). Both often involve fighting, so calling both of them fights is appropriate. Others will disagree.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> I think it's a relatively common definition of SD. If you have a different one, I'm listening. So far, you've shot down ideas but not presented much of your own.



Mine is to stay within the confines of the local law's definition of SD, by a healthy margin, just to be on the safe side. And part of the benefits of training and sparring full power for knockouts for over 10 years, is that it made me so used to physical violence, that I'm very calm and collect during confrontations... that I wouldn't freak out and go "full retard" on someone.....over some little thing in the street and risk manslaughter charges or worse, 2nd degree murder.


----------



## Buka

As Billy Crystal used to ask on SNL, who is muy macho? Ricardo Montalban or Fernando Lamas?


----------



## FriedRice

CB Jones said:


> If most people are putting you on ignore that should tell you something.



Good riddance. That guy's schtick is just the same 'ol same 'ol SD one. And I actually train Krav Maga, so I can smell larping a mile away.


----------



## FriedRice

CB Jones said:


> Stand Your Ground Laws are state laws and are different for every state.
> 
> On a side note, this thread is confusing enough that I'm pretty sure it's giving me a brain bleed.



Yes, I know this. That's why in non-Stand Your Ground states, I usually do this:






And also, the laws can be very much against "trained killers" such as myself in my camou pants and combat boots, all seasons attire....when claiming self defense before the Judge. This also would bring up the Lawyer factor and how much one can afford, making a big difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> "trained killers" such as myself in my camou pants and combat boots


...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Self defence is fitting whatever terms you seem to want to make it. Based on your own opinion.
> 
> Which makes any argument of self defence void pretty much. Because it is determined by your own impression of what self defence is. It would be like asking at this point what fight was prettier. You just decide.
> 
> And then to suggest it is easy just to go with your impression of what is self defence is probably not going to happen.
> 
> You are even determining whether a person could have removed themselves from a fight without knowing anything about that fight.
> 
> There is a legal determination of self defence and there is a legal determination of amicable contest. Which you throw out the window for your determination of both.
> 
> Now the legal term is manufactured. Someone just came up with the idea. Then you manufactured,came up with a new idea, a different version of self defence that applies to you.
> 
> And are having issues with other people being argumentitive?


Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.

The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> That's your personal rules of conduct and how you personally define, SD. Obviously, not those guys in the 1st fight of that video.


Not so obviously. They don't appear to be making rational decisions in the video. They might be, but it doesn't appear that way. People whose emotions take over often make decisions they, themselves, cannot defend.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.
> 
> The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.



So all the way back at the start of this was there are a whole bunch of fights where people don't die

Why bother making the distinction in the first place?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So all the way back at the start of this was there are a whole bunch of fights where people don't die
> 
> Why bother making the distinction in the first place?


I don't know why others make the distinction. To me, it's part ethics, part strategy. The strategy part is understanding the difference between a fight (stay in until you win or lose) and defense (if you have a chance to escape, generally, you should take it). The ethics part is more personal, but it ties to the idea of avoiding unnecessary risk, too (a principle of self-protection). If someone offers violence, it's generally better to decline than to engage, if that's an option. So, if someone loses their mind in anger (the "emotional hijacking" I referenced in another thread) and wants me to go out back with them, I won't go. I simply won't agree to the fight. Of course, we could probably come up with a circumstance where agreeing to the fight might be acceptable, but it wouldn't normally be so.

If we don't make a distinction between what is self-defense and what isn't, we put all fighting on the same moral plane. I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with fighting to defend oneself from an attack, and that any injuries you receive while doing so are the "fault" of the attacker. I think most people would also agree that agreeing to fight someone who just wants to hurt you because they are mad at you is probably a bad idea, and that any injuries you sustain in that situation are at least partly your own responsibility.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> So, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Paul for: please define your difference between "technique" and "skill".



One of the same. Well skills are just natural movements. IE David Beckham and that right foot. He had to hone the technique, but the skill was already there.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> What am I saying, do you know?


Umm... I am confused on what you are asking?


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> Then did you want to tell us what this "TKD Kick" is then?



Er no, but the kick no doubt would be ballet quality.


----------



## CB Jones

Skill is created thru repetition and hard work.

Natural ability is natural but extremely rare.

Skill is acquired.


----------



## Transk53

CB Jones said:


> Skill is created thru repetition and hard work.
> 
> Natural ability is natural but extremely rare.
> 
> Skill is acquired.



No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic


----------



## CB Jones

Transk53 said:


> No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic



Skills can be honed, after those skills are learned.

Beckham had to learn how to kick a soccer ball he was not born with that knowledge.

His natural ability might of made it easier to learn but it still had to be learned.

Technique is the method in which you do something

Skill is how well you do that technique

Natural abilities enhance the skills that we have


----------



## Transk53

CB Jones said:


> Skills can be honed, after those skills are learned.
> 
> Beckham had to learn how to kick a soccer ball he was not born with that knowledge.
> 
> His natural ability might of made it easier to learn but it still had to be learned.
> 
> Technique is the method in which you do something
> 
> Skill is how well you do that technique
> 
> Natural abilities enhance the skills that we have



CB that is a very good answer. Sorry though, I don't subscribe to that, yeah.

Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message


----------



## Martial_Kumite

Transk53 said:


> Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message



Wouldn't it be well to say that a natural skill needed to be "awakened"? For instance, If some one has a natural ability to read/play music, they first have to be exposed to music/playing music. So it might be less that you need to "learn" a natural ability, and more that you have to realise it exists.


----------



## CB Jones

Transk53 said:


> Sorry though, I don't subscribe to that, yeah



If you are talking about reality...I would agree


----------



## Transk53

Martial_Kumite said:


> Wouldn't it be well to say that a natural skill needed to be "awakened"? For instance, If some one has a natural ability to read/play music, they first have to be exposed to music/playing music. So it might be less that you need to "learn" a natural ability, and more that you have to realise it exists.



Yes. That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Transk53

CB Jones said:


> If you are talking about reality...I would agree



Yeah sure. Nice attempt though


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Self-defense is a concept. Unless we use the legal term (then we have to decide which law), it's going to have fuzzy edges. I'm more than willing to admit that there are points where it's tough to define the difference between self-defense and something else. I can't make it not be that way. I try to put my own views out there as plainly as I can, so folks can understand where I'm coming from. If they have a different view of it, that's fine. It doesn't make it impossible to discuss. It just means the people discussing it have to agree on some points (choose a common definition, etc.) for it to become a meaningful discussion.
> 
> The legal definition is based upon the concept. If you want to use the legal definition, that's fine. Of course, you'll have to decide which legal definition you wish to use, because the legal concept is fairly universal, but the language and limits aren't.



I'm fine with this. It's just that you kept quoting my post calling something SD, and saying "that's not self defense", which implies that you're the Final Authority.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Not so obviously. They don't appear to be making rational decisions in the video. They might be, but it doesn't appear that way. People whose emotions take over often make decisions they, themselves, cannot defend.



They're defending themselves from attacks. What's considered rational to someone who's not used to violence is usually different than those who, ie. lives in the ghetto and must use violence often to survive daily life. The last thing that someone wants to be in the ghetto, is the B, that runs away all the time.


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Er no, but the kick no doubt would be ballet quality.



It's ok, you're a noob in the realm of MA. We all had to start somewhere.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Umm... I am confused on what you are asking?



See you didn't know. I was referring to his calling certain techniques, "TKD kicks". This is like saying, "I train UFC". That is all.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> See you didn't know. I was referring to his calling certain techniques, "TKD kicks". This is like saying, "I train UFC". That is all.



Well, you phrased the question weirdly. But some TKD kicks do work, it is just TKD is stereotyped for its flashy kicks, but they do have some that are simple and work. The video I posted is an example of this.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> In this "sport", we already have one guy pinning down someone for his buddy to soccer kick and stomp on his head. How much more realism do you want


Frried Rice, I am smelling an agenda here.  I've been in about a hundred street fights, won nearly all, as winning is defined, been marked in nearly all, and nope, never had to maim anyone, but I've been in group fights wehre people have been badly maimed, i.e. the kick to the knee causing reversal of the joint, elbow and shoulder dislocations and a cracked skull one time.

That stuff just doesn't happen at the rate in sport matches as in the real world. But, feel free to go ahead and pound your drum, it's OK.  I can see the point of view, trying to raise the "realism" in what you do, or what you like to watch, I'm just not into it the same way any longer.

Maybe I'm old.


----------



## CB Jones

Man, this site has got some real dangerous people on it.

It's almost intimidating.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't know why others make the distinction. To me, it's part ethics, part strategy. The strategy part is understanding the difference between a fight (stay in until you win or lose) and defense (if you have a chance to escape, generally, you should take it). The ethics part is more personal, but it ties to the idea of avoiding unnecessary risk, too (a principle of self-protection). If someone offers violence, it's generally better to decline than to engage, if that's an option. So, if someone loses their mind in anger (the "emotional hijacking" I referenced in another thread) and wants me to go out back with them, I won't go. I simply won't agree to the fight. Of course, we could probably come up with a circumstance where agreeing to the fight might be acceptable, but it wouldn't normally be so.
> 
> If we don't make a distinction between what is self-defense and what isn't, we put all fighting on the same moral plane. I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with fighting to defend oneself from an attack, and that any injuries you receive while doing so are the "fault" of the attacker. I think most people would also agree that agreeing to fight someone who just wants to hurt you because they are mad at you is probably a bad idea, and that any injuries you sustain in that situation are at least partly your own responsibility.



No. In regards to what the video and post that was trying to point out that a whole bunch of real fights that people dont die and don't kill.

Kill or be killed in the street may happen but it is only the norm if you choose to make it so.

That is where you made the distinction between self defence and mutually agreed fights.

So the distinction should effect that situation.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> Man, this site has got some real dangerous people on it.
> 
> It's almost intimidating.



Yeah training for a world where every fight can kill you makes you dangerous. luckily the people you are fighting probably can't fight very well so you don't have to train very hard.


----------



## CB Jones

drop bear said:


> Yeah training for a world where every fight can kill you makes you dangerous. luckily the people you are fighting probably can't fight very well so you don't have to train very hard.



I'm not talking about the training.  I do a lot of training.

I'm talking about all the street and gang fights some have been in.  It's like The Warriors in here


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> I'm not talking about the training.  I do a lot of training.
> 
> I'm talking about all the street and gang fights some have been in.  It's like The Warriors in here.


Hey, and that's just the sport guys.   The street guys are straight gangster.  

Anything sports guys do, they do more deadly.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> It's ok, you're a noob in the realm of MA. We all had to start somewhere.



Mmm, one does not advertise one skills. At the risk of the moderators ire, you sir are what we call in the UK, a grade A bell end. Each to their own, but when you get some hurt, don't start crying when you get hurt. Because frankly, you're **** is going to get fried with that attitude.


----------



## Transk53

FriedRice said:


> See you didn't know. I was referring to his calling certain techniques, "TKD kicks". This is like saying, "I train UFC". That is all.



I would like to add that I never referenced anything. Perhaps you slow down a tad, and remember what you type.


----------



## Transk53

Steve said:


> Hey, and that's just the sport guys.   The street guys are straight gangster.
> 
> Anything sports guys do, they do more deadly.



You on one as well?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Martial_Kumite said:


> Well, you phrased the question weirdly. But some TKD kicks do work, it is just TKD is stereotyped for its flashy kicks, but they do have some that are simple and work. The video I posted is an example of this.



Even flashy kicks work. They're not a high percentage shot, but they can work. 
And, too, what's flashy to someone who isn't a very good kicker is routine to someone who is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> One of the same. Well skills are just natural movements. IE David Beckham and that right foot. He had to hone the technique, but the skill was already there.


The term skill does not normally refer to that which is natural. It is something developed. There may be instances of people with natural strengths that make skill development easy in some area, but the skill is not usually natural.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Er no, but the kick no doubt would be ballet quality.


Not all TKD kicks are flashy dance moves. For certain, there are some flashy moves that are seen in TKD demonstrations, but the same can be said of almost any art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> No its not. Skils can be honed. You have them or you don't. Its what makes us non robotic


I disagree entirely. Capacity is natural. A highly-skilled soccer player did not come out of the womb with the skills and ability to kick the ball that well. They learned techniques and honed them into the necessary skills. Ball-handling is a skill, and was learned. Now, for people the learning may have been very easy. For others, it was grueling work. Look at Pele's story - he spent many hours learning to control the ball to become the player he was.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> CB that is a very good answer. Sorry though, I don't subscribe to that, yeah.
> 
> Anyway, natural ability doesn't have to be learnt. Just ever so contradicting of the message


No contradiction there. "Natural abilities enhance the skills." So, if someone has a natural ability, they will usually be able to reach a higher level of skill  faster.

Dictionary.com definition of skill: "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> I'm fine with this. It's just that you kept quoting my post calling something SD, and saying "that's not self defense", which implies that you're the Final Authority.


No, it doesn't imply that. It means I don't agree that it's self-defense. Or, are you the final authority on what something implies?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> They're defending themselves from attacks. What's considered rational to someone who's not used to violence is usually different than those who, ie. lives in the ghetto and must use violence often to survive daily life. The last thing that someone wants to be in the ghetto, is the B, that runs away all the time.


That's one of those grey areas I talked about. If you take a single instance, it isn't self-defense if they could reasonably escape, but don't. In the view of ongoing violence, it might actually be safer in some cases to engage, since escaping the instance doesn't escape the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> See you didn't know. I was referring to his calling certain techniques, "TKD kicks". This is like saying, "I train UFC". That is all.


But it's not. There is an art called Tae Kwon Do. They have kicks. Those kicks can be fairly referred to as "TKD kicks". UFC is a competition. Nobody can train "in" it - it's just not grammatically correct, since UFC isn't a style - though they can train "for" it. (Mind you, "MMA" is starting to be referred to as a style by some, in spite of the origin of the term itself, so someone could reasonably claim to "train in MMA"...though the usage bugs me.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Even flashy kicks work. They're not a high percentage shot, but they can work.
> And, too, what's flashy to someone who isn't a very good kicker is routine to someone who is.


Agreed. There are kicks that look amazing to me (I've only ever trained and used pretty basic stuff) that someone from Kyokushin would probably find simple.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> But it's not. There is an art called Tae Kwon Do. They have kicks. Those kicks can be fairly referred to as "TKD kicks". UFC is a competition. Nobody can train "in" it - it's just not grammatically correct, since UFC isn't a style - though they can train "for" it. (Mind you, "MMA" is starting to be referred to as a style by some, in spite of the origin of the term itself, so someone could reasonably claim to "train in MMA"...though the usage bugs me.)



What would you call the class that people go to to learn MMA though?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. In regards to what the video and post that was trying to point out that a whole bunch of real fights that people dont die and don't kill.
> 
> Kill or be killed in the street may happen but it is only the norm if you choose to make it so.
> 
> That is where you made the distinction between self defence and mutually agreed fights.
> 
> So the distinction should effect that situation.


I'm missing the connection between this post and the one you quoted, DB. I'm just now having coffee, so it might be my sleepy brain. So, if my reply isn't to what you wanted me to get from that, help me out.

My approach to violence on the street is that there's a chance it will turn deadly, whether the attacker intends it so or not. There are safeties in place in sport, and things still turn deadly on very rare occasions there. Getting knocked down on the street, there are hard objects to hit a head on. You don't really know the intention of the attacker. If they want to hurt you, they may not be good enough at it to avoid killing you by accident. Thus, every incidence of street violence has to be treated as something potentially deadly until the moment when that potential appears to no longer exist. That moment is reached when the attacker actively disengages, flees, is subdued, or is otherwise unable to attack...and the area is clear of anyone who appears to support them.

That, however, is not only true of self-defense situations. Let's say I'm in a bar, and some goober (thanks for putting that word back in my vocabulary, by the way) thinks I've been eyeing "his girl" all night. Maybe I have, maybe I haven't - doesn't really matter. He comes over and starts talking ****. He's saying he's gonna kick my *** and show me how to respect a man. I'm done with my beer, it's getting late, and I could just leave. He's only in the monkey dance stage, and isn't really showing signs of being ready to start hitting (of course, I'm on the ready, just in case). So, the easiest self-defense thing would be to leave. But I decide not to. I step to him and mouth off back, telling him she'd probably appreciate him doing that, so "his girl" can see what it looks like when a real man uses him to clean the floors. Now he's not just monkey dancing - he's enraged. We end up - predictably - in a fight. That's not self-defense, but I'd have to treat it as a potentially deadly situation, because he might be mad and/or stupid enough to take it there, or he might just do the wrong thing and hurt me that badly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What would you call the class that people go to to learn MMA though?


So far, I've referred to it as "training for MMA", or even "MMA training", unless it's divided into styles (you know, like the gyms that have a Muay Thai class, then a BJJ class, etc.).


----------



## Martial_Kumite

So, let's just say that HYPOTHEDICLY, you end up in some sort of combative situation where you have to keep harm from happening to you (or friend, wife, etc.). 

Would it be effective to have an MA background, and would that background be effective in subduing/defending/protecting yourself in combative situations?

If not, Why? If it is, Why?  

(I am using Combative loosely to describe a situation where blows are, or have the potential to be, exchanged.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial_Kumite said:


> So, let's just say that HYPOTHEDICLY, you end up in some sort of combative situation where you have to keep harm from happening to you (or friend, wife, etc.).
> 
> Would it be effective to have an MA background, and would that background be effective in subduing/defending/protecting yourself in combative situations?
> 
> If not, Why? If it is, Why?
> 
> (I am using Combative loosely to describe a situation where blows are, or have the potential to be, exchanged.)


Would it be helpful? As long as you realistically know what you have learned (Steve makes a good point about what you have really learned vs. what you think you learned), any training should be helpful. Even training for very light point sparring teaches you better movement than not doing it, so long as you don't think that it has trained you in the dynamics of a real altercation.

Would it be effective? That depends upon the specific training, as well as your personal ability to execute (will you freeze, engage, etc.).


----------



## jobo

Martial_Kumite said:


> So, let's just say that HYPOTHEDICLY, you end up in some sort of combative situation where you have to keep harm from happening to you (or friend, wife, etc.).
> 
> Would it be effective to have an MA background, and would that background be effective in subduing/defending/protecting yourself in combative situations?
> 
> If not, Why? If it is, Why?
> 
> (I am using Combative loosely to describe a situation where blows are, or have the potential to be, exchanged.)


hi I'm new here, been following this thread, so I though id join in!
its not an easy question to answer as its to generic, if you are a roughly the same fitness level( or better) as you attacker , you ma training will be extremely usefull. If on the other hand your attacker is substantially stronger, faster with better cardio, coordination and balance etc. Then your training might limit the damage done to you or it might not. If he has more power, but you have more endurance cardio and coordination then it would be an interesting contest. Dependent. On how good your skills are
The belief prevalent in some dojos that skills alone will allow you to defend yourselves with out a good standard of fitness is misplaced .
The answer is a) only get in fight with people in worse Shape than you or b) be extremely fit so that you have an advantage over most people c) have a knock out punch


----------



## Tez3

Some people think they are hard because they have fitness and/or training in some fighting style, they think they are hard because they've had some fight 'on the street' as opposed to competitive fights. They aren't however particularly hard and aren't actually to be feared. The ones you have to watch are the ones who really don't care what happens either to themselves or others. The ones who are basically 'mental' as we say here. They will beat you up without compunction, they have no stopping point because they simply don't five a monkey's.
How Lenny McLean became the hardest man in Britain
‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser: original hardman who loved to cause panic

There's plenty around with these men's mentality, (I know at least two MMA fighters like this one luckily is in a North Africa prison, he also inherited the Kray's 'patch' clues for you), the other is an early UFC fighter) most don't get the publicity these did but they are out there and if you think you can take them on, that you are harder than them well, I hope you have got will written up.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

Keep things civil, and on-topic, folks.  This is your only warning.


----------



## Steve

Transk53 said:


> You on one as well?


I don't understand the question.  Am I on one what?


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Well, you phrased the question weirdly. But some TKD kicks do work, it is just TKD is stereotyped for its flashy kicks, but they do have some that are simple and work. The video I posted is an example of this.



You're like the other guy then.  You're both ignorant as there's no such thing.


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> Frried Rice, I am smelling an agenda here.  I've been in about a hundred street fights, won nearly all, as winning is defined, been marked in nearly all, and nope, never had to maim anyone, but I've been in group fights wehre people have been badly maimed, i.e. the kick to the knee causing reversal of the joint, elbow and shoulder dislocations and a cracked skull one time.
> 
> That stuff just doesn't happen at the rate in sport matches as in the real world. But, feel free to go ahead and pound your drum, it's OK.  I can see the point of view, trying to raise the "realism" in what you do, or what you like to watch, I'm just not into it the same way any longer.
> 
> Maybe I'm old.



I've been in street fights and gang rumbles too, big deal. I don't think you understand the point.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> I've been in street fights and gang rumbles too, big deal. You obviously don't understand the point.



Then you please restate, or further describe the point you are trying to get across. This thread has gotten a little confusing. 



FriedRice said:


> You're like the other guy then. You're both ignorant as there's no such thing.



Then Could you please explain your interpretation of what happened in the video that I posted with the TKD champion disabling an aggressor? I would like to hear your explanation of that scenario. Just so I can see where your thought prosses is.

Thank you


----------



## FriedRice

drop bear said:


> Yeah training for a world where every fight can kill you makes you dangerous. luckily the people you are fighting probably can't fight very well so you don't have to train very hard.



Especially when it time to pressure test these dangerous tactical real life training, it's tip tap time all day, because most of the people there have had hip replacements and can't risk it.  When you train at the gym, to tap someone to death in real life,.....how would it translate to the real world?  Maybe like this:


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> Mmm, one does not advertise one skills. At the risk of the moderators ire, you sir are what we call in the UK, a grade A bell end. Each to their own, but when you get some hurt, don't start crying when you get hurt. Because frankly, you're **** is going to get fried with that attitude.



Especially when you advertise about that "TKD kick"


----------



## FriedRice

Transk53 said:


> I would like to add that I never referenced anything. Perhaps you slow down a tad, and remember what you type.



Shame shame. That's a fib.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> No, it doesn't imply that. It means I don't agree that it's self-defense. Or, are you the final authority on what something implies?



No, you changed your position after I kept calling you out on it. You were making  absolute statements. And now you're copying my "final authority" line. Feel free to do so, because flattery will you everywhere with me.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> That's one of those grey areas I talked about. If you take a single instance, it isn't self-defense if they could reasonably escape, but don't. In the view of ongoing violence, it might actually be safer in some cases to engage, since escaping the instance doesn't escape the situation.



Like I said, that's your definition of SD. If your idea is to always run away ASAP, then that's fine. Some people don't run and chose to defend themselves in other ways.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> But it's not. There is an art called Tae Kwon Do. They have kicks. Those kicks can be fairly referred to as "TKD kicks". UFC is a competition. Nobody can train "in" it - it's just not grammatically correct, since UFC isn't a style - though they can train "for" it. (Mind you, "MMA" is starting to be referred to as a style by some, in spite of the origin of the term itself, so someone could reasonably claim to "train in MMA"...though the usage bugs me.)



List 10 "TKD Kicks".


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> List 10 "TKD Kicks"




Front kick
Back kick
roundhouse kick
Hook kick
axe kick
backspin kick
jump backspin kick
sidekick kick
jump side kick
Cresent (Inside/outside) kick
Jump back kick

And here are some more Tae Kwon Do kicks

List of Korean Names for Taekwondo Kicks - Taekwondo Animals
Taekwondo Animals: List of Korean Names for Taekwondo Kicks


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Then you please restate, or further describe the point you are trying to get across. This thread has gotten a little confusing.



Punching someone really, really hard in the face to knock them the F out, works just the same in the street as it does in the ring.



> Then Could you please explain your interpretation of what happened in the video that I posted with the TKD champion disabling an aggressor? I would like to hear your explanation of that scenario. Just so I can see where your thought prosses is.
> 
> Thank you



Well at least you stopped calling that kick in the video that you posted, a "TKD Kick"...so we are getting somewhere. But what else is there to say about that video? Some girl, front kicked an abusive dude in his sternum and he dropped. Good for her. If she trained TKD, that's good for her too. You're welcome.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> Well at least you stopped calling that kick in the video that you posted, a "TKD Kick"...so we are getting somewhere. But what else is there to say about that video? Some girl, front kicked an abusive dude in his sternum and he dropped. Good for her. If she trained TKD, that's good for her too.



Then can you please explain what a "TDK kick" is? Because right now my understanding is that it is a kick that is learned while learning Tea Kwan Do. If you are referring to something else, than please explain.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Then can you please explain what a "TDK kick" is? Because right now my understanding is that it is a kick that is learned while learning Tea Kwan Do. If you are referring to something else, than please explain.



Not sure where you're training TKD, but I doubt that a credible TKD instructor ever told you that something's a "TKD Kick" just like a Karate instructor wouldn't say, "Karate Kick".


----------



## Steve

Martial_Kumite said:


> Then can you please explain what a "TDK kick" is? Because right now my understanding is that it is a kick that is learned while learning Tea Kwan Do. If you are referring to something else, than please explain.


Sorry, but Tea Kwan Do is too awesome to pass up.  I found a rare image of a Tea Kwan Do master executing a TKD Kick:


----------



## FriedRice

Steve said:


> Sorry, but Tea Kwan Do is too awesome to pass up.  I found a rare image of a Tea Kwan Do master executing a TKD Kick:




He hates these tea sets:


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> Not sure where you're training TKD, but I doubt that a credible TKD instructor ever told you that something's a "TKD Kick" just like a Karate instructor wouldn't say, "Karate Kick".



I simply understand that a TKD kick is a kick (front, back, side etc.) that is taught by a Tae Kwon Do instructor, based off of what you have described. If this is not true, then PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT A TKD KICK is to you.

At least then I will have some idea of what you are talking about when you say "TKD Kick".

Thank you


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> I simply understand that a TKD kick is a kick (front, back, side etc.) that is taught by a Tae Kwon Do instructor, based off of what you have described. If this is not true, then PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT A TKD KICK is to you.
> 
> At least then I will have some idea of what you are talking about when you say "TKD Kick".
> 
> Thank you



I was quoting what that other guy said about something being a "TKD kick" and how that's ignorant to say such.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> No, you changed your position after I kept calling you out on it. You were making  absolute statements. And now you're copying my "final authority" line. Feel free to do so, because flattery will you everywhere with me.


Actually I wasn't copying your line. I was pointing out that you were doing what you claimed I was doing. You were making yourself the final authority on what my statement implies.

And, no, I didn't change my position. My position is as it was. I've tried to clarify the (perhaps overly simple) original statement by describing the concept.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Like I said, that's your definition of SD. If your idea is to always run away ASAP, then that's fine. Some people don't run and chose to defend themselves in other ways.


Agreed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> List 10 "TKD Kicks".


I don't practice TKD, so I don't know the names. Folks who practice TKD do, however. I could name you 10 kicks from NGA, if that will make you happy.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> I was what that other guy said about something being a "TKD kick" and how that's ignorant to say such.



Thank you. That Is all that you needed to say.
Anyway, the thread was confusing around when you mentioned the TKD kick (as in reference to what the other guy said). I thought you were agreeing with the guy on the "TKD kick" comment, and when you later called people being ignorant, it just came off wrong. Please be patient with me, I can only understand so much. I apologize for miss understanding what you trying to say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> I was quoting what that other guy said about something being a "TKD kick" and how that's ignorant to say such.


And he is pointing out that he disagrees about that being ignorant. Most people I know would understand a TKD kick to be a kick taught/learned as a part of TKD training. Not sure why that's so hard to grasp.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> Punching someone really, really hard in the face to knock them the F out, works just the same in the street as it does in the ring.



With this, I agree. Then, I would bring up the point that an MA background/training can make it more effective, with less needed energy to render someone ko'ed.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Actually I wasn't copying your line. I was pointing out that you were doing what you claimed I was doing. You were making yourself the final authority on what my statement implies.



Actually, that sounds exactly like copying, but it's ok,  I'm fine with it.



> And, no, I didn't change my position. My position is as it was. I've tried to clarify the (perhaps overly simple) original statement by describing the concept.



You said, "no", "not SD". This is absolute.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> And he is pointing out that he disagrees about that being ignorant. Most people I know would understand a TKD kick to be a kick taught/learned as a part of TKD training. Not sure why that's so hard to grasp.



List 10 TKD kicks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Punching someone really, really hard in the face to knock them the F out, works just the same in the street as it does in the ring.


Agreed, assuming the person training for the ring doesn't always train with gloves and wrist wraps. A boxer, for instance, who is accustomed to only hitting hard with boxing gloves (I should think that would be pretty rare, but I'm not familiar with their training norms) might deliver a punch that damages his hand. This becomes less likely with the smaller MMA gloves, but I'd expect there's still a need to train hard hitting without the padding, for safety (MMA folks can give a better view on that - I haven't ever trained in MMA gloves).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Actually, that sounds exactly like copying, but it's ok,  I'm fine with it.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "no", "not SD". This is absolute.


I still don't think it was SD. That hasn't changed. What I've tried to clarify is how I make that determination, and that is not an absolute thing - there's a continuum, with several factors, all of which have some potential grey areas. There are some elements of defense in that one instance, but I wouldn't call it self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> List 10 TKD kicks.


Are you stuck on that? I already answered that, as did someone else.


----------



## Jenna

This thread may contain allergens


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, assuming the person training for the ring doesn't always train with gloves and wrist wraps. A boxer, for instance, who is accustomed to only hitting hard with boxing gloves (I should think that would be pretty rare, but I'm not familiar with their training norms) might deliver a punch that damages his hand. This becomes less likely with the smaller MMA gloves, but I'd expect there's still a need to train hard hitting without the padding, for safety (MMA folks can give a better view on that - I haven't ever trained in MMA gloves).



volume and intensity.

The people who train bare knuckle train different exercises. So you don't generally see 10 rounds of sparring or heavy bag bare knuckle from anybody.

Bare knuckle fighters dont do it.












Hitting a guy for ten or fifteen seconds in the street is not hitting a guy for half an hour.

It is a pretty silly difference that people came up with having no real idea what they were on about.

One of those stories. I keep mentioning.

Now. should you condition your hands? Yes. 
Should you punch in a correct manner? yes.

But this is for both bare knuckle and gloved.

Should you just throw away hand protection and then train like a boxer?


----------



## drop bear

FriedRice said:


> List 10 TKD kicks.


flippy kick.
spinning flippy kick.
flippy body head kick.
jumpy leapy kick.
spinny jumpy leaping flippy kick.
lou kang kick.
All of those flippy kicks but done with the heel.
Groin stomp
Standing groin stomp
Groin re stomp





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=838241926316714


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm missing the connection between this post and the one you quoted, DB. I'm just now having coffee, so it might be my sleepy brain. So, if my reply isn't to what you wanted me to get from that, help me out.
> 
> My approach to violence on the street is that there's a chance it will turn deadly, whether the attacker intends it so or not. There are safeties in place in sport, and things still turn deadly on very rare occasions there. Getting knocked down on the street, there are hard objects to hit a head on. You don't really know the intention of the attacker. If they want to hurt you, they may not be good enough at it to avoid killing you by accident. Thus, every incidence of street violence has to be treated as something potentially deadly until the moment when that potential appears to no longer exist. That moment is reached when the attacker actively disengages, flees, is subdued, or is otherwise unable to attack...and the area is clear of anyone who appears to support them.
> 
> That, however, is not only true of self-defense situations. Let's say I'm in a bar, and some goober (thanks for putting that word back in my vocabulary, by the way) thinks I've been eyeing "his girl" all night. Maybe I have, maybe I haven't - doesn't really matter. He comes over and starts talking ****. He's saying he's gonna kick my *** and show me how to respect a man. I'm done with my beer, it's getting late, and I could just leave. He's only in the monkey dance stage, and isn't really showing signs of being ready to start hitting (of course, I'm on the ready, just in case). So, the easiest self-defense thing would be to leave. But I decide not to. I step to him and mouth off back, telling him she'd probably appreciate him doing that, so "his girl" can see what it looks like when a real man uses him to clean the floors. Now he's not just monkey dancing - he's enraged. We end up - predictably - in a fight. That's not self-defense, but I'd have to treat it as a potentially deadly situation, because he might be mad and/or stupid enough to take it there, or he might just do the wrong thing and hurt me that badly.



Ok. definitely enhanced risk in a street fight.

And avoid them obviously.

But going straught to shanking a dude because all street fights are kill or be killed. Sorry but just no. That was oaktrees origional premis. Showed a video of a guy getting shanked in a fight.

Now Friedrice has turned around and said here are heaps of fights where guys are not getting shanked. Which to me was a fair point.

And then you jumped in and said it didn't count because of the self defence difference.

It seemed a trumped up difference. which self defence gets used for a lot. Especially when you are the sole diviner of what self defence actually is.(also gets used a lot)

My view is if self defence is used as an argument it should actually apply to the topic. And not be a catch all comment.


Regarding going full retard in a fight.

You can't justify it legally. You cant justify it ethically. And considering most fights don't end in a death. It really only escalalates the problem.

There is definitely a risk in a street fight. But they are mitigated by avoiding them. Finishing them quickly and fighting conservatively. More than just knifing everybody.


----------



## oaktree

drop bear said:


> Ok. definitely enhanced risk in a street fight.
> 
> And avoid them obviously.
> 
> But going straught to shanking a dude because all street fights are kill or be killed. Sorry but just no. That was oaktrees origional premis. Showed a video of a guy getting shanked in a fight.
> 
> Now Friedrice has turned around and said here are heaps of fights where guys are not getting shanked. Which to me was a fair point.
> 
> And then you jumped in and said it didn't count because of the self defence difference.
> 
> It seemed a trumped up difference. which self defence gets used for a lot. Especially when you are the sole diviner of what self defence actually is.(also gets used a lot)
> 
> My view is if self defence is used as an argument it should actually apply to the topic. And not be a catch all comment.
> 
> 
> Regarding going full retard in a fight.
> 
> You can't justify it legally. You cant justify it ethically. And considering most fights don't end in a death. It really only escalalates the problem.
> 
> There is definitely a risk in a street fight. But they are mitigated by avoiding them. Finishing them quickly and fighting conservatively. More than just knifing everybody.


You don't have to shank or kill someone you SHOULD APPROACH the situation with the mindset that the opponent may be trying to kill you and IF NEED be, be prepared to kill him before he kills you. Since there are no rules in a street fight if I need to stab or use a bat in order to get home then that's what I do. I am not interested in ethics or legally I am interested in breathing.


----------



## Steve

Jenna said:


> This thread may contain allergens


Cause it's full of nuts?


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> You don't have to shank or kill someone you SHOULD APPROACH the situation with the mindset that the opponent may be trying to kill you and IF NEED be, be prepared to kill him before he kills you. Since there are no rules in a street fight if I need to stab or use a bat in order to get home then that's what I do. I am not interested in ethics or legally I am interested in breathing.



No. you need to fight in a conservative manner that shut down as many risks to yourself as you can.

You basically need to start putting the odds in your favor. Not just mindlessly escalating a fight.

Society is designed to shut down mad dogs. You can't actually successfully be one for too long.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

_

"Fear starts more conflict than bravery. Disciplined persons are able to accomplish difficult tasks." *Grand Master Hwang Kee*_


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> volume and intensity.
> 
> The people who train bare knuckle train different exercises. So you don't generally see 10 rounds of sparring or heavy bag bare knuckle from anybody.
> 
> Bare knuckle fighters dont do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting a guy for ten or fifteen seconds in the street is not hitting a guy for half an hour.
> 
> It is a pretty silly difference that people came up with having no real idea what they were on about.
> 
> One of those stories. I keep mentioning.
> 
> Now. should you condition your hands? Yes.
> Should you punch in a correct manner? yes.
> 
> But this is for both bare knuckle and gloved.
> 
> Should you just throw away hand protection and then train like a boxer?


I think you are saying much the same thing I am, but I'm actually not sure. My point is simply that heavy boxing gloves (and maybe other kinds of gloves), combined with wrist wraps, can allow for some variations in technique that won't be desirable with an unpadded, unsupported hand. I know my "kempo" gloves have enough support and padding that I could get away with strikes that would be uncomfortable even at moderate power if I were punching a heavy bag bare-handed (so say nothing of hitting a cheek bone with power). I expect most/all boxers (referring to the more common gloved style) do enough training without all that to be able to translate what they do to punching people hard without gloves, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. definitely enhanced risk in a street fight.
> 
> And avoid them obviously.
> 
> But going straught to shanking a dude because all street fights are kill or be killed. Sorry but just no. That was oaktrees origional premis. Showed a video of a guy getting shanked in a fight.
> 
> Now Friedrice has turned around and said here are heaps of fights where guys are not getting shanked. Which to me was a fair point.
> 
> And then you jumped in and said it didn't count because of the self defence difference.


Actually, I didn't say that didn't count because of a self-defense difference. I'd have to look back at the exact posts, but I believe what I said was that the point isn't that all SD situations are lethal, but that we have to assume they could be. (I'm assuming that's the post you're referring to.)



> It seemed a trumped up difference. which self defence gets used for a lot. Especially when you are the sole diviner of what self defence actually is.(also gets used a lot)


I think I've made it clear that I'm not any sort of "sole diviner". I give my opinion, based on how I define the term. There are definitely those who disagree with me, and most have a pretty good argument behind their difference in opinion.



> My view is if self defence is used as an argument it should actually apply to the topic. And not be a catch all comment.


I'm not sure what you even mean by self-defense being used as an argument. It's simply a conceptual classification, a different situation than other situations, and as such some parts of the situation will be different. The term isn't terribly clear, but neither is any other term I've heard anyone use to discuss the differences among those situations. Heck, there was a long discussion some time ago over what the heck "sparring" was, and I thought that was an easy one.




> Regarding going full retard in a fight.
> 
> You can't justify it legally. You cant justify it ethically. And considering most fights don't end in a death. It really only escalalates the problem.
> 
> There is definitely a risk in a street fight. But they are mitigated by avoiding them. Finishing them quickly and fighting conservatively. More than just knifing everybody.



I agree, on all points. The only time it's justified to go "full retard" is when you feel like it's the only chance of surviving. I can't imagine most of us will ever be in that situation in our lives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Cause it's full of nuts?


Hey, don't look at me like that when you say that!


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think you are saying much the same thing I am, but I'm actually not sure. My point is simply that heavy boxing gloves (and maybe other kinds of gloves), combined with wrist wraps, can allow for some variations in technique that won't be desirable with an unpadded, unsupported hand. I know my "kempo" gloves have enough support and padding that I could get away with strikes that would be uncomfortable even at moderate power if I were punching a heavy bag bare-handed (so say nothing of hitting a cheek bone with power). I expect most/all boxers (referring to the more common gloved style) do enough training without all that to be able to translate what they do to punching people hard without gloves, too.



Yeah you had two pretty big and fairly nuanced topics going there. I went for the easier more definable one.

Big gloves vs little gloves vs bare knuckle. Is kind of a different conversation. And while there are semantic differences they are unlikley to be game changers.

I basically raised that to a mate of mine who went from muay thai to muay thai in a cage witn MMA gloves (cmt)











Not that big a leap.


----------



## oaktree

drop bear said:


> No. you need to fight in a conservative manner that shut down as many risks to yourself as you can.
> 
> You basically need to start putting the odds in your favor. Not just mindlessly escalating a fight.
> 
> Society is designed to shut down mad dogs. You can't actually successfully be one for too long.[/QUOTe/]
> You just don't get it, and you know what that's fine good luck in your life kid.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I didn't say that didn't count because of a self-defense difference. I'd have to look back at the exact posts, but I believe what I said was that the point isn't that all SD situations are lethal, but that we have to assume they could be. (I'm assuming that's the post you're referring to.)
> 
> 
> I think I've made it clear that I'm not any sort of "sole diviner". I give my opinion, based on how I define the term. There are definitely those who disagree with me, and most have a pretty good argument behind their difference in opinion.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you even mean by self-defense being used as an argument. It's simply a conceptual classification, a different situation than other situations, and as such some parts of the situation will be different. The term isn't terribly clear, but neither is any other term I've heard anyone use to discuss the differences among those situations. Heck, there was a long discussion some time ago over what the heck "sparring" was, and I thought that was an easy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, on all points. The only time it's justified to go "full retard" is when you feel like it's the only chance of surviving. I can't imagine most of us will ever be in that situation in our lives.



You go back and have a look.

I will point out the next obvious "That is not self defence" for you. It is a sneaky argument that gets used out of context a fair bit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah you had two pretty big and fairly nuanced topics going there. I went for the easier more definable one.
> 
> Big gloves vs little gloves vs bare knuckle. Is kind of a different conversation. And while there are semantic differences they are unlikley to be game changers.
> 
> I basically raised that to a mate of mine who went from muay thai to muay thai in a cage witn MMA gloves (cmt)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that big a leap.


I was thinking more in the other direction, but again, I'd expect you to have better information on MMA (and maybe boxing) than me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You go back and have a look.
> 
> I will point out the next obvious "That is not self defence" for you. It is a sneaky argument that gets used out of context a fair bit.


Please do. I do say that, but it's based on my definition, and it matters a bit, because the range of what is "self-defense" changes if you include people squaring off to settle a dispute, rather than one of them backing down and moving away. A different dynamic (much closer to competition distancing, likely to last a bit longer, people pushing people back into the fight, etc.).

If someone presents me with a better distinction, I'm happy to use it, to cut down on the unproductive arguments.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Please do. I do say that, but it's based on my definition, and it matters a bit, because the range of what is "self-defense" changes if you include people squaring off to settle a dispute, rather than one of them backing down and moving away. A different dynamic (much closer to competition distancing, likely to last a bit longer, people pushing people back into the fight, etc.).
> 
> If someone presents me with a better distinction, I'm happy to use it, to cut down on the unproductive arguments.



Yeah but based on my definition is the trick. It means i can discount any evidence at any time based on my definition.

Footwork is a great example. It is a solid defensive mesure. And a lot of SDers are pretty bad at it.

So you prestent this idea footwork is bloody effective.





Sorry that is sport.





 Nope not a real altercation.





Nope not self defence. You argument is invalid.

And so on.

Then you get this story about how in self defence. (My definition remember. )This happens that happens. people don't use footwork. there is no space. people dont put their hands up.(seriously I really had that one) We train whatever,based on my personal idea of what a fight will look like. Which is why my method is more suited to self defence.

And to me it is a failed methodology in regards to equiping someone to defend themselves.

It does equip martial artists to sell a product though.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Please do. I do say that, but it's based on my definition, and it matters a bit, because the range of what is "self-defense" changes if you include people squaring off to settle a dispute, rather than one of them backing down and moving away. A different dynamic (much closer to competition distancing, likely to last a bit longer, people pushing people back into the fight, etc.).
> 
> If someone presents me with a better distinction, I'm happy to use it, to cut down on the unproductive arguments.


its quite a strange defintion to be honest, if I went on a self defence course and all I got was advice to back down leave quickly don't go out alone etc, I would think I've got done. Being skilled at self defence means you dont have to back down, or leave quickly you can stand your ground and defend yourself if you have to
I've found one of the best strategies' is to represent  strength and escalated the situation, " talk to me like that and il break your nose "type of thing. Then they leave quickly


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> I've found one of the best strategies' is to represent strength and escalated the situation, " talk to me like that and il break your nose "type of thing. Then they leave quickly



Better to always try and de-escalate then handle any subsequent threats.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> Better to always try and de-escalate then handle any subsequent threats.


why? Most people don't want a fight, they want to intimidate you, show off in front of their girl friend etc, when they realise that your quite happy to fight them and that they might get hurt, they have a habit of backing down, nb this doesn't work with very drunk people


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but based on my definition is the trick. It means i can discount any evidence at any time based on my definition.
> 
> Footwork is a great example. It is a solid defensive mesure. And a lot of SDers are pretty bad at it.
> 
> So you prestent this idea footwork is bloody effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that is sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope not a real altercation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope not self defence. You argument is invalid.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> Then you get this story about how in self defence. (My definition remember. )This happens that happens. people don't use footwork. there is no space. people dont put their hands up.(seriously I really had that one) We train whatever,based on my personal idea of what a fight will look like. Which is why my method is more suited to self defence.
> 
> And to me it is a failed methodology in regards to equiping someone to defend themselves.
> 
> It does equip martial artists to sell a product though.


I can use it to say a piece of evidence doesn't fit what I'm talking about. And since what I'm talking about fits within the  container of "self-defense" as I define it, that's a reasonable approach.

Of course, it would be problematic if I shifted the container every time I didn't like the evidence. But clarifying the definition to keep discussion on-track (assuming the discussion started within that container) is reasonable.

As for the things you posted, all those points are true (sport, not a real altercation, and not self-defense). All three, however have something to show that is valuable for self-defense. (The one in the middle, the least of all, as it is the most unrealistic of the scenarios.) Both the sport and the fighting context have commonalities with some portions of "self-defense". So, I could point out that they are not self-defense, or I can just point out what I see as applicable or not applicable, or where I see there are differences. Evidence from outside self-defense isn't useless in the discussion of self-defense, or I wouldn't borrow thoughts from BJJ and Muay Thai (recent influences). In fact, if we didn't borrow evidence from outside self-defense, we'd have to abandon the majority of what most of us would agree is useful there, since it's hard to find consistent evidence purely within the bounds of self-defense.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> Better to always try and de-escalate then handle any subsequent threats.



It depends where you are.  If you are socially locked in.  School for example constantly backing down may create more issues in the future.

If you are never going to see the guy again. Then who cares.

But if they are going to be a continued threat you may have to show some teeth.

Otherwise for me.  If i am confident i can wreck the guy.  I don't care if i back down.  But if i am less confident I may have to be more aggressive.

By the way this is why we can't really have self defence conversations. Because instead of certain concepts like deescalation is a tool that works for me in this sort of situation. We get you should always deescalate.  Cos self defence.


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> why? Most people don't want a fight, they want to intimidate you, show off in front of their girl friend etc, when they realise that your quite happy to fight them and that they might get hurt, they have a habit of backing down, nb this doesn't work with very drunk people



Because that one time you encounter that guy cuts you from navel to kidney it's too late to realize that was a bad idea.

Always de-escalate until you dont have another choice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> its quite a strange defintion to be honest, if I went on a self defence course and all I got was advice to back down leave quickly don't go out alone etc, I would think I've got done. Being skilled at self defence means you dont have to back down, or leave quickly you can stand your ground and defend yourself if you have to
> I've found one of the best strategies' is to represent  strength and escalated the situation, " talk to me like that and il break your nose "type of thing. Then they leave quickly


That's a strawman. At no point did I say never go out alone, and that leaving was the only option.

As for the "talk to me like that and I'll break your nose" - in some US states (so I've been told by LEO's), that can remove any claim of self-defense (unless they escalate dramatically). So now if they take a swing, you are a willing combatant. Bad advice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It depends where you are.  If you are socially locked in.  School for example constantly backing down may create more issues in the future.
> 
> If you are never going to see the guy again. Then who cares.
> 
> But if they are going to be a continued threat you may have to show some teeth.
> 
> Otherwise for me.  If i am confident i can wreck the guy.  I don't care if i back down.  But if i am less confident I may have to be more aggressive.
> 
> By the way this is why we can't really have self defence conversations. Because instead of certain concepts like deescalation is a tool that works for me in this sort of situation. We get you should always deescalate.  Cos self defence.


Yes. This is that "bigger picture" aspect I was referring to earlier. De-escalation is usually one of the best options (where available), but there are times it isn't.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's a strawman. At no point did I say never go out alone, and that leaving was the only option.
> 
> As for the "talk to me like that and I'll break your nose" - in some US states (so I've been told by LEO's), that can remove any claim of self-defense (unless they escalate dramatically). So now if they take a swing, you are a willing combatant. Bad advice.



Yeah but that is still not a game changer.  It is a risk factor.


----------



## CB Jones

drop bear said:


> It depends where you are.  If you are socially locked in.  School for example constantly backing down may create more issues in the future.
> 
> If you are never going to see the guy again. Then who cares.
> 
> But if they are going to be a continued threat you may have to show some teeth.
> 
> Otherwise for me.  If i am confident i can wreck the guy.  I don't care if i back down.  But if i am less confident I may have to be more aggressive.



De-escalating doesn't necessarily mean backing down.

You can stand up for yourself without escalating or backing down.

Not every encounter has to be **** measuring contest.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> Because that one time you encounter that guy cuts you from navel to kidney it's too late to realize that was a bad idea.
> 
> Always de-escalate until you dont have another choice.


you cant live your life on your life pn yourknees just because you might meet someone with a knife.


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> you cant live your life on your life pn yourknees just because you might meet someone with a knife.



 Ok dude.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Steve

Isn't there a middle ground between never backing down and always backing down?  I think there's room in the decision making process for critical thinking skills.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> That's a strawman. At no point did I say never go out alone, and that leaving was the only option.
> 
> As for the "talk to me like that and I'll break your nose" - in some US states (so I've been told by LEO's), that can remove any claim of self-defense (unless they escalate dramatically). So now if they take a swing, you are a willing combatant. Bad advice.


fortunately. I dont live in the usa, as long as i make it a condition offer, ie, say that again and il break your nose im fine. Representing strength is a perfectly value tool, showing weakness just encorages them to carry on


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but that is still not a game changer.  It is a risk factor.


Agreed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you cant live your life on your life pn yourknees just because you might meet someone with a knife.


And there's a lot of ground between "talk to me like that and I'll hurt you" and "living on your knees". False dichotomy.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Isn't there a middle ground between never backing down and always backing down?  I think there's room in the decision making process for critical thinking skills.


indeed, if they are much bigger than you, there are more of them, you have your best suit on


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> fortunately. I dont live in the usa, as long as i make it a condition offer, ie, say that again and il break your nose im fine. Representing strength is a perfectly value tool, showing weakness just encorages them to carry on


You seem to be assuming that de-escalation depends upon looking weak. It's not my experience that this is a general rule. In many cases, looking weak encourages them.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Isn't there a middle ground between never backing down and always backing down?  I think there's room in the decision making process for critical thinking skills.



It's not about backing down.....it's about knowing how to diffuse a situation without escalating it.

It's what we teach undercovers.....try and diffuse situation but then take swift action and stop threat when needed.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> And there's a lot of ground between "talk to me like that and I'll hurt you" and "living on your knees". False dichotomy.


surely that rather depends what they have just said/ done. If you are  going to allow yourself to be insulted manhandled or what ever and be to scared to stick up for yourself, that rather close to living on your knees


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be assuming that de-escalation depends upon looking weak. It's not my experience that this is a general rule. In many cases, looking weak encourages them.


ok someone in bar sexualy assault's your lady friend,

to de-escalate the situation you say. My dear man please refrain from touching my girl friend breast and so he does it again, so you leave, is that how it plays out?


----------



## Martial_Kumite

Steve said:


> Isn't there a middle ground between never backing down and always backing down? I think there's room in the decision making process for critical thinking skills.



I believe this depends on the situation and how it is carried out. If someone stands up to someone else and comes off as an a**hole, then it can lead to conversation. But if you stand up for yourself, and take control of the situation, then you can be better off. Pull a joke, distract them with a game,  anything to bring the situation under your control.  As soon as you loose control, that is when a weakness can become dangerous.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> List 10 "TKD Kicks".



Really? OK, I'll bite.

I don't know why you'd need that, but here you go...

ahp chagi  , or front kick; yup chagi, or  side kick; jillo chagi, or   thrusting kick; dolrya chagi, or   round kick; dwi chagi, or   back kick; bahndae dolrya chagi, or   hook kick; bahndall chagi, or   crescent kick; hoohrio chagi, or  wheel kick; nehryuh jeek gi, or   ax kick; and mil a chagi,   pushing kick.

What do I win?  I'm quite confused about your reference here.



FriedRice said:


> I've been in street fights and gang rumbles too, big deal. I don't think you understand the point.



So far as I can tell, NO ONE understands your point.  Do you think you can make a concise and conceptual themed declarative of what it is that you are obviously trying very hard to tell everyone.


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> ok someone in bar sexualy assault's your lady friend,
> 
> to de-escalate the situation you say. My dear man please refrain from touching my girl friend breast and so he does it again, so you leave, is that how it plays out?



No you tell the guy to keep his hands to himself and if he tries again you put him down.

Simple.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Ok. definitely enhanced risk in a street fight.
> 
> And avoid them obviously.
> 
> But going straught to shanking a dude because all street fights are kill or be killed. Sorry but just no. That was oaktrees origional premis. Showed a video of a guy getting shanked in a fight.
> 
> Now Friedrice has turned around and said here are heaps of fights where guys are not getting shanked. Which to me was a fair point.
> 
> And then you jumped in and said it didn't count because of the self defence difference.
> 
> It seemed a trumped up difference. which self defence gets used for a lot. Especially when you are the sole diviner of what self defence actually is.(also gets used a lot)
> 
> My view is if self defence is used as an argument it should actually apply to the topic. And not be a catch all comment.
> 
> 
> Regarding going full retard in a fight.



OK, Drop. "Going Full Retard" has now been added to my lexicon of really cool sayings to use during class, though I'll have to be certain of my crowd. No snowflakes, which is another term for which I'm still trying to get an understanding of what it actually is, though I've made up my own definition.

As to the post where you first used that, Agreed on all points.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> No you tell the guy to keep his hands to himself and if he tries again you put him down.
> 
> Simple.


I kicked him very hard, for something's you don't get a warning


----------



## CB Jones

JP3 said:


> OK, Drop. "Going Full Retard" has now been added to my lexicon of really cool sayings to use during class, though I'll have to be certain of my crowd. No snowflakes, which is another term for which I'm still trying to get an understanding of what it actually is, though I've made up my own definition.
> 
> As to the post where you first used that, Agreed on all points.



Hate that term.  It mocks the handicap


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> I kicked him very hard, for something's you don't get a warning



I'm ok with that.

It's the acting big and bad and threatening people with the hope they back down.  I don't care for.

Diffuse or react swiftly.


----------



## JP3

CB Jones said:


> Hate that term.  It mocks the handicap



Snowflake?

J/K  It was there.

Has anyone else noticed how Fried Rice's position paper got yanked sideways in the past 3 pages or so?  How did that happen?

We're sort of off on De-escalation is a Wimpization of people, or definitional vaguenesses influencing the argument armentarium (this between Gerry & Drop).

Carry on, though I do really want to know what Fried Rice's original point was/is, sometime.  I just had a confusing thought... I may end up agreeing with it.

Gerry, Drop is concealing a razor sharp mind behind his pattern of 1-sentence paragraph structureing of statements.  Don't fall for it. It is a sham, the hardcore persona. Well, maybe not the persona, but the online personality. 

Oh, I was going to ask OakTree.... where, generally,  do, or did,  you live when you developed this perspective on life and tactical situations?


----------



## CB Jones

JP3 said:


> Snowflake?



Father of a handicapped child.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> OK, Drop. "Going Full Retard" has now been added to my lexicon of really cool sayings to use during class, though I'll have to be certain of my crowd. No snowflakes, which is another term for which I'm still trying to get an understanding of what it actually is, though I've made up my own definition.
> 
> As to the post where you first used that, Agreed on all points.


Snowflakes is a reference to everyone wanting to be special and unique.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> These seems to be Amateur level, MMA fighters to maybe semi-pros who all,  probably has no chance to ever make it in even the lowest card of the UFC. Not even Bellator.
> 
> Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?


My team would win, because someone would get doubled teamed right at the start lol. I would have someone hang in the back with the sole purpose of sucker punching the first person that is attacking the guy in front.   The guy that would be targeting me will either follow the guy in the back or he will try to double team someone else.  The goal would be to take out one person as fast as possible.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Isn't there a middle ground between never backing down and always backing down?  I think there's room in the decision making process for critical thinking skills.



Yeah it is called nuance. And we dont do that here.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> Hate that term.  It mocks the handicap



Yeah so does steady eddie. But what are you going to do?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> OK, Drop. "Going Full Retard" has now been added to my lexicon of really cool sayings to use during class, though I'll have to be certain of my crowd. No snowflakes, which is another term for which I'm still trying to get an understanding of what it actually is, though I've made up my own definition.
> 
> As to the post where you first used that, Agreed on all points.



I assume snowflakes refer to fight club.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Snowflake?
> 
> J/K  It was there.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed how Fried Rice's position paper got yanked sideways in the past 3 pages or so?  How did that happen?
> 
> We're sort of off on De-escalation is a Wimpization of people, or definitional vaguenesses influencing the argument armentarium (this between Gerry & Drop).
> 
> Carry on, though I do really want to know what Fried Rice's original point was/is, sometime.  I just had a confusing thought... I may end up agreeing with it.
> 
> Gerry, Drop is concealing a razor sharp mind behind his pattern of 1-sentence paragraph structureing of statements.  Don't fall for it. It is a sham, the hardcore persona. Well, maybe not the persona, but the online personality.
> 
> Oh, I was going to ask OakTree.... where, generally,  do, or did,  you live when you developed this perspective on life and tactical situations?



Yeah secretly I am a criminal matermind.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> My team would win, because someone would get doubled teamed right at the start lol. I would have someone hang in the back with the sole purpose of sucker punching the first person that is attacking the guy in front.   The guy that would be targeting me will either follow the guy in the back or he will try to double team someone else.  The goal would be to take out one person as fast as possible.



I am supprised there isn't more of that sort of tactic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Movig closer to street are these organised gang fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting some of the methods they employ.
> 
> I assume they are linked up like that so nobody runs.


Play the video in slow motion and watch around the :35 second mark.  You'll see the same tactic that I was talking about.  lol.

I think you'll like this one





And this one lol





or this


----------



## Tez3

JP3 said:


> Gerry, Drop is concealing a razor sharp mind behind his pattern of 1-sentence paragraph structureing of statements. Don't fall for it. It is a sham, the hardcore persona. Well, maybe not the persona, but the online personality.



His stated position vis a vis discussion on here is that they are sparring matches and he likes to go in hard.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> ok someone in bar sexualy assault's your lady friend,
> 
> to de-escalate the situation you say. My dear man please refrain from touching my girl friend breast and so he does it again, so you leave, is that how it plays out?


Now you're not even trying. I think we're done here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Isn't there a middle ground between never backing down and always backing down?  I think there's room in the decision making process for critical thinking skills.


I don't think de-escalation always equals backing down. There are times that's an effective method, but there are other times it just invites bullying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Gerry, Drop is concealing a razor sharp mind behind his pattern of 1-sentence paragraph structureing of statements. Don't fall for it. It is a sham, the hardcore persona. Well, maybe not the persona, but the online personality.


I'm aware of that. It's the more frustrating part of the situation, because he often makes really good points, and it would be lovely to have a good debate with him, but he seems often to be determined to make it an argument of who is wrong, rather than discussing the ideas and concepts and how to make use of them. I've had pages and pages of back-and-forth with him where he was apparently trying to point out how bad some of my training was, all the while describing something that was never all that close to my training...unless he was discussing a problem with a single part of my training, as it if were all of my training. I get the distinct impression that his ideas could actually help me improve some of my teaching and my own training (as points made by Steve and Tony have), but his attacks on strawmen don't get me to that.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> I'm ok with that.
> 
> It's the acting big and bad and threatening people with the hope they back down.  I don't care for.
> 
> Diffuse or react swiftly.


As above, really it depends what is being done and said, sometimes calming things down is appropriate, sometimes hitting them is. But reprenting strength and inviting them to a fight works quite well in shifting the phycolocal issues of feeling threatens onto them,


----------



## JP3

CB Jones said:


> Father of a handicapped child.


Did you not know that "handicapped" is in itself a derogatory, belittling and minimizing term? Handicapped has been passed on for disabled.

And no, I am not making light, I am being 100% serious.  I wrote a somewhat-lengthy paper on it as part of my graduate education.

But, as with any other word or set of words, they have the capability to cause pain... not from the word itself, as words themselves are not the issue, it is the concept which the word causes to form in the mind of he/she who hears the word.

I was definitely not trying to get under your skin, CB Jones... though sometimes it's well-nigh unavoidable to not do that when talking about topics and concepts and having to borrow from other such in order to explain oneself.  I've got to deal with a bit of it myself, so understand, I am not coming from a bad place.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Now you're not even trying. I think we're done here.


I think its a valid and true scenario to test your always look to de escalate philosophy, perhaps I should have just left, I got in trouble with my girlfriend for kicking the guy, I got in trouble with his friends, one of which tried to glass me and i got in trouble with the door staff who ejected me . What would you have done


----------



## CB Jones

JP3 said:


> Did you not know that "handicapped" is in itself a derogatory, belittling and minimizing term? Handicapped has been passed on for disabled.
> 
> And no, I am not making light, I am being 100% serious.  I wrote a somewhat-lengthy paper on it as part of my graduate education.
> 
> But, as with any other word or set of words, they have the capability to cause pain... not from the word itself, as words themselves are not the issue, it is the concept which the word causes to form in the mind of he/she who hears the word.
> 
> I was definitely not trying to get under your skin, CB Jones... though sometimes it's well-nigh unavoidable to not do that when talking about topics and concepts and having to borrow from other such in order to explain oneself.  I've got to deal with a bit of it myself, so understand, I am not coming from a bad place.



You did not get under my skin.

I was only pointing out that it is frowned upon by many and will give off a negative perception of you to a lot of people by adding that to your lexicon of sayings.

And often times you do not know a persons background until too late.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Actually I wasn't copying your line. I was pointing out that you were doing what you claimed I was doing. You were making yourself the final authority on what my statement implies.
> 
> And, no, I didn't change my position. My position is as it was. I've tried to clarify the (perhaps overly simple) original statement by describing the concept.



Actually no, it is you who was doing that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Actually no, it is you who was doing that.


I think I've been more than clear that I made a statement that is opinion, based on the definition I don't use. Nowhere have I said someone else's definition or distinction is wrong - I've just pointed out where it is different from mine.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, assuming the person training for the ring doesn't always train with gloves and wrist wraps. A boxer, for instance, who is accustomed to only hitting hard with boxing gloves (I should think that would be pretty rare, but I'm not familiar with their training norms) might deliver a punch that damages his hand. This becomes less likely with the smaller MMA gloves, but I'd expect there's still a need to train hard hitting without the padding, for safety (MMA folks can give a better view on that - I haven't ever trained in MMA gloves).



Boxers, Muay Thai, MMA, etc. and fighters who trains and spars up to full power, are very conscious of injuring their hands. Personally, I injured my wrists the most during the first couple of years. Next were the thumbs.  Hands were almost always wrapped. Sometimes forgetting to bring them though. This trained me to be conscious of how much risks I should take hitting pads, bags, etc. when I forgot the wraps. With MMA gloves, it gets riskier with and without wraps. MMA fighters trains both with MMA gloves and Boxing gloves and bare hands. This trains the mind to be conscious about breaking the hands, wrist, etc. Fighting in the streets, I'm way more conscious in picking my shots and my precision + power, are leaps and bounds beyond what it was before I was trained. I don't even bother wearing hand wraps any more (for the last 3 years), while going up to full power on 200-300 lb bags for 10-20 rounds straight....rarely hurting my wrists.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> I still don't think it was SD. That hasn't changed. What I've tried to clarify is how I make that determination, and that is not an absolute thing - there's a continuum, with several factors, all of which have some potential grey areas. There are some elements of defense in that one instance, but I wouldn't call it self-defense.



It looks like SD to me though.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Are you stuck on that? I already answered that, as did someone else.



The other guy gave a wrong answer. Now it's your turn if you keep wanting to talk about it.


----------



## FriedRice

drop bear said:


> flippy kick.
> spinning flippy kick.
> flippy body head kick.
> jumpy leapy kick.
> spinny jumpy leaping flippy kick.
> lou kang kick.
> All of those flippy kicks but done with the heel.
> Groin stomp
> Standing groin stomp
> Groin re stomp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=838241926316714



I see some "Kung-Fu Kicks" and "Karate Kicks" in there, so this can't be right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Boxers, Muay Thai, MMA, etc. and fighters who trains and spars up to full power, are very conscious of injuring their hands. Personally, I injured my wrists the most during the first couple of years. Next were the thumbs.  Hands were almost always wrapped. Sometimes forgetting to bring them though. This trained me to be conscious of how much risks I should take hitting pads, bags, etc. when I forgot the wraps. With MMA gloves, it gets riskier with and without wraps. MMA fighters trains both with MMA gloves and Boxing gloves and bare hands. This trains the mind to be conscious about breaking the hands, wrist, etc. Fighting in the streets, I'm way more conscious in picking my shots and my precision + power, are leaps and bounds beyond what it was before I was trained. I don't even bother wearing hand wraps any more (for the last 3 years), while going up to full power on 200-300 lb bags for 10-20 rounds straight....rarely hurting my wrists.


Yep. I expected training without gloves would be common for MMA training, for that very reason. Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> It looks like SD to me though.


And it doesn't to me. Difference of opinion - all cool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> The other guy gave a wrong answer. Now it's your turn if you keep wanting to talk about it.


What was wrong about his answer? I already answered it, then you asked again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> I see some "Kung-Fu Kicks" and "Karate Kicks" in there, so this can't be right.


So, if it's a Karate kick, it can't be a TKD kick? So the kote gaeshi throw I learned in NGA can't be a Judo throw, because it's an NGA throw?


----------



## FriedRice

CB Jones said:


> Because that one time you encounter that guy cuts you from navel to kidney it's too late to realize that was a bad idea.
> 
> Always de-escalate until you dont have another choice.



Depends on your environment. Inner city or the middle class suburbs....or nice rich areas where the cops get  there in under 5 minutes rather than 2 hours or the next day....this happened for real in Detroit...some lady was getting home invaded...she heard them from upstairs....called the cops and they came by the next day to check up on her (or to see if they needed to remove her body).  What about maximum security prison? You have to take a shower sometime. I went to high school in North Philly, de-escalation is not always the best choice. Sometimes you do need to risk getting slashed. Plenty of knives & guns to go around. It's apart of life there.


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> Really? OK, I'll bite.
> 
> I don't know why you'd need that, but here you go...
> 
> ahp chagi  , or front kick; yup chagi, or  side kick; jillo chagi, or   thrusting kick; dolrya chagi, or   round kick; dwi chagi, or   back kick; bahndae dolrya chagi, or   hook kick; bahndall chagi, or   crescent kick; hoohrio chagi, or  wheel kick; nehryuh jeek gi, or   ax kick; and mil a chagi,   pushing kick.
> 
> What do I win?  I'm quite confused about your reference here.
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I can tell, NO ONE understands your point.  Do you think you can make a concise and conceptual themed declarative of what it is that you are obviously trying very hard to tell everyone.



Those kicks are exclusive to TKD only?


----------



## CB Jones

FriedRice said:


> Depends on your environment. Inner city or the middle class suburbs....or nice rich areas where the cops get  there in under 5 minutes rather than 2 hours or the next day....this happened for real in Detroit...some lady was getting home invaded...she heard them from upstairs....called the cops and they came by the next day to check up on her (or to see if they needed to remove her body).  What about maximum security prison? You have to take a shower sometime. I went to high school in North Philly, de-escalation is not always the best choice. Sometimes you do need to risk getting slashed. Plenty of knives & guns to go around. It's apart of life there.



Disagree.

I spent a lot of time in inner cities and hoods.

And being able to diffuse a situation calmly with confidence is always the best choice.


----------



## FriedRice

CB Jones said:


> No you tell the guy to keep his hands to himself and if he tries again you put him down.
> 
> Simple.



But isn't Seymore's, real self defense, is to tell your lady friend to put her breastesses back in their holsters, and get the hell outta there?


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> Carry on, though I do really want to know what Fried Rice's original point was/is, sometime.  I just had a confusing thought... I may end up agreeing with it.



Let me help you before you go "full retard".  Main point = Punching someone really, really hard in the face...works just the same in the streets as it does in the ring...therefore, who's going to be better at this in both occasions? Someone who fights in the ring and spars somewhat regularly at up to full power (by trying to KO their partners) and also (but more) at light & medium power.....or someone who only spars at tip-tap to light power only...and with a mega-ton of various scenarios for all occasions.


----------



## FriedRice

Steve said:


> Snowflakes is a reference to everyone wanting to be special and unique.



I never knew this. Makes sense. I always thought it was something else.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah it is called nuance. And we dont do that here.


new ants?    I think we do, but it's either feast or famine.   People either deal in absolutes or deal entirely in nuance.


FriedRice said:


> I never knew this. Makes sense. I always thought it was something else.


I think someone else mentioned, it's from Fight Club. Following pulled from Special Snowflake | Know Your Meme

*About*
*Special Snowflake* is a derogatory term widely used on Tumblr to describe someone who often whines about deserving special treatment or sees oneself as exceptionally unique for no apparent reason, similar to the use of the expression check your privilege in the social justice blogosphere.

*Origin*
On October 15th, 1999, the film _Fight Club_[1] was released. The film features one of the protagonists, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) telling the men looking to join the fight club:

“You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.”


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> My team would win, because someone would get doubled teamed right at the start lol. I would have someone hang in the back with the sole purpose of sucker punching the first person that is attacking the guy in front.   The guy that would be targeting me will either follow the guy in the back or he will try to double team someone else.  The goal would be to take out one person as fast as possible.




If that one guy hangs back, your team would be 4 vs. 5 of theirs at the START.  1 of your guys would be immediately double teamed and clobbered.

Your 1 guy that hangs back to suckerpunch that first, 1 on 1, pair....OK, maybe....but then it's still 4 on 4 now since for that 1 guy of yours to hang back.....he left your 1 guy having to take on 2 of theirs at the start.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> What was wrong about his answer? I already answered it, then you asked again.



Sorry, my mistake. Damn you're thorough.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> So, if it's a Karate kick, it can't be a TKD kick? So the kote gaeshi throw I learned in NGA can't be a Judo throw, because it's an NGA throw?



It's ignorant.


----------



## FriedRice

CB Jones said:


> Disagree.
> 
> I spent a lot of time in inner cities and hoods.
> 
> And being able to diffuse a situation calmly with confidence is always the best choice.




Spending a lot of time there is not the same as living there and walking to and from school, there everyday...dealing with ghetto kids for 7 hours there....then hanging out in the streets for many more hours, everyday.....etc.  Most of us were in cliques and gangs.

I train with many cops who's beats are in the inner city and many even mentor  the kids there...but they go home when it gets dark to their homes in the suburbs.....rarely would any city cops even live there in the ghettos.....and they're legally armed.


----------



## Steve

Can someone sum up where we're at?  What have we actually figured out?  this thread has ranged all over.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> Those kicks are exclusive to TKD only?



The problem I see with this is that techies are inspired or influenced by other things. Even Kung Fu as parts where they took inspiration from animals and drunkards.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> The problem I see with this is that techies are inspired or influenced by other things. Even Kung Fu as parts where they took inspiration from animals and drunkards.



The main point was, no credible TKD Instructor would say something like...."now I want you to TKD kick him"....or "Judo throw him"....while coaching a fight, etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> If that one guy hangs back, your team would be 4 vs. 5 of theirs at the START.  1 of your guys would be immediately double teamed and clobbered.
> 
> Your 1 guy that hangs back to suckerpunch that first, 1 on 1, pair....OK, maybe....but then it's still 4 on 4 now since for that 1 guy of yours to hang back.....he left your 1 guy having to take on 2 of theirs at the start.


You would actually want one of your guys to get doubled team so that you can come around the side to land attacks to the flank. If you keep the formation tight then it will force your opponent to get tighter with their formation. The tight formations would interfere with their ability to attack, the tight formation will also help insure that the double team will occur on the outside.  This would allow someone to take the flank and strike without resistance on one of the guys doing the double team.

Fighting 1 vs 1 can take on sports fighting 5 vs 5 you can start using old military tactics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Depends on your environment. Inner city or the middle class suburbs....or nice rich areas where the cops get  there in under 5 minutes rather than 2 hours or the next day....this happened for real in Detroit...some lady was getting home invaded...she heard them from upstairs....called the cops and they came by the next day to check up on her (or to see if they needed to remove her body).  What about maximum security prison? You have to take a shower sometime. I went to high school in North Philly, de-escalation is not always the best choice. Sometimes you do need to risk getting slashed. Plenty of knives & guns to go around. It's apart of life there.


You missed the point of CB's post, I think. He didn't say "de-escalate until they kill you". He said de-escalation was the best option until it wasn't an option. You are listing situations where it is likely not an option, and that's something we all recognize happens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> But isn't Seymore's, real self defense, is to tell your lady friend to put her breastesses back in their holsters, and get the hell outta there?


Strawman much? Go back and point out to me where I said anything ever remotely close to that. Go ahead. I'll wait.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> It's ignorant.


Again, you give no point to back up a trolling statement. The technique appears in both arts. To a Judo player, it's a Judo throw. To me, it's an NGA throw, and so on to each art. It is, in fact, all of those. You claiming it's ignorant doesn't change the reality.

Now, if you care to support your statement with something beyond insults, I'm happy to understand where you're coming from. Otherwise, you're just trollin'.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Can someone sum up where we're at?  What have we actually figured out?  this thread has ranged all over.



Glad to help you out, bro. Here's where we are at -


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> The main point was, no credible TKD Instructor would say something like...."now I want you to TKD kick him"....or "Judo throw him"....while coaching a fight, etc.


And nobody here said they would. Someone referred to a TKD kick, which everyone here (yourself included, though you pretend otherwise) understands to mean a kick from the repertoire within TKD.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Glad to help you out, bro. Here's where we are at -
> 
> View attachment 20488


hey. Well.  At least we can all agree on the meaning of snowflake.

And that there are at least ten techniques one could have in mind when saying "tkd kick."


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> hey. Well.  At least we can all agree on the meaning of snowflake.
> 
> And that there are at least ten techniques one could have in mind when saying "tkd kick."



I already listed all ten.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> Those kicks are exclusive to TKD only?



With their Korean names, some of them might bee, but I doubt it.  Is that the beef, that someone called those kicks TKD kicks when Hapkido, Tang Soo Do, Hwarang Do, etc to name some KMA and I expect several are used in Savate, some in Karate etc... all use similar kicks?

So... Nomenclature offends you? Really? "A rose by any other name" and all that. Sheesh, you wasted all these people's life minutes with that?  No wonder nobody was understanding what you were objecting to.  I agree with you, giving something a style name before the technique name does not make it original, or the property of that stye. There you go.  As I said, I figured I'd agree with the concept... but I'm surprised you feel so strongly about it.



FriedRice said:


> Let me help you before you go "full retard".  Main point = Punching someone really, really hard in the face...works just the same in the streets as it does in the ring...therefore, who's going to be better at this in both occasions? Someone who fights in the ring and spars somewhat regularly at up to full power (by trying to KO their partners) and also (but more) at light & medium power.....or someone who only spars at tip-tap to light power only...and with a mega-ton of various scenarios for all occasions.



And as I figured, agreed here again.  The more you do a thing, the mo betta ya get at it.  However, you can't just leap from that to the premise of your O/P, as it sidesteps the issue of the street Not being "the same" as sport training.  Skills may cross genere, sure, but the environment and lack of rule can change things a lot. 



And Steve said, "Snowflakes is a reference to everyone wanting to be special and unique."  And we got that explanatory origin reference from Fight Club.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> The problem I see with this is that techies are inspired or influenced by other things. Even Kung Fu as parts where they took inspiration from animals and drunkards.



The main point being, only someone ignorant would use this terminology. A coach is not going to advise his fighter between rounds to to go do a "TKD kick" or "Judo throw" the other guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> The main point being, only someone ignorant would use this terminology. A coach is not going to advise his fighter between rounds to to go do a "TKD kick" or "Judo throw" the other guy.


No, it's actually a common usage. If I suggest there are Judo throws that can accomplish what someone asks about, nobody is confused about what that means.


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> You would actually want one of your guys to get doubled team so that you can come around the side to land attacks to the flank.



I've fought like this in gang rumbles before, on a field when I was young. We were very aware and cautious of getting jumped from behind. But it does happen....also it was more than 5 on 5, so very chaotic.  And we were just dumb kids, w/o any training other than street Boxing and watching movies.

I also spar 1 on 2 and 1 on 3 at this one Krav Maga gym, but only at medium power. With training and sparring vs. these Krav Cats, my skills have increased quite significantly....and I don't spar that much with them.   Now imagine these guys, who specifically train for this as their freakin', organized sport. I bet that their awareness is of getting suckeredpunch is way above my level.



> If you keep the formation tight then it will force your opponent to get tighter with their formation. The tight formations would interfere with their ability to attack, the tight formation will also help insure that the double team will occur on the outside.  This would allow someone to take the flank and strike without resistance on one of the guys doing the double team.
> 
> Fighting 1 vs 1 can take on sports fighting 5 vs 5 you can start using old military tactics.



Something tells me that they know this also but elect to go 1-1 because it's too much of a risk doing what you suggest. The fight that I posted on post #1, only lasted 44 seconds? And this was 1-1 X 5.   Once you lose a teammate through KO or even tapout, it's game over when the extra guy gangs up on 2-1.  It seems too easy to KO your 1 guy, 2-1. They're not going to be dummies and let your 1 guy hang back and sneak up on them easily. By then, your 1 on 2, is probably KO'ed and now that 1 that hung back, is dealing vs. 2.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> You missed the point of CB's post, I think. He didn't say "de-escalate until they kill you". He said de-escalation was the best option until it wasn't an option. You are listing situations where it is likely not an option, and that's something we all recognize happens.



Well I wasn't disagreeing completely with him. I just said that it depends on one's environment. If I were in a wealthy area, I'd call the cops and get names of the witnesses.  In the inner cities, it's more often than not that you should fight to earn and gain respect. If some dude grabbed my girl's boob and I let that go, then I would be made a B.


----------



## FriedRice

.


----------



## FriedRice

.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> So you instruct your students to do a "Judo throw"?


Actually, I have. You see, I don't teach Judo. But every now and then, I teach them a throw I learned in Judo, and I might tell them, "Here's a Judo throw that works nicely with what we've been working on."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Then you're equally ignorant because credible TKD instructors wouldn't say, "TKD Kick".
> 
> Do you coach your students to "Akido lock his butt out" or "Steven Seagal him"?


You aren't listening at all, are you?


----------



## FriedRice

.


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> And as I figured, agreed here again.  The more you do a thing, the mo betta ya get at it.  However, you can't just leap from that to the premise of your O/P, as it sidesteps the issue of the street Not being "the same" as sport training.  Skills may cross genere, sure, but the environment and lack of rule can change things a lot.



Some people just have OCD and keeps talking to me about this "TKD kick", and I'm trying to help them out. Maybe I have OCD too. But I think you're right as I'm helping that pic of the burning dumpster, burn more, haha. I'll just put him on ignore.


----------



## FriedRice

.


----------



## FriedRice

.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> You aren't listening at all, are you?



No, you aren't listening at all. But I think Ima put you on ignore. Nothing personal. Just that your OCD beats my OCD and I'm helping to fuel that picture of the burning dumpster, lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> I bet that their awareness is of getting suckeredpunch is way above my level.


 I would be surprised if it wasn't.  



FriedRice said:


> Something tells me that they know this also but elect to go 1-1 because it's too much of a risk doing what you suggest. The fight that I posted on post #1, only lasted 44 seconds? And this was 1-1 X 5.   Once you lose a teammate through KO or even tapout, it's game over when the extra guy gangs up on 2-1.  It seems too easy to KO your 1 guy, 2-1. They're not going to be dummies and let your 1 guy hang back and sneak up on them easily. By then, your 1 on 2, is probably KO'ed and now that 1 that hung back, is dealing vs. 2.


I've seen this happen only once.  And the guy on "Team A" that stayed behind was kept in check by the other guy on "Team B
 who made sure that the Team A guy couldn't double team anyone from Team B.  I think it would have worked if the guy wasn't too skiddish.  I'll have to find the video.


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> I would be surprised if it wasn't.
> .



Was that a low blow? Ha. But that was my point, your tactic is way too risky. It could work, but I see going 1-1 until it filters down is the way to go. It only takes 1 person getting KO'ed  and the fight shifts ridiculously towards the team with 1 more fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> No, you aren't listening at all. But I think Ima put you on ignore. Nothing personal. Just that your OCD beats my OCD and I'm helping to fuel that picture of the burning dumpster, lol.


Sweet. That will help.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> With training and sparring vs. these Krav Cats, my skills have increased quite significantly....and I don't spar that much with them. Now imagine these guys, who specifically train for this as their freakin', organized sport. I bet that their awareness is of getting suckeredpunch is way above my level.




So would not this "awareness" be able to help change the outcome of a combative encounter outside of the ring?
And, since professionals use have some form of impact training, wouldn't that help keep them from getting Ko'ed.


----------



## jobo

Martial_Kumite said:


> So would not this "awareness" be able to help change the outcome of a combative encounter outside of the ring?
> And, since professionals use have some form of impact training, wouldn't that help keep them from getting Ko'ed.


getting hit in the head a lot, gives you long term brain damage. I dont believe that this conditions your brain to not be knocked out if someone hits you very hard


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FriedRice said:


> These seems to be Amateur level, MMA fighters to maybe semi-pros who all,  probably has no chance to ever make it in even the lowest card of the UFC. Not even Bellator.
> 
> Now pick 5 of your best students from your self defense class or TMA, of similar sizes. Who would win?



Well, as one of the SD guys on the board...

Your premise is flawed from the OP.  I watched your video and noticed that everyone was wearing gloves, mouth piece and I assume a cup.  They don't wear those things in a street fight.  I also noticed several referees.  They don't have them in a street fight either.  And what were the referees doing anyway?  Enforcing rules and making sure nobody really got hurt (like in a street fight with no referees).  A also noticed that they were 'fighting' on a nice soft, level, dry mat that was well lit.  I've not seen that in a street fight either.

I couldn't help but notice that no one pulled an edged weapon.  They have those in many street fights.  I didn't see any firearms, sticks or improvised weapons.  They have those in many street fights as well.

So this is another attempt to make a MMA sport the equal of street self defense.  And like every other attempt, it failed.  Take those guys and nix all the safety gear, the soft mat (they'll be on asphalt), the referees, the rules and give one of them a can of O.C., other a firearm, a couple have knives and/or sticks and let the others use improvised weapons (anything available in the parking lot between the parked cars that is available) and then we'll see what REALLY happens in the streets.

You see, SD people don't depend on rules, time outs, tap outs, water breaks, corner advice and medical attention that is waiting just outside the ring.  

This is just another stupid thread that tries to put a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## jobo

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well, as one of the SD guys on the board...
> 
> Your premise is flawed from the OP.  I watched your video and noticed that everyone was wearing gloves, mouth piece and I assume a cup.  They don't wear those things in a street fight.  I also noticed several referees.  They don't have them in a street fight either.  And what were the referees doing anyway?  Enforcing rules and making sure nobody really got hurt (like in a street fight with no referees).  A also noticed that they were 'fighting' on a nice soft, level, dry mat that was well lit.  I've not seen that in a street fight either.
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that no one pulled an edged weapon.  They have those in many street fights.  I didn't see any firearms, sticks or improvised weapons.  They have those in many street fights as well.
> 
> So this is another attempt to make a MMA sport the equal of street self defense.  And like every other attempt, it failed.  Take those guys and nix all the safety gear, the soft mat (they'll be on asphalt), the referees, the rules and give one of them a can of O.C., other a firearm, a couple have knives and/or sticks and let the others use improvised weapons (anything available in the parking lot between the parked cars that is available) and then we'll see what REALLY happens in the streets.
> 
> You see, SD people don't depend on rules, time outs, tap outs, water breaks, corner advice and medical attention that is waiting just outside the ring.
> 
> This is just another stupid thread that tries to put a square peg in a round hole.


I see the whole street / ring/dojo argument. Some what differently than most. Maybe id see it differently if guns were freely available in my country. There seems to be a bogeyman street fighter than has great skill/ strength and is utterly ruthlessly. These people possibly exist but they make up a very small % of the population, so small that its pointless worrying about them, like being hit by lightning perhaps. Not only have you got to meet them, you have to annoy them to the point of wanting to badly hurt you. Where as they are probably busy being an enforcer for the local loan shark or some such.
the reality is most people can't fight, even those that do a lot. They have the same skills they learn at 8 ,slightly refined perhaps. But not at all based on in depth body mechanics and most important people arnt very fit. In fact most arnt fit at all, based on the info someone posted on fitness standards in the states
if you combine these factors you come to the conclusion that having both developed skills and good fitness, puts you in quite a small % of the population and you might be someone else's bogey man. The fact there are no rules is to your advantage as you can finally try out that killer throat punch you have been practising.

uneven surfaces favour people with the best balance and that should be you and improvised weapons are available to all. However if you are seriously out numbered you have most probably lost and that is just a fact of life


----------



## Kong Soo Do

jobo said:


> There seems to be a bogeyman street fighter than has great skill/ strength and is utterly ruthlessly.



Perhaps bogeyman would be an appropriate term.  I'm referring to criminals.  Many of which are trained by other criminals in the prison system.  As a LEO and instructor I see this on a regular basis i.e. videos of felons training other felons in unarmed attacking methods as well as with weapons (improvised edged weapons are the majority).  On the street they may indeed have some skills as MMA is in the prison systems as well as methods to defeat such training.  Additionally, and more importantly, they may be on drugs such as K2, spice or coke which enhances their strength while reducing the amount of pain they feel.  Pray you never encounter someone on spice looking for their next fix and is desperate enough to not care who they have to hurt to get it.



jobo said:


> These people possibly exist but they make up a very small % of the population, so small that its pointless worrying about them, like being hit by lightning perhaps.



I don't know where you live but it likely isn't the small % you're putting forth.  And the serious martial artist that trains for SD knows that you train for the worst and hope for the best.  If you don't train for a serious situation then you'll be behind the 8-ball both in experience, skill and mindset should you find yourself in said situation.  

The facts, which I've stated before multiple times is that MMA is a sport and not to be confused with SD.  There is cross-over but it is minimal because the training methodology is entirely different.  Two different methodologies, two different mindsets and two different goals.  It's apple and oranges.


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well, as one of the SD guys on the board...
> 
> Your premise is flawed from the OP.  I watched your video and noticed that everyone was wearing gloves, mouth piece and I assume a cup.  They don't wear those things in a street fight.  I also noticed several referees.  They don't have them in a street fight either.  And what were the referees doing anyway?  Enforcing rules and making sure nobody really got hurt (like in a street fight with no referees).  A also noticed that they were 'fighting' on a nice soft, level, dry mat that was well lit.  I've not seen that in a street fight either.



If you want to talk about flaws, let's talk about how you PRETEND FIGHT with your SD training. You tap each other. You pretend to poke at your partners' eyes. You pretend to punch at the throat...maybe a tap. Do you use real, sharp knives or rubber and aluminum ones? You choreograph your training. You force one guy to stab with a rubber knife in one manner in order to do your choreographed moves. How is this realistic? Would you allow me to stab and slash whatever way that I want with that rubber knife? I bet I can hurt someone really bad with one and I'm not even going to go for the eye balls. This wouldn't even be close to realism b/c it's still a rubber knife. But way more realistic than what you currently do.

How hard do you hit each other in sparring? When it's time for hard sparring, I'm trying to KO my partner and vice versa...do you?



> I couldn't help but notice that no one pulled an edged weapon.  They have those in many street fights.  I didn't see any firearms, sticks or improvised weapons.  They have those in many street fights as well.



Yea but you pull out fake knives and rubber guns. Nobody really gets shot or stabbed with real knives in your SD classes though. And if you even train with sticks, you don't hit at full force against unprotected heads, if at all.

Do you even dare go up to this power level of sparring, here?  (and it's not even close to reality yet, but way closer than what you do though). 




 


> So this is another attempt to make a MMA sport the equal of street self defense.  And like every other attempt, it failed.  Take those guys and nix all the safety gear, the soft mat (they'll be on asphalt), the referees, the rules and give one of them a can of O.C., other a firearm, a couple have knives and/or sticks and let the others use improvised weapons (anything available in the parking lot between the parked cars that is available) and then we'll see what REALLY happens in the streets.



MMA is much more superior than the average SD training. SD training in general is the softest. Why do you think that it's usually women and older people that populates such classes while rarely would you see someone over 40 in full MMA training with hard sparring for KO's? It's mostly the alpha males under 25, and about 5% women;  in MMA classes. Coincidence?

You don't train full power on the asphalt. Half of your class would blow their hips if they get Hane Goshi  thrown at full force into the asphalt. I bet most of them don't even know how to break-fall.

And you complain about Referees, yet every time I go spar in SD and TMA gyms, the instructors watch me like I'm some kind of a  terrorist and constantly yells out my name and says to lower the power. This is not reffing? I thought guys were all about realism? And I wasn't even going 50% power....with dudes wearing those ridiculous headgear with the full face masks, looking like a motorcycle helmet.



> You see, SD people don't depend on rules, time outs, tap outs, water breaks, corner advice and medical attention that is waiting just outside the ring.



Yea, you depend on tap fighting and keeping the power level, way under 70%.



> This is just another stupid thread that tries to put a square peg in a round hole.



Says the Tap Fighter.


----------



## jobo

Kong Soo Do said:


> Perhaps bogeyman would be an appropriate term.  I'm referring to criminals.  Many of which are trained by other criminals in the prison system.  As a LEO and instructor I see this on a regular basis i.e. videos of felons training other felons in unarmed attacking methods as well as with weapons (improvised edged weapons are the majority).  On the street they may indeed have some skills as MMA is in the prison systems as well as methods to defeat such training.  Additionally, and more importantly, they may be on drugs such as K2, spice or coke which enhances their strength while reducing the amount of pain they feel.  Pray you never encounter someone on spice looking for their next fix and is desperate enough to not care who they have to hurt to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live but it likely isn't the small % you're putting forth.  And the serious martial artist that trains for SD knows that you train for the worst and hope for the best.  If you don't train for a serious situation then you'll be behind the 8-ball both in experience, skill and mindset should you find yourself in said situation.
> 
> The facts, which I've stated before multiple times is that MMA is a sport and not to be confused with SD.  There is cross-over but it is minimal because the training methodology is entirely different.  Two different methodologies, two different mindsets and two different goals.  It's apple and oranges.


quite rough industrial city in England, ex cons are on every corner, few of them can fight properly


----------



## jobo

Kong Soo Do said:


> Perhaps bogeyman would be an appropriate term.  I'm referring to criminals.  Many of which are trained by other criminals in the prison system.  As a LEO and instructor I see this on a regular basis i.e. videos of felons training other felons in unarmed attacking methods as well as with weapons (improvised edged weapons are the majority).  On the street they may indeed have some skills as MMA is in the prison systems as well as methods to defeat such training.  Additionally, and more importantly, they may be on drugs such as K2, spice or coke which enhances their strength while reducing the amount of pain they feel.  Pray you never encounter someone on spice looking for their next fix and is desperate enough to not care who they have to hurt to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live but it likely isn't the small % you're putting forth.  And the serious martial artist that trains for SD knows that you train for the worst and hope for the best.  If you don't train for a serious situation then you'll be behind the 8-ball both in experience, skill and mindset should you find yourself in said situation.
> 
> The facts, which I've stated before multiple times is that MMA is a sport and not to be confused with SD.  There is cross-over but it is minimal because the training methodology is entirely different.  Two different methodologies, two different mindsets and two different goals.  It's apple and oranges.


this a reverse of the debate I had on another thread, where folk were insisting they didn't need fitness to defend them selves.
if other cons are teaching fighting skill better than your instructor then you need to employ one to teach you and sack your guy
people trying to rob you is a different mind set than a general fall out, if they look like they can handle themselves give them the money and walk away


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> you come to the conclusion that having both developed skills and good fitness, puts you in quite a small % of the population and you might be someone else's bogey man. The fact there are no rules is to your advantage as you can finally try out that killer throat punch you have been practising.
> 
> uneven surfaces favour people with the best balance and that should be you and improvised weapons are available to all. However if you are seriously out numbered you have most probably lost and that is just a fact of life



Very true. When I train my jab with Boxing or MMA gloves, I'm also training eye striking....it's the same mechanics....b/c in the street, I just extend my fingers out. I also include finger push ups in my classes to strengthen the fingers for this purpose. The step jab is my main weapon in the ring. I throw around 30-40 jabs per round of sparring. All I need is my jab to beat the average person my size who has 0 training to maybe intermediate level training in whatever....and they can do whatever they want, including kicking me in the nuts at full power. This has been tested many times vs. mostly L3 and up Krav people, and I respect the Krav'ers the most in the SD realm.  So in the street, who's going to more powerful, more precise and much faster at going for them eyeballs? And once they're blinded, I can do whatever I want to them.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> If you want to talk about flaws, let's talk about how you PRETEND FIGHT with your SD training. You tap each other. You pretend to poke at your partners' eyes. You pretend to punch at the throat...maybe a tap. Do you use real, sharp knives or rubber and aluminum ones? You choreograph your training. You force one guy to stab with a rubber knife in one manner in order to do your choreographed moves. How is this realistic? Would you allow me to stab and slash whatever way that I want with that rubber knife? I bet I can hurt someone really bad with one and I'm not even going to go for the eye balls. This wouldn't even be close to realism b/c it's still a rubber knife. But way more realistic than what you currently do.
> 
> How hard do you hit each other in sparring? When it's time for hard sparring, I'm trying to KO my partner and vice versa...do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but you pull out fake knives and rubber guns. Nobody really gets shot or stabbed with real knives in your SD classes though. And if you even train with sticks, you don't hit at full force against unprotected heads, if at all.
> 
> Do you even dare go to this level here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA is much more superior than the average SD training. SD training in general is the softest. Why do you think that it's usually women and older people that populates such classes while rarely would you see someone over 40 in full MMA training with hard sparring for KO's? It's mostly the alpha males under 25, and about 5% women;  in MMA classes. Coincidence?
> 
> You don't train full power on the asphalt. Half of your class would blow their hips if they get Hane Goshi  thrown at full force into the asphalt. I bet most of them don't even know how to break-fall.
> 
> And you complain about Referees, yet every time I go spar in SD and TMA gyms, the instructors watch me like I'm some kind of a  terrorist and constantly yells out my name and says to lower the power. This is not reffing? I thought guys were all about realism? And I wasn't even going 50% power....with dudes wearing those ridiculous headgear with the full face masks, looking like a motorcycle helmet.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, you depend on tap fighting and keeping the power level, way under 70%.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another stupid thread that tries to put a square peg in a round hole.


[/QUOTE]

This seems like this type of thinking is towards all MASD's. Plus, these ARE two different environments (street and Studio). One is the training and developing, and the other is an adrenalin/fear cocktail induced action. To say that stuff has no actual effect on a street fight based on this idea, makes it seem not completely thought out. Training for SD, you first have to know what you are doing, or you have just as much skill as an average guy off of the streets. 

Also (sorry a little off topic) the saying "like apples and oranges" to describe things as different is a little misleading. They are different but they are still fruits.


----------



## jobo

FriedRice said:


> Very true. When I train my jab with Boxing or MMA gloves, I'm also training eye striking....it's the same mechanics....b/c in the street, I just extend my fingers out. I also include finger push ups in my classes to strengthen the fingers for this purpose. The step jab is my main weapon in the ring. I throw around 30-40 jabs per round of sparring. All I need is my jab to beat the average person my size who has 0 training to maybe intermediate level training in whatever....and they can do whatever they want, including kicking me in the nuts at full power. This has been tested many times vs. mostly L3 and up Krav people, and I respect the Krav'ers the most in the SD realm.  So in the street, who's going to more powerful, more precise and much faster at going for them eyeballs? And once they're blinded, I can do whatever I want to them.


you are both impressive and scary. Finger push up to better poke eyes. Got to add that to my training


----------



## Steve

I think there's an inherent disconnect when cops confuse what they do and the realities they encounter as a part of their jobs, with self defense. 

Can the experience that a LEO has inform civilian self defense?  Of course.  Is it the same?  No. 

Self defense is contextual.  One size doesn't fit all.   It's like a single person driving a passenger van to work every day "just in case" they need to take 9 people from point A to point B.  Is it possible that this could happen?  Well, maybe... but it's highly unlikely.  Unless the context changes.  Maybe that person is an Uber driver.  And if he is, fine.  But most people aren't. 

Women on a college campus absolutely should learn some self defense. But that self defense isn't going to be cop self defense.  It's a different context.  And if you live in a dangerous part of town, sure.  Self defense might be very appropriate.  But that self defense isn't the same as for a college coed or a cop.  It's different.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I think there's an inherent disconnect when cops confuse what they do and the realities they encounter as a part of their jobs, with self defense.
> 
> Can the experience that a LEO has inform civilian self defense?  Of course.  Is it the same?  No.
> 
> Self defense is contextual.  One size doesn't fit all.   It's like a single person driving a passenger van to work every day "just in case" they need to take 9 people from point A to point B.  Is it possible that this could happen?  Well, maybe... but it's highly unlikely.  Unless the context changes.  Maybe that person is an Uber driver.  And if he is, fine.  But most people aren't.
> 
> Women on a college campus absolutely should learn some self defense. But that self defense isn't going to be cop self defense.  It's a different context.  And if you live in a dangerous part of town, sure.  Self defense might be very appropriate.  But that self defense isn't the same as for a college coed or a cop.  It's different.


agree, the cops are the ones chasing the mad man with the knife, I'm the one going the other way. If my skills are good enough to evade getting stabbed then have done their job, if he stabbs someone else  as they are an easier target that unfortunate for them, but I'm not going to try and disarm him for general public safety, well I might actually, but only coz I'm stupid


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> Was that a low blow? Ha. But that was my point, your tactic is way too risky. It could work, but I see going 1-1 until it filters down is the way to go. It only takes 1 person getting KO'ed  and the fight shifts ridiculously towards the team with 1 more fighter.


 Nope not a low blow. lol.  I would hope someone that does 5 vs 5 fighting would have developed some kind of awareness that's better than ours.  Especially most of us train "forward awareness".

The only problem that I see in MMA is 
1. tunnel vision 
2. being aware, only to have to answer the question "now what?" being aware is one thing and being able to do something about it is something different.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FriedRice said:


> If you want to talk about flaws, let's talk about how you PRETEND FIGHT with your SD training.



Your whole post is worthless.  You don't know me.  You don't know how I've trained.  You don't know who I've trained.  Your post is nothing more than in uneducated rant.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> So would not this "awareness" be able to help change the outcome of a combative encounter outside of the ring?
> And, since professionals use have some form of impact training, wouldn't that help keep them from getting Ko'ed.



Yes, all types of training helps, even the lowest, least effective methods of training helps, as anything is better than nothing. And IMO, this makes MMA the highest level of martial arts training for H2H, no weapons; fighting and self defense. I also train Krav Maga for weapons disarming and some Arnis for weapons offense.


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> getting hit in the head a lot, gives you long term brain damage. I dont believe that this conditions your brain to not be knocked out if someone hits you very hard



I didn't get that that was what he was saying, good point.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

Kong Soo Do said:


> Your whole post is worthless. You don't know me. You don't know how I've trained. You don't know who I've trained. Your post is nothing more than in uneducated rant.



You do realize that you don't have to comment on , or even read this thread, right?


----------



## Martial_Kumite

jobo said:


> getting hit in the head a lot, gives you long term brain damage. I dont believe that this conditions your brain to not be knocked out if someone hits you very hard



What if it is not directly to the skull and more of impacts on the jaw? Would a MA or MMA background and training help?


----------



## FriedRice

This seems like this type of thinking is towards all MASD's. Plus, these ARE two different environments (street and Studio). One is the training and developing, and the other is an adrenalin/fear cocktail induced action. To say that stuff has no actual effect on a street fight based on this idea, makes it seem not completely thought out. Training for SD, you first have to know what you are doing, or you have just as much skill as an average guy off of the streets.

Also (sorry a little off topic) the saying "like apples and oranges" to describe things as different is a little misleading. They are different but they are still fruits.[/QUOTE]

Putting your fist into someone's face, repeatedly at full power until they get KO'ed or go into fetal position is not enough of an adrenalin/fear cocktail, action inducer? This works just the same in the street as it does in the ring. How does pretending to hit someone or just tapping them, whether on mats or on cement, be better than punching them hard to KO them as a method of training?

If these MASD'ers are so adept to these realities, then why do at least 90% of the ones that I spar with, mostly in Krav gyms, can't even get past my jab at only 50-70% power....many turns their head completely away, like it would stop or something.  The only ones that do well, are their instructors and only like half of them spars me.

How does any of this negate any part of my skillset? On cement with shoes on and no gloves, I'm just going to be much faster with my footwork and my jabs are going to inflict more damage....but I'll probably just extend my fingers for them eyeballs.


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> you are both impressive and scary. Finger push up to better poke eyes. Got to add that to my training



I actually also teach an SD class that's MMA based. And it's about 80% women in there. I toughen them up.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> How does pretending to hit someone or just tapping them, whether on mats or on cement, be better than punching them hard to KO them as a method of training?



Then, is it safe to say that we disagree on the application in the studio? 
What I am understanding your point of view to be (plz correct me If I am wrong), is that when training in a studio, people should train like they are trying to ko someone. 
This is where I both agree and disagree. I agree because I believe there should be some, at some point, training where people use the majority of their speed and strength. I disagree because one must learn it before putting force behind it. It is similar to the bare hand argument that was a few pages back. I can just go ahead and go full force, no glove on a heavy bag, but I am most likely going to enter my hand or wrist.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

jobo said:


> this a reverse of the debate I had on another thread, where folk were insisting they didn't need fitness to defend them selves.



Folks that don't think fitness plays an important part in SD have never been in a serious altercation.  Physical fitness has an important role in mitigating injury as well.  One does not have to be a world class tri-athlete to successfully defend themselves, but it is a component of proper preparedness.


----------



## jobo

FriedRice said:


> Yes, all types of training helps, even the lowest, least effective methods of training helps, as anything is better than nothing. And IMO, this makes MMA the highest level of martial arts training for H2H, no weapons; fighting and self defense. I also train Krav Maga for weapons disarming and some Arnis for weapons offense.


what makes mma, so effective is that  it contains actual fighting and therefore requires/develops real fighting skills and a considerable degree of fitness. That's win win. The down side is that it contains actual fighting. So you are likely to get hit quite a lot, which could give you brain damage and you are likely to get beaten up anyway, which is what sd training is supposed to avoid. Lose lose


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> Nope not a low blow. lol.  I would hope someone that does 5 vs 5 fighting would have developed some kind of awareness that's better than ours.  Especially most of us train "forward awareness".



And I was just kidding. But to nitpick, you said that 5 of your guys would win with your tactics but now you admit that they should be more accustomed to such chaotic environment as they train for this joint. Sorry, I had to.



> The only problem that I see in MMA is
> 1. tunnel vision
> 2. being aware, only to have to answer the question "now what?" being aware is one thing and being able to do something about it is something different.



Nice video. But I still don't agree with your argument that your tactic is that good. I didn't say it wouldn't work. But in this video, it didn't. Because at the 33 second mark, is when your tactic happened...that 1 Red guy, hung back as his mate was getting 2-1'ed....then he waits for the moment to rush in and sucker punch 1 of the Yellows that were 2-1'ing....but the Yellow being targeted saw it, disengaged...backed up and swung a right hook but missed.

This tactic failed here. But this Red that hung back, seemed to have KO'ed this Yellow...but off camera, as we don't see him after this. It was 1-1. This   showed that this Red was probably just better than the Yellow anyway. So in a 1-1 x 5, this Red would have beat his 1-1 fight and now it's 5-4, and pretty much game over for Yellow. Not conclusive but more probable than your deductions.

Speaking for myself, after being in many street fights and a few gang rumbles in the inner city growing up.....when I started training Muay Thai, I was getting beat up by all of the intermediate students (except the women) who never even fought their 1st ring fight yet.  Versus beginners my level, I was good so street fighting does help. That was quite an eye opener.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FriedRice said:


> I actually also teach an SD class that's MMA based. And it's about 80% women in there. I toughen them up.



So you 'toughen them up'.  Okay, but do you actually know what good self-defense training is?  I don't say this sarcastically, but to be blunt, if you're basing this off MMA then you don't know what good self-defense training entails.  

Do you;


Train outside on various surfaces?
Train outside in dim light conditions?
Train inside of a vehicle?
Train between vehicles in the parking lot?
Train inside of an elevator?
Train on stairs?
Train in a cramp hallway where mobility is limited?
Train to escape/evade/de-escalate?
Train with the appropriate response to the situation?
Train with multiple attackers?
Train with weapons, both conventional and improvised?
Train with a flinch response methodology?
Train with the applicable local, state and federal laws governing use-of-force/use-of-deadly-force?
Train for home deterrence/defense?
Train for travel defense?

Anyone in traditional or MMA can claim they teach self defense.  Few actually know what they're doing.  Based on your video and your posts, without sounding mean about it, you don't know what you're doing.  Unless you're doing ALL the above plus you're doing your students a grave disservice.


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> Your whole post is worthless.  You don't know me.  You don't know how I've trained.  You don't know who I've trained.  Your post is nothing more than in uneducated rant.



Do you spar at full power to KO your partner(s) on a regular basis?

I know your type very well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> I think there's an inherent disconnect when cops confuse what they do and the realities they encounter as a part of their jobs, with self defense.



Agreed.  Just as there is an inherent disconnect when TMA and MMA confuse what they do with actual SD. Fortunately, there are cops, TMA and MMA that DO know what SD actually is and how to separate it from what is not.


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> So you 'toughen them up'.  Okay, but do you actually know what good self-defense training is?  I don't say this sarcastically, but to be blunt, if you're basing this off MMA then you don't know what good self-defense training entails.
> 
> Do you;
> 
> 
> Train outside on various surfaces?
> Train outside in dim light conditions?
> Train inside of a vehicle?
> Train between vehicles in the parking lot?
> Train inside of an elevator?
> Train on stairs?
> Train in a cramp hallway where mobility is limited?
> Train to escape/evade/de-escalate?
> Train with the appropriate response to the situation?
> Train with multiple attackers?
> Train with weapons, both conventional and improvised?
> Train with a flinch response methodology?
> Train with the applicable local, state and federal laws governing use-of-force/use-of-deadly-force?
> Train for home deterrence/defense?
> Train for travel defense?
> 
> Anyone in traditional or MMA can claim they teach self defense.  Few actually know what they're doing.  Based on your video and your posts, without sounding mean about it, you don't know what you're doing.  Unless you're doing ALL the above plus you're doing your students a grave disservice.




Yes to all and more...ie. quick drawing at the range, that allows me to.  And we train for real, not larping.

Do you include sparring at full power to KO your partners as apart of your training?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FriedRice said:


> Do you spar at full power to KO your partner(s) on a regular basis?
> 
> I know your type very well.



No you don't.  You don't have the first clue.  If you did you wouldn't be making such statements.  

.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> Do you include sparring at full power to KO your partners as apart of your training?



I have done impact training with my school. Bacicly, we take turns hitting each other (Not in the head, sorry) and learn how to take a hit, case we are not able to defend from all attacks. Now, this is training with empty hand and is not applicable to flights with sharp objects, but it does help keep us from getting the wind knocked out of us. 
It is fun, until you do it wrong.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Then, is it safe to say that we disagree on the application in the studio?
> What I am understanding your point of view to be (plz correct me If I am wrong), is that when training in a studio, people should train like they are trying to ko someone.



Not always at KO power, not even often. But sometimes. It's also very hard to KO equally trained opponents with head shots. I also don't let beginners nor intermediates go full power to the head, only to the body. I do let them go full power to the head vs. me though and I only tap back.



> This is where I both agree and disagree. I agree because I believe there should be some, at some point, training where people use the majority of their speed and strength. I disagree because one must learn it before putting force behind it. It is similar to the bare hand argument that was a few pages back. I can just go ahead and go full force, no glove on a heavy bag, but I am most likely going to enter my hand or wrist.



This is one good way for training to pull the power. You can go full speed and technique towards your partner's face, but then pull the power once nearing impact to not hurt them during light to medium sparring. On the bag, you do this to train to not break your wrist and hand if you were w/o gloves.


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> Folks that don't think fitness plays an important part in SD have never been in a serious altercation.  Physical fitness has an important role in mitigating injury as well.  One does not have to be a world class tri-athlete to successfully defend themselves, but it is a component of proper preparedness.



50 burpees with no push-ups in 2 minutes. Go.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> 50 burpees with no push-ups in 2 minutes. Go.


Wouldn't it be more effective with pushups? Or is that Olympic level?


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> Agreed.  Just as there is an inherent disconnect when TMA and MMA confuse what they do with actual SD. Fortunately, there are cops, TMA and MMA that DO know what SD actually is and how to separate it from what is not.



Lots of Cops, Feds, Secret Service, Marines, Rangers, other soldiers, etc. roll in to our gym to train because they needed better training for H2H.  If all they had was their training from their perspective dept., then they're about an above average White Belt.


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> No you don't.  You don't have the first clue.  If you did you wouldn't be making such statements.
> 
> .



I answered your questions, but you're still dodging mine. I was right about you and your type


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FriedRice said:


> Yes to all and more...ie. quick drawing at the range, that allows me to.  And we train for real, not larping.
> 
> Do you include sparring at full power to KO your partners as apart of your training?



I seriously doubt you train with half of what I listed above, if any at all.

Do we train full power?  Hmmm, let's see...

We pick up a partner at the 3yd line in a fireman's carry and run with them on our back (because they are simulating that they're injured), drawing from concealment, chambering a round off the belt and engaging multiple targets live fire.

Or

Firing while someone has gotten behind you and is trying to choke you out while you fight them off AND still engage the forward threat live fire.

Or

Being jumped in a dark parking lot and having to use whatever is available (hands, conventional or improvised weapon) to survive the attack.  Obviously we aren't going to shoot or cut someone in such a scenario (if weapons are used) but actual edged weapons training is conducted as well as actual firearms retention defense.  Can it get bloody?  Yes.  Is it real?  As real as one can possibly get while still maintaining a margin of safety that is acceptable to all students involved.  

Does a beginner start at this level?  No.  Like anything else they have to work their way up in experience and skill. But the majority of my students aren't beginners.  And all of my teaching certifications are advanced instructor-only courses.  Not patting myself on the back but I've earned what I've earned and I've taught over a 1000 high liability professionals as well as private citizens.  And the training has successfully allowed them to avoid and attack or survive one that couldn't be avoided on multiple occasions (I keep a data base) including attempted rape, aggravated battery, road rage and other incidents.  Been training for 41 years and teaching for over 31 years.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> Wouldn't it be more effective with pushups? Or is that Olympic level?



Push ups too, no doubt, but this is just another form of exercise to change things up. Burpees are excellent for explosiveness. 50 in 2 mins is not easy.  Then 30 sec rest, and do another 50 in 2 mins.  This is usually the last part of our warmup.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> I have done impact training with my school. Bacicly, we take turns hitting each other (Not in the head, sorry) and learn how to take a hit, case we are not able to defend from all attacks. Now, this is training with empty hand and is not applicable to flights with sharp objects, but it does help keep us from getting the wind knocked out of us.
> It is fun, until you do it wrong.



That's good. You may be going harder than Koo Do there since he won't answer this question. Why don't you try sparring hard to the body only. It doesn't rack the brain and pretty safe.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

FriedRice said:


> That's good. You may be going harder than Koo Do there since he won't answer this question. Why don't you try sparring hard to the body only. It doesn't rack the brain and pretty safe.



I will have to try that. The main problem is is that the majority of people that would be willing to, or have a rank high enough, are quite larger than I am. It might make it more effective, but then again I don't want a bruised rib on accident.


----------



## Martial_Kumite

Martial_Kumite said:


> I will have to try that. The main problem is is that the majority of people that would be willing to, or have a rank high enough, are quite larger than I am. It might make it more effective, but then again I don't want a bruised rib on accident.



When we did the impact training, I had an opponent that was stronger than me, but we had a set of moves that were used. It wasn't exactly free form. Full impact though.


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> I seriously doubt you train with half of what I listed above, if any at all.



Well I do and more, so you're a hypocrite for doing exactly what you complained about me earlier for making assumptions.



> Do we train full power?  Hmmm, let's see...
> 
> We pick up a partner at the 3yd line in a fireman's carry and run with them on our back (because they are simulating that they're injured), drawing from concealment, chambering a round off the belt and engaging multiple targets live fire.



Only 3 yards? That's it? This is part of a routine, BJJ warmup for at least 10x the distance. And this is only like 1 of 7-10 warmup exercises before the real training starts. Obviously we can't play Rambo with live rounds in a gym though.



> Or
> 
> Firing while someone has gotten behind you and is trying to choke you out while you fight them off AND still engage the forward threat live fire.



Sounds like BJJ Lite with a gun, shooting at paper.



> Or
> 
> Being jumped in a dark parking lot and having to use whatever is available (hands, conventional or improvised weapon) to survive the attack.  Obviously we aren't going to shoot or cut someone in such a scenario (if weapons are used) but actual edged weapons training is conducted as well as actual firearms retention defense.  Can it get bloody?  Yes.  Is it real?  As real as one can possibly get while still maintaining a margin of safety that is acceptable to all students involved.



If no one's getting stabbed for real, then it's just larping. If I'm not allowed to KO anyone with my fists, feet, knees, elbows, etc... then it's just larping again.



> Does a beginner start at this level?  No.  Like anything else they have to work their way up in experience and skill. But the majority of my students aren't beginners.  And all of my teaching certifications are advanced instructor-only courses.  Not patting myself on the back but I've earned what I've earned and I've taught over a 1000 high liability professionals as well as private citizens.  And the training has successfully allowed them to avoid and attack or survive one that couldn't be avoided on multiple occasions (I keep a data base) including attempted rape, aggravated battery, road rage and other incidents.  Been training for 41 years and teaching for over 31 years.



That's awesome that you can make money training people this.

Yet, you still haven't answered my specific, SIMPLE question of:

"Do you include sparring at full power to KO your partners as apart of your training?"

so I think you can add "diversion" as apart of your repertoire.


----------



## jobo

Martial_Kumite said:


> What if it is not directly to the skull and more of impacts on the jaw? Would a MA or MMA background and training help?


I dont think so, I cant see any mechanism that allows the brain to adapt its self to be more resistant to violent impact. You can certainly raise your pain thresh hold so that it doesn't hurt as much. But if you wack someone on the head with a big piece of wood every day. I cant see any way that this would ever lead to you not knocking them out


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> I will have to try that. The main problem is is that the majority of people that would be willing to, or have a rank high enough, are quite larger than I am. It might make it more effective, but then again I don't want a bruised rib on accident.



Start at lower power then. Body only sparring, trains you for aggression and forces you to stay & fight in close range. Boxing has this drill called the "telephone booth" drill for this purpose. Koo Do probably doesn't believe this, but it's true.


----------



## Steve




----------



## Martial_Kumite

Steve said:


>


Yep... It sure did.


----------



## FriedRice

Martial_Kumite said:


> What if it is not directly to the skull and more of impacts on the jaw? Would a MA or MMA background and training help?



I agree with Jobo on this. Your head gets weaker and more susceptible to being concussed easier with more hard blows to it throughout the years. I don't think that you'd build resistance to it....just getting more used to head shots.   I would def. get good headgear (so none of that cheap Karate foam joints at $20)..something around $100-130 is good).  But it's still not a clear cut answer about headgear being the best idea neither, but in the beginning at medium power only, I'd say wear them.

The jaw will KO you much easier. When I get hit in the jaw with a good shot from even a 15 year old girl that's going full power, it sends a throbbing pain up the top of my head and the pain stays there. The jawline is probably the best area to cause a KO, with the best being under or around the chin. The temples are good too, but that needs more force.

So while I tout that sparring hard is the highest level of training, it's still a high risk for such skillset and that these skills may never even needed using in a decent area of civilized society. But many of us still take these risks to our heads, b/c we enjoy fighting. Just like dudes going around play fighting while shooting off live rounds at paper targets.....high risks, but mostly due to the  risks of accidentally getting fatally shot by the other larpers.


----------



## FriedRice

Still larping, but any takers?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FriedRice said:


> Well I do and more, so you're a hypocrite for doing exactly what you complained about me earlier for making assumptions.



I see we can add reading comprehension to your already impressive list of skills 

I said I've based my comments on the ridiculous video in your OP as well as your statements.  You don't have a clue what SD training actually entails. 



FriedRice said:


> Only 3 yards?



Ah no, there's the reading comprehension failing you again.  I said they were picked up AT the 3 yrd line.  You'd have to know what a firing range looks like though to understand the difference.



FriedRice said:


> Obviously we can't play Rambo with live rounds in a gym though.



Which means you have limited your training to the gym.  Pity.



FriedRice said:


> Sounds like BJJ Lite with a gun, shooting at paper.



Hoyce didn't seem to consider it as BJJ lite.  Actually he was quite impressed the last time we spoke.  Yeah, we know each other and we've trained at the regional training center at the same time.

I can see how you'd draw an uniformed opinion though since you have no common frame of reference to what Israeli training entails. 



FriedRice said:


> If no one's getting stabbed for real, then it's just larping.



Ah, you've never trained with Boatman, Blauer or Good then...pity, you've missed out on good training. 



FriedRice said:


> Yet, you still haven't answered my specific, SIMPLE question of:
> 
> "Do you include sparring at full power to KO your partners as apart of your training?"



You seemed to be quite fixated on this as some sort of standard.  It's not.  But I've done much better, I've KO'd real live violent felons, in real life, doing real bad guy things.  And there wasn't a referee, pads, gloves, water bottle or groan cup in sight.  Do we train hard enough that a KO is a possibility during training?  Yep.  And the possibility for broken stuff is always a possibility as well i.e. bones, doors, walls etc.  Part of training.  Doesn't make you tough though. 



FriedRice said:


> That's awesome that you can make money training people this.



Though I've been offered obscene amounts of money (due to my certifications), these days I teach for free.  Simply because I love to teach and know the material.  Which is why I always take exception to wanna-bee's that think they're tough and think they know what self defense is when what they offer is simply crap.

Have a nice day


----------



## FriedRice

Kong Soo Do said:


> I see we can add reading comprehension to your already impressive list of skills
> 
> I said I've based my comments on the ridiculous video in your OP as well as your statements.  You don't have a clue what SD training actually entails.



Apparently to you, SD = larping with cool scenarios.



> Ah no, there's the reading comprehension failing you again.  I said they were picked up AT the 3 yrd line.  You'd have to know what a firing range looks like though to understand the difference.



Ok, how far are you running with someone on your back then. Tell me the distance. I only shoot at indoor range where they don't allow this, sorry.



> Which means you have limited your training to the gym.  Pity.



No, I just don't have access to a full playground for larping in camou. I wish I did though b/c I love guns and what you described with your gun play, I love it.



> Hoyce didn't seem to consider it as BJJ lite.  Actually he was quite impressed the last time we spoke.  Yeah, we know each other and we've trained at the regional training center at the same time.



 Royce would probably enjoy his name being spelled correctly also. Royce was your guess.   I also read that Royce has been getting into gun playing and you probably have more knowledge than him with this.  So why would Royce berate you to your face for? He was your guest.  But you do not train full BJJ, and therefore, it's BJJ Lite.



> You seemed to be quite fixated on this as some sort of standard.  It's not.  But I've done much better, I've KO'd real live violent felons, in real life, doing real bad guy things.



Sorry, not impressed. Most tough guys in the streets are untrained and terrible at fighting.



> Do we train hard enough that a KO is a possibility during training?  Yep.  And the possibility for broken stuff is always a possibility as well i.e. bones, doors, walls etc.  Part of training.  Doesn't make you tough though.
> 
> Though I've been offered obscene amounts of money (due to my certifications), these days I teach for free.  Simply because I love to teach and know the material.  Which is why I always take exception to wanna-bee's the thing their tough and think they know what self defense is when what they offer is simply crap.
> 
> Have a nice day



Can I join for a free trial if I'm in the area? But just to be clear, since you've phrase this answer to be quite ambiguous.....would you allow full power sparring, once the bell ring or when the dude from the watch tower fires off a shot or something......which means that the participants can swing, full power,  for the fences at their partner, right? Just to be clear


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> But to nitpick, you said that 5 of your guys would win with your tactics but now you admit that they should be more accustomed to such chaotic environment as they train for this joint.


  Knowing that someone is about to attack you on your flack is one thing.  Having enough time to do something about it is something totally different.  Being aware that you are about to be attack doesn't mean that you can actually do something about it. It just means that you are aware that an attack is coming.  In other words, you are fighting one guy and you see me move to your flank, just because you see me move to your flank doesn't mean you can actually do something to stop my attack. 

Because these guys fighting 1 on 1 at the start, you can only hope that one of your guys will pick that guy up. 
For Example:  At this particular moment  *A* and *B *aren't engaging each other because they are keeping watch.  *C* actually has a chance to go after the guy on his left, but he has to bang that guy hard enough where they can quickly get rid of their opponent.  He can't  attack as if he's scared.  At that point it's would be a double team.  *C* probably has the best opportunity because *A* can help delay any attack coming in at *C*.    If the guy turns to address *C* on his flank then then his original opponent will have an opportunity for a clean shot.  Another scenario is that *A *and *C* attack the guy to their left.  They don't need to stay on him, they only need to nail him with hard shots and get out.   

A long shot scenario would be for *A* to attack the guy to his right.  He would need to Freight Train in.  *B* will engage *A* to prevent the Double team, which at that time the other guy in red can switch targets an pick up *B* so that *A* doesn't get doubled teamed.

In terms of awareness.  That guy in the yellow to the left of *C* and *A* is probably aware of *C* and *A* and is more than likely counting on his team mates to, at a minimum, keep those guys occupied mentally so they don't engage him.   

What I'm describing is a strategy for fighting as a Unit and not fighting 1 vs 1.   Ideally as a unit you want to isolate 1 opponent from the rest of the team.  The guy to the left of C and A fits that  scenario.





In the bottom.  *A* realizes that one of his opponents is isolated so he goes in to take a shot.  *B* is unable to do anything to back up his teammate.  Attacker *A* makes the mistake of trying to hit the guy.  I would think a solid tackle or some kind of attack where the body weight could be used would have been better, as it has less risk of a glancing effect.  At the very least hop on the guys back and choke him out.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> Well, as one of the SD guys on the board...
> 
> Your premise is flawed from the OP.  I watched your video and noticed that everyone was wearing gloves, mouth piece and I assume a cup.  They don't wear those things in a street fight.  I also noticed several referees.  They don't have them in a street fight either.  And what were the referees doing anyway?  Enforcing rules and making sure nobody really got hurt (like in a street fight with no referees).  A also noticed that they were 'fighting' on a nice soft, level, dry mat that was well lit.  I've not seen that in a street fight either.
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that no one pulled an edged weapon.  They have those in many street fights.  I didn't see any firearms, sticks or improvised weapons.  They have those in many street fights as well.
> 
> So this is another attempt to make a MMA sport the equal of street self defense.  And like every other attempt, it failed.  Take those guys and nix all the safety gear, the soft mat (they'll be on asphalt), the referees, the rules and give one of them a can of O.C., other a firearm, a couple have knives and/or sticks and let the others use improvised weapons (anything available in the parking lot between the parked cars that is available) and then we'll see what REALLY happens in the streets.
> 
> You see, SD people don't depend on rules, time outs, tap outs, water breaks, corner advice and medical attention that is waiting just outside the ring.
> 
> This is just another stupid thread that tries to put a square peg in a round hole.



You would have more carnage But I am not sure what fundimental differences you would really get.

Gpseymour. Again see how this street/sport just gets thrown out there out of context. As a big generalization.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think there's an inherent disconnect when cops confuse what they do and the realities they encounter as a part of their jobs, with self defense.
> 
> Can the experience that a LEO has inform civilian self defense?  Of course.  Is it the same?  No.
> 
> Self defense is contextual.  One size doesn't fit all.   It's like a single person driving a passenger van to work every day "just in case" they need to take 9 people from point A to point B.  Is it possible that this could happen?  Well, maybe... but it's highly unlikely.  Unless the context changes.  Maybe that person is an Uber driver.  And if he is, fine.  But most people aren't.
> 
> Women on a college campus absolutely should learn some self defense. But that self defense isn't going to be cop self defense.  It's a different context.  And if you live in a dangerous part of town, sure.  Self defense might be very appropriate.  But that self defense isn't the same as for a college coed or a cop.  It's different.



Exept you can jump on google and watch a cop fight and without any police training pretty much work out what they are trying to do.

And whether or not they are doing it right or wrong.

And this is because they are not doing anything very specialized.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


>




Sure did. Kind of chuckley though. But I don't think everyone realizes the consequences of their posts.

You just ain't supposed to talk about Fight Club.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Exept you can jump on google and watch a cop fight and without any police training pretty much work out what they are trying to do.
> 
> And whether or not they are doing it right or wrong.
> 
> And this is because they are not doing anything very specialized.


its still a different angle, a cop is trying to detain the guy, and can only use such force as is a reasonable to do so, someone defending themself want to guy to go away and can use such force as he believes is necessary, ( UK law)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I see the whole street / ring/dojo argument. Some what differently than most. Maybe id see it differently if guns were freely available in my country. There seems to be a bogeyman street fighter than has great skill/ strength and is utterly ruthlessly. These people possibly exist but they make up a very small % of the population, so small that its pointless worrying about them, like being hit by lightning perhaps. Not only have you got to meet them, you have to annoy them to the point of wanting to badly hurt you. Where as they are probably busy being an enforcer for the local loan shark or some such.
> the reality is most people can't fight, even those that do a lot. They have the same skills they learn at 8 ,slightly refined perhaps. But not at all based on in depth body mechanics and most important people arnt very fit. In fact most arnt fit at all, based on the info someone posted on fitness standards in the states
> if you combine these factors you come to the conclusion that having both developed skills and good fitness, puts you in quite a small % of the population and you might be someone else's bogey man. The fact there are no rules is to your advantage as you can finally try out that killer throat punch you have been practising.
> 
> uneven surfaces favour people with the best balance and that should be you and improvised weapons are available to all. However if you are seriously out numbered you have most probably lost and that is just a fact of life


I agree with most of the points here, Jobo. The key, IMO, is that it's possible to leverage some of those points in training. In training specifically for sport (assuming said sport occurs on predictable mats, etc.), there's not much reason to train for variable surfaces. Training for self-defense, there's a reason to have some portion of the practice that is designed to help build adaptability to variable surfaces. The same goes for improvised weapons. The person who has actually spent some time training weapons, then practiced those principles with adapted/improvised weapons, will have an advantage over the person who hasn't.

For me, when I differentiate between "sport" and "self-defense" training, it's with the understanding that some who train for sport, also include self-defense principles in their training. So some person who trains for MMA competitions, for instance, can also add into their training some bits specifically to address some of the problems, advantages, and variations that don't happen in an MMA competition. That may be the best of both worlds for them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> If you want to talk about flaws, let's talk about how you PRETEND FIGHT with your SD training. You tap each other. You pretend to poke at your partners' eyes. You pretend to punch at the throat...maybe a tap. Do you use real, sharp knives or rubber and aluminum ones? You choreograph your training. You force one guy to stab with a rubber knife in one manner in order to do your choreographed moves. How is this realistic? Would you allow me to stab and slash whatever way that I want with that rubber knife? I bet I can hurt someone really bad with one and I'm not even going to go for the eye balls. This wouldn't even be close to realism b/c it's still a rubber knife. But way more realistic than what you currently do.


I find this annoying, and it's said a lot. Every kind of MA training I've ever seen does some portion of their training this way. A new person can't learn BJJ by having someone jump on top of them and use all they've got to stop them from escaping. They are given a very specific "attack", with very specific parameters, for which they've been taught a very specific defense, and they repeat the exact same movements many times until they are doing it kind of right. Then the attack is changed a little bit, and they repeat the process.

So, yes, sometimes the "attacker" is told to stab a very specific way. That's done so a specific technique can be practiced. Later, the "attacker" gets to choose the attack without telling the defender. The same progression as going from practicing a specific mount escape to rolling. And with some of the same kinds of results (they'll fail a lot early on, and get better over time). Eventually, you mix it all together, and they have to defend whatever comes, as best they can. And part of that ends up being basic sparring, etc.

Of course we don't use real knives. You need people to be able to fail. I've seen places that practice with real knives, and their "attacks" are so very slow and cautious they will never fail to defend, which is a good thing since they are using a live knife. The point of a practice knife is that we get to go hard enough that the defender can safely fail (which, with knife defense, they are going to do pretty regularly).


----------



## CB Jones

gpseymour said:


> Of course we don't use real knives. You need people to be able to fail.



Well there is that old saying of:

There are those that can and do

And 

There are those who can't and bleed out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> I agree with Jobo on this. Your head gets weaker and more susceptible to being concussed easier with more hard blows to it throughout the years. I don't think that you'd build resistance to it....just getting more used to head shots.   I would def. get good headgear (so none of that cheap Karate foam joints at $20)..something around $100-130 is good).  But it's still not a clear cut answer about headgear being the best idea neither, but in the beginning at medium power only, I'd say wear them.
> 
> The jaw will KO you much easier. When I get hit in the jaw with a good shot from even a 15 year old girl that's going full power, it sends a throbbing pain up the top of my head and the pain stays there. The jawline is probably the best area to cause a KO, with the best being under or around the chin. The temples are good too, but that needs more force.
> 
> So while I tout that sparring hard is the highest level of training, it's still a high risk for such skillset and that these skills may never even needed using in a decent area of civilized society. But many of us still take these risks to our heads, b/c we enjoy fighting. Just like dudes going around play fighting while shooting off live rounds at paper targets.....high risks, but mostly due to the  risks of accidentally getting fatally shot by the other larpers.


Agreed. I'll just point out that there's some reasonable evidence that headgear actually may lead to more significant long-term damage, since some people tend to be more accepting of headshots with gear on. I prefer its use either to protect the face (so people can get punched "in the nose" without being all bruised the next day at work for the big presentation) and more importantly to protect glasses and contacts. If I'm not going hard, I prefer to keep the headgear off (and work without my glasses - blurry boxing).


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I agree with most of the points here, Jobo. The key, IMO, is that it's possible to leverage some of those points in training. In training specifically for sport (assuming said sport occurs on predictable mats, etc.), there's not much reason to train for variable surfaces. Training for self-defense, there's a reason to have some portion of the practice that is designed to help build adaptability to variable surfaces. The same goes for improvised weapons. The person who has actually spent some time training weapons, then practiced those principles with adapted/improvised weapons, will have an advantage over the person who hasn't.
> 
> For me, when I differentiate between "sport" and "self-defense" training, it's with the understanding that some who train for sport, also include self-defense principles in their training. So some person who trains for MMA competitions, for instance, can also add into their training some bits specifically to address some of the problems, advantages, and variations that don't happen in an MMA competition. That may be the best of both worlds for them.


 can't argue with any of that, some real world speed and exertion would do a lot of the more theoretical types some good and some reality experience would give the sports types a more balanced skill set


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Exept you can jump on google and watch a cop fight and without any police training pretty much work out what they are trying to do.
> 
> And whether or not they are doing it right or wrong.
> 
> And this is because they are not doing anything very specialized.


I think that's where Steve is saying there's overlap. In a SD situation, I'm unlikely to need to cuff someone. I have locks that a cop might use to get to cuffing, but I'm going to use them differently, since I don't need to detain the guy...unless it's a nice way to let them cool off, and I'm certain there's nobody close enough to intervene on their behalf.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> Nice video. But I still don't agree with your argument that your tactic is that good. I didn't say it wouldn't work.


The only way that my tactics would work is that they fight as a unit and not 1 vs 1.   Fighting as a unit means more than just taking your own man out.  There's coordination and communication among the fighters.  There's an understanding before the fight, that if you teammate engages your guy, then you not only have to look for opportunities to beat up your guy, but you also have to watch whoever was targeting your team mate.  At the 40 second mark yellow knocks his guy down but fails to realize that  Red has his back to him.  He missed an opportunity to take Red's back.

Think of it like this.  Football and basketball players working as a unit vs working as 1 vs 1.  Fighting 5 vs 5  should be able to make use of the same skill sets of team work and strategy.  In terms of awareness and non verbal communication, I would have to say that basketball players are king.  Things like no look passes not only requires you to be aware, but it requires your teammate to be aware as well.  When those players decide to go 1 vs 1 then they don't become aware of people who are open.  And guess how many people are on a basketball team.


----------



## Buka

Headhunter said:


> Oh boy I have a feeling this could be a very long thread



Headhunter for the win!

He called it well over four hundred posts ago.


----------



## Headhunter

Buka said:


> Headhunter for the win!
> 
> He called it well over four hundred posts ago.


Haha I hadn't even bothered reading it until just now and just taken a quick skim read and it turned into exactly what I thought it would


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Exept you can jump on google and watch a cop fight and without any police training pretty much work out what they are trying to do.
> 
> And whether or not they are doing it right or wrong.
> 
> And this is because they are not doing anything very specialized.





gpseymour said:


> I think that's where Steve is saying there's overlap. In a SD situation, I'm unlikely to need to cuff someone. I have locks that a cop might use to get to cuffing, but I'm going to use them differently, since I don't need to detain the guy...unless it's a nice way to let them cool off, and I'm certain there's nobody close enough to intervene on their behalf.


sort of.  Two quick points.  I'm on an iPad, so I'll be brief.

One, cops are in a violent trade.  They look for violence and they engage in violence.   It's not self defense.  At least. It's not self defense in the way a civilian encounters self defense.

Two, because of one above, cops are both more likely to be proficient in violent encounters, and also way more likely to have a skewed impression about actual risk.

Point is, a cop sees a lot of bad guys.   His/her job is to interact with, often violently, bad guys.  I work with a lot of criminals.  I know that it's possible I will be attacked.   But it's not likely.   I move within feet of dangerous people all the time.   But, the chances of being attacked remain very, very low.   Not like a cop, who goes looking for trouble as a core job duty.  

And the chances of my learning what a cop knows to the point it will actually help me is zero... unless maybe I work in another professionally violent trade.    As a civilian, I'm much better off learning things I know I can apply and understanding what I don't know.   I see red flags when a cop leads non cops to believe they can do things they really can't.   

I may not be explaining this well.   I hope so.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> sort of.  Two quick points.  I'm on an iPad, so I'll be brief.
> 
> One, cops are in a violent trade.  They look for violence and they engage in violence.   It's not self defense.  At least. It's not self defense in the way a civilian encounters self defense.
> 
> Two, because of one above, cops are both more likely to be proficient in violent encounters, and also way more likely to have a skewed impression about actual risk.
> 
> Point is, a cop sees a lot of bad guys.   His/her job is to interact with, often violently, bad guys.  I work with a lot of criminals.  I know that it's possible I will be attacked.   But it's not likely.   I move within feet of dangerous people all the time.   But, the chances of being attacked remain very, very low.   Not like a cop, who goes looking for trouble as a core job duty.
> 
> And the chances of my learning what a cop knows to the point it will actually help me is zero... unless maybe I work in another professionally violent trade.    As a civilian, I'm much better off learning things I know I can apply and understanding what I don't know.   I see red flags when a cop leads non cops to believe they can do things they really can't.
> 
> I may not be explaining this well.   I hope so.


 cops also tend to have a gang of mates on the way


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> I see red flags when a cop leads non cops to believe they can do things they really can't.



Agree with what you are saying and I am interested in what you are referring to with this statement


----------



## KenpoMaster805

i wouldnt even go to this fight thing this is stupid


----------



## CB Jones

17 years in Law Enforcement

My take on SD from an undercover perspective

#1 stay calm and with a clear head always try and diffuse a situation (escalation should be last option)

#2 once there is a clear threat and you are in eminent danger act swiftly and decisively to stop that threat.

#3 your actions should be based solely on what is needed to protect yourself not what witnesses will say or how the court will see it.  Worry with that once you are safe.

#4 once the threat is stopped now de-escalate.  Sometimes it can be hard with adrenaline flowing.  But we don't want to go from legitimate SD to an actual criminal assault.

I think this works for both LEO and civilians.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> Agree with what you are saying and I am interested in what you are referring to with this statement


Hey.  I'm sticking with, "agree."   

Seriously, though, there are a few areas.  From tactics to practical skills.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think that's where Steve is saying there's overlap. In a SD situation, I'm unlikely to need to cuff someone. I have locks that a cop might use to get to cuffing, but I'm going to use them differently, since I don't need to detain the guy...unless it's a nice way to let them cool off, and I'm certain there's nobody close enough to intervene on their behalf.



Yeah for me. This is was bruce lee was banging on about when he said people are looking at you finger and not the universe it is pointing to. 

The lock is the smallest part of that equation. The trick is getting to the point where you can apply any lock you want.

True with striking as well by the way. 

Or position before submission.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> sort of.  Two quick points.  I'm on an iPad, so I'll be brief.
> 
> One, cops are in a violent trade.  They look for violence and they engage in violence.   It's not self defense.  At least. It's not self defense in the way a civilian encounters self defense.
> 
> Two, because of one above, cops are both more likely to be proficient in violent encounters, and also way more likely to have a skewed impression about actual risk.
> 
> Point is, a cop sees a lot of bad guys.   His/her job is to interact with, often violently, bad guys.  I work with a lot of criminals.  I know that it's possible I will be attacked.   But it's not likely.   I move within feet of dangerous people all the time.   But, the chances of being attacked remain very, very low.   Not like a cop, who goes looking for trouble as a core job duty.
> 
> And the chances of my learning what a cop knows to the point it will actually help me is zero... unless maybe I work in another professionally violent trade.    As a civilian, I'm much better off learning things I know I can apply and understanding what I don't know.   I see red flags when a cop leads non cops to believe they can do things they really can't.
> 
> I may not be explaining this well.   I hope so.



A cop is almost anti self defence as they are quite often setting the trap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah for me. This is was bruce lee was banging on about when he said people are looking at you finger and not the universe it is pointing to.
> 
> The lock is the smallest part of that equation. The trick is getting to the point where you can apply any lock you want.
> 
> True with striking as well by the way.
> 
> Or position before submission.


I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here. Were you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? We seem to be heading in the same direction, but you seem to be taking issue with me referring to a specific lock, at the same time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here. Were you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? We seem to be heading in the same direction, but you seem to be taking issue with me referring to a specific lock, at the same time.



I agree the lock or the end results are different. But they are not really the focus point.


----------



## CB Jones

drop bear said:


> I agree the lock or the end results are different. But they are not really the focus point.



What is the focus point then?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Yeah for me. This is was bruce lee was banging on about when he said people are looking at you finger and not the universe it is pointing to.
> 
> The lock is the smallest part of that equation. The trick is getting to the point where you can apply any lock you want.
> 
> True with striking as well by the way.
> 
> Or position before submission.



It is too bad that it's a hell of a long flight to sit down and drink  beer or five with you and exchange thoughts.  

I tell my people all the time, "Be in the right spot, and you're fine, which means ... safe.  If you're not there, then you are where the other guy wants you to be, and that's usually unsafe."  Same-same.


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> Knowing that someone is about to attack you on your flack is one thing.  Having enough time to do something about it is something totally different.  Being aware that you are about to be attack doesn't mean that you can actually do something about it. It just means that you are aware that an attack is coming.  In other words, you are fighting one guy and you see me move to your flank, just because you see me move to your flank doesn't mean you can actually do something to stop my attack.



This is obvious though...it's like saying, "knowing how to block a punch is not the same as being able to not get punched in the face". And the guy in question, that you based your winning tactic on......failed at your tactic for suckerpunching (at the ~33 second mark) because his targeted yellow, saw it and was able to do something about it....by moving away and actually throw the 1st punch. And since they were implementing this tactic already, in a recorded video....it's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them.



> Because these guys fighting 1 on 1 at the start, you can only hope that one of your guys will pick that guy up.



I just mean that it's a better risk than your plan. I didn't say it was guaranteed to win.



> For Example:  At this particular moment  *A* and *B *aren't engaging each other because they are keeping watch.  *C* actually has a chance to go after the guy on his left, but he has to bang that guy hard enough where they can quickly get rid of their opponent.  He can't  attack as if he's scared.  At that point it's would be a double team.  *C* probably has the best opportunity because *A* can help delay any attack coming in at *C*.    If the guy turns to address *C* on his flank then then his original opponent will have an opportunity for a clean shot.  Another scenario is that *A *and *C* attack the guy to their left.  They don't need to stay on him, they only need to nail him with hard shots and get out.


 
But this is armchair quarterbacking in a highly chaotic environment. When you're in there, in real life, I don't think you can make predictions as easily as you're doing here.

Your illustrations are interesting though. When I was in a fight like this, I just remembered swinging like crazy at anyone who I couldn't recognize, but it was more than 5 on 5. Who knows, maybe these Fighters do have elaborate game plans like how you've mapped it out.


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> The only way that my tactics would work is that they fight as a unit and not 1 vs 1.   Fighting as a unit means more than just taking your own man out.  There's coordination and communication among the fighters.  There's an understanding before the fight, that if you teammate engages your guy, then you not only have to look for opportunities to beat up your guy, but you also have to watch whoever was targeting your team mate.  At the 40 second mark yellow knocks his guy down but fails to realize that  Red has his back to him.  He missed an opportunity to take Red's back.
> 
> Think of it like this.  Football and basketball players working as a unit vs working as 1 vs 1.  Fighting 5 vs 5  should be able to make use of the same skill sets of team work and strategy.  In terms of awareness and non verbal communication, I would have to say that basketball players are king.  Things like no look passes not only requires you to be aware, but it requires your teammate to be aware as well.  When those players decide to go 1 vs 1 then they don't become aware of people who are open.  And guess how many people are on a basketball team.



While what you're saying is interesting, it still doesn't seem to be the main tactic being used by this TFC fighting league.  There aren't that many videos to watch, but of the ones I've seen, none seem to endorse what you proposed....except that one that you link, where it VAGUELY resembles your tactic. But after watching it again with many pauses, it seems that the Red that hung back, merely did so on-the-fly and not planned....he was reluctant to engage or worried about his flank or something.....which was why Yellow saw the safe space to help his buddy, double team 1 Red.  The main reason that Red won, was due to that Red beating that Yellow, 1-1....taking him out.

But all of the fights seems to start out 1-1 x 5  until 1 guy is out, which turns into a diminishing return effect for the team with 4 vs. 5, and they lose.


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> And the guy in question, that you based your winning tactic on......failed at your tactic for suckerpunching (at the ~33 second mark) because his targeted yellow, saw it and was able to do something about it....by moving away and actually throw the 1st punch. And since they were implementing this tactic already, in a recorded video....it's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them.


I'm not sure what you are talking about.  What I saw as a poorly executed sucker punch. Instead of hooking the guy in his face with a left hook, he decided to go all the way to the person's back and threw a sloppy haymaker.  The tactic that I suggested requires that they team fight as a unit, and in the video it was clear that they weren't fighting as a unit, hence the missed opportunities to take someone's back and choke them out.

As far as "It's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them."  That has no bearing. The same tactic of isolating the enemy from a group has been around since ancient times.  Romans did it, Greeks did it, Egyptians did it, Chinese did it, Japanese did it. Africans did it. Name any large ancient military and you'll see the same tactic.   This is one of the main benefits that ancient soldiers would march and fight in tight formation.  The tactic is a historical tactic The romans rose to power because they fought as a unit and not just a bunch of guys trying to go 1 vs 1.  



FriedRice said:


> But this is armchair quarterbacking in a highly chaotic environment.


Read some ancient military tactics and you'll see the same tactics that I I'm referring to. 5 vs 5 is simple in comparison.  If you and I are on the same team, then I will position myself where I can take your opponents back.  After I attack your opponent, you then pick up my opponent.  If my opponent is too focus on saving his teammate from being choked out by me, then you'll have an opportunity to take my opponent's back while I'm choking out your opponent.

The same concepts tactics and strategies that were used back then are used today.





Here's an example of isolation.  It's a larger scale but the strategy is the same.  If you are against a group, isolate one of your opponents and quickly take them down. 





Like I stated.  The only way my tactics would work is if the team is fighting as a unit.  Fighting 1 vs 1 increases the risk of being isolated and defeated.  Fighting as a unit utilizes your teammates to take advantage of easy opportunities.


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure what you are talking about.  What I saw as a poorly executed sucker punch. Instead of hooking the guy in his face with a left hook, he decided to go all the way to the person's back and threw a sloppy haymaker.



There were no suckerpunch to begin with. The entry to the suckerpunch failed, that was the problem. But to be clear, at what time mark are you referring to.



> The tactic that I suggested requires that they team fight as a unit, and in the video it was clear that they weren't fighting as a unit, hence the missed opportunities to take someone's back and choke them out.
> 
> As far as "It's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them."  That has no bearing. The same tactic of isolating the enemy from a group has been around since ancient times.  Romans did it, Greeks did it, Egyptians did it, Chinese did it, Japanese did it. Africans did it. Name any large ancient military and you'll see the same tactic.   This is one of the main benefits that ancient soldiers would march and fight in tight formation.  The tactic is a historical tactic The romans rose to power because they fought as a unit and not just a bunch of guys trying to go 1 vs 1.
> 
> Read some ancient military tactics and you'll see the same tactics that I I'm referring to. 5 vs 5 is simple in comparison.  If you and I are on the same team, then I will position myself where I can take your opponents back.  After I attack your opponent, you then pick up my opponent.  If my opponent is too focus on saving his teammate from being choked out by me, then you'll have an opportunity to take my opponent's back while I'm choking out your opponent.
> 
> The same concepts tactics and strategies that were used back then are used today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example of isolation.  It's a larger scale but the strategy is the same.  If you are against a group, isolate one of your opponents and quickly take them down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated.  The only way my tactics would work is if the team is fighting as a unit.  Fighting 1 vs 1 increases the risk of being isolated and defeated.  Fighting as a unit utilizes your teammates to take advantage of easy opportunities.



If they fight as a single group, huddled together...then the other team is going to do the same most likely, so you're still getting a 1-1 situation. The other team is not going to be dumb as rocks and send in 1 at a time vs. a block of 5.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> What is the focus point then?



Every step that gets you to that lock.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I agree the lock or the end results are different. But they are not really the focus point.


No, but they do affect the approach somewhat. If your point is that an LEO and I would use much of the same mechanics along the way (getting position, etc.), regardless of the endpoint, I can agree that there's a lot of overlap there. If I'm not trying to retain the person (so more projection throws and strikes, rather than locks and takedowns), then we're likely to use different distancing and positions, but the skills for getting to those various positions are still similar in many cases.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> If I'm not trying to retain the person (so more projection throws and strikes, rather than locks and takedowns), then we're likely to use different distancing and positions, but the skills for getting to those various positions are still similar in many cases.



Question... think scrap, not dojo demo or whatever "nice world" situation. Projection throwing, or drop at your feet as the "go to tactic?" Well, unless you happen to be fighting with them right next to a ledge/cliff type thing, I guess, which can change your thinking.

Shoot, if it is a real fight situation and there's video around, better change too, eh?


----------



## JowGaWolf

FriedRice said:


> If they fight as a single group, huddled together...then the other team is going to do the same most likely, so you're still getting a 1-1 situation. The other team is not going to be dumb as rocks and send in 1 at a time vs. a block of 5.


Not true,  Just because a group of people decide to stand in one group doesn't mean that their opponents will stand in one group.  This is also why ancient military tactics also included formations that help to deal with the enemy attacking the flanks. 

we see similar strategy in north American football.    For example,  If I'm in a 5 vs 5 fight and I see that my opponent wants to attack in a ground then I'm going to have someone attack the flank. While 4 of my guys occupy 5 of their guys then I'll use my 5th man to attack.   If you want to know how all of this stuff works then you have to look at some ancient military tactics.

Here an example of what I'm talking about.  You'll see both the flank and isolation.  3 take the flank. 2 go out to look vulnerable.  As the 3 rush one breaks from the group isolation.    But once again.  The group has to fight as a unit.  It's not enough to be a group.  There has to be coordination and communication.  Even though one team split into a group of 3 and a group of 2.  There was coordination and an understanding of a plan of how to deal with the other 5 and it wasn't going 1 vs 1.


----------



## jobo

JowGaWolf said:


> Not true,  Just because a group of people decide to stand in one group doesn't mean that their opponents will stand in one group.  This is also why ancient military tactics also included formations that help to deal with the enemy attacking the flanks.
> 
> we see similar strategy in north American football.    For example,  If I'm in a 5 vs 5 fight and I see that my opponent wants to attack in a ground then I'm going to have someone attack the flank. While 4 of my guys occupy 5 of their guys then I'll use my 5th man to attack.   If you want to know how all of this stuff works then you have to look at some ancient military tactics.
> 
> Here an example of what I'm talking about.  You'll see both the flank and isolation.  3 take the flank. 2 go out to look vulnerable.  As the 3 rush one breaks from the group isolation.    But once again.  The group has to fight as a unit.  It's not enough to be a group.  There has to be coordination and communication.  Even though one team split into a group of 3 and a group of 2.  There was coordination and an understanding of a plan of how to deal with the other 5 and it wasn't going 1 vs 1.


I think your correct if you have a general to dictate tatics .But left to their own devices group /gangs with stay together. That's why they had to invent the tatic


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Question... think scrap, not dojo demo or whatever "nice world" situation. Projection throwing, or drop at your feet as the "go to tactic?" Well, unless you happen to be fighting with them right next to a ledge/cliff type thing, I guess, which can change your thinking.
> 
> Shoot, if it is a real fight situation and there's video around, better change too, eh?


Throwing (to the ground at my feet, etc.) is my preference. Most of those throws can be pretty painful to someone who doesn't know the fall, and free me up to move if needed. But it is definitely situational. Projections (which I define as sending them away from me) are more likely to be recovery moves for me, where I missed the throw I wanted. The "drops" (throws that put them down without much energy for impact) would either be escape moves or a transition to a lock/pin, in most cases.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Throwing (to the ground at my feet, etc.) is my preference. Most of those throws can be pretty painful to someone who doesn't know the fall, and free me up to move if needed. But it is definitely situational. Projections (which I define as sending them away from me) are more likely to be recovery moves for me, where I missed the throw I wanted. The "drops" (throws that put them down without much energy for impact) would either be escape moves or a transition to a lock/pin, in most cases.


Basically anything  prevents them from being grounded standing and able to to throw dangerous shots at you will be to your advantage.

You may only get half a trip that results in a bit of a stumble. But that can give you a couple of unopposed strikes. 

Which can turn the tide of a fight in you favor.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Basically anything  prevents them from being grounded standing and able to to throw dangerous shots at you will be to your advantage.
> 
> You may only get half a trip that results in a bit of a stumble. But that can give you a couple of unopposed strikes.
> 
> Which can turn the tide of a fight in you favor.


Yes, messing wityh someone's lead foot often causes a quick shuffle step which the other guy didn't plan on taking, and lots of times reflexes take over and hands move away from guard at that instant and there's the opening for a quick shot. That shot, once connected, can open up the next, etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JP3 said:


> Yes, messing wityh someone's lead foot often causes a quick shuffle step which the other guy didn't plan on taking, and lots of times reflexes take over and hands move away from guard at that instant and there's the opening for a quick shot. That shot, once connected, can open up the next, etc.


Examples of how effective it is to mess with someone's lead foot, including when used against a take down attempt (at 0:55)


----------



## JP3

My time indicator is off I think. Which aspect where you intending to show?





JowGaWolf said:


> Examples of how effective it is to mess with someone's lead foot, including when used against a take down attempt (at 0:55)


----------



## JowGaWolf

JP3 said:


> My time indicator is off I think. Which aspect where you intending to show?


There were various examples in that video of how messing with the lead foot causes problems.  It was in response to this 


JP3 said:


> es, messing wityh someone's lead foot often causes a quick shuffle step which the other guy didn't plan


----------



## JP3

JowGaWolf said:


> There were various examples in that video of how messing with the lead foot causes problems.  It was in response to this


I gotcha, I was just trying to figure out if you meant a specific one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Basically anything  prevents them from being grounded standing and able to to throw dangerous shots at you will be to your advantage.
> 
> You may only get half a trip that results in a bit of a stumble. But that can give you a couple of unopposed strikes.
> 
> Which can turn the tide of a fight in you favor.


Agreed. My preference is to plant them. If that doesn't work, anything that upsets their structure and/or balance will do until I can plant them (or until they remove the need to be planted).


----------



## drop bear

And so floyd Mayweathers bodyguard found out the difference between street and sport.

Floyd Mayweather's Bodyguard Steps Into The Ring Against Rookie Boxer


----------



## FriedRice

JowGaWolf said:


> Not true,  Just because a group of people decide to stand in one group doesn't mean that their opponents will stand in one group.  This is also why ancient military tactics also included formations that help to deal with the enemy attacking the flanks.
> 
> we see similar strategy in north American football.    For example,  If I'm in a 5 vs 5 fight and I see that my opponent wants to attack in a ground then I'm going to have someone attack the flank. While 4 of my guys occupy 5 of their guys then I'll use my 5th man to attack.   If you want to know how all of this stuff works then you have to look at some ancient military tactics.
> 
> Here an example of what I'm talking about.  You'll see both the flank and isolation.  3 take the flank. 2 go out to look vulnerable.  As the 3 rush one breaks from the group isolation.    But once again.  The group has to fight as a unit.  It's not enough to be a group.  There has to be coordination and communication.  Even though one team split into a group of 3 and a group of 2.  There was coordination and an understanding of a plan of how to deal with the other 5 and it wasn't going 1 vs 1.




That video just looked like they broke apart and someone got overpowered & lost in their 1-1 fight, which now makes the fight a 5-4, and that team loses eventually due to the weak link.

I'm not saying that your tactics can't work, just that it usually filters into a 1-1 at the beginning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> That video just looked like they broke apart and someone got overpowered & lost in their 1-1 fight, which now makes the fight a 5-4, and that team loses eventually due to the weak link.
> 
> I'm not saying that your tactics can't work, just that it usually filters into a 1-1 at the beginning.


Yeah, I'd think double-teaming someone would be most effective if you have a person who has good skill at holding off two opponents for a few seconds, to free another person up. Otherwise, it's hard to assume you'd always be on the winning side of that split (since your double-team means they have one, too).


----------

