A study in street violence

[sgtmac_46]

I agree with you first point as ALL the complexities for each event will be unique and individual to that event.

That's not really my point.......the complexities are unique for each event, but one does not need to train for every individual difference between events, to train for common themes that apply across categories.

I don't quite follow you on your last point...and what statistics are you referring too?

Simple......the average attacker is more or less untrained to any great extent......therefore, the notion that he is more prepared for the situation than someone who has received a moderate degree of realistic training.

This is even more true, for example, where firearms are involved, as the average street punk may receive some very non-formal training actively fighting in the street, the same is not true of firearms skills, and many law abiding armed citizens have far more skill at arms than the average street punk, who probably stole a gun, and maybe fired it a couple times to make sure it worked.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Case in point the Turkish Rambo...he may demonstrate some basic, albeit quite effective Boxing skills, but watch the video again. The Primary Initiating assault was Sloppy Haymakers until he could establish his distance, and his position of dominance. The initial ballistic micro fight, was a suddne flurry of wild out of control punches, seldom seen in any martial arts school (except maybe by beginners). His ability to disengage THAN access complex motor skills( his boxing) allowed him to prevail.

The second two examples, one thing in common with criminals is that they will always attack someone that they think that they can beat. Hence no one mugs Forrest Griffin. Both examples point to the fact that once resistance is encountered, the bravado of the attacker quickly dissipates. Hence the saying cooperate with a rapist, get raped. Cooperate with a mugger, get mugged. You get the point.

You Andretti point is fallacious as you failed to define skilled, in terms of driving. Mario Andretti is a formula 1 grand prix racer. everyone else on the road is a licensed driver, which in most states indicates that they attended and passed some sort of basic skills test to indicate competence on the open road. so the correlation does not match, like comparing an Olympic shooter with a SWAT Sniper, two entirely different beasts.

Last Point in Traditional Arts Self Defense was a western concept added with the westernazation of the arts. Kano, Ueshiba, and Funakoshi's ideals behind Karate, Judo and Aikido were to create better Japanese, in terms of Discipline and "sound mind sound body precepts" for example. Hence the comment. In terms of Martial arts as an ideal self defense system why would one train in an art that would take months maybe years to be "street ready" when there are plenty of Self defense course's that don't require, years of practice, and all other trappings of a traditional martial art. On sheer economics it makes no sense.

Jibberish intended to sound clever.......allow me to attempt to decipher something from it.

Case in point the Turkish Rambo...he may demonstrate some basic, albeit quite effective Boxing skills, but watch the video again. The Primary Initiating assault was Sloppy Haymakers until he could establish his distance, and his position of dominance. The initial ballistic micro fight, was a suddne flurry of wild out of control punches, seldom seen in any martial arts school (except maybe by beginners). His ability to disengage THAN access complex motor skills( his boxing) allowed him to prevail.

Simply put......his SKILL learned during 'sport' training allowed him to prevail, thereby refuting your earlier point.

The second two examples, one thing in common with criminals is that they will always attack someone that they think that they can beat. Hence no one mugs Forrest Griffin. Both examples point to the fact that once resistance is encountered, the bravado of the attacker quickly dissipates. Hence the saying cooperate with a rapist, get raped. Cooperate with a mugger, get mugged. You get the point.

Since victim selection is not even remotely the topic, this comment serves as mere filler, and doesn't really add anything to discussion.......it's apples and banana's with the point of the discussion, which is your comments on 'Martial Arts'/'Sport fighting' versus some nebulously defined 'Self-defense'.........the comments you made were about the physical skills learned in those realms not applying to the street, not other non-physical aspects of 'self-defense' such as avoidance, so why include this comment at all except as filler?

You Andretti point is fallacious as you failed to define skilled, in terms of driving. Mario Andretti is a formula 1 grand prix racer. everyone else on the road is a licensed driver, which in most states indicates that they attended and passed some sort of basic skills test to indicate competence on the open road. so the correlation does not match, like comparing an Olympic shooter with a SWAT Sniper, two entirely different beasts.

And here we arrive at the core of your error in logic......the notion that skills do not apply across categories, which is fundamentally not true, but it does explain why you believe your earlier statements.

Allow me to demonstrate the fundamental logical error of your belief.........to apply your logic, Andretti's skill at maneuvering a car and 200 mph, in high speed turns, and with other vehicles traveling and the same speeds in close contact, does not translate to having superior vehicle handling skill to someone who managed to paralell park without bumping another car, and was able to correctly spell their name on the top of the test........anyone who gives that notion thought will see how laughable it is.........many concepts apply across categories.......replicating every single variable is not necessary to build skills that apply across categories. THAT is the point.

Last Point in Traditional Arts Self Defense was a western concept added with the westernazation of the arts. Kano, Ueshiba, and Funakoshi's ideals behind Karate, Judo and Aikido were to create better Japanese, in terms of Discipline and "sound mind sound body precepts" for example. Hence the comment. In terms of Martial arts as an ideal self defense system why would one train in an art that would take months maybe years to be "street ready" when there are plenty of Self defense course's that don't require, years of practice, and all other trappings of a traditional martial art. On sheer economics it makes no sense.

I see another main fundamental fallacy in your thinking........a misunderstanding of what a 'martial art' is.......your fixation on Traditional Martial Arts, i.e. Japanese, Korean and Chinese arts, have somehow convinced you that those are the totality of what is a 'Martial Art'.........while 'Self-Defense' is some seperate thing........again, any thorough understanding of the subject shows how ludicrious that duality is.

A punch is a punch..........a 'Martial Art' is any physical combat skill practiced to gain proficiency.........it doesn't just mean the 'Costumed Arts of Japan, China and Korea'..........some of the oldest martial arts, in fact, are Pankration, Wrestling and Boxing, which began in Greece and the near-east as unarmed combat systems in warfare.

 

[Aikironin]

That's not really my point.......the complexities are unique for each event, but one does not need to train for every individual difference between events, to train for common themes that apply across categories.



Simple......the average attacker is more or less untrained to any great extent......therefore, the notion that he is more prepared for the situation than someone who has received a moderate degree of realistic training.

This is even more true, for example, where firearms are involved, as the average street punk may receive some very non-formal training actively fighting in the street, the same is not true of firearms skills, and many law abiding armed citizens have far more skill at arms than the average street punk, who probably stole a gun, and maybe fired it a couple times to make sure it worked.

I believe that we are debating the same point on this and are in agreement, with one minor omission, we are in agreement about perhaps the physicality of combat, but are leaving out, the emotional and psychological aspects. The common principles that the trained person could use to prevail a Critical incident provided that they can maintain enough composure to access these skills. If they merely have physical skill but not the mental aspect, odds tend to not be in their favor, the converse is also true, if they have the mental aspect but not physical they could prevail. Case in point, the senior citizen who successfully defends themselves, or the woman who beats off the would be rapist.

The reason why many law abiding armed citizens have far more skill is that they train and increase their skill. But don't be fooled to think that criminals don't train either. That could be a deadly misnomer, because any person untrained in firearms can kill you just as easily as a trained one. The difference is that the trained person tends to think certain things through like shot placement, over penetration and the like.

 

[Aikironin]

Jibberish intended to sound clever.......allow me to attempt to decipher something from it.



Simply put......his SKILL learned during 'sport' training allowed him to prevail, thereby refuting your earlier point. .

I don't see how this refutes my earlier point, merely strengthens the concept that certain skills can carry over, but the intrinsic skills of martial arts such as situations awareness, avoidance and the like are significantly stressed more so in a traditional art than say, martial sports such as Western Boxing, Wrestling, and the like.

Since victim selection is not even remotely the topic, this comment serves as mere filler, and doesn't really add anything to discussion.......it's apples and banana's with the point of the discussion, which is your comments on 'Martial Arts'/'Sport fighting' versus some nebulously defined 'Self-defense'.........the comments you made were about the physical skills learned in those realms not applying to the street, not other non-physical aspects of 'self-defense' such as avoidance, so why include this comment at all except as filler?.

Since the thread is street violence under General Self defense, Victim selection is completely germane to the topic. As victim selection is a tangential subject of martial arts, as one who is situationally aware and has some sort of composure ingrained from increased self confidence and awareness, will more likely than not be selected as a victim.

And here we arrive at the core of your error in logic......the notion that skills do not apply across categories, which is fundamentally not true, but it does explain why you believe your earlier statements.

This was your attempt at my logic, not mine, I may have been unclear in that post.

Allow me to demonstrate the fundamental logical error of your belief.........to apply your logic, Andretti's skill at maneuvering a car and 200 mph, in high speed turns, and with other vehicles traveling and the same speeds in close contact, does not translate to having superior vehicle handling skill to someone who managed to paralell park without bumping another car, and was able to correctly spell their name on the top of the test........anyone who gives that notion thought will see how laughable it is.........many concepts apply across categories.......replicating every single variable is not necessary to build skills that apply across categories. THAT is the point.

only if the point is how well someone can drive a car at 200 mph, in high speed turns, and with other vehicles traveling at the same speeds in close contact. Than clearly Andretti will come out on top. They may have similiar skills negotiating the I-10 freeway at rush hour.

I see another main fundamental fallacy in your thinking........a misunderstanding of what a 'martial art' is.......your fixation on Traditional Martial Arts, i.e. Japanese, Korean and Chinese arts, have somehow convinced you that those are the totality of what is a 'Martial Art'.........while 'Self-Defense' is some seperate thing........again, any thorough understanding of the subject shows how ludicrious that duality is.

It is only a fundamental fallacy in my thinking if my definition of martial art is wrong as compared to what you define martial arts as. Which is the essential point of your posts, your definition of Martial art doesn't match mine, so examples are presented in isolation to prove your point. Which is okay, as are arguments tend to boil down to definitions.

A punch is a punch..........a 'Martial Art' is any physical combat skill practiced to gain proficiency.

If you say so, but what passes as most martial arts in the West are either Gendai Budo, or Martial Sports. With the DO suffix, it would indicate that the martial art is technically a "Way" such as "the Gentle Way" or the "Way of Harmony" as opposed to the Jutsu suffix. Read some Draeger on this although his main points are very fixed in their delineations and some Koryu people tend to refer to their 'jutsu' art as a 'do' such as Jodo.

.........it doesn't just mean the 'Costumed Arts of Japan, China and Korea'..........some of the oldest martial arts, in fact, are Pankration, Wrestling and Boxing, which began in Greece and the near-east as unarmed combat systems in warfare.

I never said it did, as I specifically cited Japanese arts, in terms of language classification.

 

[Aikironin]

Side point too, while I am thinking of it, Michael Jordan was arguably the best Basketball player of his generation perhaps of all time. Although when he attempted to play MLB, those skills did not necessarily transfer over. Certain skills clearly did, dedication, attention to detail, teamwork, and a committment to perfecting his craft. But his skills at a fade away 3 pt jumper, not so much. Hence Certain skills from MA do carry over in the larger realm of self defense, but certain skills not so much.

I thought of this as you mentioned Andretti and it got me thinking.

Good conversation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe that we are debating the same point on this and are in agreement, with one minor omission, we are in agreement about perhaps the physicality of combat, but are leaving out, the emotional and psychological aspects. The common principles that the trained person could use to prevail a Critical incident provided that they can maintain enough composure to access these skills. If they merely have physical skill but not the mental aspect, odds tend to not be in their favor, the converse is also true, if they have the mental aspect but not physical they could prevail. Case in point, the senior citizen who successfully defends themselves, or the woman who beats off the would be rapist.

That's why Jeff Cooper and many others have rightly pointed out that proper mindset is MORE important than physical skills.......though proper training in physical skills increases confidence and improves mindset.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Side point too, while I am thinking of it, Michael Jordan was arguably the best Basketball player of his generation perhaps of all time. Although when he attempted to play MLB, those skills did not necessarily transfer over. Certain skills clearly did, dedication, attention to detail, teamwork, and a committment to perfecting his craft. But his skills at a fade away 3 pt jumper, not so much. Hence Certain skills from MA do carry over in the larger realm of self defense, but certain skills not so much.

I thought of this as you mentioned Andretti and it got me thinking.

Good conversation.

Keep this in mind when discussing Michael Jordan........many of his skills from Basketball did not give him enough of an advantage over elite MLB players to be a star in that sport as well.........but they provided him a significant advantage over the average human being.......and that's really the point.......his MLB skills, because of his Basketball skills, are vastly superior to the average human being.

The same with Andretti........his skills gained in his career puts his driving skills far beyond that of the average human being, even when you change a few variables.

Likewise, a professional heavy weight boxer who has NEVER been in a street fight, never trained for what you call 'self-defense' STILL carries with him superior to skill to the average person in that environment.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't see how this refutes my earlier point, merely strengthens the concept that certain skills can carry over, but the intrinsic skills of martial arts such as situations awareness, avoidance and the like are significantly stressed more so in a traditional art than say, martial sports such as Western Boxing, Wrestling, and the like.

Your statements here represent more of a change in subject, than a furthering of the topic already being discusses.

Since the thread is street violence under General Self defense, Victim selection is completely germane to the topic. As victim selection is a tangential subject of martial arts, as one who is situationally aware and has some sort of composure ingrained from increased self confidence and awareness, will more likely than not be selected as a victim.

Again, a change of subject.......victim selection is an entirely different topic to the physical applicability of 'martial arts' skills. One can teach 'situational awareness' without ever teaching one single physical skill, period......apples and oranges.

This was your attempt at my logic, not mine, I may have been unclear in that post.

I would concede that I can only respond to what I understand you to be saying, not your intent.

only if the point is how well someone can drive a car at 200 mph, in high speed turns, and with other vehicles traveling at the same speeds in close contact. Than clearly Andretti will come out on top. They may have similiar skills negotiating the I-10 freeway at rush hour.

Preposterous.......the notion that the reflexes gained by operating at high speeds, don't translate to far lower speeds, when compared to the average person who can manage to start their car and drive it across town is simply silly.

It is only a fundamental fallacy in my thinking if my definition of martial art is wrong as compared to what you define martial arts as. Which is the essential point of your posts, your definition of Martial art doesn't match mine, so examples are presented in isolation to prove your point. Which is okay, as are arguments tend to boil down to definitions.

Language tends to boil down to definitions......so any discussion is, at it's roots, founded on commonly agreed upon definitions........otherwise we're just screaming noises at each other.

If you say so, but what passes as most martial arts in the West are either Gendai Budo, or Martial Sports. With the DO suffix, it would indicate that the martial art is technically a "Way" such as "the Gentle Way" or the "Way of Harmony" as opposed to the Jutsu suffix. Read some Draeger on this although his main points are very fixed in their delineations and some Koryu people tend to refer to their 'jutsu' art as a 'do' such as Jodo.

It's quite clear that you define all your terms by way of the Japanese arts........a bit myopic.

The problem with doing so is that the Japanese arts have their martial skills tied with Japanese religious beliefs, such as Buddhism and Shinto traditions............western and many other martial arts are far more pragmatic in their view of the relationship between means and ends.

 

[Aikironin]

If you don't mind I will skip the copy paste on the quotes, it tends to get silly and off topic, much like our last 6 posts.:jediduel:

If we come to terms on definitions of Way vs. Art and how to tie that into the original thread of a study of street violence, without going into the sport vs. street aspect. Than it could turn into a semantical debate on "combat vs street assault" which are, to me, totally different in certain regards, such as consent and motive. Regardless, one thing I have left out of this ongoing saga of mediocrity is my definitions of Martial arts and the focus of such.

I usually use D. Draeger's definitions on this, as he really was one of the first to break down such barriers. Draeger states "that the major purpose of modern bujutsu is to provide officially approved methods of hand-to-hand combat for people authorized by the government to deal with offenders against the social order; all study and application of such modern bujutsu is thus confined to Law enforcement agencies and the armed forces of Japan. Other modern bujutsu are purely for use by average citizens as methods of self defense and spiritual training"

Now here in America I would tend to disagree with his first sentence and agree with his second, as you said Westerners are more pragmatic in this sense. Bujutsu as Draeger defines in the classical sense is that 1. combat 2. discipline 3. morals. This may fit your definition of Martial Arts, and I suspect it does.

That being said, what is widely labeled Martial arts in the West fit within Draegers definition of Modern Budo( martial Ways) or what in additional I refer to as martial Sports.

Draeger defined modern Budo as "consisting of various systems used as spiritual training and religious cultism, forms of physical exercise or education, methods of self defense for individuals in daily life, athletic and recreational activity, and Sport. " With the primary emphasis of 1. Morals 2. Discipline and 3. Aesthetic form.

These are my defintions that I have been working with, and as being predominately Japanese or Eastern in thought, it may be mypoic in your regard, but in general terms could be applied across the spectrum. As I predominately study Eastern forms, I don't want to make statements on other cultures martial traditions that can easily be disproved.

Which brings me to your point on Western Pragmaticism, which to me, is the crux of the dilemma of Do vs Jutsu or Street vs. Sport. As Westerners tend to be as you say pragmatic in their studies. They look at the Martial customs of whatever culture and pick up what they want from them. This martial imperialism may work in some forms or may be detrimental in others. For example, a palm tree is a beautiful thing, a palm tree in Upstate Minnesota looks kind of weird. So taking things out of the cultural context could lead to misapplication of form. I.e. Thinking that all martial ways are equal to martial arts, or Sport based models are equivalent to effective street self defense.

So back to the race car analogy, if Andretti or anyone of his skill were so better prepared than the average person who by your definition can barely make it across town without incident, which is a complete underestimation of drivers, but for the sake of argument we will keep that same defintion. Than race car drivers would seldom if ever get in an accident, but just ask fans of Dale Earnhart on this. Being better prepared doesn't make one, completely prepared. The best MLB hitters only can hit any given pitch one third of the time. In fighting terms that would mean you would lose 2/3 of the time. Which is hardly an acceptable number.

Which then brings me back to the original question of a study of street violence. If we are practicing a form that even if, as a tertiary characteristic, of self defense. We are still not training for a street conflict, as I stated earlier, most street attacks, PIA, is a haymaker or tackle of some sorts, whereas Boxers are training themselves to fight, well boxers, TKD people are training to fight TKD people and so on. Whereas a semi-skilled boxer can more likely than not clean house in certain situations, this is no guarantee against the sucker punch leaving the bar, or the ambush at the ATM. Which was my initial intent on the post, that the art of choice that most people train in, provides a mental blueprint for a, what I term, an implied consent confrontation, i.e. Judo, TKD, Karate BJJ, whatever you get the point, now in some of those contests there are strict guidelines, and in some like MMA, a bit looser guidelines, but there is still that consent.

Street fight, unless it is between the two drunks who decide to duke it out over the girl at the end of the bar, which even then, I would hesitate to comment on, has no consent. The attacker chooses, time, place and level of aggression, which Sport based models don't properly train for.

 

[prokarateshop]

Generally, the best defense is to avoid the situation. If all else fails then defend yourself and get away

 

[Tez3]

Generally, the best defense is to avoid the situation. If all else fails then defend yourself and get away

Thank goodness, a post I can understand! And it makes perfect sense!


Aikironin, I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. I really don't like airy fairy stuff, the question simply boils down to if you have to can you fight? The above post is the perfect example of common sense, brevity and smart thinking. Theory isn't much good when it comes to defend yourself unless you use your thesis paper as a cosh!