All rights. Face punching point scoring and self defence.

[drop bear]

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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

And well done with the proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's B, then it sounds you you really don't think other martial arts "can fight" but that they are rather hiding behind the false "get out of jail free card' of claiming to be teaching self defense.

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

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

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

It is, however, your thread.

 

[DaveB]

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

Not just the internet but anywhere.

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

 

[drop bear]

If it's B, then it sounds you you really don't think other martial arts "can fight" but that they are rather hiding behind the false "get out of jail free card' of claiming to be teaching self defense.

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

 

[Paul_D]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then please clarify it you don't mind. I don't want to waste my time arguing against a point that wasn't what you meant.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[geezer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

Now for a bit of randomness: What the heck is unreasonable fear?

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

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

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

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

1. 1. Avoid the situation through planning. If that fails...
2. 2. Try to calm the situation down and defuse it. If that fails...
3. 3. Try to get away from the situation. If that's not possible...
4. 4. Ok, then you get to punch the guy in the face.

I think we all agree that giving lip service to the above concepts for thirty seconds, and then proceeding to teach people how to fight is not a comprehensive Self Defense syllabus.

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

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

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

The two examples given were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GiYu - Todd]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

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

 

[GiYu - Todd]

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

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