All rights. Face punching point scoring and self defence.

[Dirty Dog]

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

Man guilty over punching Sydney bouncer

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

 

[Buka]

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

I disagree, no, wait.

 

[Steve]

I disagree, no, wait.

You're such a disagreeable cuss, buka.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaveB]

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

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

The idea that you should chase a retreating opponent.

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

The idea that you should chase a retreating opponent.

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

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

So.

Has an agreement been reached?

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

Agreed.

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

 

[GiYu - Todd]

Has an agreement been reached?

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

Agreed.

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

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

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

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

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

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