Comparing kid ranks to adult ranks

[Buka]

Well now you've got me curious. I laid out several components of my perspective. I wonder which part(s) you disagree with so strongly.

My first point was that there is a wide spectrum of fighting ability.

There is, I agree.

Most people, even if they are untrained, unathletic, and lacking in general fighting spirit, can win a fight against someone who is much smaller and weaker and doesn't have some other exceptional compensating attribute. As an extreme example, even a relatively wimpy 20 year old man can generally beat up a 10 year old girl without much trouble. Do you disagree with this part?

Of course not, I mean, really, who would?

At the other end, most people, even if they are trained, skilled, and mentally tough, are not prepared to handle fighting elite level professional fighters. I think most people on this forum (myself definitely included) would be quickly destroyed in a match with Israel Adesanya. Heck, some of my training partners are current or retired professional fighters and I would be surprised if any of them could last a full round with Adesanya. Do you disagree with this part?

I do not, no. (As a side note, I find Adesanya an interesting fighter. I would have liked to have trained with him.)

In-between those two extremes, there is a pretty much continuous range of ability. There are people who can do well in a fight against an untrained, inexperienced person of their own size and strength, but who will fall apart against someone with a bit of skill or superior physical attributes.

That's a person who can't fight. In my opinion, of course.

There are people who have natural aggression and experience in street scraps who can often overwhelm opponents who have some martial arts training or some advantage in physical attributes, but who will mentally fold when they run into a tough, skilled, trained fighter who can take their shots, stay cool, and fire back.

The one that mentally folds....can't fight. Now, this is in my definition of it, I'll get to that reason bu the end.

There are individuals with remarkable physical attributes who can defeat even many tough skilled fighters just through sheer physical superiority. There are other individuals who are lacking in skill or physical attributes but have a mindset which will keep them fighting against anyone until they are dead or unconscious. There are people who can do okay in low-level amateur fights, but who would be quickly smashed in professional competition. There are fighters who can compete at the professional level, but will get quickly knocked out if they run into an elite opponent. Do you disagree with this part?

Not really, no. But you are framing the statement to bolster your opinion, which is fine. It just differs from mine.

I also expressed my observation that given this huge range of possible fighting ability, different people draw the line in different places between those they consider "can fight" or "can't fight." I've heard people use "can fight" to describe someone who can do well against the average untrained person. I've heard other people use "can't fight" to describe someone who never proved themself in professional competition. Do you disagree with this part?

This would be a longer conversation. Got to hand it to you, though, you're presenting this in a way a really good trial attorney would. Rather impressive, I like it.

Do you think that actually most people in the martial arts community have an agreed upon standard and that I've just missed hearing about it?

Now you're just doing nice stand up comedy! Using the term "martial arts community" and the word "agree" in the same sentence.....bwahahaha.

Or do you think there is one correct place to draw that line and anyone who draws it in a different place is just wrong? Or do you think that there is a correct way to define "can/can't fight" which isn't purely dependent on one's place on that spectrum of fighting ability (such as basing the judgement on one's fighting spirit rather than one's physical ability)? I'm interested to know.

It would be like asking "how do you describe love?"

If it helps, I'll offer myself as an example. I give you my word that it will not hurt my feelings if you or anyone else judges that I "can't fight." I think I have a fairly realistic idea of where I fall on the general scale of fighting ability. I'm just curious as to what criteria you (or anyone else that wants to chime in) would use to judge whether I can or can't fight.

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting or training with you. But if I was to bet, and I do rather enjoy gambling, I'd bet the house on you.

I'll leave aside my general training background. You've seen it. Anyone else who wants to see it can check my past posts. My years of training and ranks certainly don't prove anything about my fighting ability. We've all seen high ranking individuals with limited ability. I'll just list my experiences which seem to potentially offer more direct information regarding whether I can fight.

1) Before I switched from the Bujinkan to the "combat sports" side of martial arts (Muay Thai/BJJ/etc). I worked retail and had a handful of fights attempting to apprehend shoplifters or evict banned individuals from the store. All of these I won or held my own without taking damage. I'd guess that none of my opponents had any training or had exceptional physical attributes, although several were bigger than I was. I had a few other instances where I avoided the physical confrontation because I judged the situation to not be in my favor. Looking back: a) the me of then didn't really know how to fight by my current standards - 58 year old me of now would easily smash mid-20s me of then, b) if I were in that situation today I wouldn't initiate those fights to protect the property of a corporation that wasn't paying me to do so and wouldn't have backed me up if I had gotten in legal trouble.

2) In my mid-30s I had a couple of amateur kickboxing matches. Lost the first by TKO against a much more experienced opponent, but kept getting up until the ref stopped the fight. Won the second by TKO against an opponent who had one more fight than me. I was supposed to have an amateur boxing match, but my opponent got scared and bailed at the last minute so I had an exhibition Muay Thai match with my instructor instead. It was really more of a hard sparring session, since neither of us was trying hard to knock the other out. I believe the me of now would beat the me of then in a kickboxing match. I don't have nearly the cardio I did back then, but my skill and my ability to control my adrenaline would probably compensate. (Me of then was gasping for air after 3 minutes of fighting because of the adrenaline dump.)

I know! It really is something those first few years when dealing with the nervousness and adrenaline when competing in a ring. Like everything else, the moire you do it, the easier it gets - at least the breathing and dealing with adrenals.

3) I've competed in a number of grappling (Judo/BJJ/Sumo) and weapon (SCA/HEMA) competitions over the years. Not exactly what I would call fights, but I've demonstrated the ability to take some punishment and keep going. The only tournaments I've placed in were a couple of golds and a couple of silvers in Judo and in BJJ in the white belt division when I was in my 30s. I don't compete in BJJ anymore because I just don't have the conditioning to do ten minute rounds against opponents who have the same skills I do and are 30 years younger. (I still roll with other black belts in the gym and do okay, but there's a difference between technical sparring for the purpose of learning and a competition where they will bring all their physical attributes to bear.)

4) I've sparred in the gym with a lot of people over the last 30 years, from complete newbies to current and retired pro fighters, under a wide range of rules (grappling/boxing/MMA/weapons/etc).

An't that the truth. If we only had a dollar for each and every one of them. Man, we'd have a sheet load of dollars.

These days I try to work at light to moderate contact. (I can actually handle full contact psychologically much better than I used to, but I also don't heal as fast as I used to and I'm trying to avoid any more concussions than I've already had.) My experience is that I can handle newbies (even those with superior physical attributes) pretty easily. I can do well against most trained martial artists who aren't experienced fighters. I do okay against most amateur fighters, but would probably gas out and lose via cardio in an official MMA match. I can even hold my own against some of the professional fighters in friendly light sparring, but I'm very aware that in a real fight the strength and conditioning difference would be overwhelming and I would get smashed quickly.

So, given all that, can I fight?

Again, I've never trained with you. But also again, I'll put the money down on you. And I do not make foolish bets.

From the perspective of an elite MMA fighter? Probably not. I wouldn't last a minute in the UFC. Even in a low-level amateur fight I'd need to win by submission or knockout in the first minute or two in order to avoid gassing out and becoming too exhausted to defend myself.

From the view of students at my gym who have only been training a year or so? Sure, I'm a badass.

From someone else's standpoint? Who knows. It depends on what criteria they apply.

What are your criteria?

I've lived in a small world. All I can base my opinions on are where I've trained and who I've trained with and learned from. The question of whether someone can fight came up often with much discussion. TO A MAN it was you can fight or you can't. With the occasional "it ain't rocket science" thrown it.

I am honestly amazed though, that there's any question about this. To me, it's the only absolute in Martial Arts.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Now you're just doing nice stand up comedy! Using the term "martial arts community" and the word "agree" in the same sentence.....bwahahaha.

It is a pretty silly idea, isn't it?

The one that mentally folds....can't fight. Now, this is in my definition of it, I'll get to that reason bu the end.

I think by the time you got to the end of your post, you forgot to include your definition of "can/can't fight". I'm still looking forward to reading it. I'm guessing it has something to do with mindset, but I don't want to assume anything.

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting or training with you. But if I was to bet, and I do rather enjoy gambling, I'd bet the house on you.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I was more interested in learning the criteria by which you made that judgment. Which elements of my mini-biography would incline you to bet that I can actually fight? (Or contrariwise, what elements could lead you to second-guess that bet?)

 

[skribs]

That's a person who can't fight. In my opinion, of course.

Why did you specify that it's your opinion? If this is something that is universally accepted whether or not someone can fight, it shouldn't an opinion.

This would be a longer conversation. Got to hand it to you, though, you're presenting this in a way a really good trial attorney would. Rather impressive, I like it.

And you're answering like a politician. Discussing the question without really answering it.

I've lived in a small world. All I can base my opinions on are where I've trained and who I've trained with and learned from. The question of whether someone can fight came up often with much discussion. TO A MAN it was you can fight or you can't. With the occasional "it ain't rocket science" thrown it.

I am honestly amazed though, that there's any question about this. To me, it's the only absolute in Martial Arts.

The ability of a person to look at something and cast unapologetic judgment doesn't make it a universally accepted truth. It just means that man has strong opinions. The fact that this question comes with much discussion suggests it's not universally accepted who can fight or who can't, or even what criteria is being used.

I notice two things in your response. First, you didn't answer Tony's question about whether or not he can fight. You said you'd put your money on him, which suggests you think he can fight. But you could also put your money on the better of two people who can't fight, because one of them can't less.

The other piece is this:

The one that mentally folds....can't fight. Now, this is in my definition of it, I'll get to that reason bu the end.

I didn't see you come back to this. This is directly after saying that another person can't fight. You've hinted at two people who can't fight now (see the first line I quoted in this reply), but you didn't say what the definition is of someone who can fight or can't fight. The conclusion at the end was that the only absolute in martial arts, and that it "ain't rocket science".

Now you're just doing nice stand up comedy! Using the term "martial arts community" and the word "agree" in the same sentence.....bwahahaha.

I mean, that's your whole position in the argument, is that there is something the community agrees on. What's that old proverb about the splinter and the plank?

 

[Buka]

It is a pretty silly idea, isn't it?

I think by the time you got to the end of your post, you forgot to include your definition of "can/can't fight". I'm still looking forward to reading it. I'm guessing it has something to do with mindset, but I don't want to assume anything.


I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I was more interested in learning the criteria by which you made that judgment. Which elements of my mini-biography would incline you to bet that I can actually fight? (Or contrariwise, what elements could lead you to second-guess that bet?)

Apologies in advance, but let me ask you, "Tony, can you fight?"

 

[Buka]

I used to have a list on the wall of the dojo, complete with pictures, of the requirements needed for all belts for promotion.

The last three ranks were green, brown and black. The green belt rank was the most definitive. It stated "A green belt has to know how to fight. He/she doesn't necessarily have to be good at it, just has to know how to do it."

With that description were several photographs of military trainers in bite suits, the military dog in full engagement, in the air and on the bite suit itself while the trainer was beating it with a training stick trying to make it quit.

Under that it said "You can beat a green belt with a stick. A green belt does not care."

Every student I ever taught, and there were a lot of them, knew exactly what that meant.

 

[skribs]

That doesn't really answer the question. I wouldn't really call that strictly defined.

I'm also making an assumption here, that people nodded and smiled, and maybe didn't have quite the same understanding of what that meant as you did. Unless you had a written or verbal test and every student had to explain what it meant.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Why did you specify that it's your opinion? If this is something that is universally accepted whether or not someone can fight, it shouldn't an opinion.

I challenge you to find ANYTHING that is universally accepted. People cannot even agree that the earth is round.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think there is some confusion about fighting. There appears to be an assumption that "knowing how to fight" = "winning the fight" These are not the same thing.

Can't fight means the person doesn't have the ability or skill set to fight. Having poor skill sets for fighting is still fighting. Poor skill sets is also comparative and based on how one compares against the person you are fighting. Context is also needed. me vs Mike Tyson boxing, he wins. Me vs Tyson fighting with staffs, I win.

If a person lacks common fighting basics, then I'm likely to say"That person cant' fight." After that people are either good at it or bad at it.

 

[skribs]

I challenge you to find ANYTHING that is universally accepted. People cannot even agree that the earth is round.

That's my point. He's claiming that if someone "can fight" is a universally accepted claim. There is no such thing.

 

[Dirty Dog]

That's my point. He's claiming that if someone "can fight" is a universally accepted claim. There is no such thing.

Where did he do that?

 

[skribs]

Where did he do that?

Posts #38, #73, #79, and #85. Most explicitly stated in Post #38:

In fact, that might be the ONLY term in Martial Arts, or the fight game, where there is absolutely no confusion about definition.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Apologies in advance, but let me ask you, "Tony, can you fight?"

I'd like to think so. But then again, back in my 20s I thought I could fight and by my current standards I couldn't fight well at all.

Which may be the crux of the matter. I maintain that almost anyone (barring those with specific severe physical disabilities and those who completely freeze up at the mere prospect of any physical confrontation) can fight. The question is how well they can fight. A lot of factors go into that, including physical attributes, fighting spirit, skill, and experience.

In my early to mid teens, my ability to fight was probably worse than that of the average untrained person. I was scrawny, uncoordinated, physically timid, and had no real experience with violence other than occasionally being bullied and having no idea of how to fight back. I couldn't even hold my own in a pillow fight with a friend. But I expect I could still have won a fight with a 10 year old girl.

In my 20s I got a bit tougher. I had been training martial arts for a few years and thought I knew something. I had developed some coordination and some confidence and had become accustomed to some bumps and bruises. I think my fighting ability was better than that of the average untrained person who wasn't super athletic and hadn't been in a lot of fights. But I was still physically and mentally overwhelmed when sparring with opponents who were a lot stronger or had significant fight experience.

These days I think I can fight better than most people, including most martial artists and lots of guys who are younger, stronger, and more athletic than I am. I know I can take a reasonable amount of punishment and keep fighting. I know I'm physically and psychologically able to inflict damage. I know I can execute my technical skills under a fair amount of pressure. I also know that I don't have nearly the level of mental comfortableness with being in the middle of a brawl as some of my friends who are professional fighters. Nor do I have anything near their level of physical attributes. I also know that under enough pressure, my technical skills and execution will start to deteriorate, more so than elite fighters who can still demonstrate excellent technique while exhausted and in pain.

The last three ranks were green, brown and black. The green belt rank was the most definitive. It stated "A green belt has to know how to fight. He/she doesn't necessarily have to be good at it, just has to know how to do it."

With that description were several photographs of military trainers in bite suits, the military dog in full engagement, in the air and on the bite suit itself while the trainer was beating it with a training stick trying to make it quit.

Under that it said "You can beat a green belt with a stick. A green belt does not care."

I suspected that your definition might be something along those lines. You're looking at fighting spirit. Someone who can face up to fear, take pain and damage, and keep coming.

It's a reasonable criteria, but I'd argue that also falls on a continuum. Even Roberto Duran once said "No más" and if he can't fight, then no one can. Lots of people get at least a little bravery and willingness to suffer damage under the influence of adrenaline (or alcohol). Some are willing to keep fighting even with broken bones and severe exhaustion or even the threat of death. There's a spectrum between the extremes of "completely freezes up" and "will keep fighting until a painful death." I suspect you just have a particular point along that line that you subjectively identify as "that guy can fight." That's fine. It's sort of the way I subjectively look at one of my students and say "I think that guy is rolling like a blue belt." My peers will generally agree with me on that assessment, because we've all generally calibrated our expectations around the same level. But it doesn't change the fact that blue belt, purple belt, etc are just subjectively assessed, arbitrarily designated spots along a continuum of knowledge, skill, and ability. I'd argue that the accolade of " can fight" is just another arbitrary marker in a continuum, whether you are judging it by fighting spirit, physical attributes, or technical ability.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

For anyone who didn't spot it, skribs has started a new post to continue the discussion of what "can/can't fight" means, so we can stop derailing this thread any further.

 

[Steve]

Can we all agree that kids can’t fight?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Can we all agree that kids can’t fight?

That can be your defense when you get called in to the school because your son was fighting on the playground.

"Nonsense. Everybody knows that kids can't fight. It was probably just an optical illusion."

 

[skribs]

For anyone who didn't spot it, skribs has started a new post to continue the discussion of what "can/can't fight" means, so we can stop derailing this thread any further.

Actually my motives were much more selfish. I started it so we could see how many different answers there are.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Can we all agree that kids can’t fight?

Nope lol

 

[Buka]

I'd like to think so. But then again, back in my 20s I thought I could fight and by my current standards I couldn't fight well at all.

Which may be the crux of the matter. I maintain that almost anyone (barring those with specific severe physical disabilities and those who completely freeze up at the mere prospect of any physical confrontation) can fight. The question is how well they can fight. A lot of factors go into that, including physical attributes, fighting spirit, skill, and experience.

In my early to mid teens, my ability to fight was probably worse than that of the average untrained person. I was scrawny, uncoordinated, physically timid, and had no real experience with violence other than occasionally being bullied and having no idea of how to fight back. I couldn't even hold my own in a pillow fight with a friend. But I expect I could still have won a fight with a 10 year old girl.

In my 20s I got a bit tougher. I had been training martial arts for a few years and thought I knew something. I had developed some coordination and some confidence and had become accustomed to some bumps and bruises. I think my fighting ability was better than that of the average untrained person who wasn't super athletic and hadn't been in a lot of fights. But I was still physically and mentally overwhelmed when sparring with opponents who were a lot stronger or had significant fight experience.

These days I think I can fight better than most people, including most martial artists and lots of guys who are younger, stronger, and more athletic than I am. I know I can take a reasonable amount of punishment and keep fighting. I know I'm physically and psychologically able to inflict damage. I know I can execute my technical skills under a fair amount of pressure. I also know that I don't have nearly the level of mental comfortableness with being in the middle of a brawl as some of my friends who are professional fighters. Nor do I have anything near their level of physical attributes. I also know that under enough pressure, my technical skills and execution will start to deteriorate, more so than elite fighters who can still demonstrate excellent technique while exhausted and in pain.

I suspected that your definition might be something along those lines. You're looking at fighting spirit. Someone who can face up to fear, take pain and damage, and keep coming.

It's a reasonable criteria, but I'd argue that also falls on a continuum. Even Roberto Duran once said "No más" and if he can't fight, then no one can.

Can't really include Roberto in the discussion. In the second half of his career Roberto used to balloon up to over two hundred pounds (you read that right)

But let me say off the bat, Duran could fight. (like there was any doubt.)

But the reason he beat Leonard the first time was because he gave Leonard bait, and Ray took that bait hook, line and sinker. After that first fight that Duran won, they could have fought ten times and Leonard would have won every one of them.

Lots of people get at least a little bravery and willingness to suffer damage under the influence of adrenaline (or alcohol). Some are willing to keep fighting even with broken bones and severe exhaustion or even the threat of death. There's a spectrum between the extremes of "completely freezes up" and "will keep fighting until a painful death." I suspect you just have a particular point along that line that you subjectively identify as "that guy can fight." That's fine. It's sort of the way I subjectively look at one of my students and say "I think that guy is rolling like a blue belt." My peers will generally agree with me on that assessment, because we've all generally calibrated our expectations around the same level. But it doesn't change the fact that blue belt, purple belt, etc are just subjectively assessed, arbitrarily designated spots along a continuum of knowledge, skill, and ability. I'd argue that the accolade of " can fight" is just another arbitrary marker in a continuum, whether you are judging it by fighting spirit, physical attributes, or technical ability.

My definition of "can fight" is just that. It's got little to do about fighting against the most elite fighters in the world.

 

[drop bear]

Can we all agree that kids can’t fight?

So long as I can still fight kids.