How can you become a good fighter if self-defense is your goal?

[skribs]

Its more of a neuance. Let me run off some comparisions. if we comapre a comabtives programe to TMA, it covers diffrent things on merit it doest do kata. If we comapre it to a striking or grappling only system, it covers diffrent things as its a hybrid. the scope is meant to be for real life fighting in what ever context so its not comparible with combat sports 1:1 as thats where the nuance should change, but it has more in common with combat sports.


I dont mean something like, the punch is diffrent, but more like there isnt as much fluff around the punch as is the case in some systems and application is more based on what you should do in real life not in a ring. This is the literal interpritation of combatives, as stated earlier RBSD has been coined by people as a marketing ploy and they dont teach good ssytems yet the orgininators of the term (to differentiate themselves from others) did/do good things.

I am also not relaying one is defacto better than the other, just that the term combative should be applied to things more focusing on fighting in reality that the term MA or combat sports or TMA etc doesnt cover, with that there is some blurred lines. And as with everythign there are those terrible systems that coin the term. I am in general not citing the "win every fight with these 4 simple moves" system/advertimseent, but the good ones.

If we look at the start i basically stated comabtives is the basics and as applied to real life and usually only covers the basics. (granted with exeptions and i belive several have added in more complex things for longevity) That doesnt seem like im misselling it or over grandising it. The model for learning in combatives tends to be inebtween showing up for classes and courses, you can get both or either done in the segment.


As for neuances,situational awareness, enviromental awareness, muiltiple attackers, weapons of oppertunity, carried weapons and adreline are the things that come to mind that these things would differ (if only slightly) in dealing with. I think i have explained my viewpoint on sport and how you dont need half of that to be good in a sport as its a sterile enviroment.


Is that a decent enough explination?

@drop bear Not a direct response to yours, but it at least a partial reply or one that seems relivent to your post.

Addendum: In my posts and ramblings about military hand to hand systems (comabtives systems). I have relayed some of the issues and how the scope of each changes. They generally are either for aggression or last ditch situations, usually a mixture of the two. In many places it just starts and ends at a bayonet course and sufficent training to run the course correctly.

How the hell do you expect to know the nuance if you don't even train them?

Most people at least train one art before looking down on the others. And those people make a lot of wrong assumptions.

 

[skribs]

All you really said in that quote is "they're not covering the same stuff". But you haven't said what it is. Pretty much everything you said comes from the marketing used by the combatives programs. It's good marketing, and I think the folks who wrote it believe what they said. I also know it's not quite as true as they thought.

You have to remember, he's read the pamphlet, so he's basically the equivalent of a Grand Master in those arts.

I have a coworker that's like this. He'll read an article on the internet, and then he'll start talking about the subject as if he has a PHD level understanding of it. He spews so much hot air he probably doesn't even have a heating bill during the winter.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Its more of a neuance. Let me run off some comparisions. if we comapre a comabtives programe to TMA, it covers diffrent things on merit it doest do kata. If we comapre it to a striking or grappling only system, it covers diffrent things as its a hybrid. the scope is meant to be for real life fighting in what ever context so its not comparible with combat sports 1:1 as thats where the nuance should change, but it has more in common with combat sports.

You're comparing a vague category to specific sub-parts of another category. There are many TMA that include both striking and grappling, to various extents. There are TMA that don't do forms (kata). There are some that do forms of such a type that we recognize some of what's in some combatives systems as "forms" (a "form" is just a drill with closely prescribed motions). Combat sports can include all of the most common bits of real-life fighting (MMA is a good example).

I dont mean something like, the punch is diffrent, but more like there isnt as much fluff around the punch as is the case in some systems and application is more based on what you should do in real life not in a ring. This is the literal interpritation of combatives, as stated earlier RBSD has been coined by people as a marketing ploy and they dont teach good ssytems yet the orgininators of the term (to differentiate themselves from others) did/do good things.

Yeah, there are TMA that have more fluff. There are also TMA that have no fluff. And there are "combatives" systems that have plenty of fluff in them, and make things too complex. Again, you're cherry-picking. Or, rather, you've been reading marketing that does this, and have bought into it. I could say Cheverolet makes better cars than Ford, because the Silverado is much better at towing than all those sedans Ford makes, but that would ignore that Chevy also makes sedans, and Ford also makes vehicles with utility.

I am also not relaying one is defacto better than the other, just that the term combative should be applied to things more focusing on fighting in reality that the term MA or combat sports or TMA etc doesnt cover, with that there is some blurred lines. And as with everythign there are those terrible systems that coin the term. I am in general not citing the "win every fight with these 4 simple moves" system/advertimseent, but the good ones.

There are a lot of terms used for systems that purport to be more focused on real-life fighting. It's my experience that they are and aren't. How it's taught matters much more than the base system (assuming the system contains the fundamental components). I don't think you have a good grasp of what's in combatives, and what isn't.

If we look at the start i basically stated comabtives is the basics and as applied to real life and usually only covers the basics. (granted with exeptions and i belive several have added in more complex things for longevity) That doesnt seem like im misselling it or over grandising it. The model for learning in combatives tends to be inebtween showing up for classes and courses, you can get both or either done in the segment.

Unless you are defining the term to be used (in which case, "combatives" could apply to some rather more traditional arts, using your definition), I don't think you're making an accurate statement. You can't throw out the exceptions on one side and just use parts of the other that match your preconceived notion.

As for neuances,situational awareness, enviromental awareness, muiltiple attackers, weapons of oppertunity, carried weapons and adreline are the things that come to mind that these things would differ (if only slightly) in dealing with. I think i have explained my viewpoint on sport and how you dont need half of that to be good in a sport as its a sterile enviroment.

Is that a decent enough explination?

All of those things in your first sentence exist in a lot of TMA-based programs. As for the sport comment, that would assume folks are training only for sport. It's entirely possible to have a self-defense orientation and participate in sport, as well. Any MMA gym could do this pretty simply by starting to set up situational drills. And they'd likely have less fluff than most combatives.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

You're comparing a vague category to specific sub-parts of another category. There are many TMA that include both striking and grappling, to various extents. There are TMA that don't do forms (kata). There are some that do forms of such a type that we recognize some of what's in some combatives systems as "forms" (a "form" is just a drill with closely prescribed motions). Combat sports can include all of the most common bits of real-life fighting (MMA is a good example).

There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do. I didnt think i needed to be so explicit that there are hybrids in the TMA catorgory and not all of them do the same things 1:1.

Yeah, there are TMA that have more fluff. There are also TMA that have no fluff. And there are "combatives" systems that have plenty of fluff in them, and make things too complex. Again, you're cherry-picking. Or, rather, you've been reading marketing that does this, and have bought into it. I could say Cheverolet makes better cars than Ford, because the Silverado is much better at towing than all those sedans Ford makes, but that would ignore that Chevy also makes sedans, and Ford also makes vehicles with utility.

As stated, in principle the meaning of combatives doesnt have fluff, that covers the ones that deviate from what combatives should be. (which i dont recognise as combatives anyway, but argument another day, this is the same as somone not doing your style right but uses its name or calls itself it) I have not been cherry picking, if i was doing that i wouldnt have acknolwdged that the term comabtives has been adopted as a advertismeent ploy by some and that it also doesnt exist to teach you the basics and pretty much only them. I have stated before a generalised argument and in principles exist.

the fun thing about cars is, if it does enough better than the comparision it is objectively better than the one you are comparing it to. So, Ford can indeed be superior to any other company if it consistently turns out a superior product to its competion. Well estblished companies tend to base their marketing in some degree of truth.

There are a lot of terms used for systems that purport to be more focused on real-life fighting. It's my experience that they are and aren't. How it's taught matters much more than the base system (assuming the system contains the fundamental components). I don't think you have a good grasp of what's in combatives, and what isn't.

That there are, there are a ungodly amount of terms in this section and most exist to differentiate it from something else. The RBSD point is good here, somone coined that term after dumping time into training realstically for self defence, they used that term to differentiate themselves from other SD, MA etc. Then as that caught on, some people grabbed it for marketing which have blurred the point of its existance as its not a trademarked term and is free to use. This has happened to pretty much everything, and in my view anything that is a martial skill is a martial art, that differs from other peoples view.

That it does, and i have as much of a grasp of a made up word than you can that has no fixed definition. By merit of it not being formal it can have diffrent meanings to everyone. (hell formal words can have that) I do belive i have been clear and stated the term "comabtives" has been adopted by inferior systems and has been used as a marketing ploy. Kind of like Karate was used as a marketing ploy in the U.S or so i hear by styles that wernt karate during its popularity boom.

Unless you are defining the term to be used (in which case, "combatives" could apply to some rather more traditional arts, using your definition), I don't think you're making an accurate statement. You can't throw out the exceptions on one side and just use parts of the other that match your preconceived notion.

I was going through the thought process that some old martial arts could be accurately termed combatives, but there is a time stamp you need to consider here and sicne they are old or can be quite old you may want to term them something diffrent than contemporary systems. For example i persoanlly belive HEMA stops in WW1-2, from that point on its contemporary systems or should be called something else and thats when the modern idea of combatives cropped up anyway with fairbairn and all that. The old Koryu styles of basically learning a couple of cuts and a couple of blocks and doing that day in and day out seems indictive of being apt for the term comabtives if you dont place a date stamp on it or other criteria. I would how ever, rather call them Koryu or what ever their style is as i prefer keeping comabtives to be a contemporary term, that begins in circa WW1-2.

Tieing in to the previous statement of no fixed definion, pretty much everyone who does combatives has their own meaning of it. I will have to think of a good defining term as i generally think the Urban Comabtives definition is a good one if i recall it correctly. But i am adament that combatives can only refer to contemporary systems, not like Karate revisted for modernity. (you could how ever use karate as a base for some of it if you wanted to)

All of those things in your first sentence exist in a lot of TMA-based programs. As for the sport comment, that would assume folks are training only for sport. It's entirely possible to have a self-defense orientation and participate in sport, as well. Any MMA gym could do this pretty simply by starting to set up situational drills. And they'd likely have less fluff than most combatives.

They probbly do, but i have expressed a time relivent definition as well. Karate is Karate and dates back a fair bit, it doesnt seem apt to call that Comabtives unless they fundmeentally change it from being karate so its no longer karate.

My sport comment would presume they soley do that, or they would fall under a another bracket or several brackets including sport, but not restricted to it. and milage of that may vary, Comabtives is by its nature a hybrid and thus MMA anyway. (the U.S armies programe has switched to a more MMA based training anyway, if you can call it that)



I think we can agree, this subject is a clusterfuck of terms and piggybacking off other systems sucess that pioneered terms and gave them popularty etc.

 

[jobo]

We take people off the street and put them in the ring in 12 weeks.

This is achieved by training people in high percentage basic skills.

The difference is we can watch the fights and review the systems we use to know what are high percentage basic skills. So that our method is more refined and more likely to work.

well no, you dont take people off the street, those are weasel words that give the wrong impression.

what you do is take people who have walked through the door of an mma gym, so its already a self selecting population, that is likely to remove all those hard cases from your sample size

 

[Deleted member 39746]

well no, you dont take people off the street, those are weasel words that give the wrong impression.

what you do is take people who have walked through the door of an mma gym, so its already a self selecting population, that is likely to remove all those hard cases from your sample size

I dont think you comprehend the superior buisness model of press gangs.

 

[Steve]

This is the example of the mistake that many people make. Learning to fight doesn't have to be separate from self defense or being safe. You can do both and reap the benefits of both. It doesn't have to be Either OR.

This is not 2 separate images. It is one. One color is training to fight and the other color is training that isn't about fighting but technique and mental wellness. There's no rule in Martial Arts that doesn't say you can't include self-defense training as part of the aspect of fighting.

An example, run self-self defense scenario of avoiding being cornered. Say on this day you screwed up made the wrong choice (because self-defense is not mistake free) and now you have to fight your way out of the corner or be more physical to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. Both requires more physical effort than "just avoiding."

People make the assumption that Learning how to fight only teaches a person how to fight. Learning to fight teaches more than just fighting. It helps you learn how to read people's body movements which you really can't learn without sparring. I find it strange that people who train self-defense only are always telling stories of how they had to fight their way out of a bad situation where people who actually train to fight rarely have those type of stories about fighting their way out of a bad situation.

Most people take that image above and separate it into 2 pieces and think that their training is complete.

Don't get me wrong, I think being able to fight is a fine set of skills to have, because why not? I don't need to know how to make my own beer or soap... plenty of great beer and soap around. But it's great to know how to do those things.

Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low. And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way. Simply put, people are assaulted who know martial arts and who do not. People are killed who know martial arts and who do not. People survive assaults who know martial arts and who do not.

I've actually gone to the trouble in past threads of pulling the latest statistics from the FBI website, and also from various states. I don't have time to do that again, but I think if you do, it's pretty informative. What data suggests is that there are pockets of violence. The example I use often are coeds on college campuses. The rate of sexual assault is downright alarming. But even here, we're not talking about muggings, fights, and murders. We're talking about date rape, sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and things of that nature. Even here, where the likelihood of sexual assault is alarming, learning to fight is like the lowest priority. What I mean is, a young female who can fight, who also has low self esteem, is naive, and prone to self destructive behavior in order to feel accepted, who also goes to parties alone, drinks too much or doesn't guard her drink from being tampered with... yeah, for her, being able to fight might be the difference. But if you address all of that other stuff, the mentals (as Marshawn Lynch would say) and the behaviors... the fighting skills become irrelevant.

And that situation above is a particularly high risk situation.

To sum up, fighting skills are great to have. If you want them, you need to find a school where you will develop actual fighting skills, which means you'll be fighting. Learning to fight is not easy or comfortable.

But learning to fight isn't likely the thing that is going to make you more safe. Rather, it will be the last thing that helps you get out of an unsafe situation... very likely one you could have avoided at several decision points.

Which is good news, because it means that impractical martial art one is taking is just for funsies, and you'll probably never need to find out whether you learned useful skills.

 

[jobo]

Don't get me wrong, I think being able to fight is a fine set of skills to have, because why not? I don't need to know how to make my own beer or soap... plenty of great beer and soap around. But it's great to know how to do those things.

Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low. And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way. Simply put, people are assaulted who know martial arts and who do not. People are killed who know martial arts and who do not. People survive assaults who know martial arts and who do not.

I've actually gone to the trouble in past threads of pulling the latest statistics from the FBI website, and also from various states. I don't have time to do that again, but I think if you do, it's pretty informative. What data suggests is that there are pockets of violence. The example I use often are coeds on college campuses. The rate of sexual assault is downright alarming. But even here, we're not talking about muggings, fights, and murders. We're talking about date rape, sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and things of that nature. Even here, where the likelihood of sexual assault is alarming, learning to fight is like the lowest priority. What I mean is, a young female who can fight, who also has low self esteem, is naive, and prone to self destructive behavior in order to feel accepted, who also goes to parties alone, drinks too much or doesn't guard her drink from being tampered with... yeah, for her, being able to fight might be the difference. But if you address all of that other stuff, the mentals (as Marshawn Lynch would say) and the behaviors... the fighting skills become irrelevant.

And that situation above is a particularly high risk situation.

To sum up, fighting skills are great to have. If you want them, you need to find a school where you will develop actual fighting skills, which means you'll be fighting. Learning to fight is not easy or comfortable.

But learning to fight isn't likely the thing that is going to make you more safe. Rather, it will be the last thing that helps you get out of an unsafe situation... very likely one you could have avoided at several decision points.

Which is good news, because it means that impractical martial art one is taking is just for funsies, and you'll probably never need to find out whether you learned useful skills.

this is bizarre steve, you want to use probabilities to support your argument whilst ignoring those against, it is no doubt true that you can cut your likely exposure to violence by behaviour change, there are then quality of life issues if your so paranoid you avoid places that you would other wise like to attend.

but being paranoid enough to live your life round this issue is healthy but being parotid enough to take SD classes is unhealthy ?

but conversely although the chance of violent assault may be low, its also very unlikely if it does occur that it will be perpetrated by someone with any notable fighting skills, because those are significantly rare in society, so there is no reason to assume any attacker will be more skilled then you have managed through you class

 

[skribs]

There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do. I didnt think i needed to be so explicit that there are hybrids in the TMA catorgory and not all of them do the same things 1:1.





As stated, in principle the meaning of combatives doesnt have fluff, that covers the ones that deviate from what combatives should be. (which i dont recognise as combatives anyway, but argument another day, this is the same as somone not doing your style right but uses its name or calls itself it) I have not been cherry picking, if i was doing that i wouldnt have acknolwdged that the term comabtives has been adopted as a advertismeent ploy by some and that it also doesnt exist to teach you the basics and pretty much only them. I have stated before a generalised argument and in principles exist.

the fun thing about cars is, if it does enough better than the comparision it is objectively better than the one you are comparing it to. So, Ford can indeed be superior to any other company if it consistently turns out a superior product to its competion. Well estblished companies tend to base their marketing in some degree of truth.



That there are, there are a ungodly amount of terms in this section and most exist to differentiate it from something else. The RBSD point is good here, somone coined that term after dumping time into training realstically for self defence, they used that term to differentiate themselves from other SD, MA etc. Then as that caught on, some people grabbed it for marketing which have blurred the point of its existance as its not a trademarked term and is free to use. This has happened to pretty much everything, and in my view anything that is a martial skill is a martial art, that differs from other peoples view.

That it does, and i have as much of a grasp of a made up word than you can that has no fixed definition. By merit of it not being formal it can have diffrent meanings to everyone. (hell formal words can have that) I do belive i have been clear and stated the term "comabtives" has been adopted by inferior systems and has been used as a marketing ploy. Kind of like Karate was used as a marketing ploy in the U.S or so i hear by styles that wernt karate during its popularity boom.



I was going through the thought process that some old martial arts could be accurately termed combatives, but there is a time stamp you need to consider here and sicne they are old or can be quite old you may want to term them something diffrent than contemporary systems. For example i persoanlly belive HEMA stops in WW1-2, from that point on its contemporary systems or should be called something else and thats when the modern idea of combatives cropped up anyway with fairbairn and all that. The old Koryu styles of basically learning a couple of cuts and a couple of blocks and doing that day in and day out seems indictive of being apt for the term comabtives if you dont place a date stamp on it or other criteria. I would how ever, rather call them Koryu or what ever their style is as i prefer keeping comabtives to be a contemporary term, that begins in circa WW1-2.

Tieing in to the previous statement of no fixed definion, pretty much everyone who does combatives has their own meaning of it. I will have to think of a good defining term as i generally think the Urban Comabtives definition is a good one if i recall it correctly. But i am adament that combatives can only refer to contemporary systems, not like Karate revisted for modernity. (you could how ever use karate as a base for some of it if you wanted to)



They probbly do, but i have expressed a time relivent definition as well. Karate is Karate and dates back a fair bit, it doesnt seem apt to call that Comabtives unless they fundmeentally change it from being karate so its no longer karate.

My sport comment would presume they soley do that, or they would fall under a another bracket or several brackets including sport, but not restricted to it. and milage of that may vary, Comabtives is by its nature a hybrid and thus MMA anyway. (the U.S armies programe has switched to a more MMA based training anyway, if you can call it that)



I think we can agree, this subject is a clusterfuck of terms and piggybacking off other systems sucess that pioneered terms and gave them popularty etc.

If you put half the effort into a class as you put into these posts, you'd probably be quite the martial artist by now.

 

[Steve]

this is bizarre steve, you want to use probabilities to support your argument whilst ignoring those against, it is no doubt true that you can cut your likely exposure to violence by behaviour change, there are then quality of life issues if your so paranoid you avoid places that you would other wise like to attend.

but being paranoid enough to live your life round this issue is healthy but being parotid enough to take SD classes is unhealthy ?

but conversely although the chance of violent assault may be low, its also very unlikely if it does occur that it will be perpetrated by someone with any notable fighting skills, because those are significantly rare in society, so there is no reason to assume any attacker will be more skilled then you have managed through you class

I don't think I ignore probabilities at all. If I do, it's not intentional. There is a lot of data on assault rates, mortality rates, etc. I've also seen at least one well constructed study on a self defense program that had a significant positive effect where physical skills were not prioritized. But like we don't have good data on how many people who are assaulted have studied martial arts, I don't think we have good data on how many criminals have training, either.

Regarding paranoia, if you're just talking about a consumer wanting something, I say go for it. But as I said, if you want to learn to fight, and are being taught "self defense oriented" something or other, chances are you're being sold a bill of goods. So, wanting to learn to fight is great, if that's what you want. Go for it. If you want to learn to use spirit crystals to channel your inner chi and whatever else, have fun. I just think you're being taken advantage of, and that the self defense training thing is mostly a racket, like GOOP wellness.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do.

Describe what you mean by “fluff” and give me examples of that fluff, in specific TMA systems. I want to know to what you are referring, before I comment further.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Describe what you mean by “fluff” and give me examples of that fluff, in specific TMA systems. I want to know to what you are referring, before I comment further.

For context, we are just going to go with combat. In other words if its not directly related and 100% accurate to devoloping skill to fight in a realstic setting. That meaning, not in a ring, but in the real world.

For the above, i would put any kata (not paired as i think that would be fair to consider it synonomous with drill) as fluff, any spirtual action as fluff and anything not related to either fitness or fighting in a direct role as fluff. That seems like a fair definition/statement for the criteria of fluff?


For a specfic TMA, TKD, anything to do with kata would be fluff in my eyes, and anything to do with the sport of TKD would be fluff in my eyes, that doesnt pertain to IRL fighting. ie a straight punch isnt fluff, but teaching somone not to punch the face because WTF rules would be. (yes i am going to call it the WTF, it will always be the WTF to me)

If you need further eleboration just ask.

 

[jobo]

I don't think I ignore probabilities at all. If I do, it's not intentional. There is a lot of data on assault rates, mortality rates, etc. I've also seen at least one well constructed study on a self defense program that had a significant positive effect where physical skills were not prioritized. But like we don't have good data on how many people who are assaulted have studied martial arts, I don't think we have good data on how many criminals have training, either.

Regarding paranoia, if you're just talking about a consumer wanting something, I say go for it. But as I said, if you want to learn to fight, and are being taught "self defense oriented" something or other, chances are you're being sold a bill of goods. So, wanting to learn to fight is great, if that's what you want. Go for it. If you want to learn to use spirit crystals to channel your inner chi and whatever else, have fun. I just think you're being taken advantage of, and that the self defense training thing is mostly a racket, like GOOP wellness.

youve thrown that in to a tiz by using the word criminal, whilst attacking you may indeed be a criminal act, its totally wrong to suggest the most likely perps are career criminals, rather than balloons with to must beer or testosterone or just straight out nut jobs.

how much training do criminals have, well not much generally, it takes discipline which is not a common trait in street villains, if they had that amount of motivation they would find a better line of work, even if it was a more sophisticated type of villainy, protection rackets pays much better than hanging about looking to deprive passersby of their wallet in order to buy their drugs. the idea that mugger are putting two hours in at the MMA gym before prowling the streets nickling and dimming, is frankly laughably

 

[Steve]

youve thrown that in to a tiz by using the word criminal, whilst attacking you may indeed be a criminal act, its totally wrong to suggest the most likely perps are career criminals, rather than balloons with to must beer or testosterone or just straight out nut jobs.

Jobo. Hey, I've read this sentence three times, and I don't think it's English. Can you help me out by telling me what you think I said? That might be the rosetta stone to decoding your message above. I know you get worked up when you think you're being ignored. But dude, I honestly can't make heads or tails of this.

how much training do criminals have, well not much generally, it takes discipline which is not a common trait in street villains, if they had that amount of motivation they would find a better line of work, even if it was a more sophisticated type of villainy, protection rackets pays much better than hanging about looking to deprive passersby of their wallet in order to buy their drugs. the idea that mugger are putting two hours in at the MMA gym before prowling the streets nickling and dimming, is frankly laughably

I can't be sure, but if you're saying most street villains will have little or no fighting skills, I don't know. Maybe that's true. Whether true or not, I think it's much more likely that a woman is sexually assaulted than mugged. Statistically, we can see that this is true. Whether the "perp" is trained or not seems like a red herring, in that we can't know because the data isn't available.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low. And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way.

To be honest I don't think anyone has recorded that data, where they ask that questions. For example, no one who gets into an argument is asked, did your ability to fight help you get out of that situation. Because that's the question along with others tht would need to be asked. Questions like, how did your fighting skills help you in non-physical assaults? would need to be asked. I know with negotiations, it's usually the person with the physical , mental, or financial might that benefits from the talking.

Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low. And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way.

It doesn't matter if you are randomly assaulted or not. There's enough people out there who either know you or know of you that will assault you. Randomly assaulted is for stuff that comes out of the blue, even school shootings aren't "random". That person didn't "randomly" pick a target. He made everyone in building a target. Random to me is a bullet coming through the window or someone punching me by accident. Winning the lotto is random. So the way I see it is, that the reason random assaults are low, is because most assaults are targeted.

What I mean is, a young female who can fight, who also has low self esteem, is naive, and prone to self destructive behavior in order to feel accepted, who also goes to parties alone, drinks too much or doesn't guard her drink from being tampered with... yeah, for her, being able to fight might be the difference.

From my experience, usually it's the people who know how to fight who have a strong self-esteem. There's a lot of character building when it comes to learning how to fight. The training that one goes through will force you to come to terms with the realities of your weaknesses, your egos, your insecurities, and self-doubt.

[/QUOTE]Again there's more to learning how to fight than just physically hitting the other person. There are other high quality life lessons, self-improvements, and reality checks that come with the training that is done. If a person learns how to fight and all he got out of it was how to punch and kick someone , then he probably wasn't training, he was just learning how to be hit and hit back. His training was probably the exception of the norm and not a representation of the norm.

But learning to fight isn't likely the thing that is going to make you more safe. Rather, it will be the last thing that helps you get out of an unsafe situation... very likely one you could have avoided at several decision points.

Not sure why everyone thinks they can always get out of unsafe situations by talking or that physical assaults can always be avoided, or that the "several decision points' won't quickly fly by you. All it takes is for 1 decision to void the 6 other options that you think you'll have to get out of an unsafe situation. Do some hard sparring and you'll learn this really quick. 1 bad move can screw up all of that other stuff you originally thought you would have the opportunity to do before the fight.

 

[jobo]

Jobo. Hey, I've read this sentence three times, and I don't think it's English. Can you help me out by telling me what you think I said? That might be the rosetta stone to decoding your message above. I know you get worked up when you think you're being ignored. But dude, I honestly can't make heads or tails of this.
I can't be sure, but if you're saying most street villains will have little or no fighting skills, I don't know. Maybe that's true. Whether true or not, I think it's much more likely that a woman is sexually assaulted than mugged. Statistically, we can see that this is true. Whether the "perp" is trained or not seems like a red herring, in that we can't know because the data isn't available.

a'' tiz'' is a state of confusion, a ''nut job'' is a psychopath, the rest you can grasp if you try. ive put the time in to learn ''american idioms''

no i didn't say they will have no fighting skills, i said its extremely unlikely that they have received any experts instruction on their fighting skills,

which means the skills they may or may not have will be basic at best, quite probably the same ones they left primary school with. (thats elementary school for you)

and no, women are substantially more likely to have their bag snatched or other wise deprived of their possessions, than be sexually assaulted , there are dozen of '' bag snatches'' in this conurbation every day, the number of sexual assaults is thankfully some magnitudes lower, it may of course be different in your neck of the woods, though i doubt it

women tend not to get '' mugged'' as every thing of value tends to be in a bag they can easily be deprived of , when trans-versing a dodgy area a man bag is a good idea as they will grab and run only to find its full of old news papers

 

[skribs]

For context, we are just going to go with combat. In other words if its not directly related and 100% accurate to devoloping skill to fight in a realstic setting. That meaning, not in a ring, but in the real world.

The majority of the skills you learn in the ring can be used in the real world as well. Plenty of people have effectively used pretty much every sport art I can think of in self defense. Off the top of my head, I can think of videos I've seen of guys using Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, Karate, and Taekwondo to successfully win a street fight or fend off an attacker.

And as much as I argue with people like @Martial D and @drop bear as to the efficacy of non-sport arts, it's impossible to deny the benefits you get from sparring and competition. The people who spar the best are usually those in sport arts, where they test their skills in pursuit of a tangible goal (victory in the sport) instead of a nebulous goal (preparedness for a street fight).

Even if you don't compete, sparring against competent opponents is important to learn how to manage distance and timing, how to set up your opponents, and how to use your techniques effectively. The biggest criticism of a lot of the "no-fluff" combatives styles that you're proposing are that they don't spar, or they only spar with people trained in the combatives school, where bad habits might fester (because nobody in the school knows how to take advantage of them).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

they only spar with people trained in the combatives school, where bad habits might fester (because nobody in the school knows how to take advantage of them).

Agree! In this clip, many successful clinch can be established that can change a striking game into a wrestling game. Since both are strikers, they don't have intention to change it into a wrestling game.

But if your opponent is a wrestler, when he changes it into a wrestling game, do you have enough experience to change it back into a striking game again (such as to break apart the clinch)?

For example, at 0.34, 0.42, a head lock has been established.

 

[Steve]

To be honest I don't think anyone has recorded that data, where they ask that questions. For example, no one who gets into an argument is asked, did your ability to fight help you get out of that situation. Because that's the question along with others tht would need to be asked. Questions like, how did your fighting skills help you in non-physical assaults? would need to be asked. I know with negotiations, it's usually the person with the physical , mental, or financial might that benefits from the talking.

Agreed. It's just not something we know. Though we do know anecdotally that of the folks who survive violent encounters, some are fit and some are not fit, some train martial arts (because they credit that training with their safety) and some don't. How much of one vs another is impossible to guess.

It doesn't matter if you are randomly assaulted or not. There's enough people out there who either know you or know of you that will assault you. Randomly assaulted is for stuff that comes out of the blue, even school shootings aren't "random". That person didn't "randomly" pick a target. He made everyone in building a target. Random to me is a bullet coming through the window or someone punching me by accident. Winning the lotto is random. So the way I see it is, that the reason random assaults are low, is because most assaults are targeted.

I think that's true, too, but I'm not sure you and I have the same things in mind. I think of people who would benefit from actual, practical self defense, and I think of people who are in some specific, high risk situations.

From my experience, usually it's the people who know how to fight who have a strong self-esteem. There's a lot of character building when it comes to learning how to fight. The training that one goes through will force you to come to terms with the realities of your weaknesses, your egos, your insecurities, and self-doubt.

I know a lot of people. Most of them have high self esteem, but very few of them are trained fighters. Conversely, I know some very insecure people who are skilled fighters. The two CAN be related, but aren't intrinsically related. Correlation vs causation. Simply stated, learning to actually fight can be good for a person's self esteem, but learning to be good at anything is good for a person's self esteem. Not just fighting.

Learning to be good at anything is often great self defense, too. Because people who are learning things are generally spending time constructively and as part of a larger community of like minded people. That's a great way to avoid destructive and potentially high risk behaviors.

Again there's more to learning how to fight than just physically hitting the other person. There are other high quality life lessons, self-improvements, and reality checks that come with the training that is done. If a person learns how to fight and all he got out of it was how to punch and kick someone , then he probably wasn't training, he was just learning how to be hit and hit back. His training was probably the exception of the norm and not a representation of the norm.

Completely agree, but this is also a correlation vs causation issue. I think learning how to do anything well checks many of the same boxes.

Not sure why everyone thinks they can always get out of unsafe situations by talking or that physical assaults can always be avoided, or that the "several decision points' won't quickly fly by you. All it takes is for 1 decision to void the 6 other options that you think you'll have to get out of an unsafe situation. Do some hard sparring and you'll learn this really quick. 1 bad move can screw up all of that other stuff you originally thought you would have the opportunity to do before the fight.

I'm not suggesting that folks can just talk their way out of a bad situation. I'm saying that the real world odds of an average person finding him or herself in that situation are exceedingly low. And if you find yourself needing to fight your way out of a situation, it's very likely you made a series of poor decisions to get you to that point.

 

[drop bear]

You have to remember, he's read the pamphlet, so he's basically the equivalent of a Grand Master in those arts.

I have a coworker that's like this. He'll read an article on the internet, and then he'll start talking about the subject as if he has a PHD level understanding of it. He spews so much hot air he probably doesn't even have a heating bill during the winter.

What qualifies you on the subject of self defence fighting?