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

[Steve]

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

Question for you and anyone else. Is a bag snatch a self defense situation? Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime. But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger? Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.

Another question that comes to mind. Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?

 

[drop bear]

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

No we take people before they walk though the door of a mma gym because the process is often done via the internet.

To clarify. We don't kidnap random people and force them to fight. They all have chosen to be there. Sorry if you had the wrong impression.

And my point is that the sample size is much more diverse than I would have expected. And is much less self selecting.

 

[drop bear]

Question for you and anyone else. Is a bag snatch a self defense situation? Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime. But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger? Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.

Another question that comes to mind. Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?

Yes it is and yes it is dangerous.

I wonder how many people have dealt with one? Because I have responded to a few.

 

[drop bear]

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.

You impression of intent is kind of correct. But with martial arts intent does not always equal application.

So combatives as you describe it is kind of true. But the training tools used to achieve that mission statement may start to branch out.

So for example one of our fundamental elements to put a person in a ring is fitness. Which while it doesn't need to contain any fighting technique. It directly effects fighting.

Now one interesting thing I have learned from martial arts is if I just train technique it takes a very long time to be able to apply that in a fight.

Even though intuitively I would think if I focused on that one thing I would get better at doing that thing. Than if I split my focus on other things. It is not always practically true.

It is also why krav maga is generally pretty terrible even though intuitively it should be a faster way to learn basic skills.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm saying that the real world odds of an average person finding him or herself in that situation are exceedingly low.

Many of the skill sets that you learn when training to fight (non professionally) can actually be used to avoid fights. In my opinion I think it works better and I'm just speaking from my own personal experience from the numerous confrontations that I've been that didn't result in me being in a fight. But I know for a fake that I used some of the same skill sets from fighting to stop the confrontation without violence.

 

[jobo]

No we take people before they walk though the door of a mma gym because the process is often done via the internet.

To clarify. We don't kidnap random people and force them to fight. They all have chosen to be there. Sorry if you had the wrong impression.
And my point is that the sample size is much more diverse than I would have expected. And is much less self selecting.

they still choose to walk through the door at some point, dont they?,

how can you possibly say its a representative sample of the general population ?because it clearly can not be

 

[drop bear]

they still choose to walk through the door at some point, dont they?,

how can you possibly say its a representative sample of the general population ?because it clearly can not be

Because people walk through a door?

If I was to do a real scientific study with a random sample. People may have to walk through a door.

It isn't a deal breaker.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Question for you and anyone else. Is a bag snatch a self defense situation? Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime. But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger? Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.

While I haven't personally had to deal with this "thank god" I have seen video of some really bad ones. People getting dragged down steps, ran over by cars. etc. It's an aggressive act and criminals get charge for that aggression. The big thing where I live is snatching bags off car seats while people are getting gas. This is more common than the traditional bag snatches.

As for the man bag. I don't know what that is. I know what it was 50 something years ago, but I don't know what they consider a "man bag" today.

 

[Steve]

While I haven't personally had to deal with this "thank god" I have seen video of some really bad ones. People getting dragged down steps, ran over by cars. etc. It's an aggressive act and criminals get charge for that aggression. The big thing where I live is snatching bags off car seats while people are getting gas. This is more common than the traditional bag snatches.

As for the man bag. I don't know what that is. I know what it was 50 something years ago, but I don't know what they consider a "man bag" today.

I used the term "man bag" because Jobo did. I presume it's just a bag being carried by a man.

The car thing is common here, too. Another one is guys stealing the purse while the woman puts groceries in the back of the car. That sort of thing.

So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go. In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?

 

[Flying Crane]

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.

Alright, I appreciate the clarification.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. You've been here long enough to have been through this debate before. If you want to base your opinion on your own ignorance in spite of the education that others here have given you on this topic, that's fine with me. It's unfortunate you don't even know what it is you are missing out on, you can't recognize the richness in training methodologies even to acknowledge that which you don't personally have an interest in, yet is still effective for those who practice it.

so, good for you.

 

[drop bear]

I used the term "man bag" because Jobo did. I presume it's just a bag being carried by a man.

The car thing is common here, too. Another one is guys stealing the purse while the woman puts groceries in the back of the car. That sort of thing.

So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go. In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?

No because you are placing the entirety of your safety on the ethics of a criminal.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you don't test your skill in the ring daily, what kind of chance do you have when you step in the ring the 1st time?

 

[jobo]

Because people walk through a door?

If I was to do a real scientific study with a random sample. People may have to walk through a door.

It isn't a deal breaker.

because they make a decision to go to an mma, gym, 99.999999999999991% of people dont make that decision ! they are therefore not a typical cross section of the population, in fact the extreme polar opposite of being a Representative sample you cant therefore project what they achieve on to what the rest of the population could achieve, if they were to go to an mma gym. which they never will as they are not that type of person

lets explain, there a pub half a mile from me, two hit men walked in to execute someone they had a contract on, this plan came unstuck when they pulled out their guns, as then half the people in the pub pulled out their own gun and shot the hit men dead.

that doesn't mean everyone in this town has a gun, or every pub has guns in it, it was a self selecting population, no one in their right mind who wasn't an armed gangster would go in that pub, as it was full of armed gangsters, a fact not appreciated by the hitmen as they were out of towners

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

It seems, then, that your position is that "combatives" is a specific subset with a specific definition, but shouldn't be used where another term can be applied, instead. So, there are some you'd consider possibly "combatives", but won't because they're not new. Most of those are, in fact, TMA, which is the problem with your earlier assertion. You're pretty much, in this post, saying what I am saying about this: there's a lot of overlap.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

So, what about things like general agility drills? Those aren't directly applicable to combat - they are one level (at least) removed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Question for you and anyone else. Is a bag snatch a self defense situation? Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime. But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger? Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.

Good question. That'd depend how folks look at it. I wouldn't say it's a self-defense situation, though the non-physical skills you talk about (what I classify as "self-protection") would apply to helping prevent that. And some of the physical fighting skills might be useful if only to keep from getting injured as they yank the bag away, but also if you decided you wanted to keep that fantastic bag.

Another question that comes to mind. Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?

Wasn't there a SNL skit with that theme, using dressing in a kids' sailor costume or something similar? Or did I just imagine that?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They all have chosen to be there.

and

And is much less self selecting.

are conflicting statements, it seems to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go. In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?

That's where I was going with my response. Of course, if the snatch is only partly successful (bag doesn't come free), the situation changes pretty quickly and could turn into what I'd consider a self-defense situation.

 

[jobo]

Question for you and anyone else. Is a bag snatch a self defense situation? Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime. But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger? Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.

Another question that comes to mind. Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?

well of course it is, people do hold on to them and get hurt, and the loss of the bag, money, car keys train ticket, CC phone etc can in its self put you in a bad situation, if it leaves you stranded

the '' advice is to put them over your head so they cant be taken easily, where better advice to protect yourself is to have no valuables in it and let it go, just as not walking about waving a thousand quid I phone about is a self defence technique. just as dressing the '' right way'' is SD, if carrying a manbag is a good idea depends on context, it could make you a target where you otherwise wouldn't be, but if the way you are dressed would make you a target anyway, its better to give them a low value target, lap tops bags however are always a bad idea

if im out of town i carry a nearly empty wallet, no cc, no DL, and a cheapo phone just enough to make them go away pleased with their haul, every thing else is in my sock or back in the hotel

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It is also why krav maga is generally pretty terrible even though intuitively it should be a faster way to learn basic skills.

Technically, the issue with Krav Maga is, people are appling it to things it doesnt exist to do, and also the thousands of break away schools claiming they do krav etc. Its basically the karate of the self defence/combatives world, even places that dont do it call themselves it.

Krav Maga in its correct role, is meant to give you the basics of fighting and thats it basically, they have since added upper level things (as is the trend) for people who want to treat it like a martial art and to give a longer learning peroid etc for the people who want to keep doing Krav, plus the realities of teaching in the civilian world that some people cant dedicate a month off of work to pay for a course and to tailor to a class by class model as opposed to a bloc of learning one.

That and i think the statement that "krav maga in the U.S is based on fear mongering" is apt.



Granted the above is apt for pretty much apt for all martial arts.