Is it still a martial art if...

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Fighting skills are used to dominate an opponent. Self defense skills are used to defend ones person. These two rarely coincide. If you are in a "self defense" situation and you are forced to dominate another person, only then are "fighting" skills uselfull. This situation rarely arises in realistic scenarios.

I dont agree at all, in fact I disagree strongly. In my system if you are attacked, you dominate them immediatly. We only work on domination. In a self defense situation I think it is unwise, and self-destructive to do anything but dominate your attacker. As for realistic scenarios, I'll give one I was involved in.

I was driving home from school, was engaged in a road rage situation where the 4 guys in the truck tried to ram me, and then run me off the road. I escaped as I dialed 911 on my cell then quickly took off down a small street. They had thrown some cement pieces at my car and I stoped at a large parking lot to check the tires and such of my car. I told the 911 opporator that the threat was gone and I didn't have enough evidence to press any charges.

Little did I know the guys had followed me and came crashing into the parking lot stopping about 15 yards from me. My phone was inside the car and I was outside stopped down checking the tires. They came out of the truck running full speed at me. The driver in the lead by 10 feet or so. I had no time to try and get into the car, as they would overtake me easily and I would be in a bad situation. The only thing to do was take out (dominate) the first attacker to reach me and hope the others would loose intrest. Thats exactly what I did. He came in with a nice double step bubba punch and I went to work. I landed a nice right hand to the nose as I parried his punch while also side stepping into a powerful knee kick to the side of the knee, follwed with a throat take down from behind him. When he hit the ground he wasn;t getting back up anytime soon. I stepped back ready to face the other attackers. They all reached their friend, picked him up and took off. (Thank God! I had to change my shorts afterwards) My point is that in a self defense situation if you are doing anything other than dominating your attacker, you are not practicing smart self defense and are toying with disaster.

7sm

 

[Black Bear]

Maybe you can explain the distinction to me because I don't see it that clearly. Okay, obviously the words mean different things denotatively, but they're referring to many overlapping situations. It's a struggle against someone who is trying to do imminent harm to you or a loved one by physical means. You have the options of stun and run, stun and control, or stun and terminate. Like the nutrition thing. There are different objectives, and each situation is different, but it's the same domain of practice. Someone here was fond of using the Venn diagram as a visual. That probably applies here.

Tgace, forgive me but that thread is just huge. If you would kindly point me to the post(s) of interest, or at least let me know which page deals with it, I'll get right on it.

In terms of ethical/legal repercussions, well I'll not pretend to give legal advice. There have been some American cases--I recall that Massad Ayoob was implicated as an expert witness--where it was established that a person can, in self-defense, strike the first blow so to speak. Ayoob gave evidence on pre-incident indicators which give sufficient reason to believe that the guy intends to attack you in like a second. Some had to do with just the quartering of his posture, and there were things like the face going from red to white, related to certain hormone dumps and indicating that blood was moving from the skin surface into large muscle groups. I guess epinephrine/norepinephrine would be among those hormones implicated, but hormones are not my thang. I don't know why I just said all that.

upyourkyosa, can you elaborate on your remark that sd and fighting "rarely coincide? Because I just don't see that right now.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Black Bear
Maybe you can explain the distinction to me because I don't see it that clearly. Okay, obviously the words mean different things denotatively, but they're referring to many overlapping situations. It's a struggle against someone who is trying to do imminent harm to you or a loved one by physical means. You have the options of stun and run, stun and control, or stun and terminate. Like the nutrition thing. There are different objectives, and each situation is different, but it's the same domain of practice. Someone here was fond of using the Venn diagram as a visual. That probably applies here.

I don't know, as an adult, if its come to actual physical fighting, its not something that should be taken lightly. If I'm going to fight, really truly fight, I'm not going to "stun and Run", I'm going to debilitate then run. If the attacker is standing up, or able to procede more towards me, I have not ended the threat. "To end the threat is to make the attacker unable to attack".

I'm not talking about sticking around to pound the guys face in the cement, I'm talking about a quick serious attack that leaves the attacker grounded.

7sm

 

[Tgace]

The fun stuff starts around page 3 with the technical vs. tactical issue. Gets kinda elaborate, but I think it addresses upnorth's issues of self defense not being entirely about fighting...if you fight, win...but employ tactics that may help avoid the fight and failing that give you the tactical advantage to win decisively.

 

[Black Bear]

Stun and run is perhaps not the best choice of words. These three expressions come from Tony Blauer. The point being that you don't have to wreck the guy. "stun and run" might mean stop-hitting the attack with a forearm "spear" into the clavicle, then a vertical elbow into the chin, a flurry of elbows and rakes, with knees to the groin and peroneal nerve on the half-beat. The guy falls onto the ground. You've taken only as much as you need to and gtfo. As opposed to stun as in one eye-poke and you assume that he won't be able to chase you.

Anyway I totally agree with your post, it dovetails nicely with my own points.

 

[loki09789]

Black Bear,

This approach/view would seem to take penal codes and legality into account when it is training. That is an aspect of 'effectiveness' as far as I am concerned as well. I don't want to successfully defend my wife/child/self only to be thrown in jail and sentence for assault.

For self defense, I tell students that there are many 'fights':

One with yourself for controlling your actions
One with your opponent to stop his attack and escape
One with the legal system when reporting and dealing with the process of sifting through the various versions of the events and who is really at fault.

Your example would be 'effective' in all those categories

Paul M

 

[Black Bear]

I had a quick look. If I understand your posts correctly, your tactics vs. techniques is indeed an important one and parallels Tony Blauer's distinction between "attack specificity" (what do you do if a guy pulls a knife and brandishes it with his right hand with the point on the right of your throat?) and "scenario specificity" (a more fleshed out description involving a location and a totality of circumstances that makes what you do make sense).

I will again ram this down peoples' throats until at least five forum members post reviews after having read the book firsthand: IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND SCENARIO SPECIFICITY AS IT APPLIES TO PERSONAL, CIVILIAN SELF-DEFENSE, YOU NEED TO READ SANFORD STRONG'S "STRONG ON DEFENSE".

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by loki09789
Black Bear,

This approach/view would seem to take penal codes and legality into account when it is training. That is an aspect of 'effectiveness' as far as I am concerned as well. I don't want to successfully defend my wife/child/self only to be thrown in jail and sentence for assault.

For self defense, I tell students that there are many 'fights':

One with yourself for controlling your actions
One with your opponent to stop his attack and escape
One with the legal system when reporting and dealing with the process of sifting through the various versions of the events and who is really at fault.

Your example would be 'effective' in all those categories

Paul M

Damn man, I think I heard that "many fights" thing before somewhere. Yeah, that's good. I guess in this subdomain I've learned the most from Tony Blauer, but I'm going to have to cite him again. His term is "holistic self-defense": you defend yourself physically, mentally, emotionally, legally, ethically, blah blah blah. Like if you murder some guy who's coming at your wife and daughter, on in one sense that's cool, but in another, more accurate sense, you are about to become someone's prison *****.

This thread is a bit hot right now. From now on I'll post ppls' names or quote so ppl know who I'm talking to.

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I don't know, as an adult, if its come to actual physical fighting, its not something that should be taken lightly. If I'm going to fight, really truly fight, I'm not going to "stun and Run", I'm going to debilitate then run. If the attacker is standing up, or able to procede more towards me, I have not ended the threat. "To end the threat is to make the attacker unable to attack".

I'm not talking about sticking around to pound the guys face in the cement, I'm talking about a quick serious attack that leaves the attacker grounded.

7sm

I'm a little confused as to what, if anything, we're debating here. If it clarifies anything those remarks were addressed to upnorthkyosa and not yourself.

 

[Black Bear]

Tgace:
I see from that thread you are a fan of Jim Wagner. I've often admired the thoroughness and expertise shown in his editorials. My instructor has been contemplating doing some work with him. We were Blauer affiliates for a long time, and in recent years have integrated Kelly McCann stuff, and are putting more time and stock toward sport-oriented training in the Thornton SBG model.

Did not know that the expression "reality-based" was original to Mr. Wagner. I always associated that term with more of the MMA. In fact, I used to use the expression "reality-oriented" to contrast with "reality-based", the idea being that instead of having a venue that was more reality-ish, being "based-upon" reality (like the UFC squared circle) it was "oriented toward" best preparing folks for reality. But now that seems quite inappropriate. Hm.

 

[Makalakumu]

There is a real danger in equating the words fighting and self defense. I want to define how I view the word fight. I view this as a struggle for dominance between two individuals where the ultimate intent is not neccessarily to injure your opponent. Kickboxing, Wresting, Muey Thai, Western Boxing, Savate, Judo, Point fighting, TKD...basically any form of sport fighting falls into this catagory. I'm not saying that you can't get injured in these contests. If you look at the list of injuries I posted above, that is proof enough of the fact that you can. Injury is not the point. Defense is not the point. Domination is the point. You attack with the attitude that you are going to "win" the confrontation.

Self defense is different. Self defense is survival. If you go in with the attitude that you are going to "win" the confrontation, you are only blinding yourself to options that may help you survive. Retreat, gross injury, fakery, environmental weapons, ect...

I will give you an example. One of the things I teach my student is how to take a hit - whether by the ground, a strike, or a weapon (no we don't stab each other but we do talk about parts of our body that can take stabs and parts that can't) A student of mine was mugged by five attackers. They threw him to the ground and started kicking. From my training, he was able to protect his vital areas until help arrived. That is a successful self defense situation. He survived. Another self defense situation involving one of my students had a large attacker pushing a female student into an apartment for a possible rape. The attacker struck my student in the face and she fell on a coffee table. She grabbed a beer bottle and smashed it into the attacker's knee - giving her just enough time to run. She survived.

In either of those situation, techniques for domination would have only made the situations more dangerous. If my students had trained for sport fighting and they attempted to use those skills in those situations. They very well could have lost their lives. Fighting skills are not always self defense skills. And usually are not even the most effective skills. Survival demands more then just knowing how to "fight."

 

[Black Bear]

upnorthkyosa:
No one here's saying that the WORDS self-defense and fighting are interchangeable. I said that they are distinct things, sometimes the objectives differ, but the skill sets are largely overlapping, and it is pretty idiotic to try to draw a fine line there. Goodness, "equating"? How about you try reading my damn posts before you reply, smarty-pants? Go on, read them all right NOW. Like the one where I said that self-defense is not fighting, but that self-defense training that doesn't have fighting training IN it has a big gaping hole?

Yes, you know what, fighters just more than anyone else train to take a hit. It's more the kind of example I would have brought up than you, I would have thought. But guess what, many simulation experiments have suggested that when heavily outnumbered, you are often better off fighting really really aggressively, that this will create openings? And personally I 'd rather my student do that, than lie in the fetal position getting booted, even if he trained for a decade in how to breathe and "disperse energy" with Russian master "Vladimir Takeapunch Andrujuslaffaboudit".

I don't say that categorically, because if we take the scenario-based long view, there could be situations where you may not want to fight back. But I've never said that. It goes back to the quote: "Violence is rarely the solution, but when it is, it's the ONLY solution".

I dunno, what does everyone else think after having read through this conversation?

 

[loki09789]

The skills for hunting/woodscraft have similarities to individual soldierly skills which has similarities to LEO enforcement/forensic/investigative skills which as similiarities to...

skills and techniques might overlap, but the way that a system/goal organizes/teaches and applies those skills will dictate the definitions/view...

Vague, but I think it makes a point.

Paul M (I will now flaunce off in my best PP way)

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
There is a real danger in equating the words fighting and self defense...

I think what your meaning to say is Sport Fighting and Self Defense. Merriam-Webster defines fighting as: 1 a : to contend in battle or physical combat; especially : to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons.

I don't train to do any fighting outside of defending myself if needed. Your getting caught in semantics of the word fighting. You should be more careful to be precise and say Sport Fighting, not simply fighting. In a SD situation, you are fighting, like it or not. All of what your saying depends on the way you have trained to fight, thus making it subjective.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Black Bear

Relax. In no way am I claiming to know everything. I’m just sharing my opinion, for what it’s worth. I have followed your posts and read carefully, rest assured. If my tone has seemed arrogant, I apologize, it’s a character flaw of mine. When faced with something I disagree with, I tend to become rather pedantic and preachy. I'm really not a jerk, though.

Which brings me to my disagreement. (which is not neccessarily with you, Black Bear, its with an attitude in general) I am very much opposed to an overly macho unrealistic portrayal of MA. I think that our culture and that our sex has twisted the meaning of self-defense equating it to fighting. If you look at the thread, “how many fights have you been in?” You will see my point.

Fighting is something done among mammals in order to establish a pecking order. The object is dominance. In a self-defense situation, I think that training in “fighting” arts leaves you with large holes in your training. Lets take for example the scenario involving multiple attackers. Five. Who really feels confident that they could defeat five attackers at once? Who has trained their stamina, their power, and their minds to a point where they could take down five committed attackers? (Remember, training for real fighting means that you are willing to abuse your body and take the injuries in order to build the skill – that is the only way to win. All else is just brash fantasy.) Very few could say yes.

Lets down play our expectations. Do you think that you could escape from five guys committed to taking you down? There is a tactic that we use in security. It is called “the swarm.” If you have ever seen this done, it is rather magnificent. Five guys attack at the same time from all angles, grabbing the defender and falling on that person. I did security at a heavy metal concert and we took down a man who was in his prime and he was six foot eight and close to three hundred pounds. I don’t care who you are, the swarm works and that is what you face in a real street fight. People don’t line up and wait to get hit.

Fighting arts do not work in this situation because they do not teach the techniques to deal with this situation. Strike points, vital points, eyes, groin, throat, break a finger, pull a knife and slash until you are free. Many arts that do not teach a person how to fight teach these skills. Kung fu is a great example of this. So is Tang Soo Do. Tradition Jui Jutsu also teaches self-defense skills. And believe it or not, so does Tai Chi. My point is that you shouldn’t discount a martial art just because it doesn’t teach much fighting skills. There is other information that is important, too and it is all “martial” in its own way even if you can’t understand how at this particular moment in time.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
In a SD situation, you are fighting, like it or not.

I'll buy that. Yet the people practice sport fighting don't call it sport fighting. They call it fighting. Ahhh, too much mincing words. This is not very productive. Sorry.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Lets put it this way. Playing tag is playing tag, learning to take out eyes, knees, break legs and ams, and the general tendency to mess up whomever is in frount of you is more like learning martial art.
Imho

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by tshadowchaser
Lets put it this way. Playing tag is playing tag, learning to take out eyes, knees, break legs and ams, and the general tendency to mess up whomever is in frount of you is more like learning martial art.
Imho

Very well said.

7sm :asian:

 

[Black Bear]

upnorthkyosa:
Okay, just so we know there's no hard feelings, let me offer you a drink.

:lol:

 

[Black Bear]

"Which brings me to my disagreement."
Good, so let's just start there.

"I am very much opposed to an overly macho unrealistic portrayal of MA. I think that our culture and that our sex has twisted the meaning of self-defense equating it to fighting. If you look at the thread, “how many fights have you been in?” You will see my point."
Okay, I can see how you would regard this as a bad thing. In what way do you think my post or thread appeared to be following that kind of demented train of thought?

"In a self-defense situation, I think that training in “fighting” arts leaves you with large holes in your training."
Agreed. But likewise, sd training that does not include fighting is very holey.

"Lets take for example the scenario involving multiple attackers. Five. Who really feels confident that they could defeat five attackers at once?"
Defeat? Why do you impute that I think that folks ought to be trying to defeat 5 guys? I'd really like to know where you're getting that. What in my posts seems to be suggesting this? If you "fight your way out" in order to create an avenue for escape, you're fighting. That's fighting, you need that for s-d.

"training for real fighting means that you are willing to abuse your body and take the injuries in order to build the skill – that is the only way to win."
I think that is a category mistake. It's not central to our disagreement, but constant injury is not a necessity for the development of fighting skill. An athletically-conditioned body can take a lot of punishment (especially if it is meted out in a safe, scientific manner) before yielding a serious sprain or fracture. If you have muscle tone, cardiovascular conditioning, etc., you can do a lot of stuff very good contact with only occasional fluke injuries. Like, I can't conceive how you were stabbed twice in training. There is no excuse to be using a live blade in training, or even one narrow and hard enough to allow penetration with a stab.

"Lets down play our expectations. Do you think that you could escape from five guys committed to taking you down?"
Sometimes I could, sometimes I couldn't. Depends on the guys, the spatial setting, myself, the totality of circumstances. I don't presume that I can, and in most circumstances, if they had any clue what they're doing, I would think not. I know what I would do to give the best likelihood of denying them the takedown and escaping. But so what? What are you getting at?

"There is a tactic that we use in security. It is called “the swarm.” If you have ever seen this done, it is rather magnificent. Five guys attack at the same time from all angles, grabbing the defender and falling on that person. I did security at a heavy metal concert and we took down a man who was in his prime and he was six foot eight and close to three hundred pounds. I don’t care who you are, the swarm works and that is what you face in a real street fight. People don’t line up and wait to get hit."
Understood. I instruct non-abusive restraint tactics. And what does this have to do with our disagreement?

"Fighting arts do not work in this situation because they do not teach the techniques to deal with this situation. Strike points, vital points, eyes, groin, throat, break a finger, pull a knife and slash until you are free."
How is that NOT fighting? For the love of murphy, that's fighting in a nutshell! As far as I'm concerned, you've just about said, "Fighting won't work here--you need to actually FIGHT!" That's how much sense that seems to make to me. Though personally I am not a fan of points, for reasons that I will bring up in a separate thread. Mainly it has to do with difficulties with fine/complex motor execution under adrenaline dumps. Instead of areas of activation the size of a nickel, I am looking for areas of activation the size of a man's hand, which can be slammed into with elbows, shins, tac folders, and, well, a hand among other things.

"Many arts that do not teach a person how to fight teach these skills."
Then what the hell are they teaching? How can that possibly NOT be fighting? Unless these are taught as dead patterns, that's fighting. Get off this "sport fighting" trip you're on and look at what the word fighting means for a change. This is obviously clouding your judgement.

"My point is that you shouldn’t discount a martial art just because it doesn’t teach much fighting skills. There is other information that is important, too and it is all “martial” in its own way even if you can’t understand how at this particular moment in time."
I think you grossly "misunderestimate" me, as your illustrious national leader would say. I've trained several years in these so-called more "profound" arts. As a person of Asian descent, I have enjoyed the insider scoop on a lot of this stuff after I swear to them that I won't show it to "whitie". (I don't know how I could possibly keep this promise. It all blurs together anyway.) I have a very clear sense of the mechanics and applications of many of the obscure arts. You may or may not be surprised to hear that some of it is not all that different than what we do in RBSD, save that the training METHOD differs.

But let's look at this in a completely pragmatic sense. Training is a process, it is a form of physical education that a person chooses to undergo because of certain goals they have. So the training method that is alive, ecologically valid, and teaches a person to apply it practically in a matter of days is more successful at achieving its objective.

That is all I am saying. Like I said, I don't complain to cheerleaders that they should stop doing their thing because it's "useless", nor do I heckle clowns or guys who pull train cars with their teeth. Nor do I heckle traditionalists who want to take 25 years to master something they think is cool. But when it comes to a simple matter like self-defense, I WILL insist that it is a practical issue where measureable results matter, expediency is of value, and some things are better to do than others.

So do I deny that certain approaches are of value? Well I can't determine how people gauge value. If the scale of value is enhancing people's survivability in the event of an assault, then this is a very objective matter in which some approaches and methods are clearly superiour to others.