Joint Locks - How Effective?

[JohnEdward]

It sounds like you are referring to the benefit of seeing the same technique yet executed and taught from a different perspective. I agree there is value there, but I think you could get the same thing from studying with another hapkido teacher aside from your own instructor, even one of the same lineage, and perhaps preferably so depending on the student's experience level.

Sometimes arts have sufficient changed from their roots to where analysis of the parent art might be more of an academic exercise perhaps more relevant to the seasoned master-level teacher, rather than active practitioners more interested in improving their technique. If I were a hankido person for example, where should I look for supplementary information? Aikido? Hapkido? Or all the way back to Daito-ryu?

I think Hapkido has a sufficient footprint and body of information to stand upon itself. There is no need to explore the jujutsu connection to develop hapkido skill, although certainly there can be value there depending on the type of hapkido practiced and the experience level of the hapkido-in.

Yea, I agree. I would hope the astute student would recognize that avenue as well. Jujutsu can be looked at as a speciality. That is all they do. Very much like a business that specialize in one thing. All a good jujutsu school does is joint locks (for sake of discussion). As a result, they have a perspective and approach to joint locks different to other arts that combine movements, like Hapkido on joint locks. This is due to the nature of each art, the desired outcome and purposes. Much greater than from Hapkido school to Hapkido school.

Jujutsu is limited in comparison to Hapkido as jujutsu focus is only upon joint locks and principles that apply to joint locks. Keep in mind, jujutsu schools have been at it a lot longer and an extensive and focused history of development than any other arts that use joint locking. Knowing that knowledge is a value I would think in terms of further understanding and implementing joint locks. Jujutsu translates (not directly or literally from Japanese, but figuratively) as being joint locks and manipulation experts. It is the same idea if your plumbing needs to be replaced and you are going to fix it yourself, you don't go to an electrician to see how it is done. This applies to Hapikido as well, if you want to combine striking and joint locks, you to to the guys who have it down. You go to Hapkido. I would say to any martial artist in the striking arts, go survey boxing. It is the Sweet Science.

It is a suggestion. It is up to the individual. I have been involved in martial arts for over 35 years. The thing that I really come to appreciate is Miyamoto Mushashi's advise about surveying other crafts, and about the importance of learning from those crafts. I apply that to joint locks here in this thread. Broaden the old horizons. If you don't want to, I am not going to argue personal choice. I am just sharing in a friendly manner some knowledge FWIW.

 

[JohnEdward]

If anyone is on the edge thinking about surveying a good jujutsu and interested in joint locks, let me push you over the edge, go do it. What do you have to lose?

 

[JohnEdward]

Ofthand1, I think you make good points, I didn't feel I set that correct tone in my response to you. You should find out, I would be interested to read your findings on what you said.

One other point, I still believe that some defenses I know of in Hapkido, so probably in Jujutsu or Aikido, and who knows what other art, are within the forms of other arts (sometimes they are know, sometimes not). But is it a Hapkido or Aikido, or Jujutsu defense?

That is deeper of an inquiry that what i was getting at with joint locks. I think that too is reason to survey a good jujutsu.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

There maybe some confusion so allow me to stress, I am making a suggestion, and not an argument. To avoid saying this numerous more times, allow me to stress for future comments, I really like good Hapkido, it is very effective.

Don't worry, I never felt you were doing other than showing your belief in you MA, and suggesting others might find it interesting as well. Nothing wrong with that. Nor did I mean to belittle you art when I said "I will say that that I cannot imagine how I am missing something really valuable by not studying Jujutsu." I meant that from a Hapkido perspective, and my study of Hapkido. I did find you comment interesting, about Jujutsu only doing joint locks. I didn't know that. That would change my thought process some regarding Jujutsu being very good at joint locks. I just tend to prefer my Hapkido at this point.

Good philosophy, an open mind is very useful in martial arts, even though so many seem to have a ridged mind set. Those unwilling to see connections, relationships, similarities, development, and universalities. These types of ridged mind set can be very defensive and have tunnel vision not understanding their arts fullest potential and abilities. They may have limited knowledge on joint locks, yet thinking there is no other knowledge beyond their own that is valuable. On the other hand the astute practitioner is the opposite and recognized the advantages, He knows his knowledge is limited and acquiring further is advantages, he never stops being a humble student. Hungry for more applicable knowledge as it is a value to him because he sees the advantages.

I agree completely. Well said.
...

QUOTE]

Ofthand1, I think you make good points, I didn't feel I set that correct tone in my response to you. You should find out, I would be interested to read your findings on what you said. That is deeper of an inquiry that what i was getting at with joint locks. I think that too is reason to survey a good jujutsu.

Well, as I said in another post in this thread, I don't think either Hapkido or Jujutsu can claim a centuries old direct history. I know that about Hapkido. If I think that incorrectly about Jujutsu please correct me. Therefore, I have always assumed many of the techniques we know today, including those found in forms/kata, are centuries old, and no modern art can claim to have originated them. Again I stand to be corrected by anyone who has delved in to the history of those things. I too would be interested from an academic point of view. I just don't have time at this point in my life.

 

[Chris Parker]

Well, as I said in another post in this thread, I don't think either Hapkido or Jujutsu can claim a centuries old direct history. I know that about Hapkido. If I think that incorrectly about Jujutsu please correct me. Therefore, I have always assumed many of the techniques we know today, including those found in forms/kata, are centuries old, and no modern art can claim to have originated them. Again I stand to be corrected by anyone who has delved in to the history of those things. I too would be interested from an academic point of view. I just don't have time at this point in my life.

Depends on which Ryu-ha you're talking about, from a Japanese Jujutsu point of view....

Takenouchi Ryu, seen by a number to be the first Jujutsu-centric Japanese system, and source school of a number of others, originated in the 16th Century and is still going strong, being taught in three branches.

Takagi Ryu, currently being taught in a number of branches, such as Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu, Takagi Ryu, and a few more, comes from the early 17th Century.

Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu has had Jujutsu in it's syllabus from the mid 15th Century, and they have a habit of not changing things.

Sekiguchi Ryu dates from the 17th Century.

Yoshin Ryu (Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages) come from the 17th Century, and give such systems as Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, one of the source schools for modern Judo.

Kito Ryu, another source school for Judo, comes from the 17th Century (this is where most of the throws come from, as well as the Koshiki no Kata in Judo).

Kashima Shinryu, another sogo bujutsu (composite school, with a large and varied syllabus, including jujutsu), comes from the 16th Century.

Yagyu Shingan Ryu, a sogo bujutsu with a large jujutsu syllabus, covering four distinct sections in their teachings, including protecting a second person, originated in the 17th Century.

... and so on. These systems all boast direct history and transmission for up to nearly 600 years, with all of them at least 300 years old.

Once more, though, if someone is looking to a Jujutsu system for joint locks, that's far from guaranteed. Not all Jujutsu systems have much focus on joint locks, some focus far more on the use of small weapons (Takenouchi Ryu), throws (Kito Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, Sekiguchi Ryu), or striking (Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Akiyama Yoshin Ryu). Saying all Jujutsu systems focus on joint locks is a false generalisation.

 

[oftheherd1]

Chris Parker - Thanks for your above post on Jujutsu lineage. But the way you phrased it inclines me to ask if you are talking about Jujutsu going back that far or older arts from which Jujutsu borrowed techniques in a later time? I seem to recall reading here at MT that Jujutsu was not so old (Or are Jujutsu and Jiujitsu different and I have them confused?).

However similar the arts mentioned by you may be, that seems to pretty much be the case with Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do. That doesn't make any art that does so any less advantageous to learn. In fact, sometimes there are advantages to that, learning a lot of different solutions as it were. Certainly there were advantages seen by the originator of the "new" art.

Again, thanks.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris Parker - Thanks for your above post on Jujutsu lineage. But the way you phrased it inclines me to ask if you are talking about Jujutsu going back that far or older arts from which Jujutsu borrowed techniques in a later time? I seem to recall reading here at MT that Jujutsu was not so old (Or are Jujutsu and Jiujitsu different and I have them confused?).

However similar the arts mentioned by you may be, that seems to pretty much be the case with Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do. That doesn't make any art that does so any less advantageous to learn. In fact, sometimes there are advantages to that, learning a lot of different solutions as it were. Certainly there were advantages seen by the originator of the "new" art.

Again, thanks.

"Jiu Jitsu" is an incorrect transliteration of "Juujuutsu/Jyujyutsu/Jujutsu". The first part "Jiu" is okay, most Japanese would put it as "Jyu" when transliterated into Romaji (Japanese with English letters), but "jitsu" is just plain wrong. It's a completely different word in Japanese, the same way that "pen" and "pin" are different words in English. Unfortunately, it was the commonly used form from the early introduction of the term, and some people have just stuck with it, with more credence being given to it by the usage of that spelling for Brasilian Jiu Jitsu. It's still wrong, though.

In terms of Jujutsu being that old, absolutely it is. If you did read that jujutsu isn't that old, whoever said that has no idea what they're talking about. In fact, the first records of combative discipline in Japan are in the Kojiki (The Record of Ancient Times), and the description is of two gods having a brawl. It includes references to grabbing and throwing, as well as striking, with the winner winning with two kicks, one to the ribs, which broke them, and one to the groin, which killed his opponent. From that point, unarmed combative arts have been common in Japan, and this legend is sited as the origin for Sumo.

The codification of Jujutsu, though, is believed to have begun with the Takenouchi Ryu. It had been a part of the syllabus of other systems beforehand, but Takenouchi Ryu was the first to specialise in Jujutsu themselves. The founding date for Takenouchi Ryu is 1532. There were older systems and teachings, but nothing really codified in that way until Takenouchi Ryu. Mind you, the main formation of many Ryu-ha (different schools) didn't really take off until the Tokugawa period (1608 onwards), when Japan settled into it's first extended period of peace for over 600 years. There had been a few systems come about before that, such as Takenouchi Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, and a number of others, but nothing like the explosion that happened afterwards, especially in Jujutsu specific systems. It should be remembered that unarmed combat had little place on a battlefield where the primary weapons were nine foot long spears and bows and arrows. That meant you just weren't close enough for such methods, although that did alter a bit later, with the advent of taking heads as evidence of your exploits. In that case, close quarter unarmed, or lightly armed methods started to come into it, but you had already pretty much done them in before you closed in, by choice.

 

[JohnEdward]

The OP puts up this question,

in the heat of an attack, do joint locks really work for self defense?

.

I have not taken, seen or know every method of joint locking out there in the world. Am not a scholarly expert. But I have an open mind, and I have been doing jujutsu and being involved in martial arts for over a couple of decades. I feel the need to explain that before I go any further. I suggested to look at various jujutsu, as part of the answer. I also suggested it to Hapkido practitioners as it was worth looking at. At the least for kicks and giggles. Prefacing that I outlined some information about joint locks and joint breaks. To further answer the question, it depends on various things, some of which are obvious.

1. Training and skill. If you're good and well trained you can make anything work.
2. see number 1.
3. The Achilles heel of joint locks some people believe is the opponent size and strength to resist. It isn't. Achilles had two heels. And so does joint locks, one joint locks realistically require time and attention. It is a mono e mono application where being attacked by many can be fatal. You can strike two people faster than you and can apply a joint lock to one person. The other weakness is joint locks can't render a person unconsciousness upon can contact like a strike or kick can. Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released.


Yes, is the answer to the question. With the understanding that you have to be skilled and well-trained, being sloppy and of poor knowledge at anything doesn't bring good results. And knowing the weakness of joint locks provides a better understanding of their effectiveness. Which brings up another question, in comparison to other martial arts techniques where do joint lock effectiveness stand. That is for another thread.

 

[oftheherd1]

Chris Parker - Thanks for your answer. I wasn't sure on that. Any idea how much the Japanese borrowed from Chinese or Korean MA prior to the dates you have given? Not that it matters much, especially in light of a tendancy of many countries (and not just oriental) to show themselves as inventors of good things centuries before others, but just curious. Your point is well taken as to the main weapons on the battlefield. But I always thought unarmed tactics were probably taught at least to battlefiend leaders, as well as foot soldiers, for those times when they might lose a weapon in an opponent or have it struck from their hands.

JohnEdwards - Now you have me curious with your last post. I think of joint locks as preludes to joint breaks/hyperextensions. If I stop short of a break, it is a lock/control. Your statement "Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released." is not what I learned in Hapkido.

I can use a joint lock as pain compliance if I choose to do so, but I always understood that it was possible, and perhaps desireable, to go past the mechanical ability of the joint to stay intact. Once a joint is broken, or at least badly sprained, that limb is taken away from the opponent. That lessens or denies the opponent's ability to continue an attack.

Are you saying Jujutsu only wants to control with a joint lock?

 

[zDom]

1. Training and skill. If you're good and well trained you can make anything work.
2. see number 1.
3. The Achilles heel of joint locks some people believe is the opponent size and strength to resist. It isn't. Achilles had two heels. And so does joint locks, one joint locks realistically require time and attention. It is a mono e mono application where being attacked by many can be fatal. You can strike two people faster than you and can apply a joint lock to one person. The other weakness is joint locks can't render a person unconsciousness upon can contact like a strike or kick can. Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released.


Yes, is the answer to the question. With the understanding that you have to be skilled and well-trained, being sloppy and of poor knowledge at anything doesn't bring good results. And knowing the weakness of joint locks provides a better understanding of their effectiveness. Which brings up another question, in comparison to other martial arts techniques where do joint lock effectiveness stand. That is for another thread.

1. Eh?

2. See number 1.

3. Resistance is futile. =)

Seriously, I can't speak for all hapkido kwans, but I know in Moo Sul Kwan we train with the presumption that our attacker WILL BE bigger and stronger. Our techniques use physics and physiology to stack the deck in our favor rather than making it a contest of "Stronger Guy Controls the Joint."

Most techniques are actually worse on the attacker if they resist, are more effective against muscled up people. It is the skinny little girls whose joints can fold in any direction that are the least vulnerable.

And then, there is always the option of suddenly going WITH the resistance to carry them into another technique.

But the destruction of a joint doesn't take any longer, really, than any other martial art technique.

Regarding rendering a person unconscious: not all people go unconscious. Some people will expire before losing consciousness. But the destruction of a joint is very likely to cause someone to go into shock (in addition to making that body part unusable and a source of pain a mental distress).

 

[JohnEdward]

JohnEdwards - Now you have me curious with your last post. I think of joint locks as preludes to joint breaks/hyperextensions. If I stop short of a break, it is a lock/control. Your statement "Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released." is not what I learned in Hapkido.

I can use a joint lock as pain compliance if I choose to do so, but I always understood that it was possible, and perhaps desireable, to go past the mechanical ability of the joint to stay intact. Once a joint is broken, or at least badly sprained, that limb is taken away from the opponent. That lessens or denies the opponent's ability to continue an attack.

Are you saying Jujutsu only wants to control with a joint lock?

We see eye to eye, there is a difference between a lock and a brake. I am not a hair splitting type of guy, so as far as hyper exertions, sprains, minor tendon and muscle tears, anything outside the server damage to a joint is a result of a joint lock. Joint locks are just what it says it is, a locking of the joint preventing mobility without destroying the joint.

A joint break is a result of either an impact strike upon the joint or a joint that fails as a result of a great pressure placed on the joint as a the result of an applied joint lock. That is too much pressure placed upon the joint being locked in a position, making the joint fail.

Of the jujutsu I have learned and the surveys of other jujutsu, such as some posted by Chris, and I am speaking in Koryu terms, a joint locks are used to isolate an attacker's weapon or a strike. Control the body placing it in such a position that a blade weapon can be used to finish the opponent. That over the centuries has evolved, especially the post-Samurai era. Some jujutsu schools developed throwing methods off a joint lock, other applied joint locks to other situations besides the battlefield. That isn't to say all schools went that route - generally. Some jujutsu schools during the Samurai era developed joint locks for compliance reasons for indoor purposes, and for arresting purposes to allow for securing a prisoner, for example. While other schools did include joint brakes for various reasons as well. I don't know every single jujutsu ryu or ryu-ha, there could be other reasons for a ryu using joint locks or brakes.

Hapkido being more of a modern one tackled the problem of not able to carry a weapon openly to work in coordination with a joint lock, thus stressing the use of joint brakes. Just as some other legitimate jujutsu schools did as well. A joint brake can end a fight very quickly without killing someone. Which killing with a bladed weapon once a joint lock was applied in the samurai era was a preferred result more times than not. Joint brakes then were not stressed as in Hapkido.

Joint locks in Jujutsu have various purposes and specialties for controlling the body. You have to look at the goal and purpose for the practitioner using a lock. Early jujutsu schools use joint locks to control the opponents body, usually to isolate weapons or strike threat, to work in conjunction offensively with a bladed weapon. Later as circumstances dictated, it may not have been advantageous to kill an opponent, but rather to arrest them, so some schools worked joint locks to only control the body under those circumstances. Or, if indoors where a sword is not easily wheeled or customarily accessible a joint lock would be used to prevent an attack and then interrogate attacker - remember you want to know which enemy sent the ninja to kill you, right? . Or if you're a samurai and your are jumped and someone grabs your arm to prevent you from drawing it, or tries to draw your sword, you would use jujutsu to prevent that. There are some schools that have jujutsu techniques that an object is used to lock the joint. There are some jujutsu schools who use strikes with an empty hand or with a weapon before a joint lock, both old and new.

Would I say Jujutsu "only" wants to control with a joint lock? no. Not "only." I would say look into various jujutsu schools because jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system.

 

[JohnEdward]

But the destruction of a joint doesn't take any longer, really, than any other martial art technique.

Regarding rendering a person unconscious: not all people go unconscious. Some people will expire before losing consciousness. But the destruction of a joint is very likely to cause someone to go into shock (in addition to making that body part unusable and a source of pain a mental distress).

I mean, I don't want to mislead people and you made a good point, i.e. joint lock applied to a lapel grab done properly is quick. The time it takes to lock the joint. That is true. I was more thinking of along the lines of the amount of time from start to finish. The opponent grabs the lapel to the strike (optional), to the positioning of the opponent to a submissive controlled position. I know in Hapkido (and in some jujutsu schools) that isn't always the case, cause once the lock is on a throw or another strike follows in lieu of the submissive controlled position of the opponent. I mean it takes longer to go from start to finish with the idea you want to pin or control the opponent. I didn't detail that out like I should have.

Yes, I agree, a joint lock can be applied very fast, comparable to a strike. Especially, if you have it down pat.

I agree with shock as a result of joint lock and or brake. That does counter the weakness of joint locks not able to place a person unconscious. And where I was going with that, and should have detailed that out more. Is when in a conflict an untrained striker can get a lucky punch in and knock someone out cold in a blink of an eye. In a conflict that is very desirable for some and in some circumstances. Especially those circumstances when attacked by multiple attackers, or a person who charges you not intend to grab you, but rather firing of a slew of punches. It was under those implied circumstances that I was directing my comment at.

 

[Buka]

Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?

 

[Cyriacus]

Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?

I for one have - Albeit, the Recipient was so Doped up He looked like He was having trouble Walking, let alone swinging His Hands.
Hence the less Volatile Response.

 

[Buka]

I don't mean to imply that it is necessary to have an opinion, nor an opinion that is right. I, for one, have never disarmed someone with a knife (outside of training) but I train in it and have strong opinions. I'm sure we all do.

One of my instructors, Joe Maffei, was teaching a self defense seminar and asked a large group of about fifty young fighters, "How many of you have ever been in a street fight?"
Thirty hands shot up.
Then he asked, "How many of you ever got your *** kicked really bad?"
Four hands shot up.
He said, "You four are the only ones who know anything about a street fight."

I think he was right. But I'm wondering if that applies to joint locking as well. Maybe the failing part is as important a learning tool as anything else. I don't know, maybe I think too much.

 

[Cyriacus]

I don't mean to imply that it is necessary to have an opinion, nor an opinion that is right. I, for one, have never disarmed someone with a knife (outside of training) but I train in it and have strong opinions. I'm sure we all do.

One of my instructors, Joe Maffei, was teaching a self defense seminar and asked a large group of about fifty young fighters, "How many of you have ever been in a street fight?"
Thirty hands shot up.
Then he asked, "How many of you ever got your *** kicked really bad?"
Four hands shot up.
He said, "You four are the only ones who know anything about a street fight."

I think he was right. But I'm wondering if that applies to joint locking as well. Maybe the failing part is as important a learning tool as anything else. I don't know, maybe I think too much.

So wait a second. His Opinion is, that unless you Lose, you know nothing about Street Fighting?

...So, if I go out and pick a Fight, then let Myself Lose, ill know more about 'real' Street Fighting?

 

[JohnEdward]

Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?

A NO FISH STORY ZONE

Self-defense situations:

Low level threat w/o weapon: Yes (compliance)
Medium level threat with knife: Yes (weapon control)
High level threat with gun: No (hope to never be)

And a host of other situations against individuals with whom I know and didn't know, I had no previous contact, not threatening injury or serious harm. Just a threat to the ego. As well as teaching it and practicing it for many years.

 

[jks9199]

Moderator Note:

Several posts discussing history and influences on martial arts have been moved to a new thread, Martial Arts History & Influences, in the General Martial Arts forum. I hope folks will take a look at what promises to be an interesting and enlightening conversation.

jks9199
Super Moderator

 

[Buka]

So wait a second. His Opinion is, that unless you Lose, you know nothing about Street Fighting?

...So, if I go out and pick a Fight, then let Myself Lose, ill know more about 'real' Street Fighting?

I may have misquoted him. He may have said "You four know MORE about a street fight than anyone here." (It was a long time ago, my memory is sketchy.
However, I believe either statement to be truth.

And, no, if you go out and pick a fight etc. First, I don't think you would go out and pick a fight. And I don't know anyone who would let themselves lose on purpose. But when the unfortunate happens, and you lose, you learn more about fighting and more about yourself than you do when you win easily and quickly. The unfortunate part of fighting in self defense, is the bad guy never takes the same classes as we take. He doesn't know how he's supposed to go down, or stand still and let us transition to a second move. When we train, our psyche has a certain expectation on what a "real" fight is supposed to look and feel like, because we repeat the steps continuously, and our opponent in training (our dojomate) repeats his role, pretty much the same every time.

But self defense never works that way. When we suddenly find it different for the first time, there is a mental hesitation because we can't find all the cues we're used to using in the dojo. The opponent, during that hesitation, is usually whaling away, creating more damage to us. He is also using more strength and aggression than we are used to in training, this causes (usually) more hesitation in our heads.

It's why, in my opinion, self defense training needs to be limited to basics, and to principles, as opposed to techniques.

Also, that statement I said Joe made, about "You four are the only ones that know about streetfighting"...that came at the very opening of a training camp. It was immediately followed by, what I think is a great drill to go along with that statement.

He had everyone lined up, just like in class. Then had everyone run in place, real fast, knees high, every thirty seconds he'd clap and you had to drop and do five fast pushups, then leap up to run in place again. He did it until everyone was breathing hard and sweating. I'd ay about twenty minutes. Then he yelled us our instructions - "spin in place, real fast." Se we spun in place for thirty seconds (or however long, I don't know) then he had us reverse and spin the other way. Then he said "Grab the person next to you, drag them down and control them with punches and locks!"

Everyone, out of breath and dizzy as hell, grabbed each other and fought to the ground. Holy crap what a mess we were. And it was hard and to tell you the truth, it was kind of frightening. We went one for about one minute.

Then as we caught our breath and sat there, he said, "Often, that is what a self defense situation is like. You're winded, dizzy and scared, and the person you're fighting is as strong as you, as tough as you and as determined as you."

He wasn't just whistling Dixie.

 

[Cyriacus]

I may have misquoted him. He may have said "You four know MORE about a street fight than anyone here." (It was a long time ago, my memory is sketchy.
However, I believe either statement to be truth.

And, no, if you go out and pick a fight etc. First, I don't think you would go out and pick a fight. And I don't know anyone who would let themselves lose on purpose. But when the unfortunate happens, and you lose, you learn more about fighting and more about yourself than you do when you win easily and quickly. The unfortunate part of fighting in self defense, is the bad guy never takes the same classes as we take. He doesn't know how he's supposed to go down, or stand still and let us transition to a second move. When we train, our psyche has a certain expectation on what a "real" fight is supposed to look and feel like, because we repeat the steps continuously, and our opponent in training (our dojomate) repeats his role, pretty much the same every time.

This is just it though.
Say some Black Belt is accosted by Three Guys, and they Attack Him; Assuming Two are Unarmed, and One has a Knife; And theyre both well Built and Fit, and bigger than Him. The Black Belt beats the **** out of them.
A White Belt is walking down the Street, and Three Guys beat the **** out of Him.
The White Belt now knows more about Street Fighting than the Black Belt?

But self defense never works that way. When we suddenly find it different for the first time, there is a mental hesitation because we can't find all the cues we're used to using in the dojo. The opponent, during that hesitation, is usually whaling away, creating more damage to us. He is also using more strength and aggression than we are used to in training, this causes (usually) more hesitation in our heads.

Usually, this is why it can be good to have someone to punch you in the Ribs during Sparring if you arent constantly exchanging. The Mental Hesitation, I believe, is mostly caused by People Sparring, rather than Fighting with Rules. If you cut out all of the nonsensical stuff, and force People to stand and Fight in Sparring, it produces a better outcome.
As for Aggression; Were I for one am now, Power is ridiculously Important. If youre not generating sufficient Power in every single Strike for your Rank, you can stay at that Rank until that changes. And do lots, and lots, of Pushups. Your first thought might be "some people dont care about rank". It isnt that kind of Rank - The Incentive is not a colorful Belt, but rather what comes with the next level of Progression. The MCMAP (Marine Corpse Martial Arts Program) does something similar. Seven Weeks - If you do not Progress through each level of the Program within Seven Weeks, you Failed. Difference is, you dont Fail if you dont cut it. You just dont get to progress to the next level of the Program.

It's why, in my opinion, self defense training needs to be limited to basics, and to principles, as opposed to techniques.

I completely Agree.

Also, that statement I said Joe made, about "You four are the only ones that know about streetfighting"...that came at the very opening of a training camp. It was immediately followed by, what I think is a great drill to go along with that statement.

He had everyone lined up, just like in class. Then had everyone run in place, real fast, knees high, every thirty seconds he'd clap and you had to drop and do five fast pushups, then leap up to run in place again. He did it until everyone was breathing hard and sweating. I'd ay about twenty minutes. Then he yelled us our instructions - "spin in place, real fast." Se we spun in place for thirty seconds (or however long, I don't know) then he had us reverse and spin the other way. Then he said "Grab the person next to you, drag them down and control them with punches and locks!"

Everyone, out of breath and dizzy as hell, grabbed each other and fought to the ground. Holy crap what a mess we were. And it was hard and to tell you the truth, it was kind of frightening. We went one for about one minute.

Ive done something similar to that - But with... I dont remember how to spell it now. That thing where you Push up, then Jump back up as you push up.

Then as we caught our breath and sat there, he said, "Often, that is what a self defense situation is like. You're winded, dizzy and scared, and the person you're fighting is as strong as you, as tough as you and as determined as you."

Yep.
Which is why Training to be Powerful and Fast will ultimately give you an Advantage. Being able to use your Hands, Wrists, Arms, Elbows, Shoulders, Head, Thighs, Knees, Shins, Insteps, and Feet as Weapons helps as well. More in the sense that youre not limited to only the use of your Hands supported by piss weak grappling (As in, Untrained Grappling).

He wasn't just whistling Dixie.

We seem to be drawing the same Conclusion, just from different Pretexts.