Sport Fighter

[Tony Dismukes]

So, should martial artists seek out street fights in order to prove their effectiveness?

The experience of others counts for something. I trust in the experience of my Master, and what he says will work in the streets, based on his past and credentials. When he says something works in the streets, he's saying from experience. When I say the same thing works in the streets, I'm saying from his experience. Does that make me a con artist and my techniques untested? In my biased opinion, no it does not.

How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.

We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.

Example- I assume that the earth is round, as to available information. But, I have no personal individual experience to say that it is.

If you trust your instructor and his "credentials, and he tells you it does work and has shown that to you...that is still assumed knowledge. Until you yourself test it, it will remain assumed knowledge.

I think there are a few things going on here that we can break down...

Can a technique work in real life? Under what circumstances? What skills or attributes do you need to make it work? How reliable is it? What evidence do we have to inform the answers to the previous questions?

(Notice I said can it work, not does it work. No technique will work 100% of the time and only an exceptionally bad technique* will fail 100% of the time.)

*(I have been taught a few of those along the way.)

Along the same lines, we can ask can I personally make the technique work in real life? Under what circumstances? How reliably? What details in my execution would make it more or less likely to succeed? Do I even understand al the relevant details? What evidence do I have to support my answers to these questions?

Finally, there's the matter of being open and honest (with ourselves and others) about the answers to the above, including any limits to the evidence we have.

Let me give some examples to make this more concrete ...

Consider the basic rear cross, a staple of boxing and probably a solid majority of striking arts. Can it work? How reliable are the results? Let's look at the evidence.

We have video of literally hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of rear crosses being thrown in street fights, boxing matches, karate matches, kickboxing matches, MMA matches, almost every context imaginable. We can see them missing, hitting with minimal damage, hitting with significant damage, and causing knockouts. We can analyze the results based on physical attributes, training, technical details, and more.

We have the collected experience of tens of thousands of professional and amateur fighters who have personally used the rear cross and had it used against them thousands of times.

I think we can be highly confident in our knowledge regarding the general effectiveness of the rear cross. Now, how about my personal understanding of and ability with, the rear cross?

I have used the rear cross in street fights, knocking my opponent down in one instance. I've used it in kickboxing matches, achieving a knockout in one instance. I've used it in sparring (light, medium, and hard contact) with a wide variety of training partners, including boxers, kickboxers, karateka, kung fu practitioners, MMA fighters, and untrained individuals. I've been hit with numerous rear crosses, including shots that didn't phase me at all and others which knocked me down. I've been taught to use the cross by teachers who were successful professional fighters (including one 2x boxing world champion) and whose fights I've seen in person or on video*.

*(Not to denigrate the honesty of anyone's instructor, but there's a difference in the reliability of evidence between "I saw my instructor do this with my own eyes" vs "My instructor told me about this time he did so and so.")

Based on the above, I have a fairly good notion of my ability with the rear cross, but not as good a notion as I would have if I had been in more real fights and/or full contact competition.

Now let's consider something different, standing arm bars (breaks). What is the available evidence regarding these?

We have video evidence of one particular standing straight arm bar (waki gatame) working at least a handful of times in competition. I haven't been able to find examples from a street fight yet, but there may be some out there. I have some anecdotal second or third hand accounts of standing arm locks working in real fights. Some of those are in the context of a bouncer or LEO controlling a noncompliant suspect or belligerent drunk patron rather than in the context of an all-out fight. We have the fact that a wide variety of martial arts with different origins include these techniques. Presumably they were added for some reason, but we don't know the history of how they entered the art or how they were tested.

So we know that at least one form of standing arm lock can work, but we don't have enough data to say a lot about reliability or what it takes to be successful.

What about my personal knowledge? I've been taught a variety of standing straight arm breaks, by instructors who were credentialed in their various arts. I've never used one in a real fight. As far as I know, none of my instructors ever used one in a real fight. I don't know if their instructors or their instructor's instructors ever used one in a real fight. I have occasionally used the threat of the standing arm bar in sparring to force a reaction by my opponent. For reasons discussed in previous posts, I don't attempt the arm bar in sparring with the speed which would be required to prevent an escape. So … maybe I might, in the right circumstances, be able to complete the standing arm bar in a real fight. However I just don't have the evidence to know how likely that would be. I do know that against a competent opponent, even the opportunity to make the threat doesn't come up very often. So if I did have success, it would probably be against an unskilled adversary.

When I teach my students, I try to focus on techniques I have personally been successful with (at least in sparring) and that I have seen others be successful with in real life or in high-level competition. I also try to be open about my personal competence with a technique and the evidence I have for its general applicability.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am a little concerned that a "supporting member" will help someone bypass the ignore option and not one moderator, has given a warning concerning this.

My time here as been enjoyable, but I can not support bullying.

Go in peace.

Let the record show that @Guthrie will not answer the question.

 

[Flying Crane]

4385

Let the record show that @Guthrie will not answer the question.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes sir, sure will.

Fascinating thread. Very thought provoking, regardless of opinion.

Thank you for your patience. An answer will not be forthcoming.

 

[skribs]

When I teach my students, I try to focus on techniques I have personally been successful with (at least in sparring) and that I have seen others be successful with in real life or in high-level competition. I also try to be open about my personal competence with a technique and the evidence I have for its general applicability.

I try and do the same. I don't teach anything I'm not sure of. If I don't know how to do it correctly yet, I either try and troubleshoot, or ask my Master. I don't teach that in which I am not confident, based on my training.

I also agree there is a sort of hierarchy of proof:

• Something I saw in a movie or in WWE
• Something I saw on the internet as a self-defense technique
• Something I saw on UFC / learned in a seminar
• Something I trained in class that one time
• Something I've drilled in class repeatedly
• Something I've used in MMA / Streetfight

However, having not been in a fight since I started my adult martial art training, my experience doesn't extend to the high level of proof that is being asked for in this debate. In my opinion, the burden of proof can be anything in the top 3 (drilled in class repeatedly, successful use in a match or real situation). Of course there's caveats, such as the level of resistance in the drill, but I'm trying to give a general description and not focus too much on the minutia in this post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I try and do the same. I don't teach anything I'm not sure of. If I don't know how to do it correctly yet, I either try and troubleshoot, or ask my Master. I don't teach that in which I am not confident, based on my training.

I also agree there is a sort of hierarchy of proof:

• Something I saw in a movie or in WWE
• Something I saw on the internet as a self-defense technique
• Something I saw on UFC / learned in a seminar
• Something I trained in class that one time
• Something I've drilled in class repeatedly
• Something I've used in MMA / Streetfight

However, having not been in a fight since I started my adult martial art training, my experience doesn't extend to the high level of proof that is being asked for in this debate. In my opinion, the burden of proof can be anything in the top 3 (drilled in class repeatedly, successful use in a match or real situation). Of course there's caveats, such as the level of resistance in the drill, but I'm trying to give a general description and not focus too much on the minutia in this post.

My approach has been that in-dojo proof counts somewhat less than in-fight (competition or street) proof, both when firsthand and when secondhand. So a bit of octagon proof is as good as a bunch of in-dojo proof. Said the other way around, I need a bunch of in-dojo proof to feel the confidence in a technique that @Tony Dismukes got from some kickboxing fights.

 

[Flying Crane]

Honesty in teaching is important. I think we can all agree with that. I would never suggest that someone should tell their students that they have done things that they have not. Do not claim to have had fights that you have not had. Do not claim to have used techniques successfully, that you have not.

Honesty is one reason I no longer train some of the systems that I have trained in the past: I did not trust much of the curriculum, I did not have faith that I could use it effectively, and I therefor could not, in good faith, teach it to someone else.

However, some of the comments in this thread seem to suggest that a teacher needs to make what amounts to a disclaimer at the beginning of each class: “hello everyone and welcome to class. I want to point out that I have never been in a real fight in my life, I have never used these techniques and methods to save my life from ruffians, so I cannot claim to know what I am talking about. I have only my teacher’s word of honor that he has single-handedly slain an army of spearmen and mounted cavalry with the techniques we are about to practice. Now let’s get started...”

That is asinine.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I try and do the same. I don't teach anything I'm not sure of. If I don't know how to do it correctly yet, I either try and troubleshoot, or ask my Master. I don't teach that in which I am not confident, based on my training.

I also agree there is a sort of hierarchy of proof:

• Something I saw in a movie or in WWE
• Something I saw on the internet as a self-defense technique
• Something I saw on UFC / learned in a seminar
• Something I trained in class that one time
• Something I've drilled in class repeatedly
• Something I've used in MMA / Streetfight

However, having not been in a fight since I started my adult martial art training, my experience doesn't extend to the high level of proof that is being asked for in this debate. In my opinion, the burden of proof can be anything in the top 3 (drilled in class repeatedly, successful use in a match or real situation). Of course there's caveats, such as the level of resistance in the drill, but I'm trying to give a general description and not focus too much on the minutia in this post.

I’d lay out that hierarchy of proof a bit differently. (I'd also refer to "evidence" rather than "proof",)

Seeing something in a movie or in WWE or on the internet as a self-defense technique is no evidence at all that the move can even work at all under any circumstances, let alone that you could use it.

Being taught something in class or in a seminar is probably (but not necessarily) evidence that the instructor thinks the technique could work. Unless you know what criteria the instructor has for making that determination, then you don't know what value to put on that opinion. If they believe it works because it's what they were taught by their instructor, then it's not worth much as evidence. If they believe it works because they've used it personally and/or seen it used repeatedly in real fights or full contact competition, then that's more useful.

Seeing the technique used in street fights or MMA or other forms of full contact competition gives evidence that it can work. Seeing it used repeatedly with a high percentage of success gives more evidence that it's actually a reliable technique. (It doesn't offer any evidence regarding your own abilities, of course.)

Training/drilling a technique improves the odds that you can demonstrate the technique correctly according to the standards laid out by your instructor. It doesn't offer evidence about whether the technique is generally effective or reliable or whether you personally can execute it in a fight. However if the technique is a sound one and if your instruction is good and if you have the other skills and attributes necessary to handle yourself in a fight, then it also improves the odds that you could have success with the technique in a fight.

Using a technique in sparring offers evidence that you personally can actually use it under pressure in a real fight. Sparring with higher intensity, harder contact, fewer restrictions, and tougher opponents offers better evidence than sparring with low intensity, light contact, many restrictions, and poor quality opponents. Sparring hard contact under MMA rules against a pro fighter or under Dog Brothers rules against a Kali expert is much better evidence than light point sparring with 75% of target off limits against a new white belt.

Using a technique in a real fight (on the street or in full contact competition) offers even better evidence for our personal ability with a technique, but practical and/or ethical concerns limit how much of this sort of evidence most of us can or should gather. That's where sparring can come in handy. I've had thousands of rounds of sparring under various rulesets. If I had been in thousands of real fights I'd probably be dead, crippled, or in prison.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

However, some of the comments in this thread seem to suggest that a teacher needs to make what amounts to a disclaimer at the beginning of each class: “hello everyone and welcome to class. I want to point out that I have never been in a real fight in my life, I have never used these techniques and methods to save my life from ruffians, so I cannot claim to know what I am talking about. I have only my teacher’s word of honor that he has single-handedly slain an army of spearmen and mounted cavalry with the techniques we are about to practice. Now let’s get started...”

That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge.

I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.

 

[skribs]

Seeing something in a movie or in WWE or on the internet as a self-defense technique is no evidence at all that the move can even work at all under any circumstances, let alone that you could use it.

That's why it's at the top of the list.

 

[Flying Crane]

That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge.

I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.

That is an absolutely reasonable and appropriate disclaimer to make. I would do the same, every time.

Some of the comments in this thread suggest that if someone has not had a real fight, he then has a duty to undermine his own credibility as a teacher. Never mind his history of training 12 hours a week for twenty-some years working with his teacher, his classmates, and on his own, in his efforts to understand the method and develop some skills, and the approval of his teacher to teach.

I think such a person has a legitimate claim to understand the methods and to be a capable teacher.

 

[skribs]

That is an absolutely reasonable and appropriate disclaimer to make. I would do the same, every time.

Some of the comments in this thread suggest that if someone has not had a real fight, he then has a duty to undermine his own credibility as a teacher. Never mind his history of training 12 hours a week for twenty-some years working with his teacher, his classmates, and on his own, in his efforts to understand the method and develop some skills, and the approval of his teacher to teach.

I think such a person has a legitimate claim to understand the methods and to be a capable teacher.

Similarly, I've been in other discussions where people talk about "old, fat guys who can't kick over their waist", and have no idea why that's happened. Someone who is 60 years old, who isn't in the best shape anymore, may have forgotten more than you've ever learned in martial arts.

 

[Flying Crane]

Similarly, I've been in other discussions where people talk about "old, fat guys who can't kick over their waist", and have no idea why that's happened. Someone who is 60 years old, who isn't in the best shape anymore, may have forgotten more than you've ever learned in martial arts.

And as has been pointed out, that person’s current physical condition may have no bearing on his ability to effectively teach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’d lay out that hierarchy of proof a bit differently. (I'd also refer to "evidence" rather than "proof",)

Seeing something in a movie or in WWE or on the internet as a self-defense technique is no evidence at all that the move can even work at all under any circumstances, let alone that you could use it.

Being taught something in class or in a seminar is probably (but not necessarily) evidence that the instructor thinks the technique could work. Unless you know what criteria the instructor has for making that determination, then you don't know what value to put on that opinion. If they believe it works because it's what they were taught by their instructor, then it's not worth much as evidence. If they believe it works because they've used it personally and/or seen it used repeatedly in real fights or full contact competition, then that's more useful.

Seeing the technique used in street fights or MMA or other forms of full contact competition gives evidence that it can work. Seeing it used repeatedly with a high percentage of success gives more evidence that it's actually a reliable technique. (It doesn't offer any evidence regarding your own abilities, of course.)

Training/drilling a technique improves the odds that you can demonstrate the technique correctly according to the standards laid out by your instructor. It doesn't offer evidence about whether the technique is generally effective or reliable or whether you personally can execute it in a fight. However if the technique is a sound one and if your instruction is good and if you have the other skills and attributes necessary to handle yourself in a fight, then it also improves the odds that you could have success with the technique in a fight.

Using a technique in sparring offers evidence that you personally can actually use it under pressure in a real fight. Sparring with higher intensity, harder contact, fewer restrictions, and tougher opponents offers better evidence than sparring with low intensity, light contact, many restrictions, and poor quality opponents. Sparring hard contact under MMA rules against a pro fighter or under Dog Brothers rules against a Kali expert is much better evidence than light point sparring with 75% of target off limits against a new white belt.

Using a technique in a real fight (on the street or in full contact competition) offers even better evidence for our personal ability with a technique, but practical and/or ethical concerns limit how much of this sort of evidence most of us can or should gather. That's where sparring can come in handy. I've had thousands of rounds of sparring under various rulesets. If I had been in thousands of real fights I'd probably be dead, crippled, or in prison.

The only thing I'll add to this is that there are some areas of evidence that are difficult to get in the chaos of a fight, but easy to get (with caveats) in the lab. If I have questions about a technique, I can have a partner present specific resistance, to see if that breaks the technique. If I find enough different ways a technique breaks, I might decide - without needing any fight evidence - that technique isn't terribly useful. Conversely, if I find reasonable solutions to a lot of different challenges, using that technique, it raises my confidence in it. This is important, because some successes with techniques are context-sensitive (think of the way Judo competition rules affect tactics used, for instance), so success in one context still needs some lab testing to see if it's likely to be generalized.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge.

I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.

I also give a similar disclaimer to techniques that I see as teaching principles, rather than being actual applicable techniques. (This is an area where "classical" training gets a bad rap - I think some of the "techniques" are really drills to force working on specific principles.)

 

[skribs]

I also give a similar disclaimer to techniques that I see as teaching principles, rather than being actual applicable techniques. (This is an area where "classical" training gets a bad rap - I think some of the "techniques" are really drills to force working on specific principles.)

I like that disclaimer. That way I know what I'm working on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like that disclaimer. That way I know what I'm working on.

I started sharing it regularly, because I saw folks at some schools working really hard to figure out the practical applications of those techniques. I considered it wasted time.

 

[Buka]

Thank you for your patience. An answer will not be forthcoming.

I in no way, shape or form did I mean to insult, upset or bully him. I thought it a question germane to the thread, which is a really cool thread that he started. And thank you for passing it on.

I don't think many folks, if any folks, have seen their instructors engage in street combat. Yet, we train under them. And why wouldn't we?

Again, apologies all around, especially to Guthrie if it upset him. I hope he jumps back in, it's a great thread he posted.

 

[drop bear]

And this is an area where some type of sport usage (whether formal competition or not) is really handy. I know I can punch a bag really well with my left hand to about the right spot. Unless I land that with some effect on a person - even if it's only hard enough to see that it hit the right spot, without dropping them - I'm still not sure I'm going to land it right. And in a given fight/match/session, it might take a few tries to land it right (and a few tries, each time, to set it up).

It is weirder than even that you can hit and do nothing or hit and cripple top conditioned guys.

It is one of the least intuitive techniques I know about.

 

[drop bear]

4385

You also could have done Vin Deisels 500 fights scene which is pretty cool.