Street Jitsu! Punch Block Series for Self Defense

[Steve]

I hadn't thought of that metaphor before (odd - I used to teach motorcycle safety), but it does reflect my attitude toward training for physical SD. Like my helmet, I hope never to need it, but anticipate the need - because it's too late when you do need it. And I know folks who survived wrecks without a helmet - because their wreck didn't cause them to hit their head hard.

It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important. First, there is real data regarding motorcycles. Lots of it. There are crash statistics, mortality stats, there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury. Martial arts don't have any of that.

Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk. While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe. Just don't get on one. The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop. I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.

Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station. Does that work? I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.

 

[jobo]

It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important. First, there is real data regarding motorcycles. Lots of it. There are crash statistics, mortality stats, there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury. Martial arts don't have any of that.

Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk. While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe. Just don't get on one. The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop. I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.

Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station. Does that work? I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.

those rubber strips won't,discharge lighning, in fact they may make a lightning,strike more likely.

if people want to run the the motorbike metaphor, then one behaviour is like the guys who won't ride with out full racing leathers and padding and rides extremely carefully never overtakes or banks over, or the ones who wiz round in shorts and flip flops at serious speed. Nether is rational behaviour . The leathers won't help at all if you are,run over by a truck or crash into a wall or any of the other possible out comes. Besides sliding down the road
Let's call that person MAist who is,so aware of self defence that he takes over the tops actions to reduce risk that he spoils the whole point of riding( or living). And the flip flop guy is the MAist that has so much faith in his own abilities that he is completely recklass as to his own safety, he ignores quite sensible actions as he believes his,skill is supreme

some where in the middle is a,sensible approach where the guy has done an advanced,skills course(MA) and is,aware that,riding like a loony in shorts is a bad idea

 

[jobo]

double post

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important. First, there is real data regarding motorcycles. Lots of it. There are crash statistics, mortality stats, there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury. Martial arts don't have any of that.

Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk. While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe. Just don't get on one. The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop. I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.

Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station. Does that work? I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.

Okay, I'll just suggest one change to make it fit my thinking. Assume cars (and public transit) don't exist. Life has risks we can't avoid, and we can't really foresee all of them. That's how I viewed motorcycling, too.

And you are correct about the difference in statistics. Statistics are probably impossible to compile in any reliable fashion about MA and SD situations, given the literally infinite variations. Even if we knew all the important facts about every single SD situation, we'd still have to use arbitrary categorization (what is "SD training", or what is "significant MA experience", what is a "defendable attack" etc.), so two people could both have valid sets of data that provided contradictory conclusions. Given the improbability of ever having reasonable data to use, we have to draw what conclusions we can from what data there is, including reports we get from those who engage more frequently. It's imperfect, to be certain, but it's what we have.

 

[jobo]

Okay, I'll just suggest one change to make it fit my thinking. Assume cars (and public transit) don't exist. Life has risks we can't avoid, and we can't really foresee all of them. That's how I viewed motorcycling, too.

And you are correct about the difference in statistics. Statistics are probably impossible to compile in any reliable fashion about MA and SD situations, given the literally infinite variations. Even if we knew all the important facts about every single SD situation, we'd still have to use arbitrary categorization (what is "SD training", or what is "significant MA experience", what is a "defendable attack" etc.), so two people could both have valid sets of data that provided contradictory conclusions. Given the improbability of ever having reasonable data to use, we have to draw what conclusions we can from what data there is, including reports we get from those who engage more frequently. It's imperfect, to be certain, but it's what we have.

but we do have data, that being that the,strongest fastest most skilled fighter tends to win fights. If your MA training makes you the strongest fastest most skilled fighter in a fight, you have a very good chance of winning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but we do have data, that being that the,strongest fastest most skilled fighter tends to win fights. If your MA training makes you the strongest fastest most skilled fighter in a fight, you have a very good chance of winning.

We have that data from competition, but we don't really have that for short, quick, sudden attacks, which are a different dynamic than what we tend to see in the ring. If I turn around and someone is just about to punch/stab/grab/whatever, how much does MA training really help? We don't have statistical data on that, and probably can't ever have data statisticians can even agree upon the usage and categorization of.

On top of that, you've put three superlatives in there. If you have all three, you are certainly more likely to win in a fight. But what if you have one of the three, or two? How much of each is necessary to outweigh the others? That's probably unquantifiable.

 

[Steve]

Couple of quick comments.

We have that data from competition, but we don't really have that for short, quick, sudden attacks, which are a different dynamic than what we tend to see in the ring. If I turn around and someone is just about to punch/stab/grab/whatever, how much does MA training really help? We don't have statistical data on that, and probably can't ever have data statisticians can even agree upon the usage and categorization of.

On top of that, you've put three superlatives in there. If you have all three, you are certainly more likely to win in a fight. But what if you have one of the three, or two? How much of each is necessary to outweigh the others? That's probably unquantifiable.

Think about this. We both agree that there is a dearth of data on MA and its real impact on civilian self defense. We do have studies, at least a few, that give us information about whether self defense programs have an impact. But overall, it's very difficult to add data points retroactively.

There is data regarding cops and martial arts, too, which people often point to and say, "See? This is proof it will work for a civilian." But you acknowledge there are no meaningful stats for civilian self defense. So, like the link some point to between competition and real world self defense, we can agree both are speculative. Right? Similarly, we might be able to gather meaningful data from other professions, and the relationship between this data would be the same as above.

I think there are lessons to be learned from each, but I am suggesting that it's healthy to understand the difference between what we know and what we believe.

One other important note is that self defense is an individual effort. We approach this point in many ways, whether it's apocryphal statements like, "It's the artist not the art that matters," or in discussions when we acknowledge weight, strength, size, agility, age, skill level and all of the other factors that are involved in a real world situation.

If we agree on these things, then we can conclude a few things. First, that competitions are a way for civilians to gather individual performance data relative to a body of date we agree exists. We also conclude that pulling out the "It works for cops" card is no more or less relevant to a discussion on civilian self defense than saying, "it works in the UFC."

Okay, I'll just suggest one change to make it fit my thinking. Assume cars (and public transit) don't exist. Life has risks we can't avoid, and we can't really foresee all of them. That's how I viewed motorcycling, too.

And you are correct about the difference in statistics. Statistics are probably impossible to compile in any reliable fashion about MA and SD situations, given the literally infinite variations. Even if we knew all the important facts about every single SD situation, we'd still have to use arbitrary categorization (what is "SD training", or what is "significant MA experience", what is a "defendable attack" etc.), so two people could both have valid sets of data that provided contradictory conclusions. Given the improbability of ever having reasonable data to use, we have to draw what conclusions we can from what data there is, including reports we get from those who engage more frequently. It's imperfect, to be certain, but it's what we have.

Problem even before this is that your chances of getting into an accident on a motorcycle are high, even if you're a safe driver. However, you can easily reduce your risk to zero by never getting on a motorcycle. Conversely, your chances of being assaulted are low, and are almost nil if you don't engage in high risk behaviors. And your chances of being randomly murdered by a nut is low, as well. By suggesting that motorcycles are the only means of transportation, you pull it even more out of proportion. I suggested before that motorcycles are like cops in that both are situations where you are knowingly putting yourself at a higher risk. I guess you could equate motorcycles to walking in a bad neighborhood at night, flashing a wad of cash. That would work, too, I guess.

like any other thing, the value wouldn't be in the single events. Any meaningful conclusions would need to come from gathering enough data to do so. The individual marks their own progress against the norm. I'm of the opinion that we can quibble over the data points to consider, but in the end it's better to get some information than no information.

Anyway, rambling on. I hope some of this makes some sense.

 

[Juany118]

Remember you don't fight in slow motion. You block the punch and then gain control of him before he is able to counter.

I have always been trained with the idea that "the other hand is coming" which is why I always prefer outside entries. That said if you have to go inside your entry had better distrub the structure of the opponent enough that the other hand is not knocking you in the head with decent strength as you attempt the lock.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Couple of quick comments. Think about this. We both agree that there is a dearth of data on MA and its real impact on civilian self defense. We do have studies, at least a few, that give us information about whether self defense programs have an impact. But overall, it's very difficult to add data points retroactively.

There is data regarding cops and martial arts, too, which people often point to and say, "See? This is proof it will work for a civilian." But you acknowledge there are no meaningful stats for civilian self defense. So, like the link some point to between competition and real world self defense, we can agree both are speculative. Right? Similarly, we might be able to gather meaningful data from other professions, and the relationship between this data would be the same as above.

I think there are lessons to be learned from each, but I am suggesting that it's healthy to understand the difference between what we know and what we believe.

One other important note is that self defense is an individual effort. We approach this point in many ways, whether it's apocryphal statements like, "It's the artist not the art that matters," or in discussions when we acknowledge weight, strength, size, agility, age, skill level and all of the other factors that are involved in a real world situation.

If we agree on these things, then we can conclude a few things. First, that competitions are a way for civilians to gather individual performance data relative to a body of date we agree exists. We also conclude that pulling out the "It works for cops" card is no more or less relevant to a discussion on civilian self defense than saying, "it works in the UFC."

I actually have no problem with any of that. I do think most things that work in UFC are probably useful (with alteration in some cases) for self-defense (my contention is that UFC/MMA is a reasonable inclusionary measure, but not a reasonable exclusionary measure). And I think that most things that work well for LEO are also useful (with alteration in some cases) for civilian self-defense. Neither is a perfect measure, and both can inform our view of what is likely to work.

Problem even before this is that your chances of getting into an accident on a motorcycle are high, even if you're a safe driver. However, you can easily reduce your risk to zero by never getting on a motorcycle. Conversely, your chances of being assaulted are low, and are almost nil if you don't engage in high risk behaviors. And your chances of being randomly murdered by a nut is low, as well. By suggesting that motorcycles are the only means of transportation, you pull it even more out of proportion. I suggested before that motorcycles are like cops in that both are situations where you are knowingly putting yourself at a higher risk. I guess you could equate motorcycles to walking in a bad neighborhood at night, flashing a wad of cash. That would work, too, I guess.

Not quite as bad as either walking in a bad neighborhood, nor flashing a wad of cash. Interestingly, the chances of being in a MC accident go down dramatically with experience (specifically on the bike being ridden, though I believe that's confounded) and training. So, for someone with some experience on their bike (more than 6 months), they're not almost-guaranteed to have a wreck (like being in a bad neighborhood flashing money seems it would). They have a higher chance of a wreck than someone in a car, so let's say it's more equivalent to going frequently to bars. If you are around people drinking, your chances of ending up in the middle of something are elevated over those who do not, even if you choose to avoid the worst bars. But your point is valid. We could also decrease our chances of violence by avoiding places where people drink (I've seen people get near-violent in nice restaurants after too many drinks).

like any other thing, the value wouldn't be in the single events. Any meaningful conclusions would need to come from gathering enough data to do so. The individual marks their own progress against the norm. I'm of the opinion that we can quibble over the data points to consider, but in the end it's better to get some information than no information.

Anyway, rambling on. I hope some of this makes some sense.

Agreed. My view is simply this: we use what we have, even when we wish we had better. Unfortunately, what we have doesn't provide a very clear picture (hence, I assume, your statement that data doesn't show an advantage).

 

[hoshin1600]

you all are missing the point. for helmet to work the rider has to put it on. to often it is sitting in the saddle bags or on the back seat rest.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you all are missing the point. for helmet to work the rider has to put it on. to often it is sitting in the saddle bags or on the back seat rest.

I'm not sure how that relates, Hoshin.

 

[CB Jones]

I have always been trained with the idea that "the other hand is coming" which is why I always prefer outside entries. That said if you have to go inside your entry had better distrub the structure of the opponent enough that the other hand is not knocking you in the head with decent strength as you attempt the lock.

I subscribe more to the idea of when opportunity presents itself act decisively and swiftly handling any additional threats as they present themselves

I will deal with the other hand coming if need be....there is always another something coming.

 

[Juany118]

I subscribe more to the idea of when opportunity presents itself act decisively and swiftly handling any additional threats as they present themselves

I will deal with the other hand coming if need be....there is always another something coming.

The thing is this. Look at the entry in the original video. If everything on that entry doesn't go perfectly you are actually in a position where you not only have both hands tied up (so you can't address the other hand) it's also likely that you won't even see the other hand until it hits.

If your entry is such that you have the opportunity to deal with a hit, if need be, cool. However entries that require everything to line up "just right" because it doesn't give you that opportunity make me nervous as hell. After over 19 years of dealing with violently resisting people something like in that video only makes sense to me (again just my opinion) in the event of a sucker punch because you don't have any other choice.

 

[Buka]

self protection? Just kidding. I think it's part of self defense, but just a very minor part. I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour. We know that few people are attacked, and of those, it is exceedingly unlikely you will be killed. And that's if you do everything wrong.

If you're a cop or a soldier, sure. You need specialized training. But the average citizen, who has no venue to apply the training to actually develop practical skills? I'm skeptical.

Simply put, I think there is a physical element to self defense, but that its relative importance is low compared to everything else. Unless of course, you define self defense differently, which is fine.

Oh, sure, easy for you to say, Steve. I know your kind, you're one of those Philoso-raptors!

All fine tweed, aged briar, good syntax and Windsor nice nice, until you choke the ever loving ship out of someone. (Gentlemanly, of course.) I ain't buying, bro.

 

[jobo]

We have that data from competition, but we don't really have that for short, quick, sudden attacks, which are a different dynamic than what we tend to see in the ring. If I turn around and someone is just about to punch/stab/grab/whatever, how much does MA training really help? We don't have statistical data on that, and probably can't ever have data statisticians can even agree upon the usage and categorization of.

On top of that, you've put three superlatives in there. If you have all three, you are certainly more likely to win in a fight. But what if you have one of the three, or two? How much of each is necessary to outweigh the others? That's probably unquantifiable.

well from experience, you can hold your own in a fight if you have any one in significant amounts over your opponent, by hold your own I mean your still up right when someone breaks it up or the guy gets bored. To actually win a fight you need at least two out of the three, unless the one he has in his favour is much great than yours, ie point 1

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm not sure how that relates, Hoshin.

ill get to that in a minute.

I'm not convinced that a black belt in BJJ is any more likely to keep you safe than training for a tough mudder competition. I've said this before. We have no data to support that training in a martial art will make you less likely to be attacked than someone who trains in Tai Bo or Parkour. Further, there is no data to support the idea that someone who trains in BJJ, MMA, RBSD or whatever it is that the self defense guys here teach, will be more likely to survive an encounter than someone who trains in Tae Bo or Parkour.

two different concepts mentioned here. The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
to say this about the survivability is a legitimate concern. But it is a concern of personal significance it does not really apply in a general sense. i struggled with this idea for many years when had just started. maybe we all ask "will what i am learning actually work?" it doesnt apply in the macro view. in general this is an empty argument because we have to much evidence that says otherwise.
the argument that there is no data to support the idea is the equivalent of saying that we cannot say for sure that one billion plus one billion equals two billion because there is no possible way to count each item one by one to come to such a conclusion. the fact is that we can add one plus one, and we can extrapolate the answer to the larger question.
We know that to play pro sports takes many hours of practice. Tiger woods did not get good at golf watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.
the critic would say "well thats sports"
we know for a fact that an EMT will have a higher probability of saving lives if they take a CPR course and practice before hand.
as for combat....
The great war strategist of Roman times, Vegetius wrote in the year 450 in a letter to the emperor..."Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training"

we know study and practice improves the likelihood of success. we know it empirically and intuitively.
The issue then is that the success of martial arts in self defense is a much more of a complicated subject than just skill.

back to the motor cycle helmet. the helmet gets left in the saddle bags rather that on your head. the significance is that these skills need to be brought into play and thats not an easy thing to do. the skills often get left behind when we need them. Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE" after 5 wins. that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights.

i have mentioned many times that the brain needs to make connections. there is a lot of MA training out there that does not resemble the kind of situations that we will encounter on the street. this leaves the brain looking for a proper response and neural connection and it wont find anything. the brain needs to make the connection therefore training must look like what we will encounter.
practice must resemble the reality.

Mind set and the ability to do violence. most people naturally do not want to engage in combat.
After WWII the US military changed the practice targets from a round dot to a human like silhouette. the result was a dramatic increase in the firing rate.
Dave Grossman has written a few books on this subject but it is nothing new. Ardarnt DU Picq wrote about the same conclusion is 1870. ( i have a suspicion that Grossmans conclusion was nothing more than reading Du Picq'a work)
Yet we know for a fact historically and have the data to show that PROPER training will and does overcome the reluctance to engage in combat. This leads to the question on why someone would be reluctant to fight.. the answer is simply fear. its obvious that if the soldier fires his weapon that return fire is a given result. so it becomes evident that with proper training fear can be overcome.

the ending question then is "Is your training giving you the tools to be successful" not an easy question and many do not like the answer.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure how that relates, Hoshin.

Wearing a helmet is the least effective method of surviving a crash. So it becomes argument against bothering.

The counter is in very specific circumstances it is the only thing that will lead to surviving a crash.

You won't need to fight until you do. But for it to be useful you need it all the time.

ATGATT.

 

[drop bear]

It's an interesting metaphor, but there are a few key differences that are important. First, there is real data regarding motorcycles. Lots of it. There are crash statistics, mortality stats, there are even studies quantifying the effectiveness of helmets in preventing death and also brain injury. Martial arts don't have any of that.

Second is that motorcycles are a voluntary risk. While helmets mitigate the risk of riding a motorcycles there is a way o guarantee you are 100% safe. Just don't get on one. The relation is closer to folks who,knowingly engage in high risk behaviors. Like being a cop. I'd say a taser, a radio, martial arts or a gun for cops are the corollary to a helmet for motorcyclists.

Martial arts for civilians is more like the little rubber strip on a car that might ground it if its ever struck by lightning or to discharge static electricity so they don't blow up at the gas station. Does that work? I really don't know, but people have them, and I guess if their car is ever struck by lightning, they will have the last laugh.

But we know where martial arts does work. And can work off that. And a lot of safety equipment like helmets use method that only approximate the real thing.

If you look up arguments for creation over Darwinism they take the same tact that you can't really know. But you follow enough different arrows pointing to one place. That is the likely place.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

 

[jobo]

ill get to that in a minute.


two different concepts mentioned here. The likelihood of being attacked and the survivability of an attack.
to say this about the survivability is a legitimate concern. But it is a concern of personal significance it does not really apply in a general sense. i struggled with this idea for many years when had just started. maybe we all ask "will what i am learning actually work?" it doesnt apply in the macro view. in general this is an empty argument because we have to much evidence that says otherwise.
the argument that there is no data to support the idea is the equivalent of saying that we cannot say for sure that one billion plus one billion equals two billion because there is no possible way to count each item one by one to come to such a conclusion. the fact is that we can add one plus one, and we can extrapolate the answer to the larger question.
We know that to play pro sports takes many hours of practice. Tiger woods did not get good at golf watching Tom and Jerry cartoons.
the critic would say "well thats sports"
we know for a fact that an EMT will have a higher probability of saving lives if they take a CPR course and practice before hand.
as for combat....
The great war strategist of Roman times, Vegetius wrote in the year 450 in a letter to the emperor..."Victory in war does not depend entirely upon numbers or mere courage; only skill and discipline will insure it. We find that the Romans owed the conquest of the world to no other cause than continual military training"

we know study and practice improves the likelihood of success. we know it empirically and intuitively.
The issue then is that the success of martial arts in self defense is a much more of a complicated subject than just skill.

back to the motor cycle helmet. the helmet gets left in the saddle bags rather that on your head. the significance is that these skills need to be brought into play and thats not an easy thing to do. the skills often get left behind when we need them. Rory Miller has said that aircraft fighter pilots are only recognized as an "ACE" after 5 wins. that for the h2h fighter your skills will not come into play until about the same amount of fights.

i have mentioned many times that the brain needs to make connections. there is a lot of MA training out there that does not resemble the kind of situations that we will encounter on the street. this leaves the brain looking for a proper response and neural connection and it wont find anything. the brain needs to make the connection therefore training must look like what we will encounter.
practice must resemble the reality.

Mind set and the ability to do violence. most people naturally do not want to engage in combat.
After WWII the US military changed the practice targets from a round dot to a human like silhouette. the result was a dramatic increase in the firing rate.
Dave Grossman has written a few books on this subject but it is nothing new. Ardarnt DU Picq wrote about the same conclusion is 1870. ( i have a suspicion that Grossmans conclusion was nothing more than reading Du Picq'a work)
Yet we know for a fact historically and have the data to show that PROPER training will and does overcome the reluctance to engage in combat. This leads to the question on why someone would be reluctant to fight.. the answer is simply fear. its obvious that if the soldier fires his weapon that return fire is a given result. so it becomes evident that with proper training fear can be overcome.

the ending question then is "Is your training giving you the tools to be successful" not an easy question and many do not like the answer.

you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.
one) troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who refuse to follow orders has been a method of control.

second. The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveopong MA skills also guarantee a high,standard of physical fitness.

that true of soldiers, but not at all a guarantee with a MA school, where it seems many reach high levels with out deveoping a matching degree of fitness.

so the whole MA training works as it works in armies, is based on a false premise

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you make a good case, but seems to ignore two problems.
one) troops are effectively brain washed to follow orders no matter how dangerous the situation might be, so its less removing fear more doing it anyway, not least that through out history killing your own soldiers who tmtefised to follow orders has been a method of control.

second. The whole MA works thing can only be said to be true, if deveopong MA skills also gautentees a high,standard of physical fitness.

that true of soldiers, but not at all a gautentee with a MA school, where it seems many reach high levels with out deveoping a matching degree of fitness.

so the whole MA training works as it works in armies, is based on a false ptemise

To the first point, there's documented evidence that soldiers were (and still are, though to a lesser extent) actually reluctant to fire. One study I read (I think it referred to the Vietnam war) said a large number (far more than half) of the soldiers surveyed admitted (in anonymous interviews) to having purposely fired their guns in a harmless direction (well over the heads of enemies, for instance).

To the second point, a high level of fitness is not necessary to defend for 10-30 seconds, especially against someone who is less skilled. It certainly helps, but I know some guys in their late 50's, with a gut, whose skill/ability at sparring far surpasses my own. If we went hard, my more extensive grappling would be the only thing that might give me a chance. Would they be more capable if they were more fit? Probably. But they are quite capable without being more fit.