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.
