I'm referring to the concept that "there are no rules on 'the street'." There definitely are. Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean that there aren't any. The rules might be (probably are) different from what you're used to, few, less restrictive, and may change based on what street you're standing on, but there usually are "rules."
Define "Mastery" and then differentiate it between a single technique and an entire system.
No it's not. It's as ancient as fighting and wearisome in its predictability. Even in the Modern context it's still decades old. Does no one but me remember LeBell vs Savage?
It has its uses.
Actually, then gent specified an MMA or BJJ trained fighter. They are not "largely untrained in grappling arts." And, to be perfectly honest, the only way to stymie a grappler is either with grappling or with weapons that prevent grappling range. I have one friend, a skilled Silat player, who's answer for a BJJ takedown attempt is, "I'll stab you." When confronted with the fact that stabbing a takedown grapple isn't really "anti-grappling" per se, his response was, "I'm too old to take a beating." OK. Fair enough.
In one respect, it never was. "Grappling vs. Striking" fighting is a silly and artificial distinction. The real answer is "Grappling AND Striking." Which is what MMA (and sometimes BJJ) does. In another respect, the <ahem> "debate" is relevant because an instructor is saying he is/will offer self defense seminars teaching techniques to effectively prevent attacks by trained MMA/BJJ attackers and is using examples of these defenses that people with experience in grappling seem to believe indicates a lack of understanding and which would likely be ineffective for the specified purpose.
Sure. They suck, generally.
Too late. A thread participant already offered that he teaches self defense seminars and in them teaches techniques (to people who would take a one-day seminar) on how to stymie a MMA/BJJ trained fighter. Thread's done, man.
No I'm not suggesting that we can't be prepared for certain situations I'm just saying that we don't know what will or may happen in a situation and because of this we cannot be 100% prepared for the numerous ways a situation can get worse.
being trained in a fighting system doesn't mean that the person is good at it. Being trained in a fighting system doesn't mean you are an expert.
Sure. But anybody can succeed against poorly trained idiots. No special classes required.
Laws do not always prevent an attack we have tons of criminals in jail that prove that. Some understand the consequence and will still do the action.
Having rules in a sporting event doesn't mean that people won't break them. It just means that if they get caught they pay the consequences.
Sounds reasonable. That covers both laws (explicit) and cultural norms (understood) that affect conduct and provide potential consequences for said conduct. That would cover most of my examples and a whole lot more. As I said, the main difference between sport and "street" is that in sport the rules are more likely to be known to all parties, symmetric, and consistently enforced.
For anyone who insists that "there are no rules in a real fight," I offer this scenario:
You're an umpire for a Little League game. One day you make a call that a player's parent disagrees with and the guy comes up to you, screaming, insulting you, maybe even shoving you. He's clearly looking for a fight, so you grab his neck, pull him into a few hard knee strikes, throw him as hard as you can, then mount him and start raining down punches until you are pulled off.
When you are hauled into court for criminal charges (and the inevitable civil case - did I mention that this guy was a successful businessman before you inflicted permanent disability on him) you proudly tell the judge "It was a fight. There are no rules in a real fight."
Exactly how well do you think that will go over? Think you'll avoid going to jail and having your saving account emptied?
Bear in mind that everything you did would have been perfectly acceptable in the UFC. Surely it can't be the case that "real life" could have rules more restrictive than sport competition?
Hey, I was being restrained. Some of the guys who are most insistent about "no rules in a street fight" and "better tried by 12 than carried by 6" are the same ones who like to demonstrate 16-move combinations that start with a chop to the trachea and end with a stomp to the head of a downed opponent. There may be an eye gouge or a neck break somewhere in the middle.I understand and appreciate what you're pointing out, really, bro. But.
My attorney is one of my old school Black Belts. He is a Criminal Defense Attorney and also a civil litigator. (hey, you can't save them all) He is also a fine Martial Artist who grew up hard. He wouldn't let you state to the judge "It was a fight. There are no rules in a real fight." He wouldn't do that anymore than you would close your eyes and walk backwards into a fight while whistling Dixie and shooting a beer.
And, as far as this goes "He's clearly looking for a fight, so you grab his neck, pull him into a few hard knee strikes, throw him as hard as you can, then mount him and start raining down punches until you are pulled off."
You wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that. Nobody you teach or train with would do that and nobody I teach or train with would either. So, who would? Nobody we know, that's for God damn sure. So, who are we talking about? Nobody that we are even remotely associated with. (nice try, though, bro)
