We don't throw straight rights in street fights.

[JowGaWolf]

If it de-escalates after punches are thrown, then the fight happened.

But de-escalation is still an option even after punches are thrown. If your shot lands hard enough that the other person doesn't want to continue then that hard punch has had a positive affect on de-escalation. Looking scared sometimes increases the chances of escalation. Looking tough or dangerous sometimes decreases the chances of escalation. In the event that you are attack without having a chance to employ de-escalation techniques a hard shot to someone's jaw or kidney may discourage them from fighting again. Avoiding a sucker punch and den knuckling up for defense may discourage that person from attacking again as their original intent was to catch you off guard.

When we talk about de-escalation we have to put it into context of what's trying to be de-escalated. If we are talking de-escalating a verbal argument then yes, once punches are thrown it means we failed at that point. We then go into another de-escalation attempt which is to stop the punches vs stop the argument. There's a couple of ways that can be done. stalemate, walk away, one punch hard enough that one of you doesn't want another. Even being out-skilled can ad in de-escalation. If I get into a fight with you and you move in such a way that makes me think I can't win, then it's possible that you can win without even having to return the punch that I threw.

Sometimes conflicts go in phases and each phase gives the person a chance to de-escalated it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is my point. It isn't linear.

I agree and we see this all the time in the street fight videos. How someone can eat a hard punch and not want another. The conflict then enters the yelling phase which is where things started originally.

That's like saying "I stopped my car after I hit that jaywalker, so they're fine, right?"

This is only correct if your goal was to stop your car and without regards to the jaywalker. Fore example, hitting a jaywalker my be preferable to swerving and into a crowd of other people because of it. if your goal is to not hit the jaywalker then the correct answer is "I stopped my car after I turned and hit another car" or " I stopped my car after I ran off the road"

You can de-escalate an argument so it doesn't turn into a fight or you can de-escalate a fight so that the other (or you) backs off and stops fighting. We can give linear examples for conflict resolutions but conflicts are rarely as linear as they are presented in self-defense. It's the same with fighting. "if they do this, then I'm going to do that." What ever you do, it's going to be clear that you'll be reading reactions of your possible attacker and managing multiple techniques of escalation and de-escalation.

We even see it here in the group from a verbal aspect. Where things get heated and sometimes an exit is available where the other person can save face. Some people take that exit and some people don't. Each person is going to be different, but knowing how to read the situation is going to play a vital role.

If I had to guess, people who are bad at reading the situation and recognizing the "exits" are the ones who often find themselves in more physical fights than the average person.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well is kung fu Wang a good or bad kicker. Because that will pretty much determine his kick at every opportunity self defense system.

I don't know. I've never seen him kick.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If your one basic method is reasonably comprehensive and you are training it properly. It is precisely the best way to handle skilled whatever.

I mean I can show you a video of bec beating a judo Olympian after 3 years of training that show exactly that basics done properly are the most efficient way to win fights.

Okay, so by "one basic method", it sounds like you're talking about a full system. Not how I read it the first time - thanks for clarifying. And I agree - one system can be used to cover all (all that can reasonably be covered, anyway). I don't think there's just one way, nor even one best way for that, but I do think the approach exists. What works will depend partly upon the individual, their commitment, and their interests.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ask your training partner to hold a kicking shield and run toward you with full speed. You then try to use your kick to stop your opponent's advance. If you can stop your opponent, you get 1 point. If your opponent's kicking shield pushes you back, you lose 1 point. Repeat this 60 times daily and keep your score. Train this for 1 years and get your final score (365 x 60 = 21,900 kicks).​

The day when your training can give you good score, the moment that you see someone throws a punch at you, the moment you will have a big smile on your face.

Is this the right way to develop any dependable MA skill? You can develop "1 punch drop" this way too.

This is a measure of one part of kicking. A useful part, but it doesn't map to whether you can get the kick off against someone who's resisting it, changing angles, and actually trying to hit you. Nor whether you're capable of recognizing the attack (since the scenario is unchanging, and you know what's coming).

It's a good drill, but I don't think it reliably measures the fighting ability of the kicker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not really.

I don't think it is that cut and dried.

You seem to be saying there is some sort of scale of fists up and stance that hinders the ability to deescalate a fight.

And I don't think it is determined like that at all.

The anger/threat process (what actually happens in the brain) reaches a point where it is almost self-escalating. Near that point, adding more threat indicators is likely to push them over the edge into fighting mode. It's a probability change, and (as with much in psychology) somewhat dependent upon the individuals involved, among other variables.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And then deescalated. So if we wanted to suggest that there was some point of no return that deescalation can no longer occur. (At least with a kangaroo) that is not really the case.

I think what folks are saying is there are things that can make de-escalation more difficult/more unlikely to be successful. Not that it becomes suddenly impossible.

Though it's worth considering that what you're saying makes every fight a de-escalation. None of them are endless.

 

[drop bear]

The anger/threat process (what actually happens in the brain) reaches a point where it is almost self-escalating. Near that point, adding more threat indicators is likely to push them over the edge into fighting mode. It's a probability change, and (as with much in psychology) somewhat dependent upon the individuals involved, among other variables.

Doesn't seem right.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Doesn't seem right.

What it seems isn't all that important.

 

[skribs]

Doesn't seem right.

Every fight someone has tried to pick with me has failed because I didn't give them any energy to feed on. When someone tries to pick a fight and you are nervous, it feeds into their predatory behavior. When they try and pick a fight and you amp them up by putting up your guard and challenging them, it amps their adrenaline and feeds into that fight desire as well. When you have a calm, neutral stance, there's no energy. They get no feedback and their aggression peters out.

Though it's worth considering that what you're saying makes every fight a de-escalation. None of them are endless.

Unless you're in a relationship. In which case you may be in a fight for days without even realizing it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

No. If hitting a guy deescalates the fight. Then the fight has been deescalated.

This is my point. It isn't linear.

If someone throws a punch at you, and if you give him a hard block that can hurt his arm, he may back up after that.

Old Chinese saying said, "People like to pick persimmon that is soft." Any hard persimmon won't be picked up by grocery customers.

 

[dvcochran]

I have done both. I don't think fists up are the deal breaker people think they are.

I mean I can put them back down without having to hit people with them.

I love seeing videos of life in other parts of the world. I never imagined some people wake up in the morning and think "I may punch a Kangaroo in the face today".
Great video.

 

[dvcochran]

If someone throws a punch at you, and if you give him a hard block that can hurt his arm, he may back up after that.

Old Chinese saying said, "People like to pick persimmon that is soft." Any hard persimmon won't be picked up by grocery customers.

That is the definition of an offensive block.

 

[dvcochran]

The anger/threat process (what actually happens in the brain) reaches a point where it is almost self-escalating. Near that point, adding more threat indicators is likely to push them over the edge into fighting mode. It's a probability change, and (as with much in psychology) somewhat dependent upon the individuals involved, among other variables.

Agree. That is an elegant way of saying we never know for certain what the other person will do.
There is an old saying in the automation world that goes something like "10 out of 10 measurement never accounts for number 11". So very true.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't know. I've never seen him kick.

Now you have.

Clips on my computer is the only thing that I still have plenty of. Will this make forum discussion more fun?

 

[dvcochran]

Now you have.

Clips on my computer is the only thing that I still have plenty of. Will this make forum discussion more fun?

I Love your old videos!
To be fair, there is quite a bit of theatrics in the first two videos.

 

[drop bear]

What it seems isn't all that important.

Fair enough. Where is your evidence.

 

[drop bear]

If someone throws a punch at you, and if you give him a hard block that can hurt his arm, he may back up after that.

Old Chinese saying said, "People like to pick persimmon that is soft." Any hard persimmon won't be picked up by grocery customers.

So your suggestion is the opposite of this idea.
"The anger/threat process (what actually happens in the brain) reaches a point where it is almost self-escalating. Near that point, adding more threat indicators is likely to push them over the edge into fighting mode. It's a probability change, and (as with much in psychology) somewhat dependent upon the individuals involved, among other variables."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So your suggestion is the opposite of this idea.
"The anger/threat process (what actually happens in the brain) reaches a point where it is almost self-escalating. Near that point, adding more threat indicators is likely to push them over the edge into fighting mode. It's a probability change, and (as with much in psychology) somewhat dependent upon the individuals involved, among other variables."

If I want to pick up a fight against someone, do you think I will pick up a weak person, or a strong person?

Sometime you have to put yourself in the bad guy's point of view.

 

[dvcochran]

If I want to pick up a fight against someone, do you think I will pick up a weak person, or a strong person?

Sometime you have to put yourself in the bad guy's point of view.

Have you never heard of picking the biggest guy in the room?