Chilly Dog

I'm interested in some informed opinions on the following topic: I was on another forum, and found many people that held some interesting views on self defense. For example:

1) The average martial artist is inadequately prepared to defend him or herself in the street (I agree);
2) In any street interaction, the person who wants to win the most and is willing to do whatever it takes to win almost always will win (I agree); and
3) The typical martial artist loses not only because the technique is unrealistic, but also because (summarizing here) he or she is unable to induce the hyper aggressive, rage-filled state that is most often necessary to triumph on the street (I...don't know about that!)

I'm interested in the opinions/experiences of others in this area. As stated, I definitely agree with the first two, but tend to believe the opposite on the third. In my experience, I've been able to avoid many conflicts by remaining calm. Furthermore, I believe I've been more effective when I've had to defend myself by maintaining some control. Now, I agree 100% that aggressiveness is very important in successfully handling an attacker. However, I've never thought that the enraged, out-of-control, throw a million punches strategy works unless it intimidates your opponent. The quick example I'll give, although it took place in a different forum, is Holyfield-Tyson II. In the 30 seconds after the infamous bite, Evander became enraged (Tyson was already so), and I recall them throwing more punches than in the entire rest of the fight. They were toe-to-toe, blindly flailing away. And nothing was landing! Now, I realize that boxing isn't street defense, so please don't respond to point out the obvious. But in my experience, the same principle applies. Others agree/disagree?

Chilly Dog

By the way, although I tended to remain calm in the situations where I've defended myself, I believe MORE aggression would have been useful in two areas:

1) It would have led me to be pre-emptive, rather than reactive. In other words, I wouldn't have waited until I got hit to do something once I realized that I couldn't avoid the conflict. Looking back, my inaction was almost laughable ("hmm, why is he standing in a fighting stance...I didn't do anything to him. I'll just stay here leaning up against this car. He just asked if I'm ready to take his lefts....I wonder what he meant by that?")

2) It would have prevented me from pausing to "admire my work." I tended to do one technique and then stop to see what impact it had. Fortunately, although the impact wasn't always what I thought (ie. knockout, like it always was with my partner in class ), it did have enough effect to make my opponent much less willing to continue.

However, training was helpful in that I didn't panic when I got hit and did instinctively react with at least one technique. But, at present, while I avoid conflict, as soon as I determined that I couldn't, I would try to end the situation before it really began. Fortunately, I haven't had to defend myself on the street in more than twelve years. Confidence and assertiveness definitely helps diffuse potential problems!

bartjam

Your last post contains two good points: the importance to be pre-emptive, and to use the killing instinct, bearing in mind you're not supposed to be beautifully technical, but to survive. Hit and run is the safest strategy when confronted to dangerous aggressors.
Real SD is based on simple concepts, that are repeated thousands of times on internet... still they're not very easy to apply for martial artists, for many reasons, mainly psychological....

__________________
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."

Winston Churchill