Tweet
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?
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?
), it did have enough effect to make my opponent much less willing to continue.
Comment