Tweet
Street violence vs ring aggression misconceptions
A couple of things became clear in this debate:
• Some people don't know the difference between direct method and artsy, classical MA.
People who kick and punch also take stances and posture, which is the equivalent of yelling "En garde!". Without being able to directly engage your opponent in close quarters it'll just become a drawn out brawl that makes for more time for other elements to be introduced. That is not intelligent.
• Some people think that being cut is the same as being killed.
Once cut all their will is gone, and therefore so is the fight in them. Once that's gone, it's over.
• Some people believe that arguments that escalate into fights are the same as muggings.
This couldn't be more wrong. Sure there can be violence in both, but one is abrupt and you're forced to asses and react without warning. I'm sure that ring fighters would do well in situations where they knew the violence was coming. No one said that they couldn't fight, but violence in the street is all about the science of the sucker punch and weapons. And nothing about boxing, kickboxing or wrestling teaches you to deal with those things rapidly and without making it a match. You don't save you ass by giving the other guy a chance. And you don't take away the other guy's chances by dueling or competing.
• Some people think that dealing with blades is impossible.
Musashi fought a great many duels using a wooden boken. Most of these duels were to the death. What Musashi showed the world by doing this is that once you have a level of mastery in the nature of a thing you can successfully deal with it even when severely handicapped. His choice of weapon did not matter because Musashi's greater understanding led him to develop an approach that allowed him to be superior despite his perceived position of weakness. And even though today's RBSD is predicated on the same methodology, it’s thought to be impossible by some people due to their own limitations.
• Some people actually believe in the supposed safety of "positions".
There are people who actually believe and practice everyday in what they feel are safe positions to work/fight from. These include the muay thai clinch, the wrestling shoot and clinch, the BJJ mount and the guard, the boxing clinch. In what world do any of these positions offer any safety outside of schools and rings? Those positions were created to avoid getting struck by punches and kicks while trying to use your own offense. Any of those positions leave you wide open to weapons, and some of them leave you completely immobile so that you can't run or fight back when the second or third guy decided to put in his two cents. Where's the awareness and intelligence in that?
• The people who believe that kickboxing and wrestling work on the streets don't factor in size.
One of the biggest elements that people who think that ring sports work in street altercations don't factor in is size. If sports like kickboxing and wrestling were so effective, then why can't women seem to use them to beat men? There are women who have beaten men in violent altercations, but they weren't kickboxing or wrestling them. If you put one of the 160lbs boxers from Thailand into K-1 against 200lbs+ men like Ewerton Teixeira this point would be made in one round.
The point would be that if your effectiveness is predicated upon your opponent being at or around your own weight/height, then what you're doing doesn't ring of reality. It's basically saying that you'll only fight for your life when the mugger is your size. A 160lbs man kicking and punching a 150lbs man would feel a lot different than the 160lbs man punching and kicking a 220lbs man. Power in boxing/kickboxing translates with size disparities. Weight makes big difference when wrestling. And once your opponent is larger than you, aside from a sucker punch you'd be attacking strength, and that is not intelligent.
I agree with the idea that those three qualities play an important role in self defense. Intelligence is a given. With that said, what would awareness and avoidance have done for the man in this news story? Is there a level of awareness that can stop you from getting sucker punched? It was my understanding that ANYONE can be gotten to. Hell, even Reagan got shot and he had several secret service agents always guarding him. And that wasn't a sniper job.
What would avoidance have done for the man in this story? Of course its always best to avoid confrontation when possible, but often times it isn't possible. And sometimes but not always, people get so wrapped up in avoidance that they put themselves in worse positions. The violence in this story and most other muggings is usually brought to the victim in hopes to intimidate or make it easy. I said it earlier and I'll say it again ... there's a difference between arguments that escalate and street muggings. In the city where people walk by and bump each other all the time and think nothing of it its hard if not impossible to be aware of everyone around you. Criminals know this and use it to their advantage every day.
My point here is that while awareness and avoidance are useful, they aren't flags sport competitors should wave everytime there's a discussion about self defense just so they can say seem intimate with self defense itself.
A couple of things became clear in this debate:
• Some people don't know the difference between direct method and artsy, classical MA.
People who kick and punch also take stances and posture, which is the equivalent of yelling "En garde!". Without being able to directly engage your opponent in close quarters it'll just become a drawn out brawl that makes for more time for other elements to be introduced. That is not intelligent.
• Some people think that being cut is the same as being killed.
Once cut all their will is gone, and therefore so is the fight in them. Once that's gone, it's over.
• Some people believe that arguments that escalate into fights are the same as muggings.
This couldn't be more wrong. Sure there can be violence in both, but one is abrupt and you're forced to asses and react without warning. I'm sure that ring fighters would do well in situations where they knew the violence was coming. No one said that they couldn't fight, but violence in the street is all about the science of the sucker punch and weapons. And nothing about boxing, kickboxing or wrestling teaches you to deal with those things rapidly and without making it a match. You don't save you ass by giving the other guy a chance. And you don't take away the other guy's chances by dueling or competing.
• Some people think that dealing with blades is impossible.
Musashi fought a great many duels using a wooden boken. Most of these duels were to the death. What Musashi showed the world by doing this is that once you have a level of mastery in the nature of a thing you can successfully deal with it even when severely handicapped. His choice of weapon did not matter because Musashi's greater understanding led him to develop an approach that allowed him to be superior despite his perceived position of weakness. And even though today's RBSD is predicated on the same methodology, it’s thought to be impossible by some people due to their own limitations.
• Some people actually believe in the supposed safety of "positions".
There are people who actually believe and practice everyday in what they feel are safe positions to work/fight from. These include the muay thai clinch, the wrestling shoot and clinch, the BJJ mount and the guard, the boxing clinch. In what world do any of these positions offer any safety outside of schools and rings? Those positions were created to avoid getting struck by punches and kicks while trying to use your own offense. Any of those positions leave you wide open to weapons, and some of them leave you completely immobile so that you can't run or fight back when the second or third guy decided to put in his two cents. Where's the awareness and intelligence in that?
• The people who believe that kickboxing and wrestling work on the streets don't factor in size.
One of the biggest elements that people who think that ring sports work in street altercations don't factor in is size. If sports like kickboxing and wrestling were so effective, then why can't women seem to use them to beat men? There are women who have beaten men in violent altercations, but they weren't kickboxing or wrestling them. If you put one of the 160lbs boxers from Thailand into K-1 against 200lbs+ men like Ewerton Teixeira this point would be made in one round.
The point would be that if your effectiveness is predicated upon your opponent being at or around your own weight/height, then what you're doing doesn't ring of reality. It's basically saying that you'll only fight for your life when the mugger is your size. A 160lbs man kicking and punching a 150lbs man would feel a lot different than the 160lbs man punching and kicking a 220lbs man. Power in boxing/kickboxing translates with size disparities. Weight makes big difference when wrestling. And once your opponent is larger than you, aside from a sucker punch you'd be attacking strength, and that is not intelligent.
Awareness, avoidance, and intelligence are the gold standard.
What would avoidance have done for the man in this story? Of course its always best to avoid confrontation when possible, but often times it isn't possible. And sometimes but not always, people get so wrapped up in avoidance that they put themselves in worse positions. The violence in this story and most other muggings is usually brought to the victim in hopes to intimidate or make it easy. I said it earlier and I'll say it again ... there's a difference between arguments that escalate and street muggings. In the city where people walk by and bump each other all the time and think nothing of it its hard if not impossible to be aware of everyone around you. Criminals know this and use it to their advantage every day.
My point here is that while awareness and avoidance are useful, they aren't flags sport competitors should wave everytime there's a discussion about self defense just so they can say seem intimate with self defense itself.
Comment