Fight Science! Did anyone watch this?

[thaiboxerken]

They get their asses kicked, of course. But the person who actually trains for those types of circumstances is going to be better off that the ring fighter.

I doubt it. Do you have any good evidence of a single person defeating multiple people in a fight, unarmed?

The point is that there are things which are useful for those types of fights which are not going to be very useful for competition in a ring.

Like what?

A serious competitor would be a fool to waste his training time on things which are not going to help him in the ring, but somebody who is training for a different kind of fighting is going to have other priorities, and is going to train differently.

How so? When I train MMA and when I train in Silat/FMA/JKD, the only things that really change are the weapons used. The timing and tactics remain relatively the same. Against multiple opponents, running seems to be the only effective tactic though.

For example, a MMA competitor is not going to waste any training time learning how to defend against weapon attacks, or how to use improvised weapons himself, because it isn't going to help him in the ring.

Many MMA competitors do train to defend against weapons. It's just not a priority because the timing involved is similar to avoiding haymakers and straights. Improvising weapons takes less than 5 minutes to learn.

Similarly, somebody who wants to know how to defend themselves in a real fight on the street is not going to spend a bunch of time learning things like ground fighting or reversals, because they aren't going to help him in the kind of fight he is training for.

He should learn ground fighting and reversals because these things help in the streets and in the ring.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ken,

I doubt it. Do you have any good evidence of a single person defeating multiple people in a fight, unarmed?

Well, I know of many cases where it has happened. I know a number of people who have done it.

The point is that there are things which are useful for those types of fights which are not going to be very useful for competition in a ring.

Like what?

Like defending against weapons.

A serious competitor would be a fool to waste his training time on things which are not going to help him in the ring, but somebody who is training for a different kind of fighting is going to have other priorities, and is going to train differently.

How so? When I train MMA and when I train in Silat/FMA/JKD, the only things that really change are the weapons used. The timing and tactics remain relatively the same.

But you have to train it, right? I do Inayan Escrima myself, and defending against a knife is substantially different than defending against a punch. And properly using a knife is a lot different than attacking bare handed. There are commonalities, of course, and a big part of the training is exploiting those similarities. But there are a lot of things you can learn about, for example, knife fighting, which are not going to be very relevant to unarmed fighting.

Against multiple opponents, running seems to be the only effective tactic though.

Depends on the circumstances. Will you run and leave your wife or child to be killed? Will you run if the attacker is faster than you?

Having multiple opponants is an overwhelming disadvantage, but that doesn't mean you should just give up.

For example, a MMA competitor is not going to waste any training time learning how to defend against weapon attacks, or how to use improvised weapons himself, because it isn't going to help him in the ring.

Many MMA competitors do train to defend against weapons. It's just not a priority because the timing involved is similar to avoiding haymakers and straights.

Not once you get past the basics. That certainly isn't how I attack with a weapon.

Improvising weapons takes less than 5 minutes to learn.

Well, I have been training it a lot longer than that, and I certainly don't feel like I have mastered it.

Similarly, somebody who wants to know how to defend themselves in a real fight on the street is not going to spend a bunch of time learning things like ground fighting or reversals, because they aren't going to help him in the kind of fight he is training for.

He should learn ground fighting and reversals because these things help in the streets and in the ring.

How do they help in the streets? What good is a reversal going to do against an opponent who doesn't have any idea how to do a lock or throw in the first place? Why would you go to the ground with someone when they could have a knife in their pocket, or a friend waiting for an opportunity to stomp your guts out?


Dr. Stupid

 

[pipelineaudio]

I doubt it. Do you have any good evidence of a single person defeating multiple people in a fight, unarmed?

I think the poster was talking about self defense. If thats the case, then my being alive is evidence of a single person defending himself unarmed against multiple opponents on an almost daily basis over the course of about 5 or 6 years.

Like what?

Running REAL fast Or stamina and flexibility gains from all that duckwalking around the dojo? That will CERTAINLY allow you to escape a situation better than without it.

Right?

Against multiple opponents, running seems to be the only effective tactic though.

Again I think the poster was talking about self defense. You wont necessarily (or even likely) be against multiple, super skilled opponents, just multiple opponents. When you cant run, some of that dojo potato stuff really does help some

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I know of many cases where it has happened. I know a number of people who have done it.

Anecdotes.

Like defending against weapons.

Covered.

But you have to train it, right? I do Inayan Escrima myself, and defending against a knife is substantially different than defending against a punch.

I don't think there is much difference at all. I use the same parries and covers against a knife that I use against punches and kicks. Weapons use the same angles of attack as limbs do.

And properly using a knife is a lot different than attacking bare handed.

Only the viable targets change.

But there are a lot of things you can learn about, for example, knife fighting, which are not going to be very relevant to unarmed fighting.

I wouldn't say "alot."

Depends on the circumstances. Will you run and leave your wife or child to be killed? Will you run if the attacker is faster than you?

What if the guy in the street is Chuck Liddel and you have no weapons?

Having multiple opponants is an overwhelming disadvantage, but that doesn't mean you should just give up.

Depends on circumstances. Aganist multiple opponents, you're more likely to lose anyway.

Not once you get past the basics. That certainly isn't how I attack with a weapon.

No, it is exactly how it is. The angles are still the same.

Well, I have been training it a lot longer than that, and I certainly don't feel like I have mastered it.

I've been doing it for 12 years and I feel that it's a simple feat. It takes less than a minute to learn how to club a person with a chair.

How do they help in the streets?

Chokes, armbars and positioning work in the streets just as well as anywhere else. The physics are still the same.

What good is a reversal going to do against an opponent who doesn't have any idea how to do a lock or throw in the first place?

Are you implying that all people in the streets don't know how to fight?

Why would you go to the ground with someone when they could have a knife in their pocket, or a friend waiting for an opportunity to stomp your guts out?

How would you avoid going to the ground if you slip and end up there in the first place? The ground is often a place that people end up without actually having the goal to go there. I'd rather know how to deal with being on the ground than to simply lie to myself and think that I can simply decide never to be there.

Even when weapons are involved, "Ground" happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9p6K6UG_7Y

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think the poster was talking about self defense. If thats the case, then my being alive is evidence of a single person defending himself unarmed against multiple opponents on an almost daily basis over the course of about 5 or 6 years.

Internet fights don't count.

Again I think the poster was talking about self defense. You wont necessarily (or even likely) be against multiple, super skilled opponents, just multiple opponents. When you cant run, some of that dojo potato stuff really does help some

The MMA stuff helps even more.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Internet fights don't count.

Whatever man. I commited the horrendous crime, daily, of carrying a skateboard in the 80's in areas of Hawaii other than Hawaii Kai and Kailua. I also dared to go places by myself.

This two attrocities guaranteed an average of a fight a day, and in Hawaii you are almost never attacked one on one

The MMA stuff helps even more.

Maybe. Who said they didnt?

I am just taking issue with the RIDICULOUS contention in this thread that physical training of ANY kind, even if it were break dancing or swimming, were not better than no training at all

Riding a skateboard helps me ride my bike better helps me surf better helps me fall better helps me avoid getting punched better. If you think it doesnt, your nuts

My next BMX video has one of my friends fighting a HUGE dude for five minutes. He cant fight, at all, but you will see the lighting fast dodges he does to keep from getting hit (and it works WELL) are the exact same head movements he does when trying to keep his teeth off of handrails and stairs. That and his stamina from riding are enough to wear the other guy out for long enough to give him a sound pummeling

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I really don't see how this conversation can possibly go any further without devolving into "does so/does not". All I can say at this point is that based on my own 15 years of experience with weapons, and what you have said here, that I think there is much more to fighting with weapons than you apperantly think there is.

But short of me showing you what I am talking about, I don't see how this can be resolved.


Dr. Stupid

 

[thaiboxerken]

Whatever man. I commited the horrendous crime, daily, of carrying a skateboard in the 80's in areas of Hawaii other than Hawaii Kai and Kailua. I also dared to go places by myself.

Oh yes, those streets are almost as dangerous as Malibu. What's it like in da hood, homie?

 

[thaiboxerken]

But short of me showing you what I am talking about, I don't see how this can be resolved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9p6K6UG_7Y

I've shown you how it's very similar.

Your 3 extra years of training doesn't say much to me, especially since I train both MMA and "combat" arts.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Oh yes, those streets are almost as dangerous as Malibu. What's it like in da hood, homie?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Ive never been to a more violent place in the United States (not that you are likely to get shot, but you WILL fight and fight often).

To be so far off on this matter, makes the rest of what you say, while initially more believable, now tenuous

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, we all know the ghettos of Hawaii are famous for it's violence. Those people even juggle fire and wear hulas! It's definitely a hot spot of action in the USA.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I'm not sure what it is that you think that video is supposed to be showing me. I also do not understand your extremely disrespectful and condescending attitude.

Dr. Stupid

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not sure what it is that you think that video is supposed to be showing me.

That ground fighting ability is a definite advantage even when weapons are involved.

I also do not understand your extremely disrespectful and condescending attitude.

I don't understand why you think I am displaying such attitude.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ken,

That ground fighting ability is a definite advantage even when weapons are involved.

Of course it is an advantage. Any ability is an advantage. The question is, how much of an advantage? Watch that video again, and tell me you honestly think that any of those fights would have gone to the ground if real weapons were being used, rather than light-weight sparring ratan? In most of the cases, the fights would have ended when the first head-shot or shot to the hand/rist was scored.

Not to mention the fact that in all of those cases, the fight went to the ground because at least one of the fighters wanted it to. Again, that all changes when real weapons are involved. If I've got a blade, you really don't want to go to the ground with me. Even if you win, you are going to get hurt, bad.

I don't understand why you think I am displaying such attitude.

Your dismissal of pipe's example of fighting multiple opponents, for one. Why don't you just come right out and call him a liar?


Dr. Stupid

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of course it is an advantage. Any ability is an advantage. The question is, how much of an advantage? Watch that video again, and tell me you honestly think that any of those fights would have gone to the ground if real weapons were being used, rather than light-weight sparring ratan? In most of the cases, the fights would have ended when the first head-shot or shot to the hand/rist was scored.

Those weren't light-weight sparring sticks. There are plenty of times where a good headshot or wrist/hand shot won the fight as well in those dog brother gatherings. It's one of the things they emphasize, hard contact.

Not to mention the fact that in all of those cases, the fight went to the ground because at least one of the fighters wanted it to.

Yes, it only takes one. If you don't know how to fight on the ground, you are only gambling that the other guy doesn't or doesn't want to take it there.

Again, that all changes when real weapons are involved.

A stick is a real weapon.

If I've got a blade, you really don't want to go to the ground with me. Even if you win, you are going to get hurt, bad.

If you have a blade, I'd probably prefer to go to the ground, where I can control your weapon hand. The advantage of a blade is cutting ability and the increase of range from the weapon. Immobilizing the arm takes those advantages away.

Your dismissal of pipe's example of fighting multiple opponents, for one. Why don't you just come right out and call him a liar?

I think he's simply exaggerating the reality of his skate-boarding days.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ken,

Those weren't light-weight sparring sticks.

Yes, they are. I've met Crafty Dog. I've seen the sticks they fight with, and they are rattan sticks, usually 3/4" or at most 1" diameter. Compare this to fighting rattan, which would typically be 1 1/4" and much heavier. I've seen such weapons inflict significant damage through 16 guage steel armor. And of course there is a reason why the various Filipino martial arts use rattan for their weapon training. It gives under impact. Hard wood is far more destructive.

There are plenty of times where a good headshot or wrist/hand shot won the fight as well in those dog brother gatherings. It's one of the things they emphasize, hard contact.

That just proves my point. Even with sparring sticks and using head and hand protection, a solid shot to one of those locations can end the fight. With real weapons, and without protective gear, a solid shot to one of those locations will end the fight.

That's why they don't do it. They want full speed and full contact. But they don't want fatalities and crippling injuries. So they use practice weapons and wear protective gear. As a result, the fights often end on the ground, rather than with one of the fighters being disabled by a strike.

Not to mention the fact that in all of those cases, the fight went to the ground because at least one of the fighters wanted it to.

Yes, it only takes one. If you don't know how to fight on the ground, you are only gambling that the other guy doesn't or doesn't want to take it there.

Or you could try to learn how to avoid having somebody take you to the ground. Seems to me that if you don't want to go to the ground, you are better off training to avoid going to the ground, than training for fighting in a situation you don't want to get into in the first place.

Again, that all changes when real weapons are involved.

A stick is a real weapon.

Those are practice weapons. Sure, they're still dangerous. So is my practice knife. But they are still practice weapons. They are chosen for the property they have of not inflicting serious injury very easily.

And let's not forget the protective gear. Without it, even with those light-weight sticks, pretty much every one of those fights would have ended long before going to the ground, with one of the fighters having a broken hand or wrist, and/or having his face smashed it. That's why they wear those masks and gloves.

If I've got a blade, you really don't want to go to the ground with me. Even if you win, you are going to get hurt, bad.

If you have a blade, I'd probably prefer to go to the ground, where I can control your weapon hand. The advantage of a blade is cutting ability and the increase of range from the weapon. Immobilizing the arm takes those advantages away.

That's not as easy as you apperantly think it is.

I think he's simply exaggerating the reality of his skate-boarding days.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe you are exaggerating your experience with MMA. Maybe I am exaggerating my experience with weapons combat. Maybe we are all just blowing smoke out of our asses. That really isn't the point.


Dr. Stupid

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, they are. I've met Crafty Dog. I've seen the sticks they fight with, and they are rattan sticks, usually 3/4" or at most 1" diameter.

They still hurt and still cause concussions and broken bones. I'm not sure I believe you either. The sticks look like the standard Escrima sticks to me on the tape.

That just proves my point.

No it doesn't. Hitting a person in the head or hand can end the fight, but the trick is in the actual execution.

That's why they don't do it. They want full speed and full contact. But they don't want fatalities and crippling injuries. So they use practice weapons and wear protective gear. As a result, the fights often end on the ground, rather than with one of the fighters being disabled by a strike.

No, often, most of the fights end up with a strike winning the fight.

Or you could try to learn how to avoid having somebody take you to the ground.

That would involve learning takedowns.

Seems to me that if you don't want to go to the ground, you are better off training to avoid going to the ground, than training for fighting in a situation you don't want to get into in the first place.

In order to avoid going to the ground, a person has to learn the takedowns and how to deal with them. Even at that, it's still very hard to avoid going to the ground if the other person wants you there. It can't always be avoided, so it's best to learn how to deal with the situation once there.

Those are practice weapons. Sure, they're still dangerous. So is my practice knife. But they are still practice weapons. They are chosen for the property they have of not inflicting serious injury very easily.

A stick is a weapon.

And let's not forget the protective gear. Without it, even with those light-weight sticks, pretty much every one of those fights would have ended long before going to the ground, with one of the fighters having a broken hand or wrist, and/or having his face smashed it. That's why they wear those masks and gloves.

They wear the gear, not to prolong the fight, but to try and avoid permanent injury. Many of the gathering fights still end up with wins due to strikes. The ground fighting does happen and can't be avoided sometimes, that's my point.

That's not as easy as you apperantly think it is.

It's something that needs to be trained. It's easier than you think it is, I'm sure.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe you are exaggerating your experience with MMA. Maybe I am exaggerating my experience with weapons combat. Maybe we are all just blowing smoke out of our asses. That really isn't the point.

The point is that I have always, and currently, trained both MMA and in the "combat" arts. I can make a comparison based on doing both. It seems that you have little to no experience with MMA, grappling and groundfighting. Your posts betray this of you.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ken,

Yes, they are. I've met Crafty Dog. I've seen the sticks they fight with, and they are rattan sticks, usually 3/4" or at most 1" diameter.

They still hurt and still cause concussions and broken bones. I'm not sure I believe you either. The sticks look like the standard Escrima sticks to me on the tape.

They are standard Escrima sticks. They are the same type of sticks I train with. They are training weapons.

No it doesn't. Hitting a person in the head or hand can end the fight, but the trick is in the actual execution.

There's not much "trick" to it. In the video you linked to, every one of those fights would have ended without going to the ground if they had not been wearing protective gear.

Or you could try to learn how to avoid having somebody take you to the ground.

That would involve learning takedowns.

Absolutely. Learning takedowns is vital to a fighter who doesn't want to go to the ground. Ground fighting is not.

In order to avoid going to the ground, a person has to learn the takedowns and how to deal with them. Even at that, it's still very hard to avoid going to the ground if the other person wants you there. It can't always be avoided, so it's best to learn how to deal with the situation once there.

It's a question of priorities. Am I going to spend my valuable training time learning to fight on the ground, or learning how to better avoid getting taken to the ground? It all depends on my goals.

Consider the point I made which brought all this up. Some techniques may be useful to somebody who doesn't want to go to the ground, which may not be useful in an MMA competition.

They wear the gear, not to prolong the fight, but to try and avoid permanent injury.

Obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that they do prolong the fights.

Many of the gathering fights still end up with wins due to strikes. The ground fighting does happen and can't be avoided sometimes, that's my point.

And my point is that it happens far less when you are not wearing protective gear and using training weapons, and even less often when you don't want it to happen, and have trained in preventing it from happening.

As for your other points, I really don't see any point in engaging in an argument about who has more relevant experience or does/doesn't know what they are talking about.


Dr. Stupid

 

[thaiboxerken]

There's not much "trick" to it. In the video you linked to, every one of those fights would have ended without going to the ground if they had not been wearing protective gear.

That's absolute BS. In the video I linked to, a couple of those fights went to the ground before a good strike was inflicted. Avoiding the strikes is a very important part of fighting, it's hard to strike with a stick if you are grappling.

Absolutely. Learning takedowns is vital to a fighter who doesn't want to go to the ground. Ground fighting is not.

Ground fighting is vital to a person who wants to survive when he fails to stop the takedown.

And my point is that it happens far less when you are not wearing protective gear and using training weapons, and even less often when you don't want it to happen, and have trained in preventing it from happening.

If a good grappler wants you on the ground, you're going to the ground. Even when both parties are strikers, a clinch is often part of the fight.

Ever wonder why Dumog is a big part of Kali?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ken,

That's absolute BS. In the video I linked to, a couple of those fights went to the ground before a good strike was inflicted. Avoiding the strikes is a very important part of fighting, it's hard to strike with a stick if you are grappling.

It certainly did not look that way to me.

Ground fighting is vital to a person who wants to survive when he fails to stop the takedown.

Again, it is a question of priorities. I am not saying that such a person should not train ground fighting, or that it will be useless to him. I am saying that it is not going to be one of his high priorities. Just as weapon training is not going to be a high priority of somebody who is primarily interested in MMA competition.

If a good grappler wants you on the ground, you're going to the ground. Even when both parties are strikers, a clinch is often part of the fight.

That is nothing more than a variation on "if your opponent is better than you, you are probably going to lose". I can just as easily say that if a good knife fighter wants to cut you, you are going to get cut. And again, there are many situations where neither person is going to want to go to the ground. In case you missed it the first dozen times I said it, I am not in any way claiming that ground fighting is not useful or important. My whole point is that there are techniques which are not useful to somebody who would be happy to go to the ground (such as an MMA competitor), which may very well be useful to somebody in another type of situation.

Ever wonder why Dumog is a big part of Kali?

Of course not. It is a part of Kali because it is a part of Filipino martial arts, and people like Dan Inasonto, Mike Inay, and others, are/were trying to preserve those arts. Complete martial arts systems typically try to cover all types of fighting, for all types of conditions. That is precisely why such systems contain many techniques and drills which somebody who is primarily interested in just one type of fighting or competition is not going to find useful.

This goes back to my original point, which is that seeing it done in the ring (or not) is not decisive as to whether it "works" or not. Some things don't work in the ring which will work elsewhere, and some things work in the ring which wont work in other particular conditions. You can't just dismiss everything that isn't useful to an MMA competitor as being useless.


Dr. Stupid