Attacking an opponent on the street

[Tant01]

Thanks for your time bodhisattva. I was curious about your training. I think you would like a karambit... Silat, Kempo, JKD, it's a good tool for the arsenal no matter what your "style" is (or is not)

My left hand has absorbed some damage over the years, more than it's share. there are better methods.

[shuyun]

I tend to agree with bodhisivata that you cannot train for specific techniques and make assumptions on the street regarding knife fights.

Unless you actually train with live blades intent at killing each other I believe that the best training simulations will always fall short though some shorter than others.

As a survivor of a knife attack (taken from behind in a textbook knife to the throat) let me tell you that there is nothing text book about a textbook situation. With a knife to the throat I did not worry about my wrong moves but rather HIS wrong moves. If he gets a little to shaky that knife could be shaky into my throat! so with no assumptions I grabbed that knife hand with both hands and kept my eye on the knife knowing full well that he could shift grips. And guess what, he did! At one point he was at my mercy and was in position to deliver a killing technique but adrenaline froze all fine motor skills and my forearm was too pumped to do anything else.

He also had me at his mercy at one point (how quickly the fight changes) he had me on the ground and he was leaning over me and the knife was an inch away from my gut with his full body weight. I would have had it if my girl (yeah i was saved by my girl) didn't slap him acropss the back with a jacket. Lame attack but good distraction. I got up and he had enough of the struggle and ran away with my phone (dang I knew I was forgetting something). Oh he had buddies who did'nt feel like joining the fray (just as well whew!)

My point is my training did not all kick in (not trained enough? maybe, but I'm still around) because the adrenaline dump was not anticipated. What kept me alive was sheer instinct but what martial arts kicked in was strategy and awareness not technique. For all I knew I used judo on the ground not FMA but with an FMA mindset. You see you can't and musn't be consciously thinking out there (I guess we know that already) take time to think and you're one foot is in the grave.

When he does this do this then that... if not crap well.. its very costly. If you can pull off a lock, defang and come out unscathed I salute you. You the man! But we can't all do that. It just is.

But here in defend.net we come from different martial arts backgrounds. We can't all be training in FMA to just learn knife fighting, we can't all be 6th dan karatekas to break layers of bricks, we can't all be capoeira maestros so we can flip with a single handspring. We are better off learning strategy from each other and see how our own martial arts/fighting styles can adapt to that situation.

Its not the art people, its the artist. Out there we don't DO martial arts, we simply move, percieve, react and survive. Leave your blackbelt or whatever rank it is that you have in your training hall and fight like hell.

[BeingAtOne]

I think all these answers have a good reasoning behind them and that its is totaly unpredictable but also important to train to condition oneself. The training i think is not as important as them mental preperation which is very hard if not imposible to simulate while training but it helps to have some then none. From my own Experance about 4 years ago with being attacked by an assailant with a knife all my Disarming training did not help me to disarm him like i wanted to but it did get me aggresive enough to have not noticed i had been stabbed in the hand and shoulder and It helped me stay determind to get rid of the weapon and to take this guy out which i was able to do thank fully. Now do I think this was the best approach no way i got stabbed which hurts like a (%$&$^). But it gave me insight about how to train more of my instincts and not worry about a cut or stab wound but to just focus on disarming and Dispatching the opponent not to say I can today but i stand a better chance and Im improving. Aswell as learning that to much technique really does not help develop instincts this is just my opinion.

[shuyun]

exactly, someone once said techniques don't win a fight attributes do. Attributes like speed, presence of mind, timing, agressiveness, determination, don't forget strength and flexibility.

Take not it's not proper form or teachnique. They count for something only if you have your attributes solid. A coward of a blackbelt won't mean much neither will an absent minded expert of whatever art. More people die from stupidity than from anything else.

[bodhisattva]

Shuyun, I agree with all of your points. But I'd have to say that you statement "It's not the martial art but rather the martial artist" is not entirely true. The martial art SHOULD BE building, shaping and changing the ARTIST. So, what I'm saying is, a man's training techniques, if they be any good, should be shaping him and making him stronger, last longer, and most importantly : improve his technique.

The same thing for your statement about attributes. If it REALLY IS attributes that make one a better fighter, then we should all just lift weights, do bodyweight calisthenics, and run interval sprints.

The idea of a martial art is to give the person "non attribute based skills". That is what makes BJJ so useful, is that it gets AWAY from the attributes.

But the attributes do play their part. It's obviously better to have a reservoir of more strength than less strength. But that strength should be trained to use non-attribute based skills.

And those skills have to be trained against a RESISTING opponent. And resisting means seriously resisting. Training skills against RESISTING opponents, and OFTEN (every class) is what creates instinct, BeingAtOne. Fight everyday with your mates, and instinct arises of it's own.

The thing is to fight in class.

Eh?

[ranoutofsn]

attributes and skill

Bodhi,

I would have to question your statement about "non-attribute" based skill should be the goal in fighting training. Exactly what fighting skills are "non-attribute-based"? The example you give, to practice against a "really" resisting opponent is to develop a strength/power-based skill, not a "non-attribute-based skill". Every fighting skill requires any number of highly developed attributes (whether they be speed, power, agility, etc.) if that skill is to be executed with maximum effectiveness (and efficiency). If you're saying one should try to develop those attributes while doing that particular skill to the exclusion of general attribute training such as weight lifting or sprinting, that is both true and false. One must incorporate both general and skill specific attribute development if the skill set is to be fully developed.

[bbbb]

attribute's(personal) v's basic skill's...

good topic!

[shuyun]

"It's not the martial art but rather the martial artist" is not entirely true. The martial art SHOULD BE building, shaping and changing the ARTIST. So, what I'm saying is, a man's training techniques, if they be any good, should be shaping him and making him stronger, last longer, and most importantly : improve his technique."

exaclty sir, but in training to improve technique one should learn to abstract and not hold on techniques simply as they were given. then a martial artists attributes determine which techniques for him are more appropriate. being picture perfect is less desireable than being effective.

The same thing for your statement about attributes. If it REALLY IS attributes that make one a better fighter, then we should all just lift weights, do bodyweight calisthenics, and run interval sprints.

if you think about it it may actually prove to be beneficial. consider one who grew up in a bad hood and has learned the ways of the street learned in techniques of situation appraisal, strategy facing off multiple opponents all outside the dojo. and at the same time is very athletic.

or consider why martial arts tournaments have weight classes. Sugar Ray Leonard in his prime would have lots of trouble with George Foreman in is rumble in the jungle prime. Ali won yes, but they were of comparable strength build and endurance.

The idea of a martial art is to give the person "non attribute based skills". That is what makes BJJ so useful, is that it gets AWAY from the attributes.

Yes that is true, but wouldn't it benifit the martial artist if he did have beter attributes? more endurance would mean more technique reps. more flexibility would mean higher kicks, resistance to locks, agressiveness would mean more forward pressure and so on. And even the Gracies pump iron. Seen how buff royce is recently?

But the attributes do play their part. It's obviously better to have a reservoir of more strength than less strength. But that strength should be trained to use non-attribute based skills.

correct sir, but let us not underestimate mediocre martial artists or even novice martial artists with extreme attributes. we have all seen clumsy old bob sapp beat technically and stratigically better fighters simply overcome by a lucky shot because his extreme strength is taken for granted. of course he can be beaten but he is not to be taken lightly simply because he is not much formally trained.

And those skills have to be trained against a RESISTING opponent. And resisting means seriously resisting. Training skills against RESISTING opponents, and OFTEN (every class) is what creates instinct, BeingAtOne. Fight everyday with your mates, and instinct arises of it's own. The thing is to fight in class.

yes this is true, but how do your mates fight back. inevitably in the dojo the instructor would not allow certain techniques (not because he is traditional) but because he'd probably want to avoid a lawsuit. Unfortunately some attributes (such as a killer instinct) only come out in the context of your first life-threatening encounter.

We seem to be from different sides of the fence. I prefer to root in attributes then develop techniques around the person's more natural attributes, your aproach is vice-versa but what is important is that we agree that neither technique or attributes should be taken for granted.

Belated Merry Christmas.

[bodhisattva]

Ok. Ok. "NO" - to everyone.

First off: "attribute" is an abbreviation of "physical attribute". So when I say "non-attribute" I am not refering to "knowledge", or "knowledge of proper timing", or "knowledge of leverage" for those are not physical attributes.

By "non-attribute based" I am saying that martial art is about teaching people LEVERAGE : WHERE to apply the POWER for best effect, and WHEN.

NOWHERE am I saying attributes are "unnecessary" or "harmful" to the fighter. I come from a high school wrestling background. You think I don't respect strength? Give me a break.

It would be ridiculous - and I agree with your thinking it's a "crock of shit" to make such statements. Totally.

But I didn't make those statements. You didn't understand me.

My point: Think about the guys when they come in to the gym and first start wrestling. They could have great attributes - strength, speed, stamina.. from other sports.

But if they can't wrestle, they gas fast.. their stamina, misused, and their strength, when misused, dissappear quickly.

but wrestling/bjj/judo..these are skills.. They are about applying pressure in the right place, at the right time, for greatest effect.

WITH LOTS OF PHYSICAL STRENGTH..

And that is the whole point of martial art. The person trains their own meat-bag until it is strong and healthy and useful. Then the coach teaches him how to use that body to best effect. Most efficiently. With the smoothest, quickest answers to the problems found on the mat.

That is what non-attribute means. Efficient. It means it WORKS WITH physics. Not it WORKS AGAINST PHYSICS.

It is like lifting your car with a jack as opposed to using your hands. The jack is a technique that provides your incredible attributes with LEVERAGE. and leverage is the magic. Leverage is non-attribute based.

[ranoutofsn]

Follow-up

Hi Bodhi,

While I cannot speak for anyone else who has responded on this particular forum, my response has been based on what you have posted. Any lack of understanding on my part is most likely due to misuse or mis-application of terms, concepts, and or principles in your post.

One of the weaknesses I have found over the years in martial arts and combat sports is the lack of application of sports/exercise science to training. This comes about as a result of a lack of education in and understanding of the principles that govern these sciences. Martial arts and combat sports training lag far behind other more “mainstream” sports in this regard. Most participants and instructors in martial arts and combat sports have a belief-based approach as opposed to an evidence–based approach (and by evidence-based, I mean true quantitative and qualitative scientific research and applications).

What many martial arts and combat sports participants (and instructors) claim is "scientific research" is actually more of an individual trial-and-error validation of a particular method or skill. This is more akin to a case study than true empirical research. Anyone familiar with research understands that while case studies often provide valuable information about a particular situation, the external validity of the "research" of that specific situation (in the case of martial arts/combat sports) is questionable. External validity, basically, is the measure of generalization of the results of a particular research study. That is why such claims as, "this technique has worked for all our fighters" or "All my students have been able to defend or use this technique in the street" don't lend much validity to the technique since the number of people involved in that "study" were extremely small and confined to a narrow application set.

I have also found that many will read a book or even a magazine article on some particular aspect of sports science and try to apply the principles or concepts presented without any real depth of understanding on the part of the reader. Often, such an the application results in only a partial development of potential on the part of the artist or athlete. The martial arts instructor then may present their "system" or "principle" as something new to the martial arts, when, in fact, it has been used in a more developed fashion in other sports or skill-related activities. Anyway, enough of my academic preaching.

To specifically address your post. Leverage is attribute-based. One cannot have leverage with out the attributes of strength and/or power. Leverage doesn't remove the need for force to be applied (read: strength or power), rather, it acts to decrease the amount one would need to move a given object. Archimedes supposedly said, “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”. Given a lever arm of that length, he would still have to apply a measure of force (strength) to move the world. Even with a carjack, one still has to apply strength to raise the car. There is no such thing as “non-attribute-based leverage”.

Next, the purpose of training (in a particular physical activity or sport) is to improve the neuromuscular skill (s) of the individual while at the same time increasing the attributes necessary to execute that skill set at the highest level. Training seeks to impact both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the specific skill (s). For the beginner, skill development is a higher priority than strict attribute development. However, once one has been able to achieve efficiency with a particular skill (and that isn’t achieved by practicing it a few times or for a few minutes as recommended by some programs – this is an example of a lack of understanding how skill acquisition occurs), the participant must focus on attribute development. The improvement in athletic performance at higher levels occurs not due to an increase in skill, but rather due to an increase in attributes related to that skill set.

Sorry to anyone and everyone to be so wordy, I rarely have the time to post during the school year (perhaps I am attempting to make up for it during winter break...lol).

[bodhisattva]

(shrug)

"Leverage may not be attribute based, but it's the same thing that makes a punch work, so is boxing non-attribute based?"

Correctly taught, yes, boxing is non-attribute based.

HOWEVER, boxing itself, when employed, uses one's attributes to best efficiency.

Contrast this with a Hip-Recoil reverse punch from karate. The reverse punch is very attribute based, as it uses very little of the inherent physics of the body to generate a punch.

However, in boxing, one is taught how to use the hips and the driving force from the feet to increase their power.

This is what "non-attribute" based means.

--


"I can tell you precisely how to counter a jab with a hook to the body, but it doesn't give you the ability to make it happen."

Sure. But its still not physical attributes thatt are getting in the way of my knowing it. You could teach an olympic gymnast how to counter a jab with a hook to the body, too. And HE also would not really know how to do it.

And an olympic gymnast has ALL the attributes, baby.

But he's still no boxer, for all of his strength, stamina and discipline. He may be able to hang with some boxers, but the REAL boxers will clean him up.

Why? Because he's not a boxer. He has great attributes, but non of the non-attribute skills.

The reason Tyson was such a bad-mutha was because he was one of those few heavyweights that has both A) great attributes and B) great non-attribute based skills. ("he was a heavy weight who fought like a lightweight" his how lots of people say this).


"while BJJ is awesome, and no martial artist that claims to train for reality should ignore it, it's simply not that special. It can't, as a system, do anything a hundred other martial arts and combative forms do all the time. It offers a set of principles in a given range."

I'm not arguing that at all. Sounds about right to me.


"Leverage is attribute-based. One cannot have leverage with out the attributes of strength and/or power."

This is where you are getting a little crazy. "Leverage" is to decrease the power necessary to accomplish the same task.

That is what leverage IS.

You see how this flies in the face of your saying it is attribute based.


"Your comment about newbies coming to the gym and running out of gas makes a point for conditioning a heck of a lot more than for anything else. The reason advanced guys can wrestle longer is...wait for it...conditioning! "

That really isn't the reason.

Lots of guys START wrestling in superb condition. They still tank out minutes into a match. Football players in highschool were like that every year. They'd show up to wrestling practice (at the end of football season) in the best shape they'd been in ever.

They'd tank, throw up, crybaby it, and leave.

The guys that stayed, they got better. It wasn't their stamina that got better.

It was their ability to put the energy and the force where it belonged, and to quit struggling when it would do no good.

--


"One of the weaknesses I have found over the years in martial arts and combat sports is the lack of application of sports/exercise science to training."

You should check out straight blast gym. They definitely started moving away from that weakness long ago. www.straightblastgym.com

[bodhisattva]

Yep. I'd say we agree on most all points - yet have slightly different ways of describing it in words.



You've also got quite a bit more experience than I, from the sound of it.

[shuyun]

Wait a minute. I leave the thread for 24 hours and you guys use up all the wind on attributes vs. technique . No more for me. Sniff!

you guys are great you should be on the other thread about stregnth beats technique.

Anyway, I know where you're coming from Brewer, attribute recognition is a reality check most technicians underestimate and end up paying for it.

I also know where you are coming from bodhisivata some guys seem too cocky and end up getting beat up by a "lesser" person.

I've been in both situations. I've underestimated my stockier friend to be slower than myself (then he suddenly bursts forward and I'm left retreating) or by someone I consider less knowledgeable but has good perception and i end up countered.

But one mistake I have corrected before getting my ass handed to me is to diss a veteran street tested traditional martial artist when you are the cocky crosstrainer in progressive martial arts.

This is for everyone who thinks of "traditional" as a bad thing. Not always.

[bodhisattva]

Keep in mind, I don't really see Brewer and I disagreeing. I DO believe attributes are important, and NEVER implied otherwise.

*I ALSO* argue with people that attributes are at least 60% of the fight. Actually, I usually say 90%.

The whole thing started because I describe the techniques of most applicable fighting systems as "non-attribute". That is where the problem was started.

And the real argument was really about semantics.. about the definition of the word "attribute".

So, don't think I was arguing, for even a second, that attributes are unimportant.

I was arguing that arts like BJJ/Boxing/Judo work so well because they have fighters with great attributes using non-attribute based techniques.

That was my only point in that regard.

[ranoutofsn]

Hi again, bodhi,

[chuckle]

Forgive my chuckle, no disrespect is intended, but these comments remind me of some of the undergraduate students in my intro to exercise sciences class.

One of the pronouncements these students make is what a certain term or concept is based on what they believe it or describe it to be based on their personal experiences, what a coach (also unfamiliar to any extent with sport science) has said, and/or what they read in popular (as opposed to scientific). One can define anything the way they want, that is the beauty of free speech. However, it doesn’t make their definition correct.

The exercise/sports sciences, in this case biomechanics, specifically defines what attribute-based and non-attribute-based means. Not to throw a wrench into this forum, the idea of a non-attribute-based technique in combat sports is absurd. A caveat is necessary here, the term "attribute" is not the correct term to use when qualitatively describing an athletic movement (read: a skill), but it has become the colloquial slang used in the martial arts.

The whole thing started because I describe the techniques of most applicable fighting systems as "non-attribute". That is where the problem was started.

And the real argument was really about semantics.. about the definition of the word "attribute".

I was arguing that arts like BJJ/Boxing/Judo work so well because they have fighters with great attributes using non-attribute based techniques.

In biomechanics (specifically kinematics), something is non-attribute based when only the skill is executed (without any speed, power, strength, etc.). The moment one applies any of these attributes to the skill, it is no longer non-attribute-based. One of the few sporting skills that would represent a non-attribute-based skill is target shooting with a light caliper pistol (and even this is arguable, since in this skill a modicum of isometric strength is required to hold the shoulder and elbow joints in extended positions for a period of time). To suggest that any combat sport skill is in the same biomechanical category as target shooting is absurd, and to use your phrase, "flies in the face" of the basis of biomechanics.

Again, one can define how they choose to use the phrase “non-attribute-based” but it would be incorrect on terms of science (biomechanics).

To briefly address some previous posts in light of sports science:

"Leverage may not be attribute based, but it's the same thing that makes a punch work, so is boxing non-attribute based?"

Correctly taught, yes, boxing is non-attribute based.

Contrast this with a Hip-Recoil reverse punch from karate. The reverse punch is very attribute based, as it uses very little of the inherent physics of the body to generate a punch.

However, in boxing, one is taught how to use the hips and the driving force from the feet to increase their power.

First, the goal is to teach the boxer how to execute the various techniques with maximum power and speed. The biomechanics of a technique performed slowly (without these attributes, relatively speaking) is vastly different from one done with speed and power. The old adage, "you perform as you train" holds absolutely true, biomechanically, in order to develop a fast, powerful technique, one must train it with speed and power.

Second, with all due respect, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of both karate techniques (at least the reverse punch) as well as basic biomechanics. To say that "The reverse punch is very attribute based, as it uses very little of the inherent physics of the body to generate a punch" and "However, in boxing, one is taught how to use the hips and the driving force from the feet to increase their power." is not only contradictory, but wrong. Both the boxer's cross and the karateka's reverse punch both are attribute-based and rely on physics to increase those attributes. Both the boxer's cross and the karateka's reverse punch use the hips to generate torque which allows for the translation of muscle force through the hand (fist).

Third, I do not know what this means, "uses very little of the inherent physics of the body to generate a punch". Exactly what are "inherent physics of the body". Except for inertia, I am not sure I what "physics" would be inherent.

"I can tell you precisely how to counter a jab with a hook to the body, but it doesn't give you the ability to make it happen."

Sure. But its still not physical attributes thatt are getting in the way of my knowing it. You could teach an olympic gymnast how to counter a jab with a hook to the body, too. And HE also would not really know how to do it.

And an olympic gymnast has ALL the attributes, baby.

But he's still no boxer, for all of his strength, stamina and discipline. He may be able to hang with some boxers, but the REAL boxers will clean him up.

Why? Because he's not a boxer. He has great attributes, but non of the non-attribute skills.

Your argument is superfluous.what he is missing are several attributes that are boxing-specific. It isnt that he just doesnt have the skill set, he hasnt developed the boxing-specific attributes necessary to be successful. By your example, he knows how to counter-move and to hook, however, he may be missing the attribute of technique-specific speed. He may be fast on floor exercises, but he has not trained in boxing to have the same level of speed in his punching or body movement. Study after study has demonstrated the specificity principle. Skill conditioning is sport specific. Because the gymnast has great stamina and strength relative to gymnastics, unless he also trains for boxing, he won’t have the boxing-specific conditioning. More importantly, he has not developed the response-specific attributes that would allow him to minimize his response time, and possibly, counter the punch. If all he has is a hook, then he doesn’t even have a true skill set specific to boxing. So he has neither the attribute-specific skills (imagine throwing a hook without speed and power, wouldn’t be much of a hook, now, would it, baby...lol).

Again, he does not succeed, not because, as you state "Because he's not a boxer. He has great attributes, but non of the non-attribute skills.", but rather, because he lacks the sport-specific attributes necessary.

"Leverage is attribute-based. One cannot have leverage with out the attributes of strength and/or power."

This is where you are getting a little crazy. "Leverage" is to decrease the power necessary to accomplish the same task.

That is what leverage IS.

You see how this flies in the face of your saying it is attribute based.

I am not sure how this "flies in the face of my saying it is attribute-based" [inquisitive look…lol]. If you place a lever-arm with the intent to move something, how does it get moved without applying some sort of force.The concept of "non-attribute-based" skill flies in the face of science, baby..lol (sorry, this is just too much like my discussions with my beginning students).

Now, lets do some basic math: work=force x distance. If one moves a 100 pound weight one foot, they have produced 100 foot/pounds of work. If they use a lever of some sort to move the 100 pounds one foot, they still produce the same amount of work, 100 foot/pounds. The difference is, the lever mechanism only required that they apply 70 foot/pounds to achieve that work. This is the same principle which is the basis for all the weight lifting machines on the market. It is why you are able to lift more weight on a machine than with free weights. However, the attribute of strength (or power depending on the way the lift occurs) is still necessary. As in the example, one must still apply 70 foot/pounds to move the 100 lb. weight.

A lever is a simple machine that transmits and changes mechanical energy from one place to another.

It is absurd to think that leverage is non-attribute-based. A lever doesn't eliminate force, it merely reduces the amount that one must apply to produce the same amount of work.

Again, however, if you choose to define leverage in your own terms, god bless america, it just isnt the scientific definition...lol

"One of the weaknesses I have found over the years in martial arts and combat sports is the lack of application of sports/exercise science to training."

You should check out straight blast gym. They definitely started moving away from that weakness long ago. www.straightblastgym.com

I am sure the gym is a decent place to train. I have reviewed the straight blast gym website and various other sources extensively. With all due respect, they do not use any real, in-depth scientific research or application in their training. I doubt that those involved with the gym have an understanding of research methods for sports sciences. Because one calls it scientifically-based doesn’t make it so. Because one claims to “research” techniques and/or training methods doesn’t make it true research, only trial-and-error review. That may work for the inidivdual, but when claims are made about how that particular method is superior to another, those claims are arguable at best, and fradulent at worst.

Do they (the sbg or any other gym) conduct some sort of quantitative or even qualitative analysis? Do they have the training and experience necessary to implement such research in a valid fashion? Claims are made about the efficiency and effectiveness of the techniques and methods but no real research is presented to validate those claims. Testimonials are not research. They are the purview of infomercials and scams. Neither is anecdotal information. Real research is generalizable and repeatable within the context of the original research. Effectiveness with a relatively small group (read: sample) is weak at best.

True application of sports science would involve the use of established analysis and training methods to try and maximize the student’s/athlete’s learning and attributes. Do they use lactate analysis, kinematic analysis, electromyographic biofeedback, etc., which have been used extensively in many other sports and physical activities for decades? I saw no reference to these or any others. Nor did I see any reference to any research results outside of the previously mentioned testimonials.

Again, to anyone and everyone, I apologize for the somewhat disconnected nature of this post. I had only 15 minutes between meetings, but I felt the need to lend an evidence-based perspective to this thread.

Have a great New Year and train hard.
Animo et fide.
Amare et sapere vix deo conceditur.

Ran