Attacking an opponent on the street

[BeingAtOne]

The Mind set

I really like where this has been going very interesting and educational for myself. Im defenitly going to read more on the science of sports training and martial arts. I was curious what you guys think about the mind when it comes to fighting cause i mean conditions and skills are one thing but what about the mind I mean in the end it makes all the decisions. What motivates people to fight and how come some peopel can fight so well and not have trained in martial arts or boxing?

[bodhisattva]

"[chuckle]

Forgive my chuckle, no disrespect is intended,"

If you don't want people to feel disrespected, you should learn not to type "[chuckle]" before you post.

You see, when you type "[chuckle]" you are showing people disrespect.

Obviously you know this, or else you wouldn't have typed "Forgive my chuckle, no disprespect is intended"

Dig?

---
Ok, now that we have graduated from "Very Basic Communication 101" we can continue:
---


The best way I can liken it for you is this:

The attributes are like the engine. The technique is like a transmission.

If you have a good transmission (non-attribute based), it will UTILIZE the power of the engine TO MAXIMUM efficiency.

If you have lousy gears in your transmission, the engine can be as strong as it wants, but it won't translate efficiently into forward movement.

But if you have a good transmission, and a 3 cylinder engine out of a metro, it really doesn't matter how good your transmission is, you have no powerplant.

BJJ, corectly taught and trained, has a great transmission. The techniques are primarily non-attribute based.

--

Now, if you want to argue that in the very end, the technique and the attributes are inseparable, then go ahead. I agree. I believe that EVERYTHING is a gestalt.

But, for reasons of communication, we use words to divide the universe. We separate things into "this part" and "that part" so that we can talk about each, and how they play their role in the gestalt.

So, I can understand your point. But it is a tangent from my point. Especially since yours is such an obvious point.

I mean, isn't it obvious that the persons physical body is doing the technique, so it's attributes will play a role in the technique? I really didn't think I had to spell that out, so I didn't mention it.


There is a POWERPLANT. And there is a DELIVERY SYSTEM for that power.

My point is that the delivery system need be as efficient as possible for that powerplant to fully deliver the energy.

And "as efficient as possible" means "non attribute based" because they don't solely depend on strength to work.

But, like I keep saying and saying, I think attributes are extremely important.

This can be shown by the following set of reactions.

1) Damn, that guy is really big.

2) Damn, that guy is really big, and, jesus, he's been thai boxing since he was 7 years old!

Both cases, the man is equally strong. But the Thai Boxer accomplishes his work with non-attribute based skills. And when they have his attributes behind them, he is much, much more troublesome than the guy in example (1).

That is why the techniques themselves are non-attribute based. Because a person with equal attributes, but untrained, cannot take the trained man with the same attributes.

Because his skills don't depend on his attributes, they depend on leverage and timing.

And when his attributes are behind that leverage and timing, he easily overcomes the man of equal size and strength.

[ranoutofsn]

Hi Mike, Bodhi, and everyone,

Fun little exchange here. Bodhi, of course I knew what I was writing.

"[chuckle]

Forgive my chuckle, no disrespect is intended,"

If you don't want people to feel disrespected, you should learn not to type "[chuckle]" before you post.

You see, when you type "[chuckle]" you are showing people disrespect.

Obviously you know this, or else you wouldn't have typed "Forgive my chuckle, no disprespect is intended"

Dig?

---
Ok, now that we have graduated from "Very Basic Communication 101" we can continue:
---

Bodhi, I guess you didn’t pick up on the underlying satire of my post. As you go through it, I rely on all the indeosyncracies you use in previous posts. The [chuckle] merely took the place of your (shrug). Every other ideosyncracy I used was yours (“baby”, “flies in the face”, etc). Sorry, just having fun, giving back the way you gave. But then, perhaps you don’t see your posts in that way. Ahh, well, “to thine ownself..”.

And I do thank you for the lesson in “Very Basic Communications 101”.

I also see that you like the word gestalt. Impressive.

Dig?..lol

Now, on to the content of the previous posts.


I loved your sentence

So, I can understand your point. But it is a tangent from my point. Especially since yours is such an obvious point.”

Methinks thou doth try to use big words I to prove thine pseudo-intellectualism [wink]. To that end, I will do my very best to address your points in a smart-guy fashion...lol.

Why not use the most obvious point instead of creating your own terms to describe an already known and extensively described phenomenon (i.e., that an efficient technique allows one to put more force into the technique)?

Bodhi, I understand what you are trying to get across when you try to describe your phrase, “non-attribute-based techniques”. I also understand your attempt to use analogies to explain what you mean (transmissions and engines and such).

You just do it in a convoluted fashion, instead of describing exactly what is going on. To label or define their techniques as “non-attribute-based” and use “POWERPLANT” , “DELIVERY SYSTEM”, and “transmission” only creates this convolution.

[love that word, convolution..reminds me of my freshman philosophy professor...lol]

As I stated before, a person can define the use of a term or phrase in anyway they want to. People often do this to try and make the object of their interest seem, somehow different, more important, or more significant than other objects in the same category.

I understand you have a faith in BJJ and place it high on the pedestal of the martial arts gods. To suggest that BJJ’s techniques are non-attribute-based and other martial arts techniques are not, is absurd (as with the reverse punch example you used previously). All martial arts techniques use the principles of physics and biomechanics to improve efficiency of execution and delivery. Some use leverage, some use momentum, some use torque, etc. to improve efficiency. Even the karate reverse punch does this. BJJ is not exceptional in that respect.

Why not just say that you prefer BJJ, and that is your personal preference. Why try to frame in pseudo-scientific terms? Why not just say that BJJ seeks to train their techniques as efficiently as possible. BJJ techniques have no special or magical qualities that make them any more or less efficient than others.

What you refer to as non-attribute-based is really just a technique which has been trained to use muscle contraction in as efficiently a way as possible (however efficiency is defined for that specific technique). Depending on the technique, that contraction may require speed, and/or power. BJJ techniques. BJJ training and techniques are no different than any other. The purpose in athletic training is to develop in the athlete the ability to apply the technique in as efficiently a means as possible. BJJ is neither better or worse to that end (than any other martial art/combat sport).

The purpose of training in karate, kung fu, wrestling, kickboxing, etc is to develop the particular techniques to be as you would put it, as “non-attribute-based” as possible. In any martial art/sport, the beginner will apply too much of a given attribute until the practice/training of that technique has made it more efficient (in your terms, “non-attribute-based”). That’s why they are beginners. They lack the neuromuscular coordination to, as you would say, “translate efficiently” the engine’s power.

So., why not just say, one needs to train the technique to make the technique more efficient so that they do not waste energy from lack of neuromuscular coordination of that skill.



Hi Mike,

personally think researching (and by that, I mean finding new and differing methods, learning them, attempting to apply them under varying circumstances and pressures, noting your results, and training specifically to improve those results when and where desired) is critical for growth. But one has to be careful. Things get bogged down the minute a definition or perception becomes the reality of a technique. Call it book knowledge vs. applied knowledge. We all know that there are sound, quantifiable formulas for virtually all motion. But who cares? In the end, either it works or it doesn't. Training, not book knowledge - sweat, not degrees and diplomas - win the day. I would put the most uneducated, unlearned thug in the ring any day against the most world-reknown physicist and pit ferocity, killer instinct, and will against understanding of motion. I'm not saying that understanding sport science is bad. Just the opposite. I'm not saying that the application of science to martial art is bad. Again, just the opposite. All I'm saying is that we should carefully guard against letting ourselves get tangled in the mire of teminology and definitions. If we exert as much effort toward understanding the concepts others try to get across as some exert toward getting them to read a dictionary, we'd all likely get along better and learn a lot more. Language, unlike science, is very, very subjective. Unfortunately, since it's what we communicate with, even scientists are prone to misunderstanding, since the thing they use to express their concrete findings is a fluid, subjective, and ultimately "recipient-interpreted" language.

Let me begin at the end of your post. It is precisely due to the inexact nature of communication that science defines terms and events so precisely. When we attempt to describe phenomenon in our terms, or with our own beliefs, that is when it gets confusing. If there is a simple scientific description for it, why mire it down with created phrases and/or analoques. ). The entanglement you refer to usually occurs as a result of these creations.Science tends to provide very simple descriptions of events (and progresses from there to those weighty formulas and explanations

As to your thug vs physicist scenario, I found myself truly laughing outloud at it. I often here this sort of situation presented by my fighters (who are all aware of my research and academic background). Let me point out, that given the very narrowly defined parameters under which you have the thug and the physicist meet, the thug would probably win.

“Sweat, not degrees,and diplomas-win the day”. This is only true if you define the environment under which they meet in the narrowest, most closed environment possible (e.g., the ring). However, if, in an open system environment, which the real world represents, the thug would have far less of a chance. It was physicists and scientists who, using their mind, figured out ways to improve their fighting ability to beat the thug (hence, we have gunpowder, explosives, and ultimately, the atom bomb). This also makes the assumption that the physicist is himself (not to be sexist or herself) not a trained fighter. Many of the Bando people I have met along the way are have been both outstanding fighters and hold PhDs.

One of the problems with martial artists when they are discussing issues related to fighting is they create these extremely narrow definitions which include even more narrow boundaries. This is usually so as to affirm their belief system (relative to martial arts) or to ensure the affirmation of their methods

This also illustrates the purpose of science in sports (general) and martial arts (specifically). The goal is to determine the most efficient and effective means for developing the skills and abilities (to meet the objectives as defined by the individual). One can train as hard as they want, sweat, blood, tears, etc.. Yet, without applying a systematic method for determining the best results, they may just be could in an iterative cycle of inefficiency (like that one, Bodhi?..lol). \

It has been said that “practice makes perfect”. This is incorrect, only perfect practice makes perfect. We can only hope to improve, and the question is how to do that? And how does a potential athlete/student decide which method is the best, In the martial arts it has been mostly about marketing and testimonials, not about science. There is a reason you don’t see many Olympic high jumpers doing the western roll anymore (science showed it was less efficient).

Scientific examination and research would also allow for the ability to better determine which training method (s) work best in which defined environment. I have seen many BJJ (and other martial arts stylists) talk a bout how they train for real self-defense by virtue of a high volume of matwork. The problem is, by going on the mat in their gym, they have defined a closed system of skill practice. This is true of any and all systems which spar or practice for self-defense. Since the conditions of a street fight or self-defense situation is about as open an environment as possible, any practice in a closed system limits the transferability to the open, especially if no practice in the open system is performed.

Of course, a classic response to this is” well I, or many of my classmates, or my teacher, have successfully defended themselves on the street”. This means they were lucky. Either the environment they defended in didn’t vary enough from the gym to make a difference, or they were facing an opponent with inferior abilities, or they just got lucky (of course, luck or randomness always has a role in an open environment).

Your mindset piece was interesting and well thought-out.

I Have read and know Col. Grossman, having met him when my brother (Col., ret) also was working at West Point and again through professional contacts. His work is groundbreaking. However, it does address more the nature of killing and how to prep a soldier for that, as opposed to the more one-on-one nature of martial arts training. He and I once had a conversation about this, and one should be careful about generalizing his research to competitive fighters and self-defense situations. Without getting into it, the military training is to create a known mindset and prepare the soldier for the taking of life. In competitive training, it is not (or rather, I should say, should not be, the intent to do great harm, but to win within the rules of the game). With self-defense training, the purpose is to develop more instinctive responses (as opposed to the conscious action that is more frequent in combat) to situational necessities.

I would also offer that when one offers martial arts training in a narrow context, such as for competition or for self-defense only, they miss the full potential that martial arts training has to offer.

You seem to have embraced the depth and nuances that martial arts training can offer. Not all students come to the martial arts to compete, or even to learn to be a fighter. There are many reasons one may study. You mention one of the highest, pure self-development. They may want to develop fitness, for kinesthetic enrichment, for the social interaction, competition, cultural exposure, etc.. When a martial arts gym or school only focuses n one they lose the depth inherent in the arts.

Ahh, well, off the soapbox, and off to Aruba. Everyone have a wonderful New Years.

Ran

[bodhisattva]

Ran,

Your posts are needlessly long.

I know mine can run on a bit. But man. You are the first guy I have met, ever, who uses more useless verbage than I.

Most of what you type has little to do with what I was saying. When it address the actual concept I was relating, it shows little understanding of combat athletics.

You are very book-smart. So am I. Congratulations to both of us.

But, your words are full of debate, not the sincere desire to communicate ideas and understand. Debate is fine when it is sincere, in fact, welcome. But your debates are full of semantic argument and useless rhetoric.

As such, I will leave you to debate with others, and I hope you enjoy it.

I would suggest, however, that you aren't so condescending to everyone here. There are a lot of smart fellows here, regardless of their career in academia. Most of us in this nation who have been to college (like myself) have come to recognize education as one of the biggest frauds currently in existence. so we don't tend to care if a Bando guy has a PHD. or not. We just want to know : Can he bang? Can he hang?

Lots of great guys are here, who are very willing to help you understand the truth of combat athletics better.

-Dwayne

[ranoutofsn]

Hi Mike & Bodhi,

Admittedly, here I sit waiting for a delayed flight and bored stiff. Thank God for the Internet.

hehehe...Mike, I think you may be beginning to understand why I placed the laborious tomes as posts. The [wink] got it. I was hoping that Bodhi would get the irony and joke of it all and we would have a good laugh such was not meant to be. All I was doing was poking fun at y'all.

I love how people get so serious about this stuff. I have been in the martial arts for over 30 years and it used to be fun. Well, it still is, just within my small pond, so to speak. I have seen the egos and politics that have emerged over the last two decades and chose to step away from all that. There was a time we all trained and didnt feel the need to try and convince others about the superiority of our styles. Ahh, for the old days.

Bodhi, wow!! you seem to take all this so seriously. Its a post, on a thread, on the Internet for God's sake. Lighten up and look at the big picture (and how you present yourself to others in your own writings -- somewhat arrogantly--mine was intentional, how about yours?). All my writings were to satires to your posts here, and you didnt get it. I used the academic angle as a analogue to your talking about what you have done, what the people you know have done, ad nauseum. I suppose I could have listed or identified my experiences in martial arts instead, as you and so many do to lend credibility to their "experiences", but I didnt feel the need.

Regardless, my guess is that I was studying the traditional arts before you were alive and competing in thai boxing matches when you were still in diapers. I began studying BJJ before you or most Americans knew what it was. I have over the years been honored and blessed to have studied with the best instructors in all those arts and many more. I could go on, but modesty (hehehehe, okay i dont have as much as I should, but we all have egos) prohibits further prattle on my part. But from the exerience of martial arts training and competing, I have a fairly extensive resume (if you want it, just email me - I hope it isnt that important to you, though).

If everything Mike is stated (i.e., that language is imprecise and that everyone has their own opinions and perceptions of life and all its aspects - which is true), then why argue/debate about anything, especially dogmatic and conceptual issues related to the martial arts? Especially if each of us is rooted in our own beliefs in terms of methids and styles. It seems that most who post on these threads are looking for affirmation of their claims, not true discourse. Its akin to a protestant and a catholic aguring which is better or like those arguments between the original and concepts JKD people, and how ridiculous are those?

I also love how people resort to such comments as..."Lots of great guys are here, who are very willing to help you understand the truth of combat athletics better." ..or can you hang and bang?..exactly what would be the measure of that? oh, let me guess, lets get ready to rumble...lol...gotta love that mentality...lol

Although, I do have to wonder someone who would take as their screenname a sacred being (if not legendary) who has reached enlightenment and refuses to enter Nirvana to help us unenlightened souls. Think pretty highly of yourself, eh?...lol..just ribbing.

Mike, are you an Instructor under Guro Dan Inosanto? If so, in which arts?

Well, the cattle call has been made. I wonder if my wife's place in Aruba has Internet access? Well, if not, have a great New Years and be safe. If it does, have a great New Years and be safe anyway..lol...

Ran

[bodhisattva]

"what you have done, what the people you know have done, ad nauseum."

I talk about experience. Not what I have read. Not what I heard about. In fighting circles, experience is all any fighters care about.

As far as your style of irony: It's not really irony if your audience thinks you're merely being rude. You'll find it's hard to get irony across in a written medium of communication with someone you don't know.

--
"and how you present yourself to others in your own writings -- somewhat arrogantly--mine was intentional, how about yours?). "

If I offended you, I appologize. I have no desire to offend you at all, and I'm wholeheartedly sorry if I have.

It is easy to mistake people who bluntly state their beliefs and experiences as arrogant.

--
"especially dogmatic and conceptual issues related to the martial arts?"

There is nothing dogmatic or conceptual about that which works. Truth definitely transcends dogma. There is nothing conceptual about studying traditional martial arts for 5 years with dedication, and getting beat up when training with friends who have boxed only 1 year.

--
"It seems that most who post on these threads are looking for affirmation of their claims, not true discourse."

No one on these threads who competes often with a high level of resistance needs any affirmation (I think you mean "confirmation?"). When you train often against resisting partners with realistic solutions, you cease to need confirmation. That is part of the beauty. That is why the guys doing realistic fight training so often try to explain to those stuck in dead patterns.

Because when WE were doing the bs fighting arts, we were really discouraged that they didn't work. So we worked harder. "I"ll do 50 kata a day, by gosh!".. and we get no better - except at doing kata.

And then one day we found something that worked.

And like all people, we want to share that with the older versions of ourselves, stuck in dead patterns because their teachers either don't know any better, or are dishonest, or both.

"I hope it isnt that important to you"

If you hope it isn't important to me, why do you bring it up at all? It's obviously very important to you to state it? So if it's important for you to state it, wouldn't you assume it is important for me to know it?

It's not important for me to hear it, however. Talk is talk.

--
"Its akin to a protestant and a catholic aguring which is better or like those arguments between the original and concepts JKD people, and how ridiculous are those?"

I very much agree with this statement. I almost used it myself, speaking to you, about arguing semantics.

The difference, however, is that the protestant and the catholic aren't arguing anything provable. They are both arguing abstractions.

Fighting in reality is not an abstraction. There is nothing abstract about getting your ass handed to you.

--
"I also love how people resort to such comments as..."Lots of great guys are here, who are very willing to help you understand the truth of combat athletics better."

Um. Its the truth. Lots of great guys are here who are very willing to help you.

And they DON'T need any confirmation. At all. They get it each day on the mat, or in the ring.

It wasn't a "resort"?

--
"..or can you hang and bang?..exactly what would be the measure of that? oh, let me guess, lets get ready to rumble...lol...gotta love that mentality...lol"

You sure like to laugh at people. I would think all of your years in reality arts would have taught you that's unnecessary. That's how it effects most of us.

What else would be the measure of one's ability to fight? Not fighting? Point fighting? No. A guy who can fight, is willing to fight (I'm talking class/gym training when I say "fight") and will. He has nothing to prove, so why not play the game with others? The game is fun. We all love it.

--
"Although, I do have to wonder someone who would take as their screenname a sacred being (if not legendary) who has reached enlightenment and refuses to enter Nirvana to help us unenlightened souls. Think pretty highly of yourself, eh?...lol..just ribbing."

No more highly than I think of you.

I don't think when a man becomes enlightened, he ceases to think highly of himself. I think he probably shrugs all of the false teachings that the world has oppressed him with..the idea that men are by nature weak, evil things. The idea that without good authority, men would degenerate into neanderthal brigand types.. I think he probably shrugs all that b.s. off. I figure he probably finally STARTS to see himself highly.. and because he sees the truth in himself, he can see it within others, too, finally.

And, don't worry, you're the bodhisattva, too.

--
I like you, friend. I like this last post, too. Do not think that because I ask you to play nice that it means I have some kind of a qualm with you? This *IS* fun. Do you think, for some reason, that I'm not having fun with you? It isn't true. We are both having a grand time, talking our cheese and sharing that cheese. It's all good.

We'd probably enjoy it more in person, where facial posture and tone of voice would help us keep clear that you and I are just having a good time chatting.

--
"All my writings were to satires to your posts here, and you didnt get it."

Do you consider satirizing people's posts as a desire for true discourse? First you say people just want confirmation and that no one wants true discourse. Then you asy that you are merely satirizing my writings.

Surely you must see that satirizing other people's heartfelt attempts at communication is other than an honest discourse?

--
Enjoy Aruba for me, because bodhi's poor ass is too poor to afford such pleasures. But as long you enjoy Aruba, I am enjoying Aruba, too.

Best regards.

[shuyun]

Time out!!

Let's get back to the thread at hand.

Getting to biomechanics is fine. If we are having trouble with the word ATTRIBUTES let me the one to make ammends because I introduced it in this thread. Let's use QUALITIES instead.

Now as another conjecture we all agree (I think) that what we practice is what comes out when we fight but, isn't it also true that some amount of scholarliness helps in training better which translates to fighting better? If we understand biomechanics better we train more efficiently and put all that sweat to better use.

Sure someone may have trained simply through repetition and bacame good at it over the years. But would not have understanding facilitatd a learning of techniques better. And not just in the street sense but also in the logical sense.

We think before we train so we don't have to think while we fight.

But as far as communication skills go you guys are way cool. Best thread I've been in so far lots of ranting, lots of disagreeing, lots of learning but no trolling! I'm so happy to be away from two particular trolls and I don't want to mention their name lest it conjures them here.

[BeingAtOne]

Good

Great information to read through. Now lets think about techniques and ideas about fighting for instance what do you guys think of the straight blast in a street fight. this is just one example but I was curious what are your favortie tools and most effective one you guys train and use?

[Tant01]

[QUOTE=BeingAtOne...... I was curious what are your favortie tools and most effective one you guys train and use?[/QUOTE]


Osoto Gari, Uchimata, Tani Otoshi. Ask me if they work "on the street"...

[bodhisattva]

Hm. Thinkin about the idea "How we train is how we fight".

I think its interesting, because it works the opposite way, too : our fighting effects and changes and adjusts our methods of training.

Fight with a pal, and find a question "Why do I keep getting hit when I throw my cross?" Then take that question into training, and work on a solution. Train it against progressive resistance, with a buddy who is fighting back. Then take it back to fighting, and find more questions.

I think most "schools" do it the opposite. They show you a bunch of crap before you have really had a chance to wonder.

Shuyun: "isn't it also true that some amount of scholarliness helps in training better which translates to fighting better?"

Critical thinking, an open mind, inquisitive reading and asking questions of others..these are very important to growth. No one can deny that the sports doctors theories have changed fitness/exercise drastically in just the last 10 years. But everything in fighting must be forged in the fire of fighting. If it doesn't work or help you, you have to let it go, no matter who said it.

I think that's the best thing anyone could learn, maybe, in fighting or out of it. "If it doesn't work or help you, you have to let it go, no matter who said it."

Tools? Simple punches (jab/cross/lead hook/straight blast) are my favorites..simple takedowns (leg trips, sweeps) and a couple of simple armbars.