Kyokushin or MMA?

No, that's a gross simplification of physics, and seems to be rather ubiquitous in martial arts, I can only guess by people attempting to make their art look "scientific" by trying to apply the basic mechanics equations they learnt as a teenager in school to strikes.

The penetration and damage a bullet does is a reasonably compicated relationship between velocity, mass, the cross section area of the bullet, the shape of the bullet, what the bullet is made of and how it is constructed (made to fragment etc.). This doesn't even take into account the effects of what it is hitting on the result.

A fast jab is still a jab. You can punch fast without putting any of your body behind it. You can punch hard and fast, but if you're not penetrating through the target it can be as gentle as a slap.

 

I think those are all pretty reasonable right there.

 

That doesn't really expand much on your 1-on-1 tactics much though does it?

How about considering:

Who do you target with what technique(s) and in what order (which may be as much down to opportunity as choice, depending on the difference in abilities between yourself and your opponents)

How do you position yourself and/or your opponents to make that happen?

What is your desired result?
What, if anything, do you do to whom to achieve that? Again, this may be reaction rather than choice, depending on your character and training - not many people will readily snap limbs or crush windpipes, though there seems to be a lot of martial artists who like to imagine they would, not realising that character and personality runs deeper than the conscious mind and any heroic fantasies it may have. Another thing to consider is that these are people, not punch bags. If adrenaline hasn't taken your voice you can use that to help achieve your aims too.

Going back to that Mind, Body & Kickass Moves clip (there was actually a better bit in that episode IIRC, with a bird's-eye view, but I can't find a clip online), the first guy he takes out is not really here-nor-there (the other two were out of range), but the way he positions himself for the second two shows that he was considering these things to some extent. If you are in a situation where verbals and barking are going on before hand, then you can also take personality into account. It may be intuition and split-second decisions, but any intelligence you can gather can be used against your opponents. Like a cursory version of researching your opponent before a competition. So, in the same way that tactics played a huge role in GJJ's domination of their arena, if the same rigorous depth of thought goes into other arenas, you will get similar results.

That's basically my argument against people who automatically say doom and defeat is the only outcome of being attacked by three or more people.

 

One caveat that I've mentioned before:

If your attackers have trained as a team under pressure to subdue an opponent, such as police or security teams, then your chances of achieving your result are exponentially reduced.

 

No. That's good though right? I won't have to think to much.

 

That's true

But, just as when you first started learning techniques you had to engage your mind and concentrate, then they become engrained in reflex, and finally you cultivate response, so will anything else you practice a lot.

Some things are inherently more difficult than others, but that doesn't mean there's no point practicing to become better. I'd have thought that was a common trait in martial artists.

 

I have nothing against grappling, in fact grappling and takedowns are a huge part of karate, we just keep on our feet when we do it.

 

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying ground fighting isn't useful, I train in ground fighting when I can, I don't do it nearly as much as my stand up game, and any decent bjj guy would destroy me on the ground, but in self defense, you need to always assume a couple things

There are multiple attackers

There are hidden weapons.

Considering those two things I'd rather stay on my feet, if you prefer the ground then that's fine, but my advice is to always be able to run.

 

Radically increasing the odds that you're going to wind up on the ground, whether you like it or not

Which means you'll want to control your opponent thoroughly, which good ground fighters are very adept at. And most weapons exponents don't do much training with their weapons from their backs.

Again, I think it's important to remember that the general logic is not that it's preferable to go to the ground, but that it tends to happen, against your best efforts. And it's prudent to know what to do when you arrive there, even if it's just to give you the tools you need to effectively get back up again.

 

I agree with you, it needs to be trained, but should be ovoided if possible.

 

always?

I think another issue with SD mindset is this assumption of how all times when you will have to defend yourself will be?

every time someone goes on about self-defense you're always in a situation where you are being attacked by tons of people with weapons on a terribly dirty and hard surface with no sign of help for miles. you're actually severely limiting yourself and your abilities in a fight.

What if your drunken uncle attacks you at a family BBQ, are you going to "feed him his teeth" then? What if "as i mentioned earlier" you're attacked by a bigger stronger opponent in an enclosed area, like a bathroom? Are you getting into a striking war with him then? what if someone attacks you in your own home? or you have to subdue someone? or won't be legally in the right if you break his teeth? there are tons of situations you can find yourself in that completely contradict your approach.

What baffles me is this idea that all self-defense situations are going to happen the same way, and there by means that the same approach is going to work. there are tons and tons of stories from pros' instructors, etc, of BJJ, sambo, judo, and wrestling all being incredibly effective in a street fighting- a lot doing to the fact that they are all used to fighting. These entire styles and artforms wouldn't even exist If everything happened the same way. please tell me how you're going to out strike a much larger and fit man on pcp when bullets have been shown to not stop them?

as for weapons- the dog bros seem to have no problem using groundfighting with them.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTKqYkvmdkU"]Dog Brothers Gathering Of The Pack 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

so that leaves the only real problem good grapplers will have is against the one area of combat that is going to be extraordinarily difficult for any and everyone. not so bad in my opinion.

 

Running afoul of multiple attackers in the first place should be avoided. Honestly, I don't know of any system that reliably addresses that. None that don't involve automatic weaponry anyway.

 

What self-defence instructors have you been talking to?

When I think of self-defence, the last thing that goes through my mind is gangs of armed attackers. Recognising danger and avoiding it, tactics to reduce the chance of assaults (walking in groups etc.) escape, raising the alarm, going someplace with hired security so it's no longer your problem, developing the confidence to break out of abusive situations; which for vulnerable people usually involves social coersion and emotional manipulation. Even maybe restraining techniques for people in dangerous areas of social care at a push.

For me, training should be about results. The more training you do, the more choice you should be able to exercise as to how a threatening situation will end. In what I would call self-defence training, that will pretty much never end in pummelling a group of armed attackers.

I don't get this partisanship about striking or grappling. Why do people feel they have to reduce it to a binary argument? It makes no sense to me.

 

There typically is no binary argument from the grappling end of the scale in my experience - most cross train and add striking a a support system to their art.

The most vocal are those who cannot grapple and instead of dealing with their lack of skill resort to decrying the necessity

 

@ RoninMaster that video was pretty intense man...Im sure a lot of those guys walked out with some ugly bruises...

I just got done watching this show called fight quest, while sitting here in class good ol asian humanities = ) Check this out for Multiple attackers.. I completely forgot about KravMaga

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psdNEF5BXM4"]Ran Nakash in Discovery's Fight Quest part 2.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

 

Yeah I try and forget Krav Maga too.... :evil:

 

@ hannibal, lmao! hey man its actually pretty legit..although some of there fighting methods are pretty extreme I mean these dudes fight whoa dirty if they have to...Speaking of which....Now that I think about it...I once read KravMaga was as real as it gets I believe in "blackbelt Magazine" I wonder if that was before or after MMA. Well as real as it gets for street survival and what not...I mean in Isreal those guys are constantly deal with guerrila warfare if im not mistaken. I could be wrong.

 

Possibly - hence "in my experience"

If you are preparing for potential self-protection scenarios then it is valid to criticise a blasé approach to ground fighting. In this context th discussion is categorically about SD situations, so other reasons and approaches ( fun or sport) are not factors

In any competitive endeavour (judo, boxing etc) obviously it is a non issue. You rarely see a judoka called out for not punching because its like criticising a basketball player for not kicking the ball

 

They usually deal with guerrillas by shooting them

Krav is RBSD in different pants and suffers from the same quality control issues as any other art - certainly there is nothing in it I have not seen elsewhere a thousand times