How many of you...

[Chris McKinley]

I'm inclined to agree with nationwide official crime reports, sorry, guys. Ashe says "short of sneaking up on someone from behind", but again, that's exactly what we're talking about in these circumstances. As yet another reminder, we're not talking "fights", we're talking professional assaults...IOW, by people who do this for money and/or a living.

[cloudz]

sorry, it's my policy to not engage in discussions with people who reject things without trying them first.

I can tell from your antagonism that you're not here to discuss. so in turn, I'm not here to answer your questions.

hmm. I'm not sure about what I've "rejected" here, also it's silly to suggest one should try everything first.. I've been to systema class for instance which I enjoyed. I wasn't rejecting - i was going through the suggested scenario in my mind, looking for some thing 'extra'.. I wasn't rejecting scenarios so much as an idea. The idea that there is any significant difference with this training in terms of 'the unexpected' . If you spar fairly regularly you know that sometimes you will take hits that may as well have come from nowhere - you didn't see them coming. eg it could be that you are close in and eat a hook you simply didn't see.


As for being in the dark, we sometimes do fixed free pushing with eyes closed. Would it matter if I took a hit - i would be prepared. Like I said i doubt very very much anyone here hits people in their class without any kind pre information exchange on what will be taking place. But i was being serious - i do think it would be fun to say spar blinfolded. but I see the bigger benefit of it through the developing of sensetivety, feeling out the person. you would have to rely more on contact. i can't see how the other aspects would be significantly different.

I have been hit hard many a time.


I like to be constructive when I can. But somethings you just have to call as you see it. If you said things like being attcked from behind in some way to kickstart sparring or multiples scenarios.

those I can understand better, like the other example I also gave earlier. Being put at a disadvantage - nothing wrong with that in training - I just didn't get much of a feeling of that from what was described in the opening post.

I mean taking a punch is the same. eyes closed or not, back turned or not. You will know something is coming seen or not. You can't get away from that, everyone faces similar restrictions in how they can train. But variety is good - i agree. I have nothing at all against mixing up scenarios similar to the ones I have mentioned.

i apologise for being less than polite to anyone here especially Chris. i was having one of those days i guess..

sorry. i'll try to be more diplomatic.. and less of a dick in future when I have differences of opinion or I'm not much of a fan of something or other.

[Chris McKinley]

That was classy of you, cloudz, apology accepted. We've all had bad days. I'm glad you're back, too, because I think there are some good things to discuss in your post here.

RE: "If you spar fairly regularly you know that sometimes you will take hits that may as well have come from nowhere - you didn't see them coming. eg it could be that you are close in and eat a hook you simply didn't see.". You're absolutely right. It might surprise you that I agree with you that people should engage in some tough regular sparring for that very reason. It keeps you humble, and it relieves you of the silly notion that just because you know the fight is on, it doesn't mean you're not going to eat a few surprise pops, no matter how good you are. It's part of fighting, and it's a lesson that's best learned the hard way. Also, I don't see that as an either/or choice with what I was recommending.

However, the crucial difference between having that happen in sparring and having it happen outside of that context is that, in the latter, it has a much more intense and deleterious effect on your ability to defend yourself. I'll borrow from John Boyd's OODA Loop model to help explain my point. The model isn't perfect, but it'll do for the purposes of illustration.

For those readers unfamiliar with it, the OODA Loop model is an acronym for Observe, Orient, Decide & Act. It's a model of the process of cognition under duress. First, you observe an occurence in your environment. Then you orient yourself to what that information means. It doesn't mean you change the angling of your body position, it means that you place the information that you've observed into an appropriate context. Next, you decide what to do, and finally you take action.

Boyd discovered that the determining factor in the survivability rates of the Korean War fighter pilots from whom and for whom he created the model was the Orientation step. Those who were most quickly and accurately able to take the information they observed in their environment and place it in the appropriate context had the highest survival rates by far.

Now, using that model, I'll describe how it applies to the context of sparring. First, you observe that a sparring session is about to happen, probably because it always does on Tuesday nights or whatever. You orient yourself to the context of sparring, which means you are now prepared for what happens during a sparring session, including the occasional surprise hit that will leave you momentarily jogged. The decision step has probably been made long before, since you've likely agreed to and maybe even instigated the sparring session. All that's left is to act, and so you begin sparring.

By contrast, in a surprise assault on the street, especially one that begins with a surprise strike, you have had no chance to orient yourself to the context of what is happening, which would then allow you to bring the appropriate skills online. In fact, you may not even have been given a chance to observe that the assault has begun. Without contextualized information about what is happening, the odds of you a) deciding to act at all, and b) accurately deciding to take the appropriate action, are reduced dramatically compared to situations in which you have been able to Observe and Orient first. You are forced to play a very fast game of catch-up, with your life or the lives of your loved ones as the stakes.

Now, granted, in the scenario I suggested originally, the element of surprise is missing. Still, the blow to the head does impede your ability to orient and decide correctly, even when you know it's coming. Not as much as when it occurs by surprise, but enough to introduce people to the experience in small incremental steps. If someone wants to incorporate surprise into it as well, more power to 'em.

RE: "If you said things like being attcked from behind in some way to kickstart sparring or multiples scenarios. those I can understand better, like the other example I also gave earlier.". That is precisely the kind of thing I was suggesting. That it wasn't made clear in my description is my fault; I'm sorry. The point is to introduce people to these concepts gradually so that, even though they are uncomfortable and unpleasant, they aren't unfamiliar after a while. Familiarity with a given context is the single most important variable in context-dependent decision making processes. This has been so exhaustively and consistently shown throughout decades of research that it is generally considered unquestioned orthodoxy.

Put overly simply, get people used to violence and they're more likely to survive/succeed when faced with it. It just has to be done at a gradual enough pace that their brains and bodies can adapt rather than be overwhelmed.

[dragontigerpalm]

"You cite years of observing "fights" by what can only be assumed to be nonprofessional muggers and robbers as evidence that such concussive strikes do not happen very frequently. While perhaps a large, albeit purely anecdotal, sampling, such evidence completely ignores two important points. 1) I referred to surprise attacks by professional muggers, robbers, etc., not to typical testosterone/alcohol-driven fights by barroom yahoos, club rats and frat boys."
Chris,
If as you stated in a previous post that the occipital ridge can't differentiate between the strike of an untrained or trained strike then how can it know the professional status, criminal history or lack thereof of an assailant? You are right though that if my experience was solely limited to having dealt with "barroom yahoos, club rats and frat boys" it would not be as pertinent nor would the conclusions I draw be as relevant to the discussion. While it's true that such yahoos et al are responsible for most 'fights' in bars I don't work nor have I spent any time to speak of in kids bars. Neither have I always lived nor worked in nice areas. I don't wear kevlar when I'm working because leave it to beaver gets beer muscles. But admitedly my experience is just mine. So out of curiousity I have begun an informal survey of those who have witnessed surprise attacks to the rear of the head that have resulted in knockouts not just knockdowns which will include other bouncers as well as friends of mine who are cops both working and retired, uniformed and plain clothes. So far, of the two other bouncers that I've asked, one has seen it once. I'll keep you posted as I receive more replies.

[Chris McKinley]

dragontigerpalm,

There's no real point in doing what you're doing, since your disagreement on this isn't with me because I'm not claiming anything from personal anecdotal observation. Your disagreement is with the crime report statistics. That being true, going out and making an informal anecdotal interview of as many doormen as you can find and then reporting back to me is almost utterly pointless. Feel free to do it if you're just interested for your own sake, but then I'd suggest that your time would be much better spent in researching the actual crime statistics themselves instead of relying on anecdote and testimonial. But, like I said, I don't ultimately care since your disagreement isn't with me.

[Bhassler]

Hi Chris,

What types of attacks are included in the statistics you are referencing? (Domestic assault, muggings, drive by shootings, bar fights, etc).

[Chris McKinley]

Surprise assaults by professional assailants...really a quite narrow category, which I suspect is part of why dragontigerpalm seems to have difficulty getting his mind around it. I think he's still thinking of the larger set of all violent incidents, of which that particular type of assault is a very small element.

[nianfong]

KATOOOO!!!!

[dragontigerpalm]

Chris,
Actual crime statistics are just as anecdotal since they are the result of the cumaltive reporting of incidents either by victims, LEOs or eye witnesses all of which are from first hand direct personal experience which is all that I am referencing. There is no science here as there is no touchstone or control group used for independent testing. Now you didn't respond to my question about how the occipital ridge knows the status of the person who assails it and you haven't explained how the strike of a professional criminal is somehow different than that of a hobbyist. I have seen guys hit in the back of the head by hardcase felons who have done time for felony assault on several occasions. Their surprise assaults were not done as part of robberies so does that make them non-professional? My informal survey is for my own as well as anyone else's education. I am not only asking doormen but cops as well and purposely not asking suburban cops who see very little street crime but limiting my inquiry to urban street cops mostly from NYC, the Bronx, Yonkers etc. - areas rife with crime. That being said here's an update.
I have now spoken with five bouncers, two of whom were formerly cops - one uniformed and one plain clothes street crime in the Bronx and two non-bouncing cops - one former Yonkers uniformed and one current who has spent most of his time on the street in the narcotics squad in the Bronx. The results so far which includes my experience are that five have never seen a knockout by a surprise strike by bare hand to the back of the head. Two have seen it once - of the two one was by a cop to a perp. The cop was a golden gloves boxer. One bouncer said he has seen it several times but no number given. I'll probably update more as I speak to or run into more guys.
Now one of the former cops who is also a highly skilled MA suggested that the reason it is not so common an occurence is because usually the victim is moving in the direction away from the strike which is less often the case with frontal strikes where the victim is either stationary or moving into the strike.

[dragontigerpalm]

I neglected to add that one of the former cops who is also a bouncer though he works mostly as a bodyguard now despite never having seen it done by others has done it twice - once by palm strike and once with an elbow.

[Chris McKinley]

dragontigerpalm,

Let it go, man. Like I already said, your beef is with the crime statistics, not me. At this point, you're wasting your time telling me all this stuff. Go look it up yourself. If you agree, fine. If you still disagree, take it up with them.

[dragontigerpalm]

dragontigerpalm,

Let it go, man. Like I already said, your beef is with the crime statistics, not me. At this point, you're wasting your time telling me all this stuff. Go look it up yourself. If you agree, fine. If you still disagree, take it up with them.

Chris,
I have no beef and if you don't wish to discuss this any further that is fine. But I can't help feeling that your reluctance to respond is a little like sticking your fingers in your ears and going nanananana. But all is cool.

[Bhassler]

Surprise assaults by professional assailants...really a quite narrow category, which I suspect is part of why dragontigerpalm seems to have difficulty getting his mind around it. I think he's still thinking of the larger set of all violent incidents, of which that particular type of assault is a very small element.

Just being a bit pedantic, here-- not really disagreeing with anything you've said-- and with that disclaimer out or the way....

Given that surprise assaults by professional assailants is an admittedly small subset of all violent incidents and that many (most?) people may never experience violent incidents of a criminal nature in their lifetimes to begin with, is this really the most important scenario to train for? Furthermore, given the historical and cultural framework in which most MA developed (Asian MA in particular), is MA really the most effective skillset to train for dealing with this type of encounter? Certainly the type of combatives training you're advocating is appropriate for the scenarios you present, but would it be better to spend that time/effort on avoidance or inherently lethal modes of defense like gunplay?

As I said, it's a bit pedantic, but if we're talking about intellectual honesty, I think those questions should be considered. Do you advocate RBSD MA training as a necessary component of personal security, or is your position more that having committed to training hand to hand fighting, one should train for the real worst-case scenario shit?

[Chris McKinley]

dragontigerpalm,

RE: "But I can't help feeling that your reluctance to respond is a little like sticking your fingers in your ears and going nanananana". Funnily, that's how your behavior on this matter was striking me. I have already discussed this matter in far more precise and exacting physiological and tactical detail than you were using and you still remained unconvinced. There is no more detail left to discuss, unless you know something about the trauma physiology of this kind of attack that I don't. Therefore, I don't see the point of any further discussion of it with you.


Bhassler,

I don't think you're being pedantic in your line of questioning at all. Those are the kinds of excellent questions that this kind of discussion should spur.

RE: "...is this really the most important scenario to train for?". No one has made that claim. Nor is this kind of training limited in any way to one specific type of scenario. The training itself can apply to any real encounter where life or limb may be at stake. As to a specific scenario, there is very simple logic in stating that the more prepared one is for worst case scenarios, the better that person's chances of surviving anything less severe than that. It would be illogical to prepare only for the average testosterone-driven chest thumping confrontation at the local singles bar merely because that is the most common and likely place to experience a hostile encounter.

RE: "Furthermore, given the historical and cultural framework in which most MA developed (Asian MA in particular), is MA really the most effective skillset to train for dealing with this type of encounter?". It depends on how those skillsets are trained. If one is basing the answer on the average of what can be found in what is called "martial arts" generically, the answer is a resounding and majestic "No!". However, that does not mean that martial arts cannot be trained in such a way as to be effective for that purpose.

RE: "Certainly the type of combatives training you're advocating is appropriate for the scenarios you present, but would it be better to spend that time/effort on avoidance or inherently lethal modes of defense like gunplay?". Those are not only not mutually exclusive, but neither is sufficient alone. Combat training, whether via traditional martial arts or some other source, should include skills in avoidance and also in the proper use/defense against weapons. Likewise, someone who trains in avoidance skills and in the use of firearms for self-defense has not completed their training if they don't also possess the skills for dealing with the unarmed components of even situations in which a weapon is presented. Remember, just because you are carrying a firearm does not mean you are automatically protected against any and all kinds of assault. Ask any cop. There is no guarantee that you will recognize the threat, be able to present the weapon, chamber a round, acquire the target, and fire the weapon accurately enough to neutralize the aggressor before he or one of his fellow perpetrators can hurt you or your loved ones.

RE: "Do you advocate RBSD MA training as a necessary component of personal security, or is your position more that having committed to training hand to hand fighting, one should train for the real worst-case scenario shit?". Your question contains one or more erroneous assumptions....namely, that RBSD training does not include hand to hand fighting and/or that being committed to hand to hand fighting necessarily means you aren't practicing RBSD and that you are precluded from complete training. It also contains the assumption that if you are training RBSD, that you somehow have less need to train for "real worst-case scenario shit". Whether or not you call what you do RBSD, traditional martial arts, combat sport, or combatives, not including skills for handling weapons is totally unacceptable. Committing to limiting your training only to empty hand skills is unacceptable no matter what you call your training, so that part of your question is ruled out automatically. Weapons use is a part of real world assaults, period. You don't get a choice in that.

[dragontigerpalm]

So I decided to take Chris' advice and research the crime statistics. The problem is that now having searched FBI and DOJ statistics on the national level and various states' reporting agency statistics I can find nothing that even approaches the specificity of the data that Chris is apparently privy to. If anybody with better webfu than mine can point in the right direction or provide a link for reference that could supply such info it would be a big help.