Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakeonthemove | Hacker News Reader

Street fights and other violent encounters are the same.

There is no honor, no right way to fight and nothing good comes out of it except you surviving.

It's nothing like video games - martial arts won't help (well, beyond helping keep you in shape), a bullet will kill you in a horrible, slow way (dying instantly means you're lucky) or leave you with a disability for life, a simple knife slash will leave you in a hospital for a long time and a simple hit with fist can dislocate your jaw, which is really terrible (you can't eat, can't speak, your face is swollen, you drool all the time).

Sadly, kids don't seem to understand, and most people laugh when I tell them the best strategy is RRF - Reason (give them the wallet, try to solve it with words), Run (as fast as you can and don't look back), Fight (only if all else fails, and fight as if your life depends on it)...

View on HN

>martial arts won't help

This is patently false and completely ridiculous. Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

How so? All I ever heard from people who did serious martial arts is that an attacker with a weapon will always be in advantage, and an attacker with no moral qualms even more so. Your karate won't help you much if someone attacks you with a knife, or a shattered bottle.

I guess I understand what you are trying to say, but you can't seriously think you, with a knife in hand, are going to kick an unarmed Bruce Lee's ass?

(using Bruce Lee because he is internationally famous, but assume I mean any world-renowned, elite trained multi-dimensional fighter)

The person still needs to be trained how to use a knife in combat. Have you ever stabbed anybody? (I haven't) but it seems obvious that it would be a lot harder than you'd think. (what is the proper grip? how do you thrust, how not to break your wrist, obviously can't go lunging blindly because if you miss your momentum carries you to a defenseless position... lot's of things going on here)

If your self-defense strategy entails being Bruce Lee (by which I also mean any world-renowned, elite trained multi-dimensional fighter), it's safe to say you're overpreparing. Trying to become Bruce Lee "just in case" you get mugged is like trying to become Michael Jordan to win pickup basketball games.

I know a bunch of amateur basketball players who try to do precisely this. They know they'll never be Jordan, but they do practice pretty hard, much harder than I'd ever expect.

I guess it depends on what form of martial arts you are talking about. Some only focus on "dirty fighting". The whole purpose is to maim the other person so that they have no choice but to quit fighting.

Low-level, trained MMA fighters would wreck a street brawling toughman 10/10 times. If they rush the MMA fighter with a broken bottle, they'd get slammed to the floor on their own velocity and the MMA fighter would twist around, take their back, grab and arm, get their legs around it pull. Good luck fighting with a broken arm.

We saw it play out recently. Remember Kimbo Slice? If you don't, he used to post videos of him beating the crap out of regular dudes in street fights for money. He became a legend. People were saying he was unstoppable. He went to the UFC based on that and lost just about every major match he was in. Why? Because he doesn't train for the various martial arts the way even the lowliest fighter does there. He's currently in boxing, now, and likely will be back fighting normal people in the street for 500 bucks again.

Seriously, you think guys who train 8 hours a day in Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu aren't going to be good at beating you up? You think some street thug would rough up Junior Dos Santos or Anderson Silva? They would KILL the common man, likely in short order. A broken glass would just make them more careful about it (and piss them off even more).

This isn't even to say if Silva grabbed a glass, too. Then what?

IIRC Kimbo was a street brawler who went MMA not the other way around. That he did so well against well trained fighters says a lot.

I don't understand this comment. The parent was saying that he was a street brawler who went MMA; why are you repeating it? And he by no means "did so well". He did not do well at all.

While the MMA fighter is going for side control, what's he planning to do about his attacker's 5 mates?

This is how a pub fight does down: you go to the gents, and a bunch of guys pile in after you. None of them can fight on a martial arts sense but it doesn't matter, there's no room anyway for fancy high kicks. They drag you to the floor and stomp on you 'til you stop moving. Then they go back into the bar, calmly finish their drinks, and quietly leave.

The true martial artist sense trouble brewing, phones a taxi to come right to the front door of the pub, and gets straight into it.

I have never seen gang street bar fights in my life. I've seen guys jump another to rob/intimidate one person, but they'd do that to anyone just randomly walking through their hood. That's not a street fight, that's criminal scum. Where are you that dudes are ganging up on one guy?

And, why is it always in hypotheticals that the trained guy is going to sit there doing katas and flowery BS belt presentation moves? I can't think of a martial art that doesn't practice (at one level or another) dirty, close-quarters, and stick-n-move fighting. You can always tell a skilled fighter vs drunken haymakers, which looks alot like this:

http://youtu.be/yZL-cxhw0w0

That is the problem with painting the martial arts with such a broad brush. Many styles have techniques specifically designed to deal with knife/gun/weapon attacks, and some styles are designed mostly around dealing with such things.

A broken bottle is probably not as dangerous as you may think. A knife, you are probably going to get cut but your attacker will fair far worse. A gun becomes less useful the closer an attacker is, during something like a mugging, they are typically very close.

But, even when learning how to deal with an attacker with a knife or gun, any decent instructor will tell you the best response is just to give them what they want and get out of there. It is the same as when engaging in just a fist fight, it is more a matter of 'is this worth it' or 'do I have a choice here' rather than 'can I take this guy'.

I did a martial art for a while where we trained against bottle/knife attacks etc.

I think that training was mostly useless, some nerd in a dojo attacking you in a predetermined way with a plastic bottle while you do "hip throw #3" is going to be very different to a real fight.

The idea is to build up reflexes. When someone comes at you with a beer bottle, you're not thinking "Ok, this is Attack Pattern Delta, therefore I execute Hip Throw #3." You simply react.

When someone comes at me with a beer bottle, I'm thinking "Awesome, I must remember to buy the next round!"

I meant situations where you're at a disadvantage - as I said, doing any kind of martial arts will keep you in shape and will decrease your reaction time (unless you "freeze" in a real situation), but when you don't know how your attacker will move or he's got a weapon in their hands, it's not of much help (not as much as most instructors make it out to be, anyway).

And you'd be surprised at how many hits a fat, untrained drunk man can take and dish out, especially once adrenaline kicks in...

The thing with 99,999% of martial arts is that they're practicing the wrong thing. At best they're practicing for competitions and some are even trying to pose as street-cred martial artists but yet that's a whole another universe away from survival. And survival isn't about fighting—at all. The thing is, it wouldn't be legal to teach survival in a dojo.

Fighting is about winning but survival is about... surviving, and anything goes. Survival is dirty, in the sense that if you think it's going to be a fight you will only realize he had a knife when the damn thing is already between your ribs or whichever side you momentarily forgot to leave less protected. Survival is something where you will get injured, bleeding and body parts disjoint very quickly; most often both of you do, and running like hell is often the best way to survive: in a war that might not always be an option, though.

Of course, that is, assuming it started as a one-on-one situation and ended as one, too.

This sounds a lot like what Krav Maga claims about its teachings. They certainly have a point when they say that fighting in the ring and fighting against gangs with guns and knives on the street is a very different situation that traditional martial arts do not do much about.

Unfortunately, from what I understand, Krav Maga students don't practice against resisting opponents. Because of this, it has been criticized as more of a "dance" art, where the student and the opponent are just going through a "kata" or predefined motions without meeting real resistance.

Of course, it is rare to come across a situation in any martial art where your training opponent will be resisting 100%, the way a real opponent would on the street.

However, there are some martial arts where opponents do give a significant amount of resistance both during training and in competition. I have heard the claim made that this factor makes the students of these other arts more ready for real survival situations than something like Krav Maga.

I'd love to know what these more realistic arts are called. I like whatever is most pragmatic.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, Muay Thai, boxing, various types of wrestling, and many other arts train and compete against resisting, sometimes strongly resisting, opponents.

It's interesting, Krav Maga makes similar accusations about "regulated" sports like the ones you mentioned. Its argument is that on the streets you're not both following the same rules on the fighting ring, you're using guns, knives, pencils, baseball bats and kicks to the groin, almost always facing multiple opponents at the same time. There's nothing in the sports you listed that prepares you against that.

That said, I agree that simulating twisting the weapon out of someone with a gun pointed at your forehead with a fully extended arm might lead to a boost in confidence, but not so much of a boost in survival rates. I'd still argue that your chances are better with techniques fine-tuned for the streets, rather than the ring.

Krav Maga - Is not a 'dance' martial art. You will learn the quickest way to ensure your opponent is on the floor and will not be able to getting up again easily.

You will train against resisting opponents. You will train against multiple resisting opponents simultaneously. Then you will train against opponents with plastic knives and guns.

You are taught things like 'If your opponent is on the floor - keep kicking him - because then you look like a psycho and nobody wants to fight a psycho'.

You seem well-versed. Any good KM schools around SF?

Actually I don't think so, and I'm also a veteran.

The winner is most often the person more inclined to inflict damage on the other combatant. The idea that you are worried about hitting and being hit means you are still operating in some sort of a rules-based sphere. This is why martial-arts isn't really taught to soldiers beyond a few "look how you can do this" training sessions.

The ultimate combatant is the person that sees the weapon within arms reach that will end the fight - permanently. Most people never achieve this level of death dealing, because it's a really, really abnormal way to operate.

One of my teachers was in the French Foreign Legion and he told me that in a fight one should aim to inflict maximum pain and damage as fast as possible.

Needless to say, my classwork improved after that conversation. I jest, but he was quite intense.

> The winner is most often the person more inclined to inflict damage on the other combatant.

I cannot stress enough how true this is. The person willing to take it the farthest, up to and including killing you, is the person that will win that fight.

You are assuming an awful lot about me based on a few words and also have a very limited view of the martial arts. Some martial arts are for show, some are for fitness, some are for sport, and some are for inflicting the most damage in as little time as possible. What you end up learning has more to do with the philosophy of the instructor and studio than the style you chose to study. My instructor is also a combat veteran. I study american kenpo under him. The system is one of the more violent martial arts. TDK has the reputation of being the McDonalds of the martial arts, belt factories where you just show up once a week, pay your dues, and walk out with a black belt after a year and a half. Even still, I am sure there the some hardcore TDK studios out there.

As for martial arts not being taught to soldiers, what do you call Krav?

Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

All the judo skills in the world aren't going to help you when a guy 100 meters away tears a plate-sized hole in your back with Mr. 5.56.

And 5.56 won't help you if an enemy has a tank. What's your point? The argument was that as someone trained in martial has significantly better chance than someone that isn't. For instance, here where I live, the probability of enemy having a gun is infinitesimal.

I think some people here underestimate what kind of preparation regular, twice a week, hour and a half long training for a year or two can provide. Many brawlers train martial arts as well, but if your enemy is not one of them, he will not have spent anything near that amount of time on deliberate practice.

On the other hand, martial arts are not much of an use if there's more than one enemy. Sure, you may be able to take out one of them, but the second one will not wait gladly for his turn.

And 5.56 won't help you if an enemy has a tank. What's your point?

My point? To paraphrase Han Solo: "Hokey religions and hand-to-hand are no match for a good blaster at your side ..."

Well, not quite. But that was too fun not to use.

The argument was that as someone trained in martial has significantly better chance than someone that isn't.

Depends on your definition of 'trained': attitude is everything.

A guy can be a trained martial artist, kick-ass in tournaments and still loose big in a fight because - away from the mat - he utterly lacks the will to fight.

My point - I guess this goes back to Mr. Solo - is that martial arts are great and all but it's way to easy to fool yourself that you're capable of kicking ass, but you're not.

Especially if you're facing off against a guy with a gun.

Which are pretty much available to anyone in the US, where I live.

A guy can be a trained martial artist, kick-ass in tournaments and still loose big in a fight because - away from the mat - he utterly lacks the will to fight.

Well of course, and a guy with a gun may still lose to a kid if he tries to operate it with his feet. In other words -- I don't accept your premise. If he has no will to fight, he will not fight. If he is forced to fight, he's at least no worse than someone who's not trained.

People trained in martial arts are more than capable of kicking ass, because, well, that's the whole point of martial arts. I suggest you to go to the martial arts training and see for yourself what kind of fight can trained people give.

And the whole gun talk only proves the fact that if you live in US, you're fucked and nothing can help you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com