Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In my mind the number one reason that fight are won or lost if of course mindset. But what dose the proper mindset usually produce? Forward Aggression!

If you go onto Youtube and watch street fights, 99.9 present of the time, the person who wins the fight is the one who is moving forward and taking the fight to the loser.

Why is this? It is simple in the since that street fights are not sporting matches. In a combat sporting match, whether it is, MMA, Judo, Boxing, Tae Kwon do, wrestling or whatever, both parties are equal combatants. Both people showed up to fight and to fight under certain rules. Their mindsets are similar. They also have one objective, to win and to accomplish that objective they usually employ tactics. Retreating away from a punch, or a tackle is a good tactic. They get away with backing up and retreating, because the other combatant doesn't want to walk into a punch himself,or because he is also thinking tactically.

Contrast that to a street fight. Street fights are not about tactics, they are about emotions. If you back up, the other guy is just going to keep pressing forward and running you over. Why, because he doesn't care if you hit him, or he doesn't think that you will. In any event, he's mad or over confident and wants to hurt you.

In a street fight the two people are almost never in a similar mindset. Why? Because in all but the rarest occasions, they didn't both show up intending to fight. That means that somebody has to start the fight. And that somebody usually is the only one who REALLY wants to fight. So he is usually the one who is moving forward. Hum.....The guy who wants to fight the most, is the one moving forward and the guy who usually wins, no big surprise, right?

So why dose the guy who is backing up usually lose. First he is usually not the one who really wants to fight, so he doesn't want to hurt the other guy as much as the guy moving forward wants to hurt him. This is true regardless of size or ability. So now he is moving backwards and possibly eating punches. Now he really doesn't want to fight, so he usually gives up, falls down on purpose, falls down on accident(because he is moving backwards), or get's knocked out. All because he was never able get their emotionally/mentally, because he is reacting and not acting.

What dose this mean to me? It means that if and when I am assaulted, I will instantly move forward and start moving my attacker backwards, before I consider any technique. Because in a fight, either you are moving him, or he is moving you. Due unto others as they would do unto you, just do it to them better.

Now I can't expect to be as committed to the fight as the attacker at that moment(that's what makes him the attacker). So I'm not going to move forward out of emotion(which is what he is doing). That means that FORWARD AGGRESSION needs to be used as a tactic, an SOP if you will.

Now if he is an bully and has been in several fights, he most likely started all of them, which means that he was probably moving forward in every encounter. So by the simple act of applying the principle(notice I didn't say technique) of FORWARD AGGRESSION, I am completely taking him out of his game. Now that he is moving backwards, he is forced to think defensively to protect his balance.

Now you employ your tactics, whether they are John Wane punches, Karate, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, or whatever. I prefer a throwing a lot of open palm strikes combined with FORWARD AGGRESSION, to get things started. My opinion is that having a personal SOP of applying FORWARD AGGRESSION the instant you are attacked is critical to surviving a street fight irregardless of style or lack their of.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but if you are still reading this, then you must have found it at least slightly interesting. :D:

P.S. Some might think that the fact that he is attacking you means that he is bigger than you and that moving him backwards isn't realistic. First of all the idea that he is bigger than you isn't always true, secondly with a little bit of technique, added to the principle of FORWARD AGGRESSION, a smaller person can easily and consistently move the attacker backwards. Although I admit that on a rare occasion, the attacker/defender's size is so different that moving them backwards would not be realistic. However in that case the defenders chances of winning are extremely low anyways. :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Just so that I don't misunderstand, we are strictly talking about mutual combat here, and not self defense, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
No. I'm talking about self defense and not mutual combat. My point is when you are attacked in a street fight, their will most likely be a lot of forward aggression coming your way. My SOP is to apply my own forward aggression right away, kind of like a conditioned response.
 

·
Poseur
Joined
·
221 Posts
But don't most techniques teach you to take advantage of the attackers momentum? I don't know any formalized techniques but the few times someone has come at me with a punch, my instinct is to duck under the blow, wrap up like a tackle, and allow their momentum to follow through with a twist and flip them on their backs where you end up on top of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Indeed, in a stand-up match, using tactics while backing up can be effective. I've used it many times in sparring to put a foot in someone's guts.

But given an UnAnnounced attack, first powerful attack usually wins. In spite of my black belt and MMA training, if I'm calmly drinking a beer and get a belt across my skull, down I go.

So the real question is, can you go from calm to combat in a split second? And do you take precautions of distance and position to even get that split second? Sit against walls or beside posts? Look at the people moving around you?

I'm a middleweight, and have managed to take some heavyweights, about 20 lbs over me. But I've got a nephew about 4" and 80 pounds over me, works construction all day, and unless I take out eyes or throat, there's no way I'd take him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
No. I'm talking about self defense and not mutual combat. My point is when you are attacked in a street fight, their will most likely be a lot of forward aggression coming your way. My SOP is to apply my own forward aggression right away, kind of like a conditioned response.
Ok, here's the thing...

If a civilian doesn't make every effort to escape a violent situation, or at the highest degree of involvement, attempt to control it with the minimum force necessary, the term "self defense" can no longer accurately describe their actions.

In the event that someone manages "win" a "street fight" by becoming a contributing aggressor, they may send their opponent to the hospital, but they're sending themselves to jail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
A common misconception about self defense is that it's the same thing as "street fighting." It's not. "Self defense" might better be understood as "personal safety." Your objective is to ensure your own safety and that of those whom you're charged with protecting (family, friends, etc.)

One surefire way to fail in this regard is to presume that you're going to do anyone (including yourself) any favors by preparing for a street fight. This is because street fights don't just happen. There is always an escalation prior to a fight. It may be subtle, or it may be glaringly obvious, but it is always present, and there is always a chance to simply walk away from any fight.

So, think about the reality of the "forward aggression" strategy. Have you ever seen a professional bodyguard leave their charge's side to aggressively engage a potential threat? Of course not. When the threat is just a threat, walk away. When the threat becomes immediate danger, run away.

Fighting is never the answer to a question of personal safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
So the real question is, can you go from calm to combat in a split second? And do you take precautions of distance and position to even get that split second? Sit against walls or beside posts? Look at the people moving around you?
razadp touches on a very important point about self defense. It starts long before physical violence starts. Action is faster than reaction and if you want to stay alive, foresight is your best weapon.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,890 Posts
Just so that I don't misunderstand, we are strictly talking about mutual combat here, and not self defense, right?
Well, to my mind, self defense needs to be turned to offense, or forward aggression as soon as possible. A victim/herbivore mindset must be supplanted by an aggressive/predator/carnivore mindset.
Very good points by the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not opposed to aggression. Strikes while backing up are never as powerful as those with forward body weight behind them. A constant defensive strategy will get you backed into a corner, not good.

But, since I'm not an instigator, or loudmouth, I probably never would have a classic 'mano-a-mano' confrontation, never have since 8th grade 30 years ago. Despite a dozen years of martial arts and a few tournements.

So any action I see will probably be criminal predators. My main goal has to be stay on my feet and mobile, see how many? what weapons? before launching anything. That's IF they haven't decided to knife me in the kidneys before I even know they exist, and loot my body.

If a group falls into formation around me as I walk, I have to assume its going to be a bootf*ck. So I have to attack viciously and violently as fast as possible. Throats and eyes and knees.

On the other hand if I've advanced into someones 'turf' its quite likely I can back out if I keep my cool. Thats where escalation is to be avoided.

I've apologized to someone angry and shouting at me about traffic issues, where I had cut him off. I've crossed the street when I noticed a couple panhandlers I'd not donated to were following me. On the other hand I've stood and dared someone to start something, when I was in the right about my parking spot, and he was solo. None of these ended up in a fight. Discretion along with aggression.
 

·
Wild Edibles Expert
Joined
·
10,167 Posts
Yes and no... there is a fine video here someplace of a boxer and a mob and he backtrack intentionally to set them up. They come swinging wide and he take them out going right up the middle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
First of all, I'm talking about instances where you find yourself being attacked, physically. I'm all for calming the other guy down, in fact, I'm quite good at it. However when a punch or a push is thrown, that is not the time to negotiate in my opinion. That's game time. You bought the ticket and I'm going to give you the ride!

Of course you should not use excessive force, but winning is not excessive. In regards to multiple attackers, I think that running over the first guy and destroying him is the best way to start. You can always use a reasonable level of force to defend yourself. This comes down to basic Hunter V'S Victim. Which one are you going to be?

I understand that a lot of traditional martial arts teach using your attackers weight against him, and I'm still for that. I'm just suggesting that you unbalance him while you are moving forward. It is hard to explain on a talk form, but it is easy and possible to collide with somebody and then unbalance them without fighting them head on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
First of all, I'm talking about instances where you find yourself being attacked, physically. I'm all for calming the other guy down, in fact, I'm quite good at it. However when a punch or a push is thrown, that is not the time to negotiate in my opinion. That's game time. You bought the ticket and I'm going to give you the ride!
My friend, if you believe your machismo is not only worth your life, but worth killing others over, I probably can't change your perspective.

However, I will say to anyone who's brain is still operating at human levels of intelligence that training in anger and aggression as a stress response is suicidal, both physically and legally.

Cheers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,890 Posts
Not suicidal at all. Knight is right. How many of you have actually been in a situation where your life could be ended by an aggressor?
The problem is, we are schooled these days to be victims, to mew and whimper and rely on the police coming in time, or on the mercy of the attacker. It has nothing to do with machismo. I"m criticizied for talking sparsley and avoiding confontations, but if an individual feels he can apply force to me, he will get owned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
I'm not even necessarily talking about destroying the guy. I use forward aggression even if my aim is to CONTROL and not to DESTROY. Nine times out of ten, I am not justified in delivering multiple blows, but I still employ forward aggression, so that I am not backing up.

Perhaps the term "aggression" is confusing you. Because I never said anything about "anger". Some fighters get angry and I guess that's OK. I don't. I never have. Not in training or in real life. But I can be very, very aggressive. Like I said, for me it is a tactic and not an emotion.

When I am messing around doing martial arts, I employ a lot of defense, which includes backing up. In a real situation, whether it is a fight or any other tactical scenario, I simply do not play defense. Attack, attack, attack.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect yourself. You should, but that should be apart of your attack plan and not the other way around. In most sports fights, the combatants take turns attacking and defending. All I'm saying is that in a real fight, the attacker isn't interested in letting you attack, he's trying to destroy you. You have to mount your attack quickly. Street fights don't last that long.

Some times you are forced to back up in a street fight, in that situation, by all means use your attackers forward moment against him. What I usually do when I am met with his forward aggression/momentum is redirect him or step off line, which unbalances him, and then I start my own forward aggression.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Straight Razor, I'm not saying your wrong either. I'm suggesting forward aggression as an SOP. I would have better described it an an Immediate Action Drill. IAD'S are designed to be used in a moment of crises, when you are being over run or you don't know what to do. If your mind is clear and you determine that moving backwards is the best course of action, then I say great.

It's just that often these things unfold very quickly and their isn't time to think. :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
A friend of mine once told me.That people talk of techniques as if they are the base unit of fighting--they are the typical way in which we are taught, a specific joint break or throw wrapped up all neat and snug inside an outer layer of strikes. And while they may be the base unit of fighting, injury is the base unit of violence.

Techniques are also seen as a specific answer to a specific problem, as in, "If he does X, I'll use technique X+1." The specific problem here, of course, is that the only specific in violence is, again, injury. Matching technique for technique may work in the ring, but it doesn't mean a damn thing to a serial killer.






You've seen us prop up the straw man of technique and set him ablaze on many occasions, but is he really as worthless as we make him sound? No--techniques are not as bad as we make them out to be; they have their uses in the training cycle, just not at the beginning.

A typical technique involves striking several targets to cause injury and set up favorable conditions for one or more joint breaks and perhaps a throw followed by one or two additional targets once he's down.

In theory, this gives the practitioner a framework within which to experience an advanced joint break/throw combo; in practice, the combo tends to vanish from the practitioner's repertoire, never to be seen again.

Why?

Because they learn the joint break/throw in a context that they never see again. Without the specific preconditions for the technique, they never travel down that branch of the decision tree.

They can always 'force it', e.g., when someone says, "Hey, remember that one throw?" they can reproduce it, but it will never come out spontaneously in free fight. And that means it is lost to them in actual violence.

This is why the assembly process (teaching a single target and illustrating how to get to it and wreck it from multiple angles) is superior to learning techniques.

Does this mean techniques are worthless, or even detrimental?

No.

It just means that techniques are suboptimal for training the uninitiated; for the more advanced practitioner, however, they're a gold mine and crucible rolled into one. When used properly in the training cycle, techniques allow you to mint your own gold bricks as you will. And then hit people in the head with them.

Once you've learned and mastered the bulk of the targets on the human body, as well as rudimentary joint breaking and the basics that underlie throwing (drop and hip throws), you're ready for techniques. Once you reach this point you know how to injure people--reliably, permanently, and without hesitation--but your efficiency is wanting.

Rhythm and timing are the names of your personal hobgoblins and technique is the chain with which you will make them your servants.

Techniques, as practiced by those well steeped in the basics, give you a framework within which to hammer out specific problems in rhythm and timing. It's not the break or the throw or even the striking sequence that is novel--it's purely how they're interrelated and how to pull off the rhythm and timing required to execute it all flawlessly, with little effort.

Therefore, techniques are a professionalizing tool. They are only useful at the top end, and worthless at the bottom. Techniques should only ever be used to teach rhythm and timing--not targets, joint breaks or throws. These must be mastered on their own, stripped of any context save injury. Only then will techniques be illuminating instead of confounding.
 

·
ruralist
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Good points Black Knight. Wolves aren't prepared for aggressive composure. For me when I was caught in my first real street fight, a very unfair one (I explained on your other thread), it took some minutes before I clicked and went from passive to totally nuts. But not long after them being hit back and a lot of noise coming from me it stopped. It went from outright sucker punching to standing back and challenging from a distance - a lot easier. But really I fought them with fear rather than aggression as my friend, fear of what was going to happen, a cold fear that still shakes me today. I will say that in facing a forwardly aggressive group of assailants the best hope is to target the biggest and loudest of them. It's when the big gob is lying motionless that the rest back down.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top