Which art is best of 'da streets'

I am of the same opinion as my BJJ instructor: self-defense is a can of worms. But from what I have seen from the situation here in my country, what I read, and what I have discussed with people from different walks of life, here is my baseline:

It's highly dependent on the local culture and laws (and most often both are intertwined), but basically, being able to offer an equal or higher level of force present in the criminal elements you would most likely encounter. An upsmanship of the criminal capabilities, if you will.

If criminals in your area use cold steel, you can offer hot lead. If they also have hot lead, then better be able to call upon the hounds of law and the denizens of politics to your side. Way safer to "harden" a target, making it too costly to choose you. At the same time, make sure that the effects of your countermeasures are fast-acting, way much faster that his. Groin shots and eye gouges are most often thought of as "lights-out" techniques, but many cases have proven otherwise. That's why in multiples, striking is chosen more, for it can generate a faster lights-out compared to grappling (one of the issues with the death of the BJJ blackbelt), lessening the numbers you have to fight. Lights-out occurs with weapons faster. And criminals know this as well.

If you gain the advantage before the encounter occurs, getting physical may not happen at all. Conveying that fact is important as well. Being escalate to a level the perp cannot reach and being able to pull back: that's what a good self-defense system is, in my opinion. And of course it involves weapons, the basic of which is blunt. To be constrained dealing with the basic level, however, while the opposition has more options available, is fatal. And going unarmed, saying that it's the best, while not considering the opposition can play around with cheats is suicide.

That's why its a can of worms: it's a darn network of systems. It isn't only the door that keeps the burglars away, it's the lock, the doorframe, the walls, the windows, the lights, the streetlights, your local neighborhood culture, etc. Criminals become successful when they learn predatorship, i.e. exploiting vulnerabilities. You good in BJJ? They'll target something you aren't good at. Even if it's as simple as paying attention, or a novel move you haven't seen before.

 

Most people are bothered (including me), because basically, it's about time. Learning martial arts is like learning how to cook: it serves a primal function, and yes it can be enjoyable, but when you aren't making edible food, you are missing the whole point. Spending your limited living time on a flawed version of satisfying a primal need (not being food yourself/get eaten) strikes a deep chord in many of us.

They "cheat" better than criminals, and the law gives them more leeway to do so.

It's okay if you can outsource the fulfillment of your primal concerns, but some cannot do so, and some are aware (and scared) of the fact that a day can come when they cannot outsource it any further and the slightest mistake in fulfilling it will make it go boom in their faces.

 

So your point is you haven't anything better to train in then standing clinch and Ground.
That and escalate everything......

 

I just noticed that you keep on insisting the unarmed types of training: standing, clinch, ground; when I obviously referenced weapons work.

Is weapons use such an anathema to you?

And it's not escalation, but deterrence. The point being having an encounter with you would be too costly. Getting physical is downright dangerous, getting physical without "cheating" while the other side does is stupidly naive and fatal. If it can stop with the perp second-guessing himself on the chances of you against him, it's way better than getting physical.

You want training sources? Go train with the DBMA guys and the former Magpul Dynamics guys. Ask your local criminal law attorney on some straight-up facts on what can be and cannot be considered self-defense in your courts. Let him cite real-life examples. STructure your training based around those limitations. Go befriend the local guys in your neighborhood, especially the established ones. They know who to avoid. Befriend the local police as well. They know neighborhood crime better than MA instructors.

As one cannot learn everything ones needs to learn about work in the classroom, learning all that is needed to defend oneself from violence within legal means is not solely the purview of the MA gym.

*If somebody wants to "defend themsselves" illegally, I am not the person they should be talking to.

 

You use many words when fewer are better'er

So force on force kali and combatatives is in your view the best, have you ever trained these?

 

Force on force kali (padded arnis sparring) yes, informally with an arnis professor ( PE class from university) and his friends. Nice lessons on respecting weapons and keeping your range hidden. However, DBMA meets are far from that. From what I've seen in videos and heard from some attendees, it was like a one-on-one Philippine frat war on 'roids. It's way different when you go from a number 1 strike to a single leg TD.

Shot some pistols yes (poorly, I might add). Didn't manage to get a turn with the M16 though. I'd rather not lump Magpul with combatives and the RBSD crowd. Much limp-wristed unarmed pattycake associated with RBSD.

 

Fusen is in a country (GB) where it is illegal to carry an object for the purpose of it being a weapon (although weapon use itself in self defence is not illegal if the force used was believed to be reasonable and the weapon was legally held). That means that aside from defence on our own property where we feel grabbing a weapon is justified (which forms a tiny proportion of violent crime) most self defence will be unarmed unless we are able to/need to grab an improvised weapon to hand or use a weapon that another may have attempted to use against us (even rarer since statistically most weapon use in violent crime is to intimidate rather than injure and if an attacker looses their weapon it is most likely to be because they are no longer in a position to use it and therefore there is unlikely to be a threat where it would be legally justifiable to use said weapon against them (although that has happened in case where the struggle was ongoing and the CPS have not pressed charges)).

 

The physically combative portion of self defence is its smallest componant and exists on a spectrum. Anyone who says otherwise is either paranoid, delusional or selling something.

context dictates tactics.

Yes, even if you are an amateur boxer/mma fighter/competative wrestler or submission grappler and someone typewriters you from behind, in a dimly lit alley, when you are fishing in your pocket for your door keys, drunk, oblivious and busting for a slash: you are probably toast no matter what you train or who you are (although you might have a minimally elevated random chance of getting out alive due to your mental and physical conditioning). But in a significant number of common situations involving social violence you will have a significantly elevated chance of survival.

Funnily, the sort of RBSD that focusses on sportive methods to test its physically combative componant and theories whilst emphasising avoidance pre-fight concerns such as indicators of violence will likely be optimal for preparing you to 'die less often' in those sort of seriously deep water self defence senarios that the self defence obssessives are so pre-occupied with. However RBSD that doesnt use a sportive paradigm to test it's street aligned tactical perspective will fail you.

Weekend/short course bulletman training is pathetic.

Most senario training devolves into bad MMA with some sub standard acting and a table and chair and its laughable that those that subcribe to this approach seem to think they are accurately creating a fight any more effectively than the sportive combative arts which they deride as inferior for the streets due to the restriction of rules.

The RBSD scene outside of leo or military settings generally reeks of insecurity, paranioa, fantasy and delusion more than anything.

Additionally I'd put my money on myself and a bunch of dudes from my gym or any other MMA or thai boxing gym surviving most self defence situations they could face and bet on them having significantly more likelyhood of surviving any self defence situation over the Phil Elmores of the martial arts world. But honestly we're mostly too smart too handsome, too savvy and too busy loving life to get into that sort of bother

 

I'd put my money on Canne de Combat, i mean, most civilized gents should have their walking stick handy at all times right?

 

At almost 34yrs old I'm inclined to agree!

 

The video is spot on. If you can only take one MA for self defense, Bjj is where it's at. If you can take more than one style, then take a style+Bjj. Preferably boxing or Muay Thai, since their clinching leads beautifully into Bjj's Vale Tudo style takedowns.

 

If you can only take one I would take boxing

A lot of fights end up on the ground but all start standing and in conversation range boxing dominates

 

I would never place my hopes in maintaining distance with someone. Closing distance isn't hard to do. All it takes is a shove, a trip, or a tackle, and all those boxing skills go out the window.

While Boxing is certainly a great skill to have, Bjj simply offers you more tools.

 

You are all teh wrongs.

Taekwon-do will make women want you and men want to be you... and sometimes the other way around too.

 

It's a real toss up for me. I'd have to go with Sambo.

But what if you are normal heighted and woman already want you because of you're bangin' personality?

 

This displays the fact that you look at it as a "match fight' - this is at odds with the vast majority of street encounters. You need to widen your scope of what a "street fight" actually entails, because you are chosing a very small subset

 

Some perspective

http://www.geoffthompsoninspired.com/does-self-defence-work/

 

Im with Hannibal, But then I trained with one of geoffs qualified guys for a while

Make sure you keep the distance if you think there is going to be a problem, and if there is and they touch your fence and enter your space hit them hard, hit them fast and keep hitting them until you feel safe

If you are worried about them getting close pushing or tripping you, Id go for judo over BJJ, its cheaper, easier to find and more practical for the streets in that it deals with the stand-up aspect of grappling very well, and the ground work is quick and explosive.

Personally id rather spend time learning to throw and stay standing from a street point of view then spend 70% of my time rolling on the ground learning half guard, 50/50 guard etc.
I know some feel the chances made to judo make it less practical but I think from a street point of view, keeping the ground work aggressive and dealing with how to pin someone or get them off you quickly and concentrating on only a few submissions (chokes and arm locks) make sense.

As does learning to sweep, and reap the leg standing and to hit hip throws and take the balance of a standing opponent

 

Well that's a common misconception. There are throws in Bjj. In fact, I would argue that the throws in Bjj are actually more practical than Judo throws because they are based on the concept that your opponent isn't wearing the gi. Additionally, Bjj contains the takedowns of wrestling as well, something that many Judo dojos moved away from because of the olympic rules.

That said, the reason I said Bjj over boxing was simply because Bjj teaches you how to fight from all ranges, not just while on your feet. One only needs to look at world star hip hop street fights to see how many people end up on their butts in a street fight from sloppy takedowns and clinches.

 

Because they can't box