Hey Matt,

It amazes me that there is still a sport vs. street debate at all. To me, without a solid foundation in NHB/Vale tudo, a person would be hard pressed to perform under the pressures of a real `self-defense' situation. As a person who has evolved from traditional styles, to Jkd concepts, to`Functional JKD', I quickly found out how difficult it was to apply much of what I had learned in Alive situations. One example that really stands out in my mind, is when I was working `street jkd' against various attacks, showing possibilities with headbutts, knees, and elbows, etc. to my training group. When we first started working it, we spent a lot of time getting the `technique' of it, working with a certain amount of cooperation as we drilled our elbows to the head, etc. Well, over time, we started working with more resistance, and had the `attacker' in a helmet, so we could really hit. Suddenly, with a little resistance, and more aliveness, I found out that I couldn't connect with any of my elbow strikes! I had pulled my punches for so long, that my muscle memory seemed to have screwed up my distance and timing. Couple that with an opponent that doesn't want to be hit by your elbows, and its a whole new situation. In essence, we had to re-learn all that we had trained before. If we had spent more time developing our NHB foundation and sparring, we wouldn't have had that problem with distance, timing, etc. To me, self-defense is simply as your Straight blast guys always put it: just add dirt. The way I approach it in coaching might be to simply point out where the `street' version might be applied. For example, during clinch drills, showing where and how the eye gouge might be useful. But again, its within the context of developing a good clinch game. The same thing with biting. We train a lot of jujitsu. Occasionally we'll work the strategy of biting an opponent `within' the jujitsu game. But we have to have a jujitsu game first. On top of that type of training, I work a bit of scenario training into it. Working against a guy that just charges at you ballistically, swinging wildly, etc. Or the guy that just slams you up against the wall and proceeds to try and punch through your skull, etc. Again, without the NHB training, ones ability to deal with these situations will be severely lacking. But I also think that it helps to work some scenario based training to learn how one's strategy might change from situation to situation. Some tactics and tools might be more appropriate depending on the environment, etc. But once again I have to stress that without the sparring and knowledge of the ranges, etc. that comes from a good foundation in NHB, all of the strategy, tactics, etc. will fall short. Anyway, I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I just wanted to add my voice to the debate and to say thanks again for the `awakening' that you and your gym have brought to the world of martial arts.

Peace, Michael Agee

Hello.

I'll try to be brief... I spent over nine years in prison for robbery and assault with a firearm, and had many years prior to that living a life of crime (my life is totally different now, but that's another story).  I have seen more true violence than most, for sure more than most "self-defense experts", and I'll say this:  the vast majority of what they teach is bullshit.  When I got out of prison, as part of an overall regimen of self-development, I started taking martial arts classes.  I had had no formal training in this area, but had lots of experience in attacking people.  I initially took aikido, but quickly dropped out, for I found it to be, for my needs, useless--it's a beautiful form of dance, not much more. Next, I found a JKD school.  Only the "advanced" students could fight, the reason being that they had to train muscle memory; yet, I observed that when they sparred, none of them did trapping, chi sau type movements, et cetera. So I left.  Now I train at a NH gym, boxing, jiu jitsu, wrestling, and I love it.

Anyway--I can say from experience that self defense is a dead end street; if I am going to attack someone (which I won't, but we're talking theory), they are going to have NO CHANCE to defend themselves adequately.  I will control the situation from start to finish, and no amount of weapon disarming drills will help.  I think that schools that teach such run the potential of bringing harm to their students--if someone actually believes he can take a knife away from a blood-thirsty meth addict or a cold calculating ex-convict they are sadly mistaken; much less the incredible fallacy of trying to take away a firearm (not that any good criminal would allow a victim into disarming range).  For a "streetfight", one on one, nothing can prepare one like live training--as you well know.  I know I'm not saying anything revolutionary, but I wanted to validate, from my perspective, your message about aliveness.

Thank you for all your work in trying to educate the martial arts community.

Peace, Bret

I just finished reading a lot of and skimming the rest of the discussion on sport vs street. I write not because I'm an expert who has anything to add to what has been said, but rather because I am the furthest thing from an expert, and I am most likely the kind of person who finds himself caught up in the debate and anxiously perplexed by it.

I am no fighting expert and do not compete. What I am is an undersized guy who through much of his life has found himself the target of blathering bullies in need of an easy victory. In consequence, I took up boxing and wrestling because, as opposed to the traditional Eastern martial arts, they get right to the point and, even in solo training guises, emphasize maximum effectiveness. Of course, boxing and wrestling are also more culturally immediate (every American male my age grew up watching Mike Tyson, and every high school has a wrestling program) than the Eastern arts, and the training feels more true-to-life. I say all this not as a way to privilege boxing and wrestling over any other unarmed combat form, but simply to explain how I got into self protection skills and from what orientation I come.

My very limited training in boxing in wrestling, perhaps because it was very limited, taught me important lessons:

1. For someone who does not devote a major portion of his life to developing his mind and body into a unified fighting tool, there's nothing more important than learning the basics, learning the basics, and learning the basics. A perpetual novice will be much better served in a real-world assault situation with a well-grooved ability to perform a single-leg take down and a classic 1-2 combination than he will be working to perfect something like a spinning hook kick or a supplex.
2. Related to number one, no technique--no matter how sophisticated and beautiful--is worth a damn if you can't perform it under combat situations. For someone who doesn't live and breathe fighting, it's better to focus on the techniques that you'll remember to use and use well when it counts. Those of us who are not expert fighters have to stick with what's simple.
3. Related to number two, the most important "skill," and probably the hardest to teach and learn, is channeling your nervous reaction to a combat situation into an actual self-protection technique instead of just freezing up and taking a beating.
4. Related to number three, learning to properly respond to an onslaught, if it can be taught, comes easiest when it's tested and practiced over and over again in simulations that resemble as closely as possible situations you're likely to encounter in a real-life situation. The brain, especially the part of the brain most of us have to rely upon when under attack, works based on cues and neuromuscular memory: stimulus and response. Throw a playful punch at a trained boxer's shoulder and watch him move immediately to his base and raise his hands a little before he realizes you're just horsing around. Affectionately clasp a wrestler around the back of the head, and watch him move his feet back and move his hands to your elbows before it dawns on him you just want a hug. That's the kind of thing that gets imprinted as a result of practice, practice, practice. It's the kind of tool you most want to have when it's for real.

These four lessons have provided me the opportunity to learn other lessons in real-life situations:

1. The most effective "street" technique is one that you remember to apply, that you apply with nero-skeletal-muscular efficiency, and that hits the target.
2. Related to number two, eye-gouges, knees to the groin, stomping on the instep, elbowing the sternum, punching the throat, etc, are no more effective than fancy flying kicks (universally maligned by "sport" and "street" experts) if you throw them at the wrong moment, meaning, if you have thrown them when the opportunity is not there or when throwing them compromises you defensively.
3. Related to number three, key to effectiveness in real-combat situations is recognizing an opening and applying the correct technique, all under extreme stress. This has taught me that, as a hack wrestler and boxer who has nonetheless spent plenty of time practicing even at my crude skill level, I am still in a better position to use eye-gouges, knees to the groin, etc, than someone who hasn't undergone similar training, because I've had imprinted effective reactions to stress situations and the ability to recognize openings and exploit them. In other words, "street" tricks are more useful to me than they would be to someone completely untutored and completely unfamiliar with the kinds of combat situations my boxing and wrestling practice simulated. This is where, in my amateur opinion, martial arts dojos and "street" defense seminars miss the boat: the technique is worthless if you don't instinctively apply it and apply it in accordance with the situation, and that ability comes with continuous practice.

You will, I hope, notice that the culminating points in both these rubrics (number four in the first, number three in the second) establishes a simple principle: "sport," even if it's not intended to be anything other than sport (like wrestling and boxing, which, as most of us experience it, is not taught to have a "street" application) builds by far the most important foundations for what it takes to survive the typical bar-room assault. This would seem an important point to make in the "sport" versus "street" debate.

Lastly, most of the folks who represent one gym/school or another in this debate, whether they call themselves street or sport, are really tough guys who could quickly, brutally, almost clinically disassemble most blowhards who cause trouble at the pool-hall. I hope both sides will remember that, while they may be talking to each other, a lot of us ordinary, wimpy guys who only want to be able to have a night out without fearing for our lives are the ones listening most closely, and none of us is as tough as any of you. The discussion we most need will make it clear how much of the debate actually applies to us and what we ought to be focusing on the meantime.

1. What I think the "street" side attempts to emphasize that is useful to dopes like me is that techniques should be simple, easy to remember and apply, and immediately effective.
2. What I think the "sport" side wants to say that we mortals ought to listen to is that practice, practice, practice in as-close-to-reality-as-possible combat simulations will condition our response to assault such that we can survive it (I would think there's a basic point about aerobic and anaerobic conditioning to be found in the sport perspective as well).

In my admittedly sub-novice opinion, any school or gym which forgets either of those two points is getting into a pissing match while leaving a lot of us out in the cold, without the mental and physical tools we need to make it out of the pub when things turn nasty.

Thanks so much for the work you do. It may sometimes seem like your message is not getting out to the common people, but I can assure you that a lot of us are listening.

Sincerely, -Max Simmons

Copyright © SBGi. All rights reserved.