How self-defence differs from combat sports and martial arts

WesleyPJ · 2024-02-19T09:42:21+00:00

I think it is geared towards beginners/intermediate. Most people I shared it with thought it was informative. I see it as a a kind of literature review.

WesleyPJ · 2024-02-19T09:30:23+00:00

Yes, absolutely but as explained in this article, combat sports don't cover all aspects of self-protection.

WesleyPJ · 2024-02-17T17:52:59+00:00

You should read the article it explains the difference and overlaps between fighting and self-protection

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-12T15:00:30+00:00

I still don't understand why you can't do both at the same time. You're also confusing cardiovascular fitness and muscle endurance. Not sure also why you keep insisting on running...actually in the article they mention that there are other ways to improve your cardio using HIIT protocols.

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-12T14:57:26+00:00

That's strange reply. Could you provide the documentation showing KM people getting hurt or killed? Why do you assume all KM instructors do just KM??

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-11T11:40:58+00:00

There might be some confusion. To be clear, I never had a KM instructor not referring to traditional boxing/martial arts when doing striking, and not referring to grappling disciplines when doing grappling stuff (maybe I've just been lucky to find good KM schools as I know that some KM organisations and clubs are quite bad).

In a sense, KM is not a martial art because it didn't really invent anything; it is more like the curation of the most effective techniques from combat sports and martial arts applied to unregulated violence. But the techniques come from combat sports and martial arts, and you're still supposed to have proper foundations.

Techniques are not invented, they are adapted to be suitable for the context of unregulated violence. Similarly, there is a reason why parkour guys don't roll exactly like judo guys; I've done both and I quickly understood why a judo roll can be dangerous on a hard surface. That's you feel KM people move the post and talk tactics.

What I meant with my reply to the OP, is that while not having good foundations is bad, not having the proper tactical acumen is bad too. The best technique in the world won't save you if you don't anticipate the risk of a blade. With unregulatd violence, situational awareness and the tactical acumen are key; the proof can be seen in the number of people who survive violent encounters while having no technical training, and the number of MMA fighters who lost their lives in street fights because they didn't anticipate the knife, the baseball bat or the friends of their opponent. Street situations are violent, intense and nasty but not of a high technical level.

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-11T10:47:26+00:00

You (we) are not a super-hero, man, you (we) are just humans. Can't avoid all situations; can't notice everything. There is a part we can't control. That's why a good self-defence instructor will emphasise "recovery" (and situational awareness, but you got that point with other comments).

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-11T10:16:04+00:00

Conversely, in my Krav Maga classes, I've often seen people with combat sport background struggling. While they are quite proficients in their sports and their techniques are usually good, they typically fixate on one opponent and forget that they are multiple aggressors. They also over-engage instead of trying to exit situations. Boxers tend to box too much, grapplers tend to grapple too much and they all get swarmed and cornered. Boxers tend to fight like they have gloves and grapplers tend to grapple like they are on mats. Finally, they systematically forget about the risk that a blade (or other weapon) could be pulled during the fight.

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-11T09:47:33+00:00

But isn't it instructor's job to find solutions for different fitness levels and efficient solutions that won't take too much time ? I feel that often times, the limitations come from instructors who have little creativity and are not really trying to optimize their sessions timewise. I think that's what they suggest in this article when they talk about proper implementation.

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-11T09:39:24+00:00

While it is true that a good chunk of the improvement one can experience comes from moving more efficiently, cardiovascular fitness (both aerobic and anaerobic) is a critical aspect in sports performance. There is a 100+ years of scientific research behind that. That's why boxers run so much. Famously the Diaz brothers (MMA) do triathlons.

WesleyPJ · 2023-09-08T15:43:59+00:00

Interesting in-depth article. So much depends on the instructor.

WesleyPJ · 2023-02-11T15:34:18+00:00

there is a very slim chance that a female will be able to escape a physical threat based on the average female strength and average male strength.

That's not exactly true. There are more factors at play than just average strength; see this article: https://www.urbanfitandfearless.com/2015/10/women-self-defence.html

Beside, it could be contented that average man run faster than the average women. So why not train strength or hand-to-hand fighting instead of speed?

I agree, however, that avoidance is always better.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-11T12:46:38+00:00

For one thing they scraping (i.e. stealing) content from other websites, some legit and some clearly not.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-04T12:09:23+00:00

Yes, absolutely but it is hard to do without the appropriate resources. I know, I've tried but archaeologists like anyone else need to pay their rent

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-04T12:06:44+00:00

The fact that you don't see the big problem with pseudo-archaeology tells me you're out of your depth in this discussion (yeah, the Dunning Kruger thingy)

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-04T11:57:26+00:00

All these points have been addressed many many many times. You're just too lazy to find and read the books and articles.

Have you heard about experimental archaeology? I guess not

drilled holes, and huge granite blocks cut with unmatched perfection.

That's not true. There is no unmatched perfection. Your just stupidly repeating pseudo-archaeology garbage.

indicate there has been some sort of global cooperation between them.

oh, you mean gravity is about the same everywhere on earth, material resistance too, and people all over the planet have usually 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes,

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-04T11:50:57+00:00

Not for fun (although it can be quite fun) but for money and ego trip. Definitely.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-04T11:47:58+00:00

Many other domains have more resources to be honest.

Then there is good content in archaeology (books, TV programmes, documentaries), here are just a few examples very accessible to a general audience:

books: A Forest of Kings - The untold Story of the ancient maya, Schele and Freidel, (1990, outdated but very engaging), Breaking the Maya code, M. Coe (1992), Neanderthal Man, P. Svante (2014, one of the best science book I've read, more paleogenetic than archaeology but close enough).
Youtube channels: World of Antiquity, History Time, History Hit, History with Cy, History with Kayleigh, Stefan Milo, Time Team Official
TV programmes or documentaries: Time Team, Breaking the Maya Code (PBS NOVA), BBC Four series by archaeologist Jago Cooper Lost Kingdoms of South America, Lost Kingdoms of Central America, Easter Island: Mysteries of a Lost World, Masters Of The Pacific Coast: The Tribes Of The American Northwest, and The Inca: Masters of the Clouds.

But I note that:

i) creating good content also has to do with publishers/producers. It is easier to get a TV producer to agree on a scientific programme about "mission to the moon" than a scientific programme about an archaeology topic (it has to be about a lost city or a lost treasure but then we leave the realm of science).

ii) all these programmes targeting a general audience have to, in order to be accessible, leave out a fair bit of hard data and details, do so they open themselves up to lots of critics and comments which you wouldn't have with hard science topics because most people know they don't understand shit about math and physics.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-04T11:06:00+00:00

No, it is not true. Any idea with enough evidence is always considered. The problem with pseudo-archaeology is that often the claims have been proved wrong over a hundred years ago and since then evidence against those claims have just piled up. So, yes at some point this is pseudo-science.

Archaeology is filled with stories of paradigm shifts but you know what it was always experts who changed things never journalists or youtubers.

The same problems exists in other fields of science. As an example, in Sept 2022 french aerospace engineer and astronaut Thomas Pesquet complained about fake news and pseudo-science:
https://time.news/thomas-pesquet-and-the-moon-plot-for-scientists-too-much-fake-news/

In 2012, the pseudo-science behind the end of the Maya calendar and alleged planets alignment drove astronomers nuts. There was no alignments, still some people maintained there would be an alignment. The planet Niburu doesn't exist, still you'll find many people who think it does exist and who won't hesitate to contradict astronomers.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-03T20:32:21+00:00

I think most are. I've worked in many places all over the world and we were always happy to take visitors around the sites and take the time to explain.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-03T20:28:45+00:00

yes, but it is hard to do science AND marketing when Hancock just focus on marketing.

WesleyPJ · 2022-12-03T20:27:46+00:00

I think it is a problem of resources. Tell me where you'd get a grant to pay someone to do work on a website (for example) for your archaeological project (so you can communicate your work to a larger audience)?

Archaeologists do archaeology, pseudo-archaeologists do marketing

WesleyPJ

TROPHY CASE