9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
Bisping on Conor verses Floyd, and how that relates to self-defence.

Hi All,

In the video below Michael Bisping talks about the upcoming Mayweather vs. McGregor fight. This part is very relevant to many of the discussions we have here:

“When I’m sparring somebody, I like them to spar me, box me, strike me, kickbox, whatever, the way it’s supposed to be done. So, If I’m going against a good guy that’s polished, that’s trained for a while, I’ll do really good. But then you may get some guy, that’s kind of a beginner but he’s game, and he wants to have a go and you say, “Yeah, sure. We will do a couple of rounds” and then he’s catching me with all this ####### stupid stuff. And I’m like, “What the #### are you doing!? You are just [freaking] out! (#)” And he’s like, “Well, yeah. But I caught you didn’t I?” It’s because he’s so unorthodox in his movement. So, I was thinking that may work for Connor verses Floyd.”

It’s a good observation, and one I’m sure most people can relate too. Beginners are the worst people to spar with because “they don’t do it right”. As one of my teachers puts it, “You are trying to play an advanced game of chess, and they are playing draughts (checkers).”

What this underlines is that skills are always specific to the enemy being faced. What works against a skilled fighter, may not work against a beginner. There is not the “hierarchy” that most people think there is. The common thinking of, “If I can get this to work against a skilled fighter, then I can get it to work on anyone” does not hold up to scrutiny.

I remember working on a combination in the judo club where I would go for one throw and, if the enemy killed it, I would use their response to feed into another (ippon-seoi-nage to ko-uchi-gake). It seemed to be flowing nicely in the club (where I was working with high level judoka), but when I tried it in a kyu grade competition it did not work as well. It got my opponent over, but it did not feel clean or as powerful as in the club. It scored yuko. I went on to win the match with a straight ippon-seoi-nage. When I came off the mat I asked my judo coach what I did wrong with the first combination. He told me what I did was fine, but my opponent was not good enough for it to work! Essentially, they did not kill the first throw as efficiently as a dan grade would and hence I did not get what I needed for the second throw.

I have discussed this with two very well know martial artists (both judo dan grades, although that’s not what they are primarily known for) who had also spent most to their time training with dan grades to find that kyu grades were a more difficult fight because of their unpredictability and the fact that you could not use your mutual skill set to anticipate certain actions and reactions.

As we have discussed many times, this has huge implications for self-defence. One of the big problems when martial artists teach self-defence is that they reinvent criminals as martial artists. They switch keeping yourself safe from criminal activity into a one-on-one “street fight”. They make the incorrect (and arrogant?) assumption that martial artists of their own kind are the apex predator in all environments. Then what happens is criminals act like criminals and their fighting solution, which was designed to deal with fighters within a mutually agreed framework, fails in catastrophic fashion.

The criminal does not want a fight; they want to harm. The criminal does not put up a guard and square off. A mutually agreed fight always starts from such a neutral position. The criminal will use surprise, deception, accomplices and weapons to gain an (“unfair”) advantage. The fighter is conditioned to act in certain ways. The criminal does not share your martial skill set (and that gives them an advantage, not the often-assumed disadvantage, because their actions are “unknown” to you and can’t be anticipated as accurately).

As Sun Tzu said, we need to know our enemy. The false assumption that because something works against a skilled fighter then it will work on anyone, in any other context, is widespread and hugely problematic.

Michael Bisping is an elite level fighter and he is clear that in sparring (fighting) he does better against other high-level fighters than he does against “game beginners” who throw “####### stupid stuff”. As I say, I think that is an experience we can all share to some degree.

Remember that in this context Michael Bisping was trying to spar with these people. He’s not saying “throwing ####### stupid stuff” makes one more effective than skilled fighters! If he was, then the UFC champion would always be a raw beginner! That’s obviously not how it works. What he’s saying is if you fight with a certain expectation, and your opponent does not share that expectation, then things can catch you by surprise. In such a fight, your opponent won’t act or react as you anticipate and that throws a huge spanner in the works.

The big problem is that the majority of martial artists assume the criminal will act as a martial artist would. That’s a very dangerous assumption. Another related and equally dangerous assumption is the expectation that if the criminal does not act as a fighter would (i.e. Assumption A does not hold true), then they will be easy to deal with because trained fighters are superior to criminals. There is not this assumed hierarchy and continuity because of the radically different contexts and objectives.

I’ve done quite a few podcasts on this topic recently:

Reinventing Violence:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast

Thinking Like a Criminal:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/thinking-criminal-podcast

Two things criminals know about violence that you should know too:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/two-things-criminals-know-about-violence-you-should-know-too-podcast

Personally, I like working on both fighting (of different types) and self-defence. They are both valuable and beneficial. You can practise both separately. But if you make the assumption that they are the same, then you could be in for a nasty shock when you find out your enemy does not share that assumption.

The fact that elite level fighters can experience problems when the person they are facing does not act as one would expect should give everyone pause for thought. If they have that issue, then you can be sure we mere mortals are going to have it too. It’s true in fighting, and it’s true in self-defence. There is a definite need for martial artists to accept that in self-defence we are in the criminal’s world. If we assume they are in ours (in the dojo, on the mat, in the ring or cage where we reign supreme), then we have it back to front and it won’t end well. Martial artists often make the assumption that the criminal will “play the game” we know how to play. And when they play their own game, we are left bewildered, hurt or worse.

All the best,

Iain

PS (#) – A potentially offensive word was used so I replaced it. The actual word used is deemed to be offensive by some (particularly here in the UK), and yet is considered inoffensive and benign by others. In this instance it was used as a slang to infer wild motion and I doubt any offense was intended. However, I’d prefer to avoid repeating it.

PPS Here is the video (2:06 to 2:44).

WARNING: Contains bad language.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

It’s a good observation, and one I’m sure most people can relate too. Beginners are the worst people to spar with because “they don’t do it right”. As one of my teachers puts it, “You are trying to play an advanced game of chess, and they are playing draughts (checkers).”

Totally agree, during my competitive years, fighting with the beginners was the worse. I could not predict what will happen next also there is increased risk of injury for both. I find that it’s the same with self-protection, beginners are so unpredictable that God knows how they will respond during a slow training not mentioning when put under pressure. It is a great training for more advanced students, I like when new guys don’t know the break falls yet and the advanced one wants to throw not taking in to the consideration that new guy will do anything to soften his fall usually grabbing other person and dragging him/her to the floor. When it happens it a great example how strong people are when panic, just like drowning super powerful grip.

It will be interesting fight to see, personally hope that Mayweather will win as I don’t like McGregors disrespectful nature/acting.

Kind regards

Les

Ian H
Ian H's picture

I wonder if we might turn that weakness into a strength? After all, the criminal is going to have expectations of how his victims will react ... flinch, cower, flail ... and if we can act decisively and differently, that may turn the tide and convince our would-be assailant that he's picked the wrong "easy" target and best to find a way out.

We are fools if we expect to be attacked as if it were a kumite match at a tournament.  We'd be silly to try to react that way.  Hopefully we know what to expect ... and our assailant doesn't.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
PS (#) – A potentially offensive word was used so I replaced it. The actual word used is deemed to be offensive by some (particularly here in the UK), and yet is considered inoffensive and benign by others. In this instance it was used as a slang to infer wild motion and I doubt any offense was intended. However, I’d prefer to avoid repeating it.

We could probably have a few good laughs ... offline and over a few pints at a local pub ... over all the words in the English language which mean one innocent thing in one country and another and offensive thing in another country.  I'd start a list but ... this probably isn't the place for it ;-)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Ian,

Ian H wrote:
I wonder if we might turn that weakness into a strength?

Martial artists making false assumptions about criminal violence is always going to be a weakness. Which is why we need to stop it. It’s also very unlikely that the criminal will anticipate us acting like a martial artist fighting one of our own kind. That would just be so dumb of us because it would work in their favour.

I get what you are saying though. I agree that upending the criminal’s tactics through determined and timely action is the way to go. But to do that we need to entirely avoid the “weaknesses” outlined in the first post.

Ian H wrote:
We are fools if we expect to be attacked as if it were a kumite match at a tournament.  We'd be silly to try to react that way.

While that’s true, most simply think that if you take away the rules and limitations on contact in a kumite match then you have a “street fight” and that’s what self-defence is to them.  They are still thinking of a “fight” and more often than not they envisage that fight as a “no rules” battle with a fellow “fighter”. It’s not just karateka who do this of course. Pretty much all styles do, but they do it in different ways. More on that in this podcast: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast

I think the key things for people to appreciate is that it is not just the techniques that change, but the objective, legality, methodology, psychology, and loads more besides.

Ian H wrote:
Hopefully we know what to expect ... and our assailant doesn't.

Sadly, all the evidence I see suggests that not the case. At best, most martial artists expect a “no rules street fight” and that’s very wide of the mark. I’d refer people the podcasts in the original post.

If we truly “get it” then we are in a position to act effectively and that will certainly result in the kind of unexpected action you describe. To do that though, we need to “know our enemy” and I think the martial arts are generally still in a position where they prefer to reinvent criminal violence in to either a “fight” (traditionalists and modernists) and or “consequence free fantasy-uber-violence” (many “reality based” systems). Either way, they are using the wrong tools for the job and hence it does not matter how skilfully you present “scissors” when you are facing an enemy who is “rock” to the core and has no idea they are “supposed” to present “paper”. That analogy needs some work … but hopefully folks get the point :-)

All the best,

Iain

Paul_D
Paul_D's picture

On another MA forum a video was posted that was mostly made up of people being knocked out by sucker punches.  These attackers were not fighters, but very good at getting the job done.  One in particular was a great example, a guy using distraction by asking for a cigarette and a light, then taking out his victim with an untelegraphed, precise, powerful strike.  

The person that posted it maintained that the video was a great example of "unskilled" punches.  And whilst they were indeed unskilled from a combat sport perspective, they were however skilled for use in criminal violence.  Trying to get martial artists to understand that however can be futile.  Lots of reasons I guess.  It can be a dent to the ego to admit having dedicated years to their training, they can be taken by someone who never steps foot in a gym/dojo.   Some I guess are ignorant to  the nature of criminal violence.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Great post! I think that succinctly captures and illustrates many of the issues we have when martial artists approach self-defence.

All the best,

Iain

Ian H
Ian H's picture
Ian H wrote:
Hopefully we know what to expect ... and our assailant doesn't.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Sadly, all the evidence I see suggests that not the case. At best, most martial artists expect a “no rules street fight” and that’s very wide of the mark.

We all pay lip service to Sun Tzu and "know yourself and your opponent and you need not fear the outcome of 100 battles" ... and yet ... 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Ian H wrote:
We all pay lip service to Sun Tzu and "know yourself and your opponent and you need not fear the outcome of 100 battles" ... and yet ...

Very true. I think it’s a mix of ignorance, arrogance and laziness that get us into this mess.

Ignorance: People have only experienced martial duelling and hence assume that all violence is like that.

Arrogance: They assume that they and they system is so deadly that if they concentrate on dealing with their own kind all others will be a walk in the park. They are not seeing the importance of context. Sharks are deadly in the water. Lions on the plains. Put the lion in the water and the shark on the plane and their effectiveness diminishes somewhat.

Laziness: They could research and talk to people who have successfully operated in that environment, and then train accordingly … but that’s too much work so they don’t check what they know and try to reinvent reality instead.

All the best,

Iain

Mulberry4000
Mulberry4000's picture

hi Ian intresting post. I know this is impossible, but i treat the stuff in the dojo as well in the dojo. When on the street, treat everything as up for grabs, it cares not a jot.I know judo, karate,  some aikido, or other martial arts. It  not cares where a 15 old boy can punch the hell out of me, because he does an "wrong move" . For him or others it is the right move and the move that took me down. So the idea that a person who is not "training" is making a mistake, is wrong, the so call trained figher should adapt to the situation. I am always beumused when bjj players say no gi fighting is realistic, they say every one wears a T -shirt etc. What in the uk, even in summer, or they  going around lytec. Asumptions like this are dangerous in my view, and i can be battered by any one, not matter what se or age. 

http://fightstate.com/brazilian-mma-fighter-beaten-and-severely-injured-...