Many envision self-defense as a “street fight”, like an MMA bout, where you see your opponent, know when it starts, and it has a clear end.

 

Posted by ADAM CARTER on JUL 11, 2024

Many envision self-defense as a “street fight”, like an MMA bout, where you see your opponent, know when it starts, and it has a clear end.

(Approx 2 minute 50 second read)

I have nothing against combat sports - I used to compete myself. They’re entertaining, and I respect many of these accomplished athletes. But no matter how brutal your sport is, it’s still a sport. There are certain realities which must not be ignored.

Context.

What’s important is that you understand the differences and the context, which relates to everything you practice.

I’m get so many comments that state MMA is the ultimate self-defense method. Don’t get me wrong, MMA has some great qualities - the conditioning, the training in multiple ranges, sparring, ground-work, and more. I have nothing but respect for MMA practitioners.

“Take ‘em to the ground, choke them out,” I’m told.

On the ground, in the street, is the last place you want to be. No rules, no judges, armed assailants, possibly more friends nearby, and no help. In the real-world, the vast majority of aggressors will be armed, usually with blades.

All of the top-class fighters are just as susceptible to being stabbed, possibly fatally, as the rest of us.

How quickly and successfully can you choke out another person while his buddies are attacking you? How many shots to the head can you take before they pull out weapons and start trying to inflict serious damage upon you?

There is no way you could defend yourself against them: no mobility and no defenses of any kind. Think on this.

Never assume that an assailant is not armed. This is a fatal assumption. Better to assume they are armed than to assume they’re not. In one case, you might go home alive. In the other, you don’t.

Sport and the street are totally different. Never, ever, confuse them. There is no referee separating you, giving the signal to begin or to end. Think on this.

The realities of the street, no matter how many straw-man arguments MMA fans make to the contrary, are considerably different from the Octagon.

Take your favorite techniques, how often have you drilled them under real pressure? In a hugely stressful situation, if you have to think, even for a moment, deciding which technique to use, you're late. If you're late, it may be fatal.

Now, engage in a contest where you cannot use much of what you have trained because it’s a different skill set. You can know all sorts of techniques, but if you don't practice them until they are reflexive, you’re late. Why? Because reflex is faster than thought… and we know what happens when you're late.

Weapons - a major bone of contention. Remember, most of the time, your assailant is armed. If your self-defense training doesn't realistically address them, you lose. If it does, it's still better to do your utmost to get out of there.

Many street confrontations involve more than one aggressor. It sucks, but it’s true. Your training should address safe ways to escape from this too.

Most people don't face live weapons in their training, of course, for safety's sake. However, if you have never faced one, or at least not met ‘enthusiastic’ opponents, you lack stress inoculation which means you'll probably freeze. Even if you have, the odds are high you'll be seriously hurt, but if you haven't, it's a certainty.

The question then arises: Why is there so much focus on the effectiveness of MMA as a legitimate self-defense method when it’s clearly a sport with athletes and prizes?

The answer lies in the evolution and commercialization of the martial arts. MMA has gained popularity and credibility because it showcases fighting techniques in a controlled, competitive environment that appeals to a wide audience. It demonstrates athleticism, strategy, and skill, making it an exciting and engaging sport to watch. However, this focus on sport can sometimes overshadow the practical self-defense aspects that just do not gel with real-world demands.

If you are irritated at what I have written here, consider why. Have I really insulted what you do, or have I simply pointed out flaws in your argument?