Why do people say grappling is better for street fighting than boxing?

[DonS**]

For me maim is correct. Because I never get into fights with people I know. In fact I don't ever start a fight period. So if you throw down on me then it's on dirty fighting and all. I don't go to parties or hang out at bars. Even when I did I have been in verbal altercations but never thrown the first punch. So if you swing on me and I eye gouge you are kick you in the nuts that's your problem because your threw the first punch. I was defending myself not attacking. My most likely attacker is the mentally ill homeless guy or street thug in downtown Denver, not some stupid argument at a party or bar. I look at it this way. At one point I was being accosted by so many homeless people and noticed gang member abound, I used to work with them so I am pretty good at spotting them, I was looking at CCW. Eye gouging or knife hand chop to neck is a lot better than shooting someone or stabbing them. That's my logic.

CCW is a better plan for you then eye gouging.

The liability issues from eye gouging alone make it a poor plan. That sort of defense would not be easy to defend in court, criminal or tort.

 

[DonS**]

I thought this was a discussion about streetfighting, not MMA.

But as to the question of whether Tyson could have been competitive in MMA, I'd say it would come down to whether or not he put some serious time into learning takedown defence.

If he'd gone in there not knowing what a sprawl was, then the most likely scenario would have been something similar to the Art Jimmerson fight.

OT I guess, but I saw pics of Tyson grappling in Gracie magazine. Not sure who he was fighting.

 

[rotten apple]

sorry to go off topic but just saw this ad after reading tysons name underneath the post.

 

[danielsaun]

CCW is a better plan for you then eye gouging.

The liability issues from eye gouging alone make it a poor plan. That sort of defense would not be easy to defend in court, criminal or tort.

Please explain your logic it makes no sense. Shooting someone instead of eye gouging is going to result in less lawsuits? Furthermore, as an outside salesperson, I can't carry in some buildings its prohibited. I guess I should just carry my nice S&W knife.

Finally, if I am being attacked my last concern in that moment should be legal ramifications. I will do well just to defend myself without being hurt. Remember I am talking SD not street fight.

 

[DonS**]

Please explain your logic it makes no sense. Shooting someone instead of eye gouging is going to result in less lawsuits? Furthermore, as an outside salesperson, I can't carry in some buildings its prohibited. I guess I should just carry my nice S&W knife.

Finally, if I am being attacked my last concern in that moment should be legal ramifications. I will do well just to defend myself without being hurt. Remember I am talking SD not street fight.

Guns are well accepted for self defense and we have a strong legal theory behind the use of lethal force with firearms. Maiming attacks are not accepted and have little to no established legal theory behind them. While in principle the theory should be the same, the police, DA, jury, etc., are going to be more sceptical of the use of maiming in self defense then they will be of the gun.

Also, you can't risk losing the gun in a fight, so you have that additional justification for using lethal force (although that also implies you also have more responsibility to avoid the fight if possible).

I'd also add in the fact that if you kill your attacker he can't testify in court or file a lawsuit. A maimed person testifying against you is the worst legal situation.

Aside from all this, if you feel the threat rises to the level of eye gouging I think I'd want more firepower then jits and MT.

 

[nomilkforsanta]

anybody have a link to the video that mocks the dubs the gracie challenge voice over one of them getting beat by a striker?

 

[SAAMAG]

Guns are well accepted for self defense and we have a strong legal theory behind the use of lethal force with firearms. Maiming attacks are not accepted and have little to no established legal theory behind them. While in principle the theory should be the same, the police, DA, jury, etc., are going to be more sceptical of the use of maiming in self defense then they will be of the gun.

Also, you can't risk losing the gun in a fight, so you have that additional justification for using lethal force (although that also implies you also have more responsibility to avoid the fight if possible).

I'd also add in the fact that if you kill your attacker he can't testify in court or file a lawsuit. A maimed person testifying against you is the worst legal situation.

Aside from all this, if you feel the threat rises to the level of eye gouging I think I'd want more firepower then jits and MT.

You're forgetting about civil suits from the families of the person you shot, which is likely going to be won by them. Not to mention that if it's high profile or involves a different race than yours that you may have press coverage that may disagree with your actions.

 

[danielsaun]

You're forgetting about civil suits from the families of the person you shot, which is likely going to be won by them. Not to mention that if it's high profile or involves a different race than yours that you may have press coverage that may disagree with your actions.

Good points. I have a decent net worth, with good liability insurance, but the most likely recipient of my actions would be some street thug, or mentally ill homeless. The homeless are actually easy to avoid most of the time. It's just there so many you get into your car and bam they are on you for money. Your situational awareness is only so good when they are scattered all over downtown. There are some parks in downtown Denver you can't even walk in because it's over run by mentally ill homeless people. I feel bad for them, but mine and my family's safety comes first.

The other issue with a CCW is I think my boss or the company I work for would frown heavily upon that. Sure go get another job, but with real unemployment hovering around 18% that's not so easy. I guess I would need to even see what a Kahr K-9 under my dress pants would look like. I was surprised that I went to a martial arts get together and the amount of people that were carrying that I never noticed until someone pointed it out.

 

[JerkWeed]

anybody have a link to the video that mocks the dubs the gracie challenge voice over one of them getting beat by a striker?

Crosely Gracie getting beat up by Melvin Manhoeff + voice over:

 

[JerkWeed]

Of course somebody had to pop up in the YouTube thread to point out that Melvin is an MMA fighter who trains grappling as well as striking. Still, Melvin showed what we all know now: striking + TDD + positional submission defence can beat GJJ.

 

[danielsaun]

Back when I used to be into street fighting, I took people down a lot. Falling onto concrete by itself can be a fight stopper. Especially if you fall on top of them. Especially if it's something like a standing fireman's carry or a suplex. But every time I did it I got straight back up to my feet, except once when I was fighting inside a narrow hallway and the guy still wanted to fight. So I knee rode him and finished the fight with elbows.

And actually my Jiu-Jitsu has got me out of serious s$!t twice. Both times were big brawls where I got tackled to the ground by guys that were bigger than me, but my Jiu-Jitsu helped me get back to my feet as quickly as I could (once by using a butterfly sweep, the other time by using the half-guard underhook escape).

Of course it was good that I knew some boxing moves as well, since I would probably have got KOed if I didn't know how to avoid getting punched. But in order to fight well in the street, there's more stuff that you need to know that isn't a part of boxing (at least the "clean" version).

Case in point: One of the best street fighters I ever knew trained boxing. But he always maintained that his boxing knowledge was not the major reason why he was so successful. Rather, the key was the detailed knowledge of how to fight from the clinch that he didn't learn at the boxing gym, but through experience gained through an enormous number of street fights (100+).

Many years ago........I guy I knew of suplexed someone in a fight on the street and the dude was out and 911 was called he went to ER. My friend saw it as he participated in the fight. Basically two guys tried to bum rush a party, asked to leave, and met the wrong side of security, my buddies. That's why I think short of taking a pure SD course, learning Judo and boxing would be the best combo. Throwing someone on hard ground is going to wreck them much worse than my best right to jaw IMO.

 

[barnowl]

This thread had been running for 2 years now. How long will it go?

 

[DonS**]

You're forgetting about civil suits from the families of the person you shot, which is likely going to be won by them. Not to mention that if it's high profile or involves a different race than yours that you may have press coverage that may disagree with your actions.

I didn't forget about families, but I think the "victim" sitting blinded in the court is worse. And the family can still sue.

Yeah, I did think of the Zimmerman case, Zimmerman would have been better served by skill in BJJ, not eye gouges.

 

[SAAMAG]

The fact remains that you have a legal right to use what is a reasonable amount of force to defend yourself. If you cannot prove the level of force was needed to prevent harm or death to you or a family member then you're in trouble regardless of the application method--gun, knife, fingers, or fist. Just because there are laws in place to regulate the use of guns doesn't mean it's safer legally. It really depends on the situation / circumstances surrounding the event.

That said, I've heard your side of the argument used by police as well when I asked them in an old high school course why they don't just pop an assailants knee caps as opposed to shooting center mass.

 

[kingkarate**]

The fact remains that you have a legal right to use what is a reasonable amount of force to defend yourself. If you cannot prove the level of force was needed to prevent harm or death to you or a family member then you're in trouble regardless of the application method--gun, knife, fingers, or fist. Just because there are laws in place to regulate the use of guns doesn't mean it's safer legally. It really depends on the situation / circumstances surrounding the event.

That said, I've heard your side of the argument used by police as well when I asked them in an old high school course why they don't just pop an assailants knee caps as opposed to shooting center mass.

you cant think about proving anything. Just take care of no.1 at the moment because if your head is cracked open thats only your problem. unfortunately people like to get off on moral superiority when they have no culpability in the situation. anytime the law tries to invoke "common sense" or a "reasonable response" you know they are just trying to cover their asses. They courts always manage to be specific when it comes to something in their interest.

that is the reason the laws are so vague regarding self defense. at the very least if a stranger puts their hands on another person in the streets all bets are off and they cant pretend to be innocent of unforeseen consequences. i doubt many people start a fist fight intending to kill someone but it is a very possible outcome.

thats why cops cant be expected to wear kid gloves if an assailant presents a threat.. If a person brandishes a weapon it is because they intend to use it. The police can't put their lives at a greater risk because someone chooses to break the law.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

you cant think about proving anything. Just take care of no.1 at the moment because if your head is cracked open thats only your problem. unfortunately people like to get off on moral superiority when they have no culpability in the situation. anytime the law tries to invoke "common sense" or a "reasonable response" you know they are just trying to cover their asses. They courts always manage to be specific when it comes to something in their interest.

that is the reason the laws are so vague regarding self defense. at the very least if a stranger puts their hands on another person in the streets all bets are off and they cant pretend to be innocent of unforeseen consequences. i doubt many people start a fist fight intending to kill someone but it is a very possible outcome.

thats why cops cant be expected to wear kid gloves if an assailant presents a threat.. If a person brandishes a weapon it is because they intend to use it. The police can't put their lives at a greater risk because someone chooses to break the law.

Don't know about this. The courts are generally pretty sympathetic in legit self defense situations. I remember reading a case where some weak drunk assaulted a much stronger, tougher guy and got his ass thoroughly kicked, causing substantial injuries. The judge ruled that it was self defense, despite the first guy posing no real threat to the second, because you are under no requirement to sit there while under attack, even if you are not in serous danger.

Where you run into trouble is where you continue to 'defend yourself' after the threat is over, if you chase the other party if they try to retreat, or if you escalate the level of violence.

Also, the idea that 'all bet's are off' when someone lays hands on someone else sounds fine and dandy, but you would not want to live in a world where, legally speaking, that was actually the case.

 

[kingkarate**]

Don't know about this. The courts are generally pretty sympathetic in legit self defense situations. I remember reading a case where some weak drunk assaulted a much stronger, tougher guy and got his ass thoroughly kicked, causing substantial injuries. The judge ruled that it was self defense, despite the first guy posing no real threat to the second, because you are under no requirement to sit there while under attack, even if you are not in serous danger.

Where you run into trouble is where you continue to 'defend yourself' after the threat is over, if you chase the other party if they try to retreat, or if you escalate the level of violence.

Also, the idea that 'all bet's are off' when someone lays hands on someone else sounds fine and dandy, but you would not want to live in a world where, legally speaking, that was actually the case.

yeah but just as often it can go absurdly wrong in the courts. i remember a case of a burglar home invading some family and cutting himself on glass and successfully suing them.

personally, a citizens ability to live unabused is paramount. sure the healthy fighter types on here have enough confidence and ego to say they would just give an attacker a beating and send them on thier way without involving the police. what about the old,women,children, ect would you want some thug who gave your grandmother a heart attack while knocking her down to steal her purse killing her in the process be allowed have his crime arbitrarily mitigated? would you want the law to place to her or yourself in a compromised position from protecting her from that fate?
as if his main intention of petty theft takes away from the very violent possibilities implicit to those who engage in criminal activities? alot of people rob banks with that attitude that they don't intend to hurt anyone . still they dont go in there unarmed and people do get killed because at the end of the day civilians' safety is not what is important to them. I dont think the law should be doing those types any favors.


If someone keeps there hands to themselves there isnt a problem. just my opinion.

 

[SAAMAG]

yeah but just as often it can go absurdly wrong in the courts. i remember a case of a burglar home invading some family and cutting himself on glass and successfully suing them.

Funny...that same example is given in every legal class I've ever had, several years apart even. So I don't think you "remember THE case" as much as the story of some case that supposedly happened. I'd almost say at this point it's an urban legend considering that the "case" has been spread across the U.S. and over the past two decades in various forms. No doubt it does happen, not always successfully and typically because of some technicality.

But it's also not relevant since it didn't set any self defense case law precedents.

 

[kingkarate**]

Funny...that same example is given in every legal class I've ever had, several years apart even. So I don't think you "remember THE case" as much as the story of some case that supposedly happened. I'd almost say at this point it's an urban legend considering that the "case" has been spread across the U.S. and over the past two decades in various forms. No doubt it does happen, not always successfully and typically because of some technicality.

But it's also not relevant since it didn't set any self defense case law precedents.

urban legends by definiton almost never happen. so calling something that does happen consistently to citizens of our country any such thing is disingenuous.
didnt you mention the something about assaults getting swept under the rug with false racial accusations?only in an absurd world would the importance of an act of violence being dismissed like that be any different then the example i mentioned.They both do happen all the time and it is not unusual for a perp of a violent crime to not go to trial even with witness just because the prosecutor doesnt want the headache or doesn't feel they can win. i also dont think our founding fathers ever wouldve agreed with hate crime legistlation that can have people's basic rights decided by arbitrary cultural narratives or identity politics. plenty of times it is under the table and nothing to do with official law precedents. only seldom does the media moonlight a certain case and the wrong get's adressed. that not equality.

do you think there were any laws on the books in the 60s when those southern cops tortured and murdered that little black kid? they had a trial and went through the motions. the same suppression happens with violent crimes today against immigrants on the east coast. even explicitly racially motivated crimes against asians or latinos will get swept under the rug because it is in noone political interests to hold the offenders or african americans accountable as a group in the same way they do white people. it's just as morally backward. but i suppose if you segregate enough cases apart it will seem as if there is no broader context to the failing of the justice sytem.


if you dont think that individual cases have a any broader implications as to the vagueness of laws regarding self defense of your life and your property go ahead. i would just think twice before putting my life in the hands of an entity so fluid and arbitrary.

i mean based on precedent the cops didnt charge zimmerman but popular opinion and the media now has him standing trial. as long as it isnt you right? i dont know why people put so much effort to give the court some irrational level of moral authority inorder to supress the possibility that there are widespread problems within the system that an individual has to be aware of.

 

[SAAMAG]

The point, was that your retort of remembering a specific case was false in that you didnt likely remember the "case" of the burglar who cut his feet on the broken glass--because it is an example given by many instructors of criminal justice and law as an example of how someone can be criminally guilty but still win a civil suit. For example--what year was the case? What state did it take place in? What was the rationale for judgement?

An urban legend is a story of relatively modern day that gets passed around in a society and is typically slightly different with each iteration. It could have been based on fact and slowly became fiction...could have been fiction all along, or factual for the most part all along. This story--I've heard it where the burglar breaks into a house barefooted and cuts his feet on glass. I've heard it happened during Xmas and he came in through a window and cut his feet on broken ornaments, etc etc.

And no, the only thing I mentioned with regard to this subject was that you have the right to protect yourself, family, and property with appropriate force, and that with gun defense you are almost guaranteed to have to deal with a subsequent civil suit or media pressure if it turns racial.