I worked as a bouncer and in prison. I've never been seriously hurt by someone else and i really think it's because of my MA background.
Do you know for sure if you are better than 90 percent? Maybe not.
Still better than those who don't train at all.
If you are a bouncer you are also probably physically imposing, that would have helped a lot , maybe upto the same level as you MA training ... or even more
They absolutely LOVE ro push small guys around. When they try to push, duck under, take back, tani otoshi this mf and roll with it to sit on his legs/ take mount if possible.
If he is a trained grappler and blocks your duck under, cry and beg for mercy (never happened, trained dudes don't start fights with bouncers).
By push do you mean double handed shove to chest ???
Also would you recommend a single leg vs a big thicc boy in the streets ? Or is there a sweep/trip u would recommend as well
Yes often double sometimes single handed shove.
I love single legs, but i wouldn't do it vs a bigger guy in the streets. If you are not fast enough you are in danger to get his weight on you.
I always went for some sort of standing backtake, whether it's duck under or armdrag, to a bodylock takedown.
Sometimes a little punch to the face beforehand to create some disturbance.
If you can trip bigger guys or footsweep them good for you.
I would recommend only using techniques you are at least 90% certain to get them right, tho. No place for error in a self defence situation and there will always be some disturbance in a fight.
If they are way bigger and you can't take em down for sure, kick the legs over and over again. Most bigger guys are slower and most untrained people can't take that many legkicks.
Thanks for the golden advice, just one last question ...I see you prefer and highly recommend the standing backtake/seat belt position/back-bodylock coming from an arm drag or duck under , I see why it is very sensible against a bigger guy in the streets.
My last question is , if you have to choose 1 and only 1 face to face secondary takedown for street application against a bigger guy that does not involve taking the back, which one is it going to be ?
\*Double/Blast-Double
\*Single leg (Head inside or outside single)
\*Knee pick (Head outside or inside)
\*Front bodylock takedown/Kosoto Gake
\*Osoto Gari
\*Uchi Mata
\*Seoi Nage(Saw an African woman knocking out a man using seoi nage on a dusty road, don't know if high percentage with limited training time though)
(I respect the back take, I'm trying to figure out a secondary takedown with the highest chance of success against a bigger guy from a face to face position without back takes. Reason : So I can attempt a high percentage takedown quickly off of punches/strikes/straight blast/front kicks and ride the momentum into the takedown preferably) ... If there is something else you would recommend outside of the list provided that matches the criteria better then please do mention, Thank you
>people can have weapons, more people can attack you, you can get a surprise smack from behind
So since me and my friends can ambush the UFC heavyweight champion from behind with weapons, the UFC champion shouldn't consider himself better than 90% of the population.
I'm not following the logic man. It can simultaneously be true that you're better than 90% of the population while still remembering that that doesn't make you invincible to scumbags who play dirty.
>You don't know who is confronting you outside and a few years of training BJJ or Muay Thai can go down the drain if someone who is attacking you basically lives in the area where fights and violence happen every day.
Having lived in said areas and participated in said violence, I'll be frank, it's not nearly as violent as people make it out to be. Let's get one thing straight most violence in these types of areas is going to be shit relating to the drug trade and subsequently gang violence and the majority of that shit is done with the use of firearms and jumping. Yeah there's petty robbing, domestic abuse, people beefing with each other and just general hood rat fuckery but this idea that there's individuals who are constantly getting into fights and shootouts day in day out is just the work of media overhyping how it actually is.
Most of the dangerous people you're going to find on the streets in a hand to hand situation are people who are athletic, violent and committed to hurting you but that doesn't immediately translate to them being some sort of high level fighter. They're better than most martial artists say that they are but ultimately they're still untrained and don't know the optimal ways to fight.
It's like saying someone who trained in the military is going to be helpless in a shootout with someone on the streets because that dude could be someone who's been involved in gang shootings
I lived there also and the saying goes “Everyone’s a gangsta until a real gangsta shows up.”
The reality is, you’re not likely to run into that guy that’s both skilled AND violent. But, most people who are martial artists don’t know how to translate to the speed and/of violence of the streets from their safe dojo spaces.
I would never say that MMA is useless because it’s been used in prisons, on the streets, in the military, and elsewhere to great impact. BJJ on the hand?? That shit gets you clapped, early. From guns, to bricks, to knives, to teeth, I’ve seen BJJ practitioners get fucked up; head all lumped up, teef (not teeth) missing, nose pointed the wrong direction.
Muy Thai is legit, I’ve seen Tae Kwon Do (combat) kill a man and permanently cripple another, and Judo take away someone’s ability to walk.
But, most guys want the ego battle, and I agree with you OP, there’s more shit talking than actual experience in this subreddit, that’s for damn sure.
Not saying martial artists are helpless in those situations. Just saying that in this group there is too much ego when you can see comments how someone who trains BJJ, Muay Thai or some other martial arts can beat up 90 percent of population. That is ridiculous and people should be humble.
I disagree I just think it's an accurate assessment, if we're talking 1 on 1 weight class disparity ain't too high and they're putting In hours a week sparring and possibly competing the only people on the streets who would have as much experience just fighting would be people who used to be in prison gangs and that's pretty rare and they're untrained to boot.
And that is actually true. Anyone training martial arts for years would win against untrained, average people with a high percentage. Percentage, and not for sure, nothing in life is being guaranteed. Normally, if you have more than 10% of your population that is heavy criminal able to beat up people you are most probably living in some very bad place, and the best suggestion for such cases is not learn to fight but to move.
You’re correct in your assessment of this group, the egos, and reality.
People who teach and train actual self-defense warn against taking a combat sports mentality into a real situation.
It’s ironic, because thing you say about them, is what they say about point-based martial arts.
I'm in the UK, if I think just domestically.
Around 60% of people are in the 15-64 age group - if I presume I can beat anyone over 64 and under 15, I'm making good progress, already able to beat 40% of the population.
Around 50% are female - if I presume I can beat any female in that 15-64 age group, I'm now able to beat about 70% percent of the population.
I've pretty much average weight for the UK at around 80kg. If I presume I can beat anyone lighter than me, I'm now beating 85% of the population.
So as an average weight grown man, I'd say 85% of people.
But that's not 'the population'. That's a specific segment of the population.
I'd also beat 0% of 'the population' if we're limiting it to professional MMA fighters in my weight category.
1) I havent seen any comments like that here. But it is also probably true for people that actually spar regularly. For people that only drill or do kata, then no.
2) areas where fights and violence happen everyday dont exist. No one is fighting "in the street" everyday, even in the worst ghettos in the world.
3) people can have weapons, more people can attack you, surprise attack, etc doesnt change that you are better than 90% of people in the world at fighting. It might be that being better than 90% of people at fighting isnt sufficient.
25% of the population is under 15 and 10% is over 65
I am better than 90% of the population, but I don't worry about fighting grannies, grandpas, and schoolchildren. I've seen what average but athletic and aggressive slobs fight like in the Marine Corps Martial Arts program, and I can say if grappling and striking are both on the table, inexperienced people are practically effortless to take down and have no real ability to respond. Even ones who did a bit of wrasslin' in high school aren't as good as they think when strikes come in alongside takedown attempts (though they were still the biggest threats).
A trained person can in fact beat 90% of the population in a 1v1 fight with no weapons, your points make no sense at all, no one is claiming they can beat beat someone that has a gun, everyone that say they can beat 90% people mean in a no weapons 1v1 fight...
As a matter of fact after reading your post, I bet I could beat your ass too.
So, your complaint is that people claim to be better fighters than 90% of the populace, and you bring as a counterexample... precisely what percentage of the populace?
It's one thing to say that "better" does not translate to "invincible," but I'm really not seeing your point here.
The argument you’re making is, “you can be trained in MA and still lose a fight for many reasons.” Sure, that’s true.
But the argument you seem to think you’re making is, “you aren’t better than 90 percent if you train MA.” There’s a disconnect in your logic. Please review your post.
Eh, it may be an exaggeration and/or unscientific but it’s a good enough point. I would say if you are ACTIVELY training, have trained for a good while and are comfortable with full contact sparring, you’re more skilled than most of the population. Doesn’t literally mean you can take 90%, you could be 4’10” and 110 lbs and very skilled but very disadvantaged against a 200+ lb attacker, but you’re better off than if you were untrained.
If you train in something just for fun, don’t spar, and aren’t in that good of shape OR if you have trained it the past but no longer do, you don’t really get a benefit. The majority of people I meet have trained in something at some point in their lives, but couldn’t use it now.
Let me add something , Rugby /American Football players will probably beat 90% of Karate, Wing Chun and Taekwondo practitioners in any fight apart from Karate and TKD competition fights ! Probably even kill most of them in a street fight !
Probably just because of the weight difference. Even at my most skilled as a boxer/BJJ guy I felt like I'd just be destroyed in my lean competition shape by heavier stronger guys. But a 250 lb Karate guy vs. a 250 lb NFL guy is more fair.
Better than 90 percent, and 90 percent better are two very different things. Someone who drills anything for some amount of time is going to be better than someone who doesn’t. As to the violent places, sure if someone has been playing pickup games for years they’ll also be better than most. Is anyone’s specific training good enough for any specific situation? No one knows, but at least by training you’ve given yourself a chance.
I think this is very dependant on your stats.
If you’re 6’4”, 240 pounds and lift heavy weights multiple times per week, then the entire female population is out, as well as anyone under 15 or over 70. There might be outliers in all of those groups, but they wouldn’t be statistically significant.
So you’re already dealing with a specific demographic, fighting age men. If you’re in America or UK then I think 90% is pretty reasonable, if not conservative. In Russia it might be very different.
You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Samoa Joe and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another wrestler, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, to beat me. Then you add Kurt Angle to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way at Sacrifice, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because Kurt Angle KNOWS he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try!
So Samoa Joe, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice. See Joe, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice.
See, but I'm gonna break it down for all you ladies. Would you rather be with me? Or would you rather be with Joe?
I have a feeling this has way more to do with the intensity of training someone engages in than anything else. I trained at "self defense" gyms and yeah, even the upper belts would have serious issues, I've trained in competitive gyms, and most people there were violent enough to fuck someone's body up permanently for a $2 medal.
Skills and fighting don't 1:1.
If some 5'2 woman is better than 90% of the population at fighting skills, it doesn't mean she is going to win a fight.
Part of violence is psychological, so cowardice or bravery come into play. You could be a technical mastermind, but if you're a coward, that isn't going to matter.
So practicing Martial Arts makes you technically (in terms of technical skill) better than 80+% of the population. Probably, especially in the fat, decadent west etc. BUT who you are matters.
And, I think historically MA discussion is often had largely by dudes, dudes who train. Etc. So they are majority not 5'1 and 95lbs.
I'm 200lbs, I have competed in wrestling, had old fashioned scraps in my youth. I'm aware of violence. I've trained various MAs to some degree.
I'm not beating up the world, and actually due to the circles I've typically rolled in I always thought I was less capable than I am. Over the years I've encountered some options to spar or deal with people from outside a circle of superior individuals, and learned they are more "normal".
If you're 170+lb man, in 50+ pushup kind of shape, with solid MA experience, and you're not a pussy, you can take most people.
If bro is 6'5 270lbs and can bench 450, yeah, I'm going to be worried.
But give me anyone untrained or poorly trained under 6'3 and 225-ish or less, and it's easy work.
If you're 150 or less, then you have your own reality to live in. But the avg man is what 5'8 - 6' and somewhere between 160-200? Like the most common people that might threaten you and have a bar fight? They're easy, you just have to worry about a freak haymaker catching you.
The idea is that you can beat most other people who spend their free time online or playing video games. Gang attacks, weapons, and sucker punches are all outside of consideration in this claim. Your use of them is strange. Most adults I know own cars, but absolutely nobody I know can punch or grapple a car successfully.
Don’t worry about the percentage of the population. Train like you are going against the top 1%
The key is the type of training and how much you keep sharp.
In my personal experience, eagerness to engage in harmful violence trumps training 9/10 times.
It’s one thing to know how to RNC any comer on the mat in training vs same with someone athletic, strong (as most violent men on the streets will be) and committed to causing you serious harm.
This is the kind of belief that inexperienced people have. Intent doesn't impart skill. Fighting other people who are bad at fighting doesn't make you much better at fighting.
By this same logic, someone’s eagerness to “cook” at every party trumps a trained chef 9/10 times. Do you see how ridiculous the line of thinking goes? Substituting cook for swimming, driving, etc and then revisit your post.
Do you somehow think that there are no strong athletes on the mats? That somehow trained people can’t be eager? Find better arguments against training because yours is frankly one of the same old tired arguments.
Weapons and friends are not the exclusive domain of the untrained. I train and have both.
I don’t know why you think most violent men on the streets are strong and athletic, but that hasn’t been my experience at all. I grew up in areas with a lot of gang activity. Many of my family members were and some still are involved the lifestyle. They largely can’t fight for shit. It’s the guns you gotta worry about. Then you’ve got tweakers who are either falling all over themselves sloppy or superhumans. Most fall into the first group. You shouldn’t be looking for street fights at all but if you train in combat sports regularly and keep your body in shape, you’re gonna be fine hand to hand against most people provided you’re average sized and not a senior citizen or child.
99% of "streetfighters" have 1 minute of cardio and the only punches they know are wild looping hooks, and maybe an overhand. If there's no quick KO they end up sucking air and barely able to lift their arms and stand straight.
Exactly. There are thousands of videos on YouTube of people fighting. The ones that last more than like 30 seconds are going to see the one who isn’t gasping for breath winning. Shit, even amateur MMA fights between new fighters go the same way just with better technique and maybe a tiny bit more gas.
It's a stupid saying anyway, and training just to win a fight against an untrained person is a stupid goal. It's totally disrespecting what real violence could look like, totally disrespecting an adversary, and it's totally disrespecting of factors that may cause a person to want to attack you anyway.
I worked as a bouncer and in prison. I've never been seriously hurt by someone else and i really think it's because of my MA background. Do you know for sure if you are better than 90 percent? Maybe not. Still better than those who don't train at all.
If you are a bouncer you are also probably physically imposing, that would have helped a lot , maybe upto the same level as you MA training ... or even more
Man im 1,78 m and 72 kg. Im really not imposing. I met my ex working and the first thing she told me was "you don't look like a bouncer" lol.
If not ... then you are definitely more grappling based
True. Big boy makes trouble, i put big boy on ground, now im bigger. Much fun.
What are your go to takedowns that are high percentage against BIG THICC BOIS ???
They absolutely LOVE ro push small guys around. When they try to push, duck under, take back, tani otoshi this mf and roll with it to sit on his legs/ take mount if possible. If he is a trained grappler and blocks your duck under, cry and beg for mercy (never happened, trained dudes don't start fights with bouncers).
By push do you mean double handed shove to chest ??? Also would you recommend a single leg vs a big thicc boy in the streets ? Or is there a sweep/trip u would recommend as well
Yes often double sometimes single handed shove. I love single legs, but i wouldn't do it vs a bigger guy in the streets. If you are not fast enough you are in danger to get his weight on you. I always went for some sort of standing backtake, whether it's duck under or armdrag, to a bodylock takedown. Sometimes a little punch to the face beforehand to create some disturbance. If you can trip bigger guys or footsweep them good for you. I would recommend only using techniques you are at least 90% certain to get them right, tho. No place for error in a self defence situation and there will always be some disturbance in a fight. If they are way bigger and you can't take em down for sure, kick the legs over and over again. Most bigger guys are slower and most untrained people can't take that many legkicks.
Thanks for the golden advice, just one last question ...I see you prefer and highly recommend the standing backtake/seat belt position/back-bodylock coming from an arm drag or duck under , I see why it is very sensible against a bigger guy in the streets. My last question is , if you have to choose 1 and only 1 face to face secondary takedown for street application against a bigger guy that does not involve taking the back, which one is it going to be ? \*Double/Blast-Double \*Single leg (Head inside or outside single) \*Knee pick (Head outside or inside) \*Front bodylock takedown/Kosoto Gake \*Osoto Gari \*Uchi Mata \*Seoi Nage(Saw an African woman knocking out a man using seoi nage on a dusty road, don't know if high percentage with limited training time though) (I respect the back take, I'm trying to figure out a secondary takedown with the highest chance of success against a bigger guy from a face to face position without back takes. Reason : So I can attempt a high percentage takedown quickly off of punches/strikes/straight blast/front kicks and ride the momentum into the takedown preferably) ... If there is something else you would recommend outside of the list provided that matches the criteria better then please do mention, Thank you
Take notes. This is experience talking
MMA, yes. BJJ, no.
Always depends on the practitioner.
>people can have weapons, more people can attack you, you can get a surprise smack from behind So since me and my friends can ambush the UFC heavyweight champion from behind with weapons, the UFC champion shouldn't consider himself better than 90% of the population. I'm not following the logic man. It can simultaneously be true that you're better than 90% of the population while still remembering that that doesn't make you invincible to scumbags who play dirty.
>You don't know who is confronting you outside and a few years of training BJJ or Muay Thai can go down the drain if someone who is attacking you basically lives in the area where fights and violence happen every day. Having lived in said areas and participated in said violence, I'll be frank, it's not nearly as violent as people make it out to be. Let's get one thing straight most violence in these types of areas is going to be shit relating to the drug trade and subsequently gang violence and the majority of that shit is done with the use of firearms and jumping. Yeah there's petty robbing, domestic abuse, people beefing with each other and just general hood rat fuckery but this idea that there's individuals who are constantly getting into fights and shootouts day in day out is just the work of media overhyping how it actually is. Most of the dangerous people you're going to find on the streets in a hand to hand situation are people who are athletic, violent and committed to hurting you but that doesn't immediately translate to them being some sort of high level fighter. They're better than most martial artists say that they are but ultimately they're still untrained and don't know the optimal ways to fight. It's like saying someone who trained in the military is going to be helpless in a shootout with someone on the streets because that dude could be someone who's been involved in gang shootings
Re-read this y’all. There’s logic here.
I lived there also and the saying goes “Everyone’s a gangsta until a real gangsta shows up.” The reality is, you’re not likely to run into that guy that’s both skilled AND violent. But, most people who are martial artists don’t know how to translate to the speed and/of violence of the streets from their safe dojo spaces. I would never say that MMA is useless because it’s been used in prisons, on the streets, in the military, and elsewhere to great impact. BJJ on the hand?? That shit gets you clapped, early. From guns, to bricks, to knives, to teeth, I’ve seen BJJ practitioners get fucked up; head all lumped up, teef (not teeth) missing, nose pointed the wrong direction. Muy Thai is legit, I’ve seen Tae Kwon Do (combat) kill a man and permanently cripple another, and Judo take away someone’s ability to walk. But, most guys want the ego battle, and I agree with you OP, there’s more shit talking than actual experience in this subreddit, that’s for damn sure.
Not saying martial artists are helpless in those situations. Just saying that in this group there is too much ego when you can see comments how someone who trains BJJ, Muay Thai or some other martial arts can beat up 90 percent of population. That is ridiculous and people should be humble.
I disagree I just think it's an accurate assessment, if we're talking 1 on 1 weight class disparity ain't too high and they're putting In hours a week sparring and possibly competing the only people on the streets who would have as much experience just fighting would be people who used to be in prison gangs and that's pretty rare and they're untrained to boot.
And that is actually true. Anyone training martial arts for years would win against untrained, average people with a high percentage. Percentage, and not for sure, nothing in life is being guaranteed. Normally, if you have more than 10% of your population that is heavy criminal able to beat up people you are most probably living in some very bad place, and the best suggestion for such cases is not learn to fight but to move.
You’re correct in your assessment of this group, the egos, and reality. People who teach and train actual self-defense warn against taking a combat sports mentality into a real situation. It’s ironic, because thing you say about them, is what they say about point-based martial arts.
If by actual self defense you mean shit like self defense classes with zero pressure testing and only drills involving cooperating participants
No. People who are black belts in BJJ are getting their asses handed to them in the street.
I'm in the UK, if I think just domestically. Around 60% of people are in the 15-64 age group - if I presume I can beat anyone over 64 and under 15, I'm making good progress, already able to beat 40% of the population. Around 50% are female - if I presume I can beat any female in that 15-64 age group, I'm now able to beat about 70% percent of the population. I've pretty much average weight for the UK at around 80kg. If I presume I can beat anyone lighter than me, I'm now beating 85% of the population. So as an average weight grown man, I'd say 85% of people.
Yeah, think of the babies, they can’t do shit in a fight!
Now consider yourself against the percentage of the population that might actually pose a threat to you. Say, males in the 15-64 age bracket.
But that's not 'the population'. That's a specific segment of the population. I'd also beat 0% of 'the population' if we're limiting it to professional MMA fighters in my weight category.
Don't disturb him with facts please :D
1) I havent seen any comments like that here. But it is also probably true for people that actually spar regularly. For people that only drill or do kata, then no. 2) areas where fights and violence happen everyday dont exist. No one is fighting "in the street" everyday, even in the worst ghettos in the world. 3) people can have weapons, more people can attack you, surprise attack, etc doesnt change that you are better than 90% of people in the world at fighting. It might be that being better than 90% of people at fighting isnt sufficient. 25% of the population is under 15 and 10% is over 65
I am better than 90% of the population, but I don't worry about fighting grannies, grandpas, and schoolchildren. I've seen what average but athletic and aggressive slobs fight like in the Marine Corps Martial Arts program, and I can say if grappling and striking are both on the table, inexperienced people are practically effortless to take down and have no real ability to respond. Even ones who did a bit of wrasslin' in high school aren't as good as they think when strikes come in alongside takedown attempts (though they were still the biggest threats).
A trained person can in fact beat 90% of the population in a 1v1 fight with no weapons, your points make no sense at all, no one is claiming they can beat beat someone that has a gun, everyone that say they can beat 90% people mean in a no weapons 1v1 fight... As a matter of fact after reading your post, I bet I could beat your ass too.
So, your complaint is that people claim to be better fighters than 90% of the populace, and you bring as a counterexample... precisely what percentage of the populace? It's one thing to say that "better" does not translate to "invincible," but I'm really not seeing your point here.
The argument you’re making is, “you can be trained in MA and still lose a fight for many reasons.” Sure, that’s true. But the argument you seem to think you’re making is, “you aren’t better than 90 percent if you train MA.” There’s a disconnect in your logic. Please review your post.
Eh, it may be an exaggeration and/or unscientific but it’s a good enough point. I would say if you are ACTIVELY training, have trained for a good while and are comfortable with full contact sparring, you’re more skilled than most of the population. Doesn’t literally mean you can take 90%, you could be 4’10” and 110 lbs and very skilled but very disadvantaged against a 200+ lb attacker, but you’re better off than if you were untrained. If you train in something just for fun, don’t spar, and aren’t in that good of shape OR if you have trained it the past but no longer do, you don’t really get a benefit. The majority of people I meet have trained in something at some point in their lives, but couldn’t use it now.
Martial artists would be the first to tell you not to fight, de-escalate, and try to get away
Damn that’s crazy no way??
This is already proven by Charlie zelenoff.
Let me add something , Rugby /American Football players will probably beat 90% of Karate, Wing Chun and Taekwondo practitioners in any fight apart from Karate and TKD competition fights ! Probably even kill most of them in a street fight !
Probably just because of the weight difference. Even at my most skilled as a boxer/BJJ guy I felt like I'd just be destroyed in my lean competition shape by heavier stronger guys. But a 250 lb Karate guy vs. a 250 lb NFL guy is more fair.
250 lb NFL guy will still give a 250 lb Karate guy a beating
Yeah true bro, my sweet little martial Arts might be nice but when the guy starts seeing Red its basically over for me.
10% of all people is still around 700 million so it's not that unreasonable if you think about it
Better than 90 percent, and 90 percent better are two very different things. Someone who drills anything for some amount of time is going to be better than someone who doesn’t. As to the violent places, sure if someone has been playing pickup games for years they’ll also be better than most. Is anyone’s specific training good enough for any specific situation? No one knows, but at least by training you’ve given yourself a chance.
I think this is very dependant on your stats. If you’re 6’4”, 240 pounds and lift heavy weights multiple times per week, then the entire female population is out, as well as anyone under 15 or over 70. There might be outliers in all of those groups, but they wouldn’t be statistically significant. So you’re already dealing with a specific demographic, fighting age men. If you’re in America or UK then I think 90% is pretty reasonable, if not conservative. In Russia it might be very different.
You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Samoa Joe and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another wrestler, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, to beat me. Then you add Kurt Angle to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way at Sacrifice, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because Kurt Angle KNOWS he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try! So Samoa Joe, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice. But then you take my 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice. See Joe, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice. See, but I'm gonna break it down for all you ladies. Would you rather be with me? Or would you rather be with Joe?
Correct me if you're wrong but it seems like your argument is a person isn't a part of the 10% because of the untrained part of the 10%?
I have a feeling this has way more to do with the intensity of training someone engages in than anything else. I trained at "self defense" gyms and yeah, even the upper belts would have serious issues, I've trained in competitive gyms, and most people there were violent enough to fuck someone's body up permanently for a $2 medal.
[удалено]
Yikes, this is embarrassing.
I think it's more like 70-80%. At most 85%. Definitely not 90.
I've assessed it before and I determined it was 82.54%, maybe up to 86.72%.
Have you ever seen an unathletic drunk asshole try to fight an expert martial artist?
Skills and fighting don't 1:1. If some 5'2 woman is better than 90% of the population at fighting skills, it doesn't mean she is going to win a fight. Part of violence is psychological, so cowardice or bravery come into play. You could be a technical mastermind, but if you're a coward, that isn't going to matter. So practicing Martial Arts makes you technically (in terms of technical skill) better than 80+% of the population. Probably, especially in the fat, decadent west etc. BUT who you are matters. And, I think historically MA discussion is often had largely by dudes, dudes who train. Etc. So they are majority not 5'1 and 95lbs. I'm 200lbs, I have competed in wrestling, had old fashioned scraps in my youth. I'm aware of violence. I've trained various MAs to some degree. I'm not beating up the world, and actually due to the circles I've typically rolled in I always thought I was less capable than I am. Over the years I've encountered some options to spar or deal with people from outside a circle of superior individuals, and learned they are more "normal". If you're 170+lb man, in 50+ pushup kind of shape, with solid MA experience, and you're not a pussy, you can take most people. If bro is 6'5 270lbs and can bench 450, yeah, I'm going to be worried. But give me anyone untrained or poorly trained under 6'3 and 225-ish or less, and it's easy work. If you're 150 or less, then you have your own reality to live in. But the avg man is what 5'8 - 6' and somewhere between 160-200? Like the most common people that might threaten you and have a bar fight? They're easy, you just have to worry about a freak haymaker catching you.
The idea is that you can beat most other people who spend their free time online or playing video games. Gang attacks, weapons, and sucker punches are all outside of consideration in this claim. Your use of them is strange. Most adults I know own cars, but absolutely nobody I know can punch or grapple a car successfully.
Don’t worry about the percentage of the population. Train like you are going against the top 1% The key is the type of training and how much you keep sharp.
In my personal experience, eagerness to engage in harmful violence trumps training 9/10 times. It’s one thing to know how to RNC any comer on the mat in training vs same with someone athletic, strong (as most violent men on the streets will be) and committed to causing you serious harm.
This is the kind of belief that inexperienced people have. Intent doesn't impart skill. Fighting other people who are bad at fighting doesn't make you much better at fighting.
Every day the mats are packed with strong, athletic, violent men.
By this same logic, someone’s eagerness to “cook” at every party trumps a trained chef 9/10 times. Do you see how ridiculous the line of thinking goes? Substituting cook for swimming, driving, etc and then revisit your post. Do you somehow think that there are no strong athletes on the mats? That somehow trained people can’t be eager? Find better arguments against training because yours is frankly one of the same old tired arguments. Weapons and friends are not the exclusive domain of the untrained. I train and have both.
I don’t know why you think most violent men on the streets are strong and athletic, but that hasn’t been my experience at all. I grew up in areas with a lot of gang activity. Many of my family members were and some still are involved the lifestyle. They largely can’t fight for shit. It’s the guns you gotta worry about. Then you’ve got tweakers who are either falling all over themselves sloppy or superhumans. Most fall into the first group. You shouldn’t be looking for street fights at all but if you train in combat sports regularly and keep your body in shape, you’re gonna be fine hand to hand against most people provided you’re average sized and not a senior citizen or child.
99% of "streetfighters" have 1 minute of cardio and the only punches they know are wild looping hooks, and maybe an overhand. If there's no quick KO they end up sucking air and barely able to lift their arms and stand straight.
Exactly. There are thousands of videos on YouTube of people fighting. The ones that last more than like 30 seconds are going to see the one who isn’t gasping for breath winning. Shit, even amateur MMA fights between new fighters go the same way just with better technique and maybe a tiny bit more gas.
Completely agree
Agreed.
It's a stupid saying anyway, and training just to win a fight against an untrained person is a stupid goal. It's totally disrespecting what real violence could look like, totally disrespecting an adversary, and it's totally disrespecting of factors that may cause a person to want to attack you anyway.