Is knowledge determined by physical ability?

sparks110972

If you cant fight Does that mean you are not worth your grade?
If you can fight but dont know the technical should you be a blackbelt?
If you are a technical wizard but cant fight should you be a blackbelt?
I am interested in blackbelt coments on this because it is my belief that combat is only a small insignificant part of what we do and if you are not proficient in all other aspects then you are not worth a first kyu. before you ask yes i am a blackbelt.
Enlighten me!!!

Clive

On the battlefield, there are no belts, no "technical" ability.

There is only victory or death.

hardCopy

It should depend on what is on the syllabus for a particular style. If the style is supposed to prepare people for combat then they should have to prove themselves in combat to advance, otherwise what's the point?

If the main aims of the style are personal development of the student, increasing their discipline/ self-control etc. then this is where they should be graded.

If the syllabus has multiple aims then, I think, they should be proficient in all areas in order to advance to black belt level.

sparks110972

Clive wrote:

On the battlefield, there are no belts, no "technical" ability.

There is only victory or death.

let me guess mma?
we are talking about real martial arts not mma or brazilian jiu jitsu which are classed as combat sports and have little or no sylibus to begin with!!
by the way... without technique what are you going to use in combat, soldiers are trained to fight!
and as for belts, the original idea for belts goes back to the seventeen hundreds and there is even an illustration printed in "le parisien" a french newspaper in 1874 depicting a demonstration of ju jutsu in paris by some of the japenese masters(i have a copy) the belt system allows the instructor and students to know what standard and ability a student has achieved.

Colm_OReilly

I was going to post this on the JJ in DNS thread but it's probably more appropriate here: the distinction between wisdom and power (my terminology)

Wisdom is the ability to understand the underlying concepts, modalities, mechanics, "science" etc behind any technique or skill. To a large degree anyone who can understand have the ability to relate (or teach/coach) their understanding to others.

Power is the ability to execute a given skillset, whether one "understands" it or can relate the information.

Now to be a very proficient fighter you'd need power - as defined above - look at Mick Leonard or Dave Roche for a prime example of this. Neither of these guys particularly enjoyed teaching others, but loved and excelled in combat. In common parlance, they could "just do it". Would Crocop or Fedor be great teachers?

I'm more on the wisdom end of the spectrum, usually a better coach than athlete in any area of physical endeavour.

If you're particularly gifted AND dedicated, you can be both a good/great competitor and coach. Chris Brennan is very good at relating concepts/techniques, plus I think we can all agree a great competitor. Closer to home those who know JK would probably put him in the same league wisdom-power wise.

Now, to address the opening post:

If you are a technical wizard but cant fight should you be a blackbelt?

Matt Thornton once asked how can you be a great technician but not be able to fight? Strictly speaking, you can. (And we're bordering on semantics here) You could either a) have an abundance of attributes that will lend themselves to combat efficacy or b) know a rake of techniques and be able to perform them perfectly in a technique environment (a dry dock of sorts) but not be able to perform them in a skill environment.

A technique is any movement with a clearly defined start point, end point, and sequence of intermediary movements/positions. Skill is the ability to read a situation, select the appropriate technique, and then successfully execute it. Obviously the reading, selecting and executing can take place in a matter or miliseconds/seconds.

For any skill based activity, and combat is one, skill training develops the understanding and execution of techniques, as well as developing skill. Therefore it would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to be a technical wizard in such a complex skill/technique sport.

(Combat is a sport with high technical and high skill ability. Badminton would be low technical/high skill, whereas swimming would be high technical/low skill. For the purpose of this discussion we're ignoring tactical and strategic considerations.)

If you can fight but dont know the technical should you be a blackbelt?

I'd argue no, you shouldn't. Some BJJ proponents require a technical understanding (SBGi, Roy Harris, etc) whereas others will purely base your grade on performance in competition. However to be able to beat a black belt with pure attributes (Crossfit definition of fitness) with zero technical ability would probably be impossible.

John - what sort of beginner has given you the most trouble? Have you ever been forced to tap to a beginner because of their attributes? Once? Repeatedly?

If you cant fight Does that mean you are not worth your grade?

For a belt to have any sort of merit I'd argue that yes, you should be able to fight at that level. I'll add the caveat here that for children I grade them on personal development, not absolute ability.

I'd agree to a large extent with hardcopy's post.

we are talking about real martial arts not mma or brazilian jiu jitsu which are classed as combat sports and have little or no sylibus to begin with!!

A couple of points/questions

1. Can you define the term "real martial arts" as fully as possible please?
2. Regarding syllabus, are there no techniques to be learned in Judo, Olympic Wrestling, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Western Boxing or Muay Thai? If there are, and I believe it's apparent that there are techniques, is teaching these not a syllabus. Or is it the case that with athletic endeavours there's no establish, agreed teaching progression of techniques and this is your definition of a syllabus?

Thanks for reading,
Colm

Jimkel

I'm not yet a black belt but heres my 2 cents.

Imagine an ex champion karateka for example, He's in his late 50's now but up untill the age of 40 he was a respected fighter in karate circles, yet because of age and health complications he is no longer physically able, do you think should be able to teach?

I think so, He knows his stuff, has performed what he now askes of his students countless times in his career, All he needs is a good assistant instructor to demonstrate what he cannot and use his knowledge to correct and instruct his students.

Its like asking do you think a retired NBA player can coach a team even if he cannot perform on the court anymore. He still has the knowledge, all he needs is good communication skills and he can train a great team.

As for a great fighter who does not have a clue about the technical side, I don't think that person exists.

He might not be able to communicate his skills but a great fighter knows how to fight, therefore he has technical skills.

Should he teach, no, without the ability to explain and transfer information how could he possibly teach others? can we learn from such a fighter , yes, but not from his instruction, rather from his inspiration.

Take Mohammed Ali, I dont think he could ever have instructed , But man could he fight.

cletus

If you are a technical wizard but cant fight should you be a blackbelt?


To take this out of ma, and place it in the context of another sport, say for instance soccer. If you can dribble around poles and cones all day(technical), but you cant dribble around opponents in a match situation(fight), should you be considered a great soccer player(blackbelt)?

I believe that training martial arts trains you to fight, hence the martial aspect. I don't see that you could be a technical wizard and not be able to apply it in your chosen field. Not every blackbelt has to be world champion, but they do, I think, have to be able to apply what they train in the situation they train for, i.e. fighting

(Yeah, I can see it coming, blackbelt in soccer, lol lol lol:rolleyes: )

Jimkel

By the way syllabus has noting to do with a persons ability to teach, It doesn't matter if it's BJJ, Karate, TKD, Boxing, or even La Savate, It's about the instructors ability to teach and the students ability to absorb.

syllabus is a summary outline of a course of study or of examination requirements, but a good teacher can teach without syllabus. If belts are present or not it doesn't matter, sure a black belt feels good to receive but it doesn't indicate much these days unless your coming from a good club, It's the difference between saying

I have a degree in Science from Trinity
and I have a degree in Science from an online course I payed 300 euro for

Now its a degree either way, but who would you rather tutor you in science?

Jimkel

cletus wrote:

If you are a technical wizard but cant fight should you be a blackbelt?


To take this out of ma, and place it in the context of another sport, say for instance soccer. If you can dribble around poles and cones all day(technical), but you cant dribble around opponents in a match situation(fight), should you be considered a great soccer player(blackbelt)?

I believe that training martial arts trains you to fight, hence the martial aspect. I don't see that you could be a technical wizard and not be able to apply it in your chosen field. Not every blackbelt has to be world champion, but they do, I think, have to be able to apply what they train in the situation they train for, i.e. fighting

I suppose the only way to test out a new club is to walk in , say your interested in joining and suddenly attack the instructor, If he kicks your ass he's got himself a student.

Speaking of black belt in soccor lol, when I was in kenpo the guy who swept the floor, locked up the hall etc was awarded an honorary black belt. He never trained in kenpo in his life. But he earned a black belt in sweeping and locking up!

Roper

sparks110972 wrote:

If you cant fight Does that mean you are not worth your grade?

What is martial arts other than combat ability? "Martial" implies that.

If you can fight but dont know the technical should you be a blackbelt?

Don't think that can happen in a reality based art. Certainly I've seen guys walk in the door of TKD schools and beat black belts because they were big and aggressive. But I've never really seen it in BJJ or MMA. Even I, with my modest BJJ abilities have never had anyone come in and tap me because they were big. More difficult to deal with, yes, but better fighters in an all-round sense? No. and as anyone here will tell you, I'm ****e in the grand scale of things. Difference is that BJJ values real skills above all else, TKD and arts like it value skill/ability to march up and down in lines/knowledge of Korean or Japanese terms, so the belt system isn't really representative of any real "Martial" ability.

If you are a technical wizard but cant fight should you be a blackbelt?

Matt Thornton wrote:

Yes, but not everyone can be a good fighter? What about those that say you can be a good technician without necessarily being a good fighter.

Think about it... how can you be a good technician if you can't fight? It doesn't make any sense. You don't say... hey that guy is a good boxing technician... but when he spars he just gets mauled every time. Or that wrestler is a good technician, but his takedowns suck... or that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu guy is a good technician, but he cant fight on the ground at all. If you said that you would sound insane. But people say that in JKD all the time. Its another in a long line of myths.

You can be a tough fighter without being technical, due to aggression, size, explosiveness, strength, etc. But you cannot be a good technician without being able to fight, its impossible.(Matt Thornton, 2005, Aliveness 101, SBGi)

That says it better than I would!

Mark Hamill

sparks110972 wrote:

If you cant fight Does that mean you are not worth your grade?
If you can fight but dont know the technical should you be a blackbelt?
If you are a technical wizard but cant fight should you be a blackbelt?
I am interested in blackbelt coments on this because it is my belief that combat is only a small insignificant part of what we do and if you are not proficient in all other aspects then you are not worth a first kyu. before you ask yes i am a blackbelt.
Enlighten me!!!

Those who can do, those who can't teach!

Seriously though, i've trained with people who where brilliant fighters but crap teachers, and people who where crap fighters and brilliant coaches, i think you just have to say should a black belt mean you are a good coach or a brilliant fighter (ie which comes first into your head when you hear the phrase "blackbelt")
Personally i'd expect a blackbelt to be able to compete and to be good in competition (you aren't really good at something if you can't do it for real at all), but it doesn't mean they have the be the best fighter in the world.

Pride Fighter

I see a lot of black belts resting on their laurels once they get their blackbelt. I think martial arts should be a journey where the practitioner continuously improves. If no longer at the height of physical ability the blackbelt should improve his mentality and become a better coach to his students. So I think the ability to continuously improve is the main factor in becoming a blackbelt and also when one is a blackbelt. Just my opinion. Do others agree/disagree.

TKD SC

Pride Fighter wrote:

I see a lot of black belts resting on their laurels once they get their blackbelt. I think martial arts should be a journey where the practitioner continuously improves. If no longer at the height of physical ability the blackbelt should improve his mentality and become a better coach to his students. So I think the ability to continuously improve is the main factor in becoming a blackbelt and also when one is a blackbelt. Just my opinion. Do others agree/disagree.

Agree. Not sure if main factor (can't think of others now, as is Fri afternoon!), but def up there. Yes, continuous improvement in whatever way is important. A friend slags me that I'm only as good at pool as my last game (usually says this if he I beat him say 5-3, but he won the last game we played!!). Is this logic true for the MA's? Discuss!!

conor rowan

can someone clarify what is black belt (apart from something that holds up trousers and is black)?
when i was a kid i thought it was a sign of someone who was one of the best at theire martial art. then as I started martial arts my understanding was that it was awarded on being able to perform a set repertoire. now the impression im getting from this thread is that a black belt is akin to a ma hdip.

anyway my 2 cents is that if black belts are handed out all over the place it cheapens them. they should be awarded based on knoweldge AND fighting prowess(these are MARTIAL arts after all). they should be awarded on a case by case basis. ie the old fighter who has knowledge but whose prowess has waned deserves it in the same way that this hypothetical amazing natural fighter that everyone keeps referring to doesnt unless he shows the relevant techniques (otherwise this is just a street fight)

SBG Ireland

colm's answer pretty much covers everything with good definitions and analogies, and the quote from Matt covers the important question 'can you be technical but not able to fight'

i have nothing really to add to that......except i've had this conversation enough times to realise that it will mean completely different things to the two groups reading it (those involved in combat athletics and those not).

because of the diametrically opposed worldviews and various definitions for the terms floating around its impossible for this conversation to lead any where fruitful....but maybe i'm just cynical. but its cynicism brought on by years of having this conversation on various forums and never once making anybody change their minds....until they came to a training session and could 'feel' what i was on about.

as a small example lets look at definitions of 'technical ability'. when you say this to a combat athlete he thinks of de la hoya's jab - but landing it in a fight against another skilled opponent, or Bukaw's kick- but landing it in a fight against another skilled opponent, or Garcia's arm drag - but landing it in a fight against another skilled opponent.

when you say 'technical ability' to someone coming from say a non-sport focused martial art they may think of the crispness that someone can perform a kata or how sharp they look doing the preset self defence techniques.

these definitions are very very different. which is 'better', well that depends on your definition of 'better' and its not for me to say. what i will say from experience is that its obvious (to me anyway) that some people are just born to go one way and some people born to go the other - its not their choice and certainly not yours to make for them!

all that you can do is try both, be honest with yourself and do the one you enjoy the most....the physical side is not that important anway, only the 'being honest' with yourself part.

john kavanagh

ninjaburr

sparks110972 wrote:

it is my belief that combat is only a small insignificant part of what we do

Interesting comment.
I would have thought that as ma was born from the perceived need for the preparation for combat, its evolution is influenced on different ways of interpreting the need and response to combat and as the effectivness of a particular "technique" is gauged by its use in combat situations I would disagree with saying that it is an insignificant part of ma.
I would have thought it was an intigrel part of ma.

ninjaburr

sparks110972 wrote:

let me guess mma?
we are talking about real martial arts not mma or brazilian jiu jitsu which are classed as combat sports and have little or no sylibus to begin with!!

Yeah. I used to think like that.Then i accidentily ended up walking into an mma classs in a trad jiu jit dojo.
It was a mind opening experience.One of them things that you know that you will look back on and see that your life and therefore your art has taken a new direction.

ninjaburr

sparks110972 wrote:

as for belts, the original idea for belts goes back to the seventeen hundreds and there is even an illustration printed in "le parisien" a french newspaper in 1874 depicting a demonstration of ju jutsu in paris by some of the japenese masters(i have a copy) the belt system allows the instructor and students to know what standard and ability a student has achieved.

Cool.Something new i didnt know.My understanding was that the colour belt system was introduced in judo in the late 1800,s and then incorporated into trad karate in the early 1900's with the influence of foreign students who would be more ego/I driven than previous native students.
learning rocks!!

Clive

sparks110972 wrote:

let me guess mma?

I'm assuming that this is supposed to mean, "Let me guess - you compete in MMA?". If so, then yes, like fighters for countless centuries, I am honoured to represent my school, style and lineage against others in challenge matches.

sparks110972 wrote:

we are talking about real martial arts not mma or brazilian jiu jitsu which are classed as combat sports and have little or no sylibus to begin with!!

Classed by whom? I would class MMA as a sport and BJJ as a martial art, you would say otherwise. Our two opinions combined are probably worth about as much as a postage stamp in the grand scheme of things.

I'm curious as to how much experience you have in or with BJJ to claim it has "little or no sylibus (sic) to begin with!! (sic)". Listed below are the requirements one instructor has for advancement to blue belt (the first belt awarded). I found them in twenty seconds with google.

II. Positional Escapes

A. Mount

1. Upa and two variations
2. Elbow/knee and two variations

B. Side mount

1. Place into the guard from hold downs 1-4
2. Go to your knees from hold downs 1-4

C. Closed guard

1. Pass under the legs and two variations
2. Pass over the legs and two variations

D. Head lock

1. Frame the arms and one variation
2. Hook the leg and one variation
3. Go to your knees and one variation
4. Bridge and roll and one variation

E. Wrestler’s cradle

1. Push on the knees
2. Roll over your shoulder

F. Kesa gatame

1. Bridge and roll
2. Free your head


III. Positional Dominance

A. Mount position

1. Position #1
2. Position #2
3. Position #3
4. Position #4

B. Side mount position

1. Hold down #1
2. Hold down #2
3. Hold down #3
4. Hold down #4
5. Kesa gatame

C. Closed guard position

1. Low guard
2. High guard
3. Hip movement
4. Head and arm control


IV. Submissions (mechanics and entries)

A. Arm locks from the guard

1. Spinning arm lock
2. Kimura

B. Arm locks from the mount

1. Spinning arm lock from push on chest
2. Paintbrush
3. Spinning arm lock from position #3

C. Chokes from the guard

1. Guillotine choke
2. Collar choke (palm up, palm up)
3. Collar coke (palm up, palm down)
4. Collar choke (palm down, palm up)
5. Triangle choke with legs
6. Triangle choke with arms

D. Chokes from the mount

1. Triangle choke with arms
2. Fist on the front of the throat
3. Fist on the side of the throat
4. Rear choke

E. Leg locks from the guard

1. Straight foot lock
2. Achilles tendon press with near arm
3. Achilles tendon press with far arm
4. Heel hook

F. Leg locks from the bottom of the mount

1. Straight foot lock
2. Heel hook

V. Self-defense

A. Defense against bear hugs (Standing)

1. Front bear hug (under the arms)
2. Front bear hug (over the arms)
3. Front bear hug (assailant picks you up)
4. Rear bear hug (under the arms)
5. Rear bear hug (over the arms)
6. Rear bear hug (assailant picks you up)

B. Defense against head locks (Standing)

1. Front headlock
2. Front head lock with head down

C. Defense against grabs (Standing)

1. One arm wrist grab
2. Two arm wrist grab
3. Upper arm grab
4. Shirt grab

D. Chokes (Standing)

1. One hand choke
2. Two hand choke
3. One hand choke against the wall
4. Two hand choke against the wall


VI. Physical conditioning

A. Push-ups

1. Three sets of 20

B. Sit-ups

1. Three sets of 30

C. Jump squats

1. Three sets of 20

D. Burpees

1. Three sets of 20



VII. Grappling

A. Grappling with other students

1. Two rounds of five minutes

B. Grappling with me

1. Two rounds of five minutes



VIII. Overall awareness of the entire Jiu Jitsu game

A. Familiarity with sweeps

1. Hip bump from the guard
2. Scissors sweep from the guard
3. Foot lift sweep from the guard
4. Standing foot sweep

B. How to fall

1. Back fall
2. Side fall
3. Front fall

C. Familiarity with throws

1. Hip throw
2. Neck throw
3. Arm throw
4. Inner reap
5. Outer reap

D. Standing takedowns

1. Double leg
2. Double leg variation (change angles)
3. Single leg
4. Single leg variation (change angles)

E. Take downs from the knees

1. Fall back series (four techniques)
2. Drive forward series (four techniques)

F. Familiarity with the open guard

1. With the gi
2. Without the gi

sparks110972 wrote:

and as for belts, the original idea for belts goes back to the seventeen hundreds and there is even an illustration printed in "le parisien" a french newspaper in 1874 depicting a demonstration of ju jutsu in paris by some of the japenese masters(i have a copy) the belt system allows the instructor and students to know what standard and ability a student has achieved.

Exactly. Belts are just another example of modernist rubbish.

Jimkel

ninjaburr wrote:

Interesting comment.
I would have thought that as ma was born from the perceived need for the preparation for combat, its evolution is influenced on different ways of interpreting the need and response to combat and as the effectivness of a particular "technique" is gauged by its use in combat situations I would disagree with saying that it is an insignificant part of ma.
I would have thought it was an intigrel part of ma.

Well dont'd forget that much of the chinese arts from which our martial arts descended was thught to condition the body and the mind, to prevent sickness and promote longevity. It was more ceremonial in it's combat then anything else and some of this has carried on into our TMA's

Jimkel

Clive wrote:

Exactly. Belts are just another example of modernist rubbish.

There is nothing wrong with the belt system, only the peoples perception of the belts, They place too much emphasis on the "almighty" black belt for example.

The belt system is useful for the instructor to teach large classes and for students to recognise who they can turn to for technical advice. Whats wrong with that? Nothing In my opinion.

It's only when the belts become Ranks and not simple syllabus markers to let the instructor what you've learned so far that they become rubbish.

Belts dont matter , the quality of the instructors matters.

HammerHeadGym

Clive wrote:

On the battlefield, there are no belts, no "technical" ability.

There is only victory or death.

Man, That's so deep.

columok

Clive's been listening to Sensei Terry Silver again.

ninjaburr

Jimkel wrote:

Well dont'd forget that much of the chinese arts from which our martial arts descended was thught to condition the body and the mind, to prevent sickness and promote longevity. It was more ceremonial in it's combat then anything else and some of this has carried on into our TMA's

Yeah thats true.But I would have issues with origional comment that combat is "an insignificant part of what we do".
Perhaps an explanation by sparks of what exactly it is that "we do" would help.

hardCopy

ninjaburr wrote:

Yeah thats true.But I would have issues with origional comment that combat is "an insignificant part of what we do".
Perhaps an explanation by sparks of what exactly it is that "we do" would help.

I think the real point is that there is no real "we" because there are so many different arts and so many people training for different reasons.

As long as new students realise that there are so many ways to earn a black belt then they can assess different schools/instructors and find what fits their needs instead of simply trusting someone's judgement because they have a black belt.

ninjaburr

Jimkel wrote:

It's only when the belts become Ranks and not simple syllabus markers to let the instructor what you've learned so far that they become rubbish.

Belts dont matter , the quality of the instructors matters.

nicely put;)

sparks110972

I see some realy well thought out answers here and i am impressed.
for my own view i think there must be balance between combat and technical. without technical there is no foundation for to build your combat on. and without combat it is not a martial art.

Clive...a list is not a sylibus and demonstrating familiarity is not knowing. i have 28 years experience in ju jutsu and other systems. how much experience do you have?

Colm_OReilly

Sparks,

Can you define the terms "combat" and "technical"? From what we've defined so far it seems that there'll be techniques and sparring inherent in any decent martial arts/combat sports facility.

Also, could you provide your definition of martial arts and combat sports, and what separates them?

Finally, on syllabus, is there a syllabus in other skill based physical activities? Do tennis players, rugby players, fencers, canoers have a syllabus? Do they need them? Is there a difference between a teaching progression and a syllabus?

Nice comments on the belts as markers of achievement over rank.

Colm

Clive

sparks110972 wrote:

Clive...a list is not a sylibus

The relevant definition is in bold type:

syl·la·bus /ˈsɪləbəs/
1. an outline or other brief statement of the main points of a discourse, the subjects of a course of lectures, the contents of a curriculum, etc.
2. Law.
a. a short summary of the legal basis of a court's decision appearing at the beginning of a reported case.
b. a book containing summaries of the leading cases in a legal field, used esp. by students.
3. (often initial capital letter) Also called Syllabus of Errors. Roman Catholic Church. the list of 80 propositions condemned as erroneous by Pope Pius IX in 1864.
[Origin: 1650–60; < NL syllabus, syllabos, prob. a misreading (in mss. of Cicero) of Gk síttybās, acc. pl. of síttyba label for a papyrus roll]

Again I must ask the question, how much experience do you have in or with BJJ that you can make such sweeping statements? Whereas I have provided verifiable evidence, you have merely stated your opinion as fact, and tried to confuse the issue with semantics.

sparks110972 wrote:

i have 28 years experience in ju jutsu and other systems. how much experience do you have?

I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion, but since you seem to place stock in such things, I have about 18 years of experience. I received my third dan in Taekwondo, before taking up a Chinese style (Lau Gar Kuen). This in turn piqued my interest in the area and I began to study T'ai Chi Ch'uan.

More recently I have been studying Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Muay Thai (when I get a chance). I have also "brought the martial arts into disrepute" by taking part in challenge matches aka Mixed Martial Arts events.

I have been privileged to train with and learn from many excellent martial artists thus far, and I hope to continue for as long as I am able.

You will also note that I use my real name when I post here, as I stand by everything I say.

newby.204

sparks110972 wrote:

let me guess mma?
we are talking about real martial arts not mma or brazilian jiu jitsu which are classed as combat sports and have little or no sylibus to begin with!!
by the way... without technique what are you going to use in combat, soldiers are trained to fight!
and as for belts, the original idea for belts goes back to the seventeen hundreds and there is even an illustration printed in "le parisien" a french newspaper in 1874 depicting a demonstration of ju jutsu in paris by some of the japenese masters(i have a copy) the belt system allows the instructor and students to know what standard and ability a student has achieved.

While i see your point, the training soldiers get isnt flowing beautiful lists of combinations and finishes. Rather vicious "techniques" to mame, incapacitate/kill his/her enemy and are not suited to fighting in the street!! the emphasis not being on preventing the attack or engaging it and fleeing, but hurting your oponent(s) till they cant do anymore to you!!