8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wastelander
Wastelander's picture
Fighting Dirty

Hello everyone,

My latest article discusses the idea of fighting dirty, and why it isn't the magic bullet for self defense

http://www.karateobsession.com/2016/02/fighting-dirty.html

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Great article Noah! The next podcast looks at some of those topics too (http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/rules-paradox). Still something that should be included in practise, methods that can be effective in a self-protection context (and require little training to be so), but they are not an easily exploitable Achilles-Heel for highly trained fighters, nor are they a substitute for combative skill.

Thanks for sharing!

All the best,

Iain

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Thanks for sharing this, it's a great article.  You hit the nail on the head.  You make a good point about how "dirty fighting" isn't a magic bullet and can even escalate the level of violence.  This reminds me of those people who think they can just eye gouge their way out from under the mount in a grappling scenario, failing to realize that a mounted attacker has a tremendous positional advantage and could do the exact same thing to them, only more effectively.  As you point out, those techniques can sometimes be useful supplements, but they're not a magic bullet and they can't substitute for solid fundamentals.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

deltabluesman wrote:
You make a good point about how "dirty fighting" isn't a magic bullet and can even escalate the level of violence.

I agree with the first part, but I don’t buy the “don’t bite or it may make him mad” line of thinking. I’ve heard it a lot from lots of sources. That may be true of a consensual fight – i.e. you cheat during a fight you agreed to – which is where I suspect the thinking comes from (failure to recognise shifting context). It’s very unlikely to be true in a self-protection situation.

At the point where it has got physical, the criminal is committed to violence and telling people, “don’t poke his eyes because you’ll make him mad” is terrible advice. The person is already committed to harming you, “being nice” is not going to change that. If someone is kneeling on top of you raining down punches, then it’s way too late to try any form of negotiation or reasoning. He’s already doing it! He’s already mad. We don’t need to worry about making him mad … he is already so mad that he wants smash your face in. That ship has sailed.

Telling people “don’t make him mad by biting, etc” will also take off the table some of the simplest methods available to unskilled people. Studies also tell us that people who fight back deal with the psychological aftermath better. We should encourage them to fight. Not to be inactive because we may make him mad.

Would anyone tell their daughter that if someone was trying to rape her that she should be primarily concerned about not making the attacker mad? I don’t think anyone would. The criminal is already committed to harming her. She should abandon all notions of “being ladylike” and fighting fair. She should claw, scratch, bite, gouge, scream, do anything she can to get herself free. We should give the same advice to everyone. Practically and psychologically this is the wisest course of action. The criminal wants a victim; we should not give him one.

deltabluesman wrote:
As you point out, those techniques can sometimes be useful supplements, but they're not a magic bullet and they can't substitute for solid fundamentals.

I think that’s broadly true. But there are differing scenarios.

1, Is, as is so often suggested, “fighting dirty” a kind of skilled-fighter-kryptonite?

Obviously not. Skilled legal techniques are far more damaging than unskilled illegal techniques.

2 , Does it therefore follow that because “dirty fighting” will be ineffective against a skilled fighter that the role of such methods should be downplayed when being used by a civilian in the context of criminal violence?

No it does not. It takes a lot of time a practise to develop a reasonable cross. People can bite with no training. Therefore when we are giving advice to everyday people, their biting will be more applicable and effective than techniques they have never practised enough in order to hone them to a workable level. The criminal wants a victim, not a fight. So give them the fight with the available methods.

Fighting dirty can simultaneously be an irrelevance when fighting a skilled fighter, and very useful when helping everyday unskilled people do all they can to fend off criminal violence.

A fifteen year old untrained female will not be able to fend off a rapist with crosses, elbows, and roundhouse kicks. For the skilled fighter these are bread and butter basics; not for her though. However, she can bite, scratch, gouge, etc. Most criminals are not MMA champions, so while these methods don’t work against MMA champions in a fight, they can work against criminals. The rapist wants to control and dominate, so the right advice is to fight back with all you have. Don’t be the victim that the criminal wants you to be. And even if the worse should happen, studies are clear that those who fight back are better able to process the trauma of the attack. We need to encourage the unskilled to fight back with the skills they have. It’s not a good idea to encourage them to be passive or recommend they try to use skills they don’t have.

It’s a difficult one to discuss because “fighting dirty” is fundamentally defined by the structure of consensual fights. It’s therefore hard to extricate those method and move them “baggage free” from that context to the context of criminal violence. It can all get a bit tangled.

It gets a little simpler when we discuss the methods themselves i.e. “biting will be easily stopped by a skilled fighter and they can put themselves in a position where you can’t bite but they can cause lots of harm (context 1) … BUT biting hard and aggressively on the cheek can be a good way for an unskilled person to cause a much stronger potential rapist to loosen their embrace (they have to move to stop it) and to deny them the dominance that they are seeking (context 2). Context determines all.

All the best,

Iain

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Iain, thanks for the response.  This is a very interesting topic!

Iain Abernethy wrote:

deltabluesman wrote:
You make a good point about how "dirty fighting" isn't a magic bullet and can even escalate the level of violence.

I agree with the first part, but I don’t buy the “don’t bite or it may make him mad” line of thinking. I’ve heard it a lot from lots of sources. That may be true of a consensual fight – i.e. you cheat during a fight you agreed to – which is where I suspect the thinking comes from (failure to recognise shifting context). It’s very unlikely to be true in a self-protection situation.

Oops, I didn't mean to imply that line of thinking.  Personally, I am an absolute believer in the effectiveness of these "dirty fighting" techniques, especially when used by untrained individuals.  I don't subscribe to the "don't bite or it will make him mad" argument.  I completely agree about the importance of having a "fighting mindset" and being willing to use whatever it takes to survive an encounter with criminal violence (if possible).

Speaking generally, I do think it's broadly true that dirty fighting can escalate the level of violence at times.  Not in a clear self protection scenario (such as an attempted rape or other encounter with criminal violence), but instead in those "gray area" situations where it's not yet clear that lethal force is warranted.  For example, a kid dealing with bullies at school, or maybe a situation where you are dealing with a drunk/distraught friend or family member who is getting a little too aggressive.  But as you say, as soon as it's turned into a serious physical self-protection scenario, there's no point in trying to be nice to the attacker.  

My issue is mainly with the use of dirty fighting as a magic bullet.  To go back to the scenario of the mounted attacker, in my own experience I think it's better to focus on the fundamentals of getting out of that bad position, and to use the eye gouge/bite/etc. as a tool to supplement that primary technique.  I have met some martial artists who think that they don't need to train to get out of the mount, because they plan to just eye gouge or bite their opponent.  In my personal experience, those techniques are hard to pull off without practicing/understanding the fundamentals of mount escapes.  Just my two cents, of course.  I am a recreational martial artist primarily and I don't want to portray myself as an expert on the subject.  I'm definitely still a student!

So as I understand your post, I am 100% in agreement with everything you've written above.  And again, this is a very interesting topic.  I've met quite a few people who subscribe to the "don't bite or it will make things worse" mentality, including some prior instructors, and I'm glad to see it rebutted so effectively in your post above.      

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

deltabluesman wrote:
Oops, I didn't mean to imply that line of thinking.  Personally, I am an absolute believer in the effectiveness of these "dirty fighting" techniques, especially when used by untrained individuals.  I don't subscribe to the "don't bite or it will make him mad" argument.  I completely agree about the importance of having a "fighting mindset" and being willing to use whatever it takes to survive an encounter with criminal violence (if possible).

Thank you for the clarification. The “don’t make him mad” like of thinking is something I’ve heard a lot, so my post was not a direct response to yours … I simply used it as a jumping off point :-)  

deltabluesman wrote:
My issue is mainly with the use of dirty fighting as a magic bullet.  To go back to the scenario of the mounted attacker, in my own experience I think it's better to focus on the fundamentals of getting out of that bad position, and to use the eye gouge/bite/etc. as a tool to supplement that primary technique.  I have met some martial artists who think that they don't need to train to get out of the mount, because they plan to just eye gouge or bite their opponent.  In my personal experience, those techniques are hard to pull off without practicing/understanding the fundamentals of mount escapes.

Makes perfect sense to me. “Dirt” is certainly no substitute or solid skills on the ground or standing. If someone is only going to receive minimal training through, such a student on a 6 week self-protection course, then dirt has advantages became it is largely instinctive, and does not take time and effort to develop and maintain.

Away from self-protection, we sometimes here folks say things like, “in a real fight I would poke them in the eye” when observing skilled BJJ etc. As if the eye poke suddenly renders all skills moot. This video is a good illustration of why that’s nonsense:

Thanks for your input and help with the thread … I’ve also tweaked the upcoming podcast a little too as a result of our chat so I think it’s a little more thorough now. Thank you!

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I’ve just uploaded the podcast with my take on “banned methods” and dirty fighting: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/banned-methods

I hope it is of some interest!

All the best,

Iain

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Iain,

Got it, thanks for the response!  I look forward to listening to the newly released podcast.