this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
60 points (98.4% liked)
askchapo
23308 readers
132 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always use the term "I like my odds"
And the square you have to circle is if he has consistently trained since whenever that picture of him in a white belt came out (at least 4 years ago) he probably could fuck all three of them up. That's even if he's doing the celebrity thing of only doing privates where a bunch of fancy reputation professors (black belts) teach him techniques without ever having to test it against the general public. Some celebrities do that sort of thing because a lot of people's paychecks revolve around them not showing up on set visibly beaten or injured.
Because of that and the context of being on stage, getting positive reactions from his costars, and being in front of an audience, that's probably showbiz talking through him. I'm not saying the person underneath isn't a chud and the kernel of truth isn't there, but it smells of banter to me. I can just imagine how if I wanted to tell stories about how my wife reacted to my aching joints there's not a soul in that venue who will care, but if I rattle a saber a little bit suddenly every forum on the planet is talking about me and my favorite sport. If I got that much attention you better believe I'm not media trained enough to handle anything; I'm immediately trying to take sponsorships and HaileyWelchmaxxing
I do too. Yet somehow I never use it in my jokes. But that changes now. 'N I like my odds. What is my interlocutor gonna do when I throw him to the ground in a double leg takedown...
Eh I dunno aren't most martial arts made up bullshit that only works in the limited constraints of the sport? One well placed kick to the nuts and he's gone.
I have a big ol' soapbox about dirty fighting not being as good as you would hope. To make a long story short, if you were going to win the fight, you don't need them. If you weren't, then you've just made the person on top of you unhappy and they have a wider set of options than you.
Think it just depends on what you consider "dirty fighting". Imo there is no such thing as dirty fighting if you are being assaulted. If biting someone's nose off is going to help stop someone from getting brain damage then it's all fair game.
I've only been in like two serious scraps in my life and neither of those people thought it was fair that I picked them up and bounced them off the pavement. Imo if you didn't want that then you shouldn't start a fight with someone big enough to throw you.
My thesis is that seldom would biting someone's nose help you from getting brain damage and more often it's going to be the origin of their motivation to give you brain damage. The nut shot is what's going to escalate the level of violence of a losing fight from a bloody nose and a headache to lost teeth and a skull fracture.
I'm not saying that it's unfair, I'm asserting that it's ineffective. Rude attacks are much more effective from the top position. If someone is straddling you in mount and you grab for their groin, they might grab your fingers and break them for the trouble and then do your eyes like the Mountain from Game of Thrones. Their nuts kind of ache, but you come out of the altercation with mangled fingers and scratched corneas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPzVQ98KC0k
Bas Ruten, UFC Heavyweight Champion, UFC hall of famer, and three-time King of Pancrase world champion, has the story I'm looking for @ 3 minutes of this video and goes on to explain the point much more emphatically than I can. (CW: It's Joe Rogan)
The vast majority of people getting brain damage from random assaults are acquired without intent. It's from a random blow to the back of the head or when you hit the pavement.
We're not talking about a mma fight..... I've never seen an actual street fight where someone tried to actually mount someone. I have seen people ineffectually attempt to choke someone face to face, in that scenario biting someone's nose is going to get them to let go. If you are a smaller person being assaulted by some random person, the goal is simply to create a situation or enough space for you to run away.
Is dirty fighting going to help you on a one vs one when both people have training? Prob not, but that is a tiny minority of actual fights in real life situations. Which is why bjj is not for the streets in the first place. Trying to take someone to the ground is the last thing you really want to do in something like a bar fight, because one of their buddies is just going to fight dirty and smash you in the back of the head with a bar stool.
I think this is the problem with people being obsessed with mma, it creates a idea that fights are mostly one vs one combat. As someone who's worked in orthopedics for nearly two decades in a large city...... That's not usually how people end up in a hospital.
Most fights happen when people are drinking, and most of those end when the first person throws a sucker punch. If they go on much longer than that then more people tend to get involved and someone usually ends up taking a group beating.
I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusion from the evidence. More people fighting randos are going to be untrained than trained. Sure. Absolutely. Only a fraction of a fraction are going to do enough martial arts to make an appreciable difference. There are more variables at play (friends, weapons, and environment). Absolutely! Therefore more people are going to go to the hospital because of the random chaos of untrained people running into a chaotic environment than people who end up in the hospital because of some secret, midnight, parking garage kumite. 10.000%.
But even in your example, someone throwing a sucker punch is arguably a rude technique. That escalation of violence (or perhaps the origin thereof) is answered by escalated violence by way of a group beating. If they didn't do the rude technique they don't get the group beating. In that sense, I think all of these things can be true about random fights while still maintaining that rude techniques make people (and their friends) more willing to escalate violence.
I'm not necessarily talking about an MMA fight either. What I am saying is that the same adrenaline/drugs that makes breaking someone's arm in an armbar ineffective while a choke will necessarily stop them is the same difference that makes biting the nose a gamble instead of a high percentage solution. Because if they don't recoil back in agony, then you've given that violent person with outstretched, dirty hands access to your eyes and a reason to reach towards your face. They're going to have that reflex without training it a day in their lives. You could say "well, what about headbutts?" and you probably could, but at that point, for the same amount of effort, you could do clinch defense work and specialize in making distance so you can get away, perhaps throwing a couple elbows for the trouble.
I believe there's a survivorship bias in just taking into account people who wind up in the hospital. You would never hear a story about someone who didn't escalate and therefore didn't need to go to the hospital. That story could look like a guy who throws wild punches for 65-80 seconds, gets their shirt ripped, gets tired, yells something mean, and buzzes off.
(also I didn't recommend BJJ for self defense. Saying sorry no matter who's at fault, running, and being around friends are 1000x more effective)
You'd be surprised, a sucker punch often ends the fight as the two people who originated the conflict have found a resolution and now one side has to take care of an unconscious person. Fights generally get out of hand when the fight goes on long enough to get the attention of the group who then see a friend who actively needs a hand.
The vast majority of untrained people who experience adrenaline do not fight, they typically flee, or freeze.
They really won't...... People generally do not think or react rationally under stress or pain. They're just going to try and push you away.
And they would react to this differently than a "dirty fight"? People react to pain, not the level of justification of that pain.
You do all the time..... Mostly they are bystanders who get clobbered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Those guys get the shit kicked out of them or stabbed all the time...... People willing to do violence to a level that endangers someone's life do not need a rational justification to do so. I have had patients who literally got shot for saying "what are you going to do, shoot me?".
Gambling that they recoil in agony instead of them and their friends increasing the level of violence
Gambling that they flee or freeze instead of increasing the level of violence
What are they going to push on while you're biting their nose?
They can react however they want, but you'll have already made distance because you've gotten their hands off of you and stepped out of the pocket. But again, as the focus appears to be on untrained people, the only point was that I believe it to be a higher % tactic for making distance as compared to a headbutt.
The fact that people get unlucky in a chaotic environment is something we agree on. The point of the last message is that I believe this is not dispositive of rude techniques increasing the level of violence which is a bad idea if you're already losing.
Are there incredibly violent people out there for whom it doesn't matter your level of violence? Sure. Is randomly fighting/antagonizing random people a stupid idea with no upside? Absolutely. Can you be subject to escalated violence even if you're fighting with only fists? For sure.
Would you have been better off against a wrath-drunk person if you used rude techniques instead of just your fists? An interesting question, admittedly. Against multiple? No, there's nothing short of a weapon or nice running shoes that's going to help you out without a hefty dose of luck (in opponent selection, environment, and how the punches land). But a single cruel person for whom there is no de-escalation nor escape, you have no combat sport experience, nor weapon, nor backup then I guess it's worth a shot. I wouldn't hang my hat on it, but it sucks that you got in that situation in the first place because a gamble seems like it's what could get you out. Also, think about it! As they increase the level of violence against you and make your situation increasingly hopeless, consider how easy it becomes to justify increasing the level of violence in return. Do you think the aggressor is getting a good EV by risking recoiling in agony against you? Risking you taking out a weapon? Risking police intervention? Even the aggressor is more vulnerable in this escalated fight! Even if they still win they might have gouged eyes, broken fingers, or a felony case. And for what? The cash in your wallet or something? Some fragile, toxic-masculine sense of honor?
But if you keep encountering wrath-drunk people, you're not instigating it, and you can't just avoid them then you probably need some kind of weapon more than you need a dirty technique. You'd also likely benefit better prevention like not looking like an easy target, not looking like a valuable target, being in well lit places during the day, not being alone, saying sorry no matter who's at fault, deescalating, leaving, and things of this nature. Those will save you 100 times before rude techniques save you once.
All the same, I believe there are still relevant and plentiful situations that can be made worse by increasing the level of violence against someone who already has the upper hand against you and no situations made better by increasing the level of violence against someone you're already beating.
Recoil in agony? I think you're underestimating how easy it is for most people to be knocked unconscious, especially if they are inebriated.
Most people are more likely to freeze or flee. You are gambling that you are fighting a logical person who believes in only justified violence.
Body or face? My point was that they aren't going to strategically go for an eye gouge. Having your face or body pushed away is what you are going for.
Again, you are assuming people know how to do that.....
Any response is going to necessitate an increase the levels of violence.
yeah... But we were talking about starting a fight, we were talking bout getting yourself out of an assault.
That is where I really disagree. If you're being attacked randomly and without cause then you cannot trust the person will escalate in violence in a rational way.
Again.... I didn't claim that you should go out and start fight, in fact I suggested you run away from them if ever possible. My only claim was that if your healthier in safety is already on the line there is no such thing as a fair fight.
Violent people who start fights are not rational people...... I don't know how you can't comprehend this? They are not thinking about moderation or the potential ramifications of escalating violence. The vast majority of people who commit felony assaults have extremely poor impulse control.
I'm not convinced this is good faith. I'm disengaging.
I think we can agree to disagree without accusing someone of being disingenuous without any evident reason.
True, I misspoke. Sorry
No worries. Like I said I think it's perfectly fine to agree to disagree, especially on a topic as silly as this. I'm on the rough side of my thirties and haven't been in a real fight in well over a decade and don't plan on doing so any time soon.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Most martial arts, maybe, but Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is not included in the list of made up bullshit because it's one of the few where you regularly spar with fully resisting opponents. There are legitimate criticisms of BJJ and it has limitations like every other martial art, but it's very far from being bullshit.
Edit: also, most legitimate, traditional martial arts are not bullshit either. They tend to be somewhat less effective than the ones where you train with fully resisting opponents, but there are still fighting skills that can be learned from them.
I did BJJ on and off for a few years, there's too much ground play and the meta at my gym was people laying down on the ground and kicking at people. Very boring and not realistic, from my experience at least
I'll always have a bias because I did a bunch of judo and muay thai to account for people who don't come to the ground easily. But I would say that boring and annoying makes for a really good self defense system. In my ideal world I'm an annoying wet blanket until somebody comes to help me. I've also beaten a black belt in competition by way of taking a judo grip which was enough to convince them to pull guard and then keeping relentless pressure after that. Similar for a brown belt; I was in a competition I didn't want to be in so my hope was to throw them immediately to dissuade them from resisting, but they frame 1 pulled guard.
That's a really good way to put it. BJJ people are certainly that, if nothing else. That's an awesome combination of martial arts you have there. I think Judo (along with Sambo) is the next best thing to BJJ for pure grappling (and BJJ is a direct descendant of Judo AFAIK), followed by various styles of wrestling.
I honestly believe that Judo is overpraised. It has a lot more traditional martial arts elements than people realize in my experience (and understanding of how schools keep their lineage to the kodokan alive). I would quickly concede that sambo and wrestling are the superior grappling arts to BJJ in terms of making MMA champions. The caveat being that the programs are only as intense as the institution running them. You can have a middling wrestling program that creates wrestlers who don't bite down on the mouth guard and you can have a hard ass judo school that doesn't require you learn the names of the techniques in Japanese and English.
But at the end of the day, grappling is grappling to some degree. Kill your inner HR that tells you it takes many years of experience to learn a new one if you're good at the other.
I've never tried Judo myself, but I like the traditional martial arts elements as long as they don't detract from the main function of the art. I don't know much about Sambo because it's a relatively rare martial art, other than the general idea that it's like Judo with leg locks. I would concede that wrestling is better than BJJ at stand up grappling, but not on the ground. I agree that different schools of the same martial art can have great variance in the quality of what is taught/learned. Learning the names of the techniques in Japanese doesn't bother me (other than it being a little more difficult to memorize), especially considering that in many cases they have specific names for techniques that don't even have an English name. I also agree that grappling is grappling and that there are a lot of skills that transfer between the various styles.
I have a research project to recommend to you. You should look up why Judo was named as such instead of being named Jujitsu. And inso doing, explain the two pillars of the art. If you get to the heart of that, you'll find the main function of Judo.
Something tells me that it's the art for you.
Thanks. I know a little bit of the background for why Judo split from Jujitsu, but I'll try to learn more. I greatly admire Judo and would have loved to have done it when I was much younger (Muay Thai too), but there are a few issues that have prevented me from trying it: I'm old (and already started BJJ when I was older), very tall, and I stopped BJJ because my fingers/knuckles were suffering with the constant stress on them from gi sparring. I felt that Judo would be the same or worse. I would dearly love to learn all those foot sweep techniques from Judo.
For now, Ive settled on the next best thing for me personally, which is a Japanese Jujitsu style that has many same or similar techniques to Judo and BJJ but no live sparring that I'm aware of. I also just started last night a style of Karate at the same school that also doesn't appear to have live sparring. Yes, I know that not having live sparring limits their utility, but I decided that it was a good balance for me of teaching me some useful techniques while having less risk of getting injured. I've thought about this quite a bit and decided that at some point the self-preservation intent of martial arts could be applied to select martial arts that wouldn't be so punishing on my body. The other nice thing about this school is that it's a community-based non-profit school, so I pay significantly less to learn both JJJ and Karate than I used to pay for just BJJ.
At the risk of giving away the game, there are old people who do judo. There are people who compete in kata competition who never go at shiai pace. It's because the purpose of judo as intended by its creator is not to be the best competitor. In that same vein I'd never look twice if you told me that sparring isn't for you
I'm sure there are old people who do judo. I have looked for and read plenty of Reddit threads asking if old people could do judo. :) It's just that I realized I wouldn't want to do it at anywhere near full speed regularly. If you're saying that I can find a place that would let me go at my own pace, that would be interesting, but I think that even in that case I would benefit from learning many of the techniques at JJJ first. Or are you saying that it's possible to practice judo without sparring? I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence either. This reminds me, I wish that we had an active martial arts community here on Lemmy.
Yeah, unfortunately a lot of BJJ schools have focused on competition/sport almost exclusively, which is obviously detrimental to the self-defense aspects of it. I understand that the Gracie Academy still focuses a lot on the self-defense aspects, but I don't have first-hand experience. My school had a bit of both, but it definitely focused more on competition than on realistic self-defense. Having said that, the original concept of it that most fights end on the ground is a very sound one for one on one fights. Fights naturally tend to go to the ground, and even more so if one of the combatants is intentionally trying to take the other one down. It doesn't take much to get someone on the ground, and once on the ground, a BJJ fighter will dominate pretty much any other style that doesn't focus on ground fighting. As far as the meme goes, I would certainly bet on the BJJ person over the Tae Kwon Do person if they had similar levels of skill/experience.