I couldn't think of proper title to describe this retardation I keep hearing/reading.
Surely many of you have come across it on boards before: x fighter loses to y fighter under z rules/competition, and suddenly some nuthugging fanboy of losing fighter comes along and says something to the effect of "cry cry bullshit, if this was allowed he would've destroyed him", and then almost invariably crops of the argument of "a real fight".
The most common scenario is someone loses under K1 rules and a nuthugger comes along and says that he only lost because the extended thai clinch or elbows aren't allowed (or striker x loses MMA match etc). In all fairness, half the time it might even be true, but the fact it is irrelevant, both fighters agreed to fight under a certain ruleset. It's about as retarded as watching a boxing match and saying that if kicking were allowed fighter x would've won. It's a fucking boxing match.
Of course this logic is usually challenged by "but in a real fight" which only frustrates me even more, because what the fuck is a "real" fight? Is it a real fight if his friend comes up behind you with a baseball bat and beats the fuck out of you? What if he decides to knee you repeatedly in the balls, is this still a real fight? Or how about it's 10 of y guys friends vs x guy? That sounds like a "real" fight to me.
It's retarded and I'm probably equally retarded for going on sherdog or similar forums.
I agree, if both fighters agree to fight under a certain rule set, then whoever wins under those rules wins. Obviously if we are going to compare that to a fight under completely different rules the result might be different.
If Sugar Ray Robinson (arguably the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time) were to face off in a wrestling match against Dan Gable (arguably the greatest freestyle wrestler of all time), Gable would own him. On the other hand if Gable were to face Robinson in a boxing match, he'd get KO'd in no time. Both men were the best at competing under their chosen rule sets, but under very different rules might be at decided disadvantages.
As far as the "real fight" argument, it's a valid one. If you were to remove all rules then things would change drastically, as might the outcome. Like you alluded to, weapons, multiple participants, ambushes, and any other tactics or tools might be fair game in a "real fight". They can be very, very different from what you see in a ring/octagon, or could be very similar. There are just too many variables to be able to pin them into a simple straight forward description.
Still doesn't really have any bearing on what happens within the rules of a given sporting event though.
i was thinking about this post for a while....here's my .02.
in a street fight, guys like Mike Tyson and Rampage Jackson are gonna win regardless. they are mean, tough guys that turned to fighting because they are inherantly fighters (and have a true killer instinct). however, i think there are some guys that fight that are athletes, and use their respective rules to their advantage, and might not fare too well in a streetfight.
with that being said, i've had guys i work with make stupid comments about me training in kickboxing and BJJ, and even though i have them in skill, they'd "fight dirty." i usually explain to them that i'm also bigger, mean and stronger, and all that "unneccessary skill" isn't gonna hurt me against their dumb asses.
Thats exactly what I know from my experiences. Winning in the streets comes down to person thats fighting and not the technique or size. There are also other elements usually involved.Alcohol,friends,cops,bouncers,weapons,drugs,...
You may face a person that provokes you in a bar and you are not sure if there is 15 of his mates around,maybe he is armed,or a cop off duty or a memeber of a powerful gang. You must quickly asses situation and react quickly.Its much more complicated than just a clean streetfight between 2 men.
Attributes like killer instinct, speed, power and toughness (both mental and physical) are certainly huge advantages in a "real fight" (heck, they're beneficial in any type of combative context be it sport or real). But, things like weapons, superior numbers, ambushes and other superior tactics can be equally, if not even more important in determining who comes out ahead.
I'd take a 110 lb woman with a blade (who is highly trained in drawing it and employing it), a hot cup of coffee in her hand, and is highly motivated to kill her opponent over either Tyson or Rampage in a real fight. She could likely get very close to a male opponent without setting off any danger signals (especially if she was attractive), and he would not even know what had happened by the time she had blinded him with her coffee and stabbed him in the neck multiple times with her blade.
Now I know that this is more of a murder situation, but since we're talking about real fighting, we have to realize that real fights generally start several different ways: 1) an escalating encounter- there is some violent or threatening verbal/postural dialogue preceding the physical violence 2) an explosive encounter- there is no verbal/postural dialogue which precedes the physical violence, only a sudden unexpected attack 3) a mutually agreed upon encounter- both participants agree to fight (this is the least common form of real world violence, but it's the one that most sport minded people or "though guys" visualize when talking about real fights)
The explosive variety are the most difficult type to deal with (especially if there's a weapon involved) and are also the least morally and legally acceptable type. But this also makes them the most effective type tactically and is the reason that most smart street fighters heavily rely on the element of surprise and being the first to escalate the level of force if need be. Most real fights are not "fair fights".
It depends on their definition of "fighting dirty" though. If they mean that they'd simply wait for you outside your job and run you over with their car, then they'd likely beat you. If they mean that they'd shoot you with their taser gun ,then alternate shocking you with beating you mercilessly with their baseball bat, then they'd probably beat you. If they meant that the minute you started to win 4 of their friends would jump in with bats and beat you, then they'd probably win.
If on the other hand they mean that they'd square off with you UFC style and just pull your hair or pinch you hard, then yeah your superior skill in kickboxing and BJJ would probably wind up with you winning. Keep in mind though that certain techniques are illegal in sport MMA/grappling competitions for a reason, and it's not that they don't work. Having your eye gouged out or getting kneed full force to the balls is going to take the wind out of your sails (at least).
okay....i do know that weapons are the great equalizer. the point i was trying to make, was that they are certain fighters that will be nearly anyone in a fistfight. and there are fighters that, regardless of their standing in the fight community, won't.
don't get me started on the debate of an elite athlete vs. a d-bag thug on the street....
But see here's the thing- if you want to talk about a streetfight, you HAVE to talk about weapons. You simply have to.
If you're talking about a one on one bareknuckle match, or anything goes kind of match, that's different, but if you're really talking about a "real fight" that you might see outside a club or a bar, you must bring weapons into the equation.
Arturo Gatti was stabbed in the back outside a Miami nightclub, Mike Tyson was assaulted with a bat, Bernard Hopkins has been stabbed twice, and Vernon Forrest was killed last year during a robbery.
Being an elite athlete truly doesn't mean you're gonna be safe. If you're in a bar fight with college kids, then yea, it gives you a better shot at winning, but if you're in a brawl with people who really don't give a fuck, that's a different game.
[quote]cycobushmaster wrote: okay....i do know that weapons are the great equalizer. the point i was trying to make, was that they are certain fighters that will be nearly anyone in a fistfight. and there are fighters that, regardless of their standing in the fight community, won't.
don't get me started on the debate of an elite athlete vs. a d-bag thug on the street....[/quot
on the street there are different type of fighters.By fighters,I mean,all the people that can effectively fight and will fight.
-gang memebers -violent psychopaths -law inforcememnt personel -bouncers,body guards -competitive combat sport athletes -football hooligans -other aggressive physicaly capable individuals like rugby players,off duty soldiers,construction workers,bla bla bla
there are many very dangerous people on the streets that are much more like elite fighters than just douche bags.
Exactly! I personally tend to carry tear-gas spray in a small can in my pocket and also a small pocket knife. I would also use cracked bottle or anything else ot increase my chance of avoiding getting into hospital/cold grave. In streets,there is basicaly no winning,just survival. If you beat up someone and stick around to celebrate,you can collect payback or prison )
I remember seeing a show on bouncers in England. One guy was talking about how much violence he had seen from women. One of his friends was throwing some guy out and yer man's girl stabbed him in the back.
I had a friend many years ago who was fairly into the barfighting thing. Not as a hard-ass Brad Pitt wannabee... just from a bad area. I remember all the guys sitting around tossing about theoretical bullshido. He didn't say a thing, sat through it all, and only afterwards said "You know Duff, that's all bullshit. Get 'em in a headlock, grab 'em by the balls, or pick something up and hit them with it".
Just stories. I never had an interest in streetfighting. If someone's fist is coming near this pretty face, it better have a shit-ton of padding on the end of it