More Streetfight Videos

As a follow up to a recent post about how video can expose the RBSD/combatives crowd’s typical “streetfights are always this way” narrative:



10 thoughts on “More Streetfight Videos”

  1. Wow!

    He threw a really good boxing uppercut and follow-up boxing punches. Very heavy hands and very good strong power.

    The triangle position was interesting, he had some good hip movement, stayed relax while grappling, not sure if this was Sambo or BJJ, however it all probably comes from the same Japanese Judo / Jiu-Jitsu base.

    Very interesting.

    I think that this boxer has good grip / forearm, shoulder strength, he doesn’t look that elderly to me, maybe in his 50’s, that’s not that old anymore, however the sucker attacks, how he throws the punches, he packs some dynamite in those Pop Eye forearms, damned that guy is strong like a rail and is eating his spinach, for sure!

  2. Hi Cecil, I 100% agree with your position on training and “sport vs. street” issue. However, I’d also argue that the second two videos illustrate the potential huge downside of a sport-style submission focus on the ground. Both of the guys who won were 100% vulnerable if any of the bystanders jumped in and started kicking them in the head, etc. Essentially, they got lucky. I’m sure you’ve seen some of the other videos with the opposite outcome–guy dominating the 1-on-1 ground fight unexpectedly gets kicked in the head by a third party and it’s over.

    1. Jake, my point is not that going to the ground is always the best solution. Sometimes it is the worst solution. But saying never go to the ground is just as foolish and shortsighted. My point, as I made clear on a previous post, was that those who say it is always bad are wrong. Period. We have plenty of video evidence to show otherwise.

      Playing the woulda – coulda – shoulda game is a waste of time. The bystanders did not jump in. Which is a more likely scenario. The vast majority of fights are one on one. As I have wrote about previously, the best realistic numbers show that multiple assailant fights happen no more than 40% of the time. So painting with a broad brush is not wise. The answers in these videos were great answers, and probably the best answer possible. Arguing otherwise based on a possibility is like saying it is okay to run up debt on credit cards because one day I will win the lottery. It may happen, but it also may very well not. We deal with the situation as it arises in the proper context, and try to handle it the best way we can. Being dogmatic one way or the other ( i.e. “never go to the ground” or “always go to the ground”) is a waste of time.

      Also, why is it that we always assume that the bystanders are always on the other guy’s side? I myself am as often with people who can handle themselves pretty well, and have no hesitation to help me out if needed. Why do all these scenarios have to be one lone Billy Jack vs a gang?

      And I have yet to see a realistic way to stop multiple attackers even standing. Sure, a guy on the ground gets his head kicked by a third party. There are also plenty of vids, as I am sure you have seen, where a guy standing up is nailed by a third party. Does that mean we should never remain standing? OF course not. We need to do the work, and train as realistically as possible, as often as possible, to best learn how to deal with the chaos.

  3. Hey Cecil, All of your points are well taken. I agree that the “just never go to the ground” argument is ridiculous. My argument is that as a baseline ground strategy working on a relatively slow-developing submission like the triangle and RNC in those videos significantly prolongs your risk of a third party jumping in. For self defense, a better baseline strategy might be to use your superior ground skills to (best option) simply get to your feet and get away if possible, (or, if appropriate) access a tool, deliver some quick effective strikes, or even a fast submission/joint attack if it available.

    I also think it’s important to note that the third video (and probably the second, although it’s hard to tell for sure) is a one-on-one street fight between more-or-less consenting opponents. The fight is largely governed by unspoken social rules–none of the bystanders are going to jump in; neither participant is going to pull a weapon, etc. Obviously, the rules aren’t codified or reliably enforced, but there is a theoretical spirit of “fair play.” Accordingly, the participants probably faced a significantly lower risk of a second bad guy jumping in compared to an innocent victim in a self defense situation. Contextually, the fight in the last video probably has more similarities to an MMA fight than to an unexpected violent attack against an innocent victim.

    That’s not to say that we can’t learn from “consensual” street fight videos, but it’s important to consider the nuances of the context.

    1. Jake, I don’t disagree in principle with you, just in detail.

      1) “slow developing chokes” vs fast submission joint attack – this is a factor of the situation and the execution. In my experience, a RNC is incredibly fast to apply and get a the needed action from. Any move can be executed from a position of less control and will be slower. One of the reasons to train the art is so you can make that decision on the fly better and faster under real pressure.

      2) your points about the situation of the particular videos are spot on, but that is my entire point – everything is contextual. We need to be able to make the right choice at the right time. Picking a ground tactic when a third party can jump in is stupid , but going to a weapon and using it can also be really dumb. For example, in the third video, you said it was consensual like a sport fight (I don’t know that I agree, but I won’t argue that for now ), so pulling a weapon in that context might have dire legal complications. So we have to have the physical skillset that backs up our mental skill set which is needed to choose the right choice. There is absolutely NO one size fits all solution.

      3) having a baseline of skills to have getting up as your first line of attack – of course! The problem is, that is the single hardest skill to do in a real fight. Almost every BJJ practitioner is trying to do the same exact thing (a sweep or taking the back is the exact same thing as getting up off the ground). How often does that happen when the encounter is between peers? Not too often. The majority of time when a person on the ground (who knows what they are doing) is going for a submission attack, it is because that has a better percentage of success than anything else.

      As you said, we are not far off in agreement, but I think we cannot ignore the nuances. Too many other people make huge sweeping generalities, and it accomplishes nothing.

  4. Here’s an example video of the risk I’m discussing, and there are plenty of similar videos like it. Even if “only” 40% of fights have multiple attackers, that’s still a high enough percentage to inform our strategy:

    Again, I agree with 99% of your arguments–this is just strategic nuance stuff. I’ll also concede that you seem to be vastly my skilled and talented martial artist then me!

    1. Again, I don’t disagree. I would ask you to take a look again at the first sentence in the article. THAT is what I was addressing – the idea that all fights are always the same, and the the best answer to all of them is always the same.

        1. You asked good and pertinent questions. If I can’t be civil and professional in answering when you were civil in asking, I would not deserve for anyone to pay the slightest bit of attention to me! Hah!

          Thanks for reading.

  5. “vastly more skilled and talented martial artist than me!”….apparently my grammar is going to hell 🙂

Comments are closed.