4 ms·

The street effectiveness of a MA is a function of time spent sparring, something that is prevalent in the arts you mention, in addition to coverage of standing

The street effectiveness of a MA is a function of time spent sparring, something that is prevalent in the arts you mention, in addition to coverage of standing and ground game. Strikers will have just a brief window of opportunity before grapplers take them down. On the other hand, even super effective grappling art like BJJ becomes pretty useless if you face two assailants.

datameta 5y ago
Against two assailants, if there is no chance to escape the fight through words or running, the best deal is to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the more confident of the two. The other will usually lose the fire. Speaking as a stand-up striker. Ymmv.
- vnorilo 5y ago
  Agreed - what I was trying to convey was that BJJ is a very good bet for defending yourself one on one, but if you face multiple assailants it is useless. A good striker may stand a chance against two or three aggressive drunks (untrained, not methodical) with the strategy you described.
  - datameta 5y ago
    From the small amount of grappling I know in comparison I fully agreed with you. One can't hope to effectively control two bodies at once. Focusing on person one makes you a great target for the other(s). However knowing some good ground game to supplement striking would at least help knowing how to avoid being taken down.
boxed 5y ago
All martial arts are pretty much worthless against multiple attackers though. If you're Mike Tyson you could probably do well against two, but then the odds go down sharply at three, four, etc. It's just math.
- datameta 5y ago
  The odds go up dramatically if you practice sparring against multiple opponents and know how to leverage a bit of social psychology. Still, not something I would like to go through on the street. If I do manage to get out relatively unscathed I still don't want to cripple someone for not thinking with their head one night out of their life. The best solution to a fight is always to try to avoid it.

datameta 5y ago

Against two assailants, if there is no chance to escape the fight through words or running, the best deal is to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the more confident of the two. The other will usually lose the fire. Speaking as a stand-up striker. Ymmv.

vnorilo 5y ago
Agreed - what I was trying to convey was that BJJ is a very good bet for defending yourself one on one, but if you face multiple assailants it is useless. A good striker may stand a chance against two or three aggressive drunks (untrained, not methodical) with the strategy you described.
- datameta 5y ago
  From the small amount of grappling I know in comparison I fully agreed with you. One can't hope to effectively control two bodies at once. Focusing on person one makes you a great target for the other(s). However knowing some good ground game to supplement striking would at least help knowing how to avoid being taken down.

boxed 5y ago

All martial arts are pretty much worthless against multiple attackers though. If you're Mike Tyson you could probably do well against two, but then the odds go down sharply at three, four, etc. It's just math.

datameta 5y ago
The odds go up dramatically if you practice sparring against multiple opponents and know how to leverage a bit of social psychology. Still, not something I would like to go through on the street. If I do manage to get out relatively unscathed I still don't want to cripple someone for not thinking with their head one night out of their life. The best solution to a fight is always to try to avoid it.