Street Fighters, Child Soldiers and the State of the (Martial) Arts

The other night after training, I was chatting with a training buddy and he made a statement that's been percolating in my brain ever since. He said "a good street fighter, they are the worst", by which he meant that in his experience the most dangerous opponent in a fight is a street fighter. Now this isn't exactly an uninformed opinion as he is a long term martial artist and an ex-bouncer. Nor is this the first time I've heard this sentiment expressed.

So what is a street fighter and what makes them so dangerous?

By the strict definition a street fighter is someone who fights in the streets. However, this definition leaves a little to be desired. For a start the label 'street fighter' is a nominalisation. It's a bit like the term 'martial artist', it is a generalisation that means everything and nothing. For example a UFC fighter might be a martial artist, but so might someone practicing the slow form of the martial art of Tai Chi to improve their health. Are they the same animal? Hell no! Are they both equally dangerous? Hell no! Can I get an Amen?

So what did my training buddy mean by his comment about street fighters? Well only he can answer that for sure, but I can hazard a guess. He may have meant someone whose experience of fighting comes from real fighting, as opposed to a martial artist who trains but doesn't fight.

Can a street fighter also be a martial artist? Of course they can.

He may also have meant a fighter who ignores the conventions of established martial arts systems, and instead finds their own combative truths through their own experience. Miyamoto Musashi could be a street fighter by this definition.

What makes this opponent so dangerous is that they are unpredictable when viewed through the eyes of the traditional martial artist. My martial arts training may not have prepared me to be attacked out of the blue, with no warning. My street fighting opponent will invariably either ambush me, or employ some deceptive tactic before ambushing me.

The street fighter probably isn't going to follow the eitiquette or ritual that I'm used to from my experiences in the Dojo. He might spit in my eye, or throw sand in my face, or hit me with a glass, or produce a knife at half time and cut me to ribbons.

So these are some definitions of a street fighter.

Another definition may be someone who has no compunction about bashing or killing me!

Indeed this opponent would be far more dangerous than most martial artists. Martial artists may have moral conditioning and notions of 'fair play' that a 'street fighter' has never learned. The 'street fighter' may not think of fighting as a skill but a tool to survive, where the end (surviving) justifies the means (no rules, use any method available to win).

A street fighter of this breed is a little like a 'child soldier'. The child soldier is in widespread use in many parts of the world, the Congo and Sierra Leone spring to mind. The child soldier is often traumatised and victimised early on, then forced to perpetrate horrendous acts on others (such as killing their own family) or be killed themselves. They then feel that they are irredeemable and no other option is left to them but to continue to 'walk the path of demons' (to borrow a phrase from the 'Lone Wolf' Chambara film series.)

Victims of abuse sometimes, but not always, go on to perpetrate abuse themselves. They may display developmental abnormalities not found in those who grow up in a loving household. These changes are physical, they can been seen in Cat Scans of their brains. The normal structures which inhibit violence towards other human beings may not be present. They may view killing us as on par with swatting a fly.

Of course by this definition a 'street fighter' is an opponent to be feared, in much the same way as a serial killer should be feared. Am I saying 'street fighters' are all serial killers? No way.

What I'm saying is that the term 'street fighter' needs to be clarified. If we claim to be teaching 'street fighting' or 'street defense' what does this mean? What are the implications?

The other point to make is that training in a martial art may actually may you a less effective fighter. It may indeed rob you of your natural survival instincts, depending on the way you train.

You should therefore have explicit goals in mind when you train. Am I training for fitness, to meet new people, to fight in tornaments, to become a Martial Arts Instructor yourself, to become a private security contractor in a war zone, to become an action movie star, to learn Oriental philosophy and language? What are you goals and does your training regime match up to these goals?

Many of the arguments you see on martial arts forums come about because of different understandings of the martial arts and the different reasons people practice them for. Someone will ask a (stupid, non-specific) question like "is Capoeira an effective martial art?" and then be bombarded by a multitute of opinions. Is it effective for what? If you want a movie role, yeah great go train that system, it looks awesome. If you are training to be a bouncer, probably not.

Before someone gets their knickers in a knot, I'm just using Capoeira as a hypothetical example and if you disagree with my assessment of Capoeira then good luck to you. I could have picked any other martial art to make my point but this one came to mind first.

So ask yourself "why am I training?" and "am I getting the results I'm after?" If you are training for "street defense" do some research. Look at the types of attacks that happen in your area, define the types of weapons used, the times these attacks happen and then TRAIN ACCORDINGLY. Know thyself and know thy enemy, and hopefully you won't have wash the bitter taste of defeat from your gob.

So Endeth the Sermon!