Choosing chances

 Probably one of the most common points of contention among martial artists and fight game practitioners (and even more so among the many couch experts and keyboard warriors) is the old saying "that will never work in a real fight". Quite often, such comments essentially stem from good intentions, but the subsequent debate may spiral out of control. The issue here is the lack of actual criteria in defining what it means for a technique/maneuver to work, what is a real fight, or even what does never truly mean.

For the purpose of this article, let's describe the real fight as an encounter where the participants fully strive to hinder or prevent the realization of the other side's ideas, while simultaneously imposing their own, as well as accomplishing whatever is their desired outcome. Please note that there is no mention of presence or absence of rules, number of participants, or any other circumstances that would imply the categories of sport, street, battlefield etc. 

The next notion - work - is easier, if it simply means "achieving the desired effect". So, it is not the matter of doing it as a complete set of motions, but rather of affecting the opponent in a way that reduces their chance of emerging victorious. 

Finally, the span or rigor of never is...well, flexible. Sometimes somebody will manage to pull off a technique that nobody else has done before, and a lot of commentators will then hang onto it as the ultimate proof of the said technique's effectiveness, although it may have been a fluke or never happening again. On the other hand, it could actually been a workable move from a competent exponent that simply no one has attempted to do before in earnest (think head kicks in MMA before Maurice Smith), but the naysayers will insist it was a lucky strike. 

This is where the notion of high percentage material comes in. Just like the label indicates - it is a maneuver that works more often that it doesn't. Now, there might be a whole bunch of reasons for it to succeed at one time and fail at another, but it seems to me that the main leverage point is the current readiness and level of the person on the receiving end. Let's take a look at this example:

The fact that the contestants are engaged in a full contact stick duel without head gear dictates different fight dynamics than otherwise, but the overall image of a Dog Brother event is still present. At 1:50 in the clip, the veteran fighter Eric Top Dog Knaus does the entry under the roof block that has served him countless times in over three decades of full contact fights. His choice of opportunity is excellent, too, being that his opponent is almost back against the wall, i.e. with no space to maintain the distance. However, Mr. Johnson on the other side does a brilliant job of sideways movement to evade the force of the attack, while still maintaining close enough distance to control the fight from that point and end it in his favor. 

What can we learn here? Several things... For one, the fact that something has worked consistently for you a hundred times is not a guarantee of the 101st. On the other side of the coin, even if something has failed consistently so far, but happens to be the only viable option in a given moment - go for it! Interestingly enough, there is a dualistic trend in fight training - once the high percentage offensive techniques are identified, there is a strong focus on defenses against those, which then become high percentage defensive techniques that do not deny the high percentage status to the offensive ones! This is why I highlighted the factor of the person on the other side. 

The bottom line is, your training can cover all of the bases if you put adequate priorities on its various elements, and in line with your big picture training goals. You "just" have to work on it.