The last place you want to find out how good or bad you actually are, is in a fight, especially if you find yourself dealing with someone who has skills and abilities and is trained and/or has experience. I have been training in martial arts, combatives, self-defense since I was eight – nearly 40 years ago – and I am not physically the same person I was even 10 years ago; I have injuries I carry, and although I may be lifting similar weights to that which I was lifting in my twenties (strength I have been told is the last to go), I’m not as fast as I once was, and my aerobic capacity is certainly not the same. If I was to face and fight the trained me of twenty years ago, I could argue to myself that my experience would see me through, however, I think the younger/fitter me, would come out on top. The point of me saying all of this is not to be maudlin or celebrate who I once was, etc., but to recognize that dealing with a fit, trained and experienced fighter is a tricky proposition, and one that we should want to avoid – however technically competent we feel we are; biting off more than you can chew in a real-life confrontation can have extremely serious consequences. Whilst this article is primarily looking at ideas around dealing with somebody who is trained, the principles are the same when facing an untrained individual, with the number one rule being avoidance of conflict in the first place – I always assume whoever I’m dealing with is armed, able, and assisted i.e. is skilled, has a weapon, and friends (possibly armed) who can come to their aid; I never assume a fight is a “fair”, one-on-one encounter.

In any encounter, context is key. Judokas are great within a Judo context, BJJ practitioners in a BJJ context, Boxers in a Boxing Context, MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) proponents within an MMA context, etc. When dealing with a trained individual, in a real-life confrontation, you don’t want to let them dictate the context of the fight e.g. in most combat sports, participants start at range, with a referee/judge signaling the start of the fight. If you allow a good, experienced MMA competitor similar conditions, by giving them a lot of space and range, and signaling when the fight should begin, you are now fighting in an MMA match - the conditions and context of which they are well familiar with. I have heard many reality-based self-defense practitioners, talk about how the lack of rules in their training would give them the advantage over an MMA practitioner in reality e.g. if eye strikes/gouges and groin shots were allowed then somebody skilled in combatives would overcome an MMA fighter. All I would say to that, is good luck recovering sufficiently, from a Matt Hughes-style double leg takedown on concrete, to be able to start raking the eyes and grabbing the groin, etc. If you give somebody the room and opportunity i.e. the context, to make such an attack, and they are trained, skilled and experienced at doing it, you are likely to find yourself on the losing end. You need to determine the context of the fight, and not let the other person do so e.g. don’t agree to go outside to the parking lot for a one-on-one “fair” fight; if necessary, deal with it then and there, whilst it is non-consensual, and they are committing assault.

I have always been a big believer in the usefulness of pre-emptive strikes/assaults; from my time working door and bar security, I would say that the person who hit/struck first came out on top in 8 out of 10 cases. A trained person might recover faster than an untrained person, but they still have to recover, which puts them behind you on the curve. Somebody who has trained, and spars, etc., is accustomed to a fight having an agreed-upon start. Deny them that and go first. Many of us are reluctant to be the one to throw the first punch, or make the first attack, for a number of reasons. Often, we don’t believe we are legally entitled to, however if an individual places themselves in a position where they could reach us, and give us reason to fear for our safety, then they are committing an assault, and we are legally entitled to defend ourselves; using appropriate force. My general rule when dealing with a verbally aggressive individual is to step back, hands up in a placatory manner, and see/check if they step forward and thus commit the assault; using this as a trigger (if I can de-escalate or disengage, all well and good, but there are some individuals who don’t want to be talked down, and where this is the case, a physical solution is required). When you choose the moment the fight begins, the other individual may be denied the opportunity to turn on their pain management systems and get themselves emotionally ready to fight; at the very least they have to catch up, and as Mike Tyson famously said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

The longer you stay engaged with a trained fighter, the more likely it is that their training will kick in and make a difference. In the initial moments of a real-life encounter, most of the effort – certainly from my experience – is just reacting and attempting to manage the immediate situation (unless I was working pre-emptively); it would take a few moments to maneuver and get into a position from which I could start to do anything that would be conclusive. At this point, most untrained people have run out of ideas, and end up closing distance and clinching, however if you are dealing with a trained individual, this will be where they may start to get “comfortable” in the fight and begin their game-plan. If we are realistic, there are few situations in which we don’t have a disengagement option and have to stay to render somebody unconscious or incapacitate them. I know there are some who will advocate that you should always put somebody out, because they could have a knife, gun or other weapon, however legally you may find yourself on dodgy territory concerning excessive force if the only reason you continued to deliver concussive force after the person was no longer an actual - rather than imagined -threat, was because he might have had a knife, etc. “Might” really isn’t strong enough to legally justify your actions; if you saw a clip on his pocket, or saw him reach behind to get something, etc., then you may have a legitimate reason to believe he has a weapon that you haven’t yet seen. If you “stun and run” i.e. use enough strikes/force to create a disengagement opportunity, you will find yourself in a more defensible space legally, and possibly prevent a trained individual’s training from kicking in.

All physical confrontations should be avoided, due to the number of unknowns that can be present in a fight e.g. weapons, third parties, etc., however there may be times when the only option is to get physical. Being decisive, taking the initiative, and determining the context of the confrontation will prevent both a trained and untrained individual from deciding on the way in which the encounter should be “structured”, and staying engaged for the shortest possible time prevents a trained/experienced person from rolling out their game-plan.