Aikido hate

[Gerry Seymour]

This is true, but often the meaning of a word is opportunistic. Words legitimately have formal definitions, informal definitions, and connotations. There are also sometimes regional or national differences in meaning.

Around here, you will find that the meaning of a word is fluid, and even people whom I believe have a very concrete definition in mind will shuck and jive when convenient. Some words and phrases are more susceptible to this than others.

I believe the following words and phrases are functionally meaningless, beyond very, very broad, sweeping generalization. While they may be well defined, they are so often misapplied they typically do nothing but cause arguments about what they mean, effectively derailing whatever thread in which they appear.

Self Defense
Fight / Fighting
Traditional Martial Art
Sparring
Karate
Effective
Street fight
The street

The following terms are what I consider more settled, even if they do sometimes cause confusion:

Mixed Martial Art(s)
Martial Artist
Grappling
Striking
Choke / Strangle

I'm sure I could think of many more, but these were off the top of my head.

Without specifying a definition, that can easily be true. Yet people manage to have meaningful discussions using those terms on a regular basis. Why? Because either their personal usages match each other, or they find a common definition to work from. Paul and I, for instance, use "fight" very differently. But as long as we agree to use a common definition in a given discussion, we can use that word without it being meaningless.

There are some words, like "effective", that are disputed not because of the definition of the word, but because you have to decide a measurement/standard to compare against, and that's even more contentious than the definition of "self-defense".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Self defense and a street fight are the same damn thing. To make them distinct you need to put some unrealistic qualifiers on what 'street fight means', such as..you are only street fighting if you start it, its only a street fight if it goes X amount of time, its only a street fight if both people want to fight, its only a street fight if it starts with a square off, etc.

None of the above are true. If someone attacks you, and you use a 'self defense technique' you have engaged in combat, ie a fight, which if it isn't in the gym..is a street fight.

Paul uses a different definition - a more closely legal one. He defines a "fight" (roughly) as something mutually agreed. As such, it's not self-defense.

You and I define it similarly, apparently.

 

[Steve]

Without specifying a definition, that can easily be true. Yet people manage to have meaningful discussions using those terms on a regular basis.

I would suggest that "meaningful discussions" on these topics are like unicorns. We want to believe in them and it sure would be cool if they did. Sometimes it's because people presume a shared understanding, and other times they just presume to know what the other person means. Sometimes people just don't like the other person. Sometimes, it's this and sometimes it's that. But when those terms or words are used, the discussion seems to become quite circular. I'm not saying you will actually hear a flushing sound.

Why? Because either their personal usages match each other, or they find a common definition to work from. Paul and I, for instance, use "fight" very differently. But as long as we agree to use a common definition in a given discussion, we can use that word without it being meaningless.

There are some words, like "effective", that are disputed not because of the definition of the word, but because you have to decide a measurement/standard to compare against, and that's even more contentious than the definition of "self-defense".

I appreciate your thoughts on why these things happen, and agree with you to an extent. But to be clear, I'm not all too worried about the "why" of it anymore. I'm just observing the "what". There are some words and phrases that are triggers.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

How do you strike preemptively if you square off 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance?

Unless you sucker punch him as you both walk outside, but then that's not a fight, that's assault. It would /could however give you the advantage of ending it then and there, in the same way that a pre-emptive strike in SD would/could.

If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.

 

[Paul_D]

If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.

I don't consider it necessary, but it does happen. So if you are a fight that does start from that range I wanted to know how you pre emptively strike.

 

[Steve]

If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.

It's the James Kirk school of combat:

Step 1: Declare your intention to engage in honorable, hand to hand combat.

Step 2: Assume a fighting stance across from your opponent at a distance of no more than 6' and no less than 5'.

Step 3: Circle to his back (if possible)

Step 4: Grapple (standing)

Step 5: Grapple (ground)

Step 6: Run Away (when it is safe to do so):

 

[Paul_D]

Self defense and a street fight are the same damn thing.

Then why are street fights illegal, whilst SD is legal?

 

[Paul_D]

I can punch you exactly the same way in sport, fighting or self defence. And the result will be pretty much the same.

Punching someone in a sport fight is not illegal, punching some one in SD is legal, punching someone in a street fight is illegal. If you injure someone in an illegal street fight you legally and financially responsible for your actions. Hence he outcome is not pretty much the same.

Further punching me in a sport or street fight doesn't mean you are acting in SD.

The idea that self defence doesn't aply to fighting doesn't aply to sport is a very limited way to to view things.
.

Quite the opposite. Assuming that Figthing is the same as SD is a very limited view born out of either ignorance to he realities of criminal violence, or the mistaken belief that if you can handle a trained fighter then an untrained criminal should present no problem. But criminals don't want to fight you. They will use deception, weapons, greater number, anything that allows them to get what they want more easily. If a fighter is mugged at knife/gun point there is no question who is the better fighter, but the other guy was was the better criminal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would suggest that "meaningful discussions" on these topics are like unicorns. We want to believe in them and it sure would be cool if they did. Sometimes it's because people presume a shared understanding, and other times they just presume to know what the other person means. Sometimes people just don't like the other person. Sometimes, it's this and sometimes it's that. But when those terms or words are used, the discussion seems to become quite circular. I'm not saying you will actually hear a flushing sound.
I appreciate your thoughts on why these things happen, and agree with you to an extent. But to be clear, I'm not all too worried about the "why" of it anymore. I'm just observing the "what". There are some words and phrases that are triggers.

Agreed. Much moreso on this forum than in any IRL discussions. There, the meaningful discussions are the norm, rather than the exception.

 

[Martial D]

Then why are street fights illegal, whilst SD is legal?

Because some old man in a suit managed to convince a few other old men in suits(complete with a heaping helping of legal mumbo jumbo) that they are different things.

Even so, the line is very grey. Try some 'self defense's on a cop that is attacking you and see where the legal chips land.

 

[Paul_D]

Even so, the line is very grey. Try some 'self defense's on a cop that is attacking you and see where the legal chips land.

No it's not grey at all, fighting is illegal, SD is legal.

Why is the cop attacking me? As long as I follow his Instructions and comply with his requests he has no reason to attack.

 

[Martial D]

What a nice world you must live in, where every police man is totally honest and above reproach.

Anyway, just saying 'ya but ones illegal' again after I addressed that doesn't further your case. Even within your narrow context it is very grey, as I pointed out in the argument you ignored.

 

[Paul_D]

What a nice world you must live in, where every police man is totally honest and above reproach.

Anyway, just saying 'ya but ones illegal' again after I addressed that doesn't further your case. Even within your narrow context it is very grey, as I pointed out in the argument you ignored.

You haven't addressed it, you posted something about old men in suits which totally missed the point. The reeason one is illegal and the other isn't is because they are different. Agreeing to go outside into the pub car park and fight someone to settle your arguement has nothing to do with self defence.

Agreeing to fight people bare knuckle boxing matches for cash in a field/street/car park (as a boxer friend of mine does) is undeniably a fight, is illegal, and has nothing to do with SD.

However, rather beating the same old drum, let's approach it in a different way. If fighting is the same as SD, which you claim, then the only possible ending for any and all SD situations would be for it to end in a fight, yes?

 

[Paul_D]

What a nice world you must live in, where every police man is totally honest and above reproach.

What a strange world you live in where all the Police are male.

 

[drop bear]

If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.

Yeah ok. But how off track have we gotten here. My post was about geoff Thompsons misleading slant on fighting. It is still misleading if it is self defence. He overcooks how dangerous the street is and then overcooks how you need to train specifically for this. And then doesn't really have that much of a different system to everyone else.

To be specific you would have to explain why the difference between self defense and fighting makes Geoffs comments sensible or useful.

 

[Paul_D]

And then doesn't really have that much of a different system to everyone else.

And what is it you think his system is?

 

[drop bear]

Quite the opposite. Assuming that Figthing is the same as SD is a very limited view born out of either ignorance to he realities of criminal violence, or the mistaken belief that if you can handle a trained fighter then an untrained criminal should present no problem. But criminals don't want to fight you. They will use deception, weapons, greater number, anything that allows them to get what they want more easily. If a fighter is mugged at knife/gun point there is no question who is the better fighter, but the other guy was was the better criminal.

Applies doesn't have the same meaning as same.

You keep adding random stuff that doesn't apply.

Self defense doesn't help you if you are drowning. Swimming does.

You have to understand the difference.

 

[drop bear]

And what is it you think his system is?

How about you adress the misleading hyperbole.

 

[Paul_D]

You keep adding random stuff that doesn't apply.

But it does apply. You just don't understand why because you think men brawling in the street or a bar is SD.

 

[Paul_D]

How about you adress the misleading hyperbole.

I don't think it is misleading, criminals do kill people everyday.

What is it you think his system is?