Do you fight like a Coward?

[morph4me]

I think his point here isn't that the skills aren't useful it's that so many folks feel like you MUST PROVE something in a relatively benign context.

I understand that, but you don't have to stick your finger in someone's eye, break a limb, or hit someone in the throat in, relatively benign context to know it works. There are reasons the things people would do in a life and death situation aren't allowed in the ring, so I don't see the logic of the arguement

 

[KenpoTex]

"If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin."

If you are forced to fight for your life, there should be no illusions that this is a "main street at high-noon" type situation. To many martial-artists have this warped sense of honor/fair-play. Unfortunately this type of thinking is perpetuated by too many instructors with their pacifistic "Mr. Miyagi"-type philosophical BS.

When the time comes to fight, the goal is to not only survive, but to prevail by any means necessary. When you reach a point at which you know it's time to make your move, you should be as violent and vicious as you can be.

 

[Flying Crane]

A while back I was reading a rather good historical account of Capoeira, and how it developed with roots in Africa and the slave trade to Brazil and the mixing pot and etc.

There was an account of a famous ex-slave capoeirista. Apparently he had been engaged in activities that had the elite upper classes and the law enforcement authorities all up in a bind, and somebody managed to catch him.

Well, upon being apprehended, the capoeirista collapsed into a blubbering heap, crying, shaking, pleading for his life. The guy who captured him was shocked, as this capoeirista was supposed to be fierce. That confusion was his undoing, as the capoeirista sprang up with a razor and cut his throat when least expected.

there is something to be said about fighting like a coward, and using a healthy dose of deception.

 

[theletch1]

I understand that, but you don't have to stick your finger in someone's eye, break a limb, or hit someone in the throat in, relatively benign context to know it works. There are reasons the things people would do in a life and death situation aren't allowed in the ring, so I don't see the logic of the arguement

I think we're arguing the same point from different angles, Tom. I agree wholeheartedly that there is no need to "show your stuff" in the octagon to prove that it is effective on the street. I don't understand the logic behind the idea that if you won't use it in the ring it's no good on the street. Many of the things that are most effective in life or death SD would be considered downright criminal in a competition setting.

 

[morph4me]

If your skills aren't useful in that relatively benign context, what makes you think they will hold up under the fierce pressure and do-or-die nature of a real life-or-death situation?

It wasn't your point that I didn't see the logic in, Jeff, it was this one

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Most real heroes don't have anything to prove either. They do what must be done despite the gut wrenching fear that they are dealing with at the same time. A true warrior also experiences that same fear. Facing a life or death situation without any fear at all doesn't make you great it makes you a fool.
__________________

I did not say not to have fear. I said have Heart. What makes courage is to have fear but still do what is right. A coward can not stick up for themself and is to affraid to fight back. Only when a coward is engulfed with rage does he have courage to fight back.

Also my comment about being a hero meant ego generated desire to fight vs. self defense it was never meant in the context that you are alluding.

 

[thardey]

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, but one of the points I was trying to make in the OP was that fighting for your life (or the lives of your loved ones) is nothing like sporting combat, cage fighting or any other form of dueling by choice. I get so sick of people saying that if you don't prove your skills in a public, full-contact MMA context, you shouldn't be teaching self defense of any kind. I believe that self defense skills may be especially valuable to those of us who are not physically or emotionally inclined to subject ourselves to that level of abuse by choice. Opinions?

I read a book once called "Soul of the Sword" by Robert O'Connel. It's been while since I read it, and I've added a lot of thoughts since then, but he deserves credit for the original thought. That said, I'll answer for my own ideas below.

There are basically two types of combat in the natural kingdom. There is "inter-species combat" and "intra-species combat."

Inter-species combat is where one species attacks another. Lions vs. zebra, predator vs. prey kind of stuff.

Intra-species combat is between members of the same species. Rams butting heads, deer wrestling with their antlers, horses fighting for pecking order, etc.

Intra-species combat (same-species) is marked by strict rules. Typically it is not to the death (Tigers being a notable exception), but is a fight to prove dominance. Sometimes there is an audience, usually the female that the males were fighting over. Sometimes the fight is over territory. Different "weapons" are appropriate for different combat. Rattlesnakes will wrestle, but not bite. Deer will lock horns, but not kick. Dogs will wrestle, and use their teeth, but it's more of a fight for submission. There is typically a "challenge" issued and accepted, and there is a opportunity for the loser to leave. The goal is dominance, and social status, and the odds are close to even. Death or serious injury may occur, but it is not the goal.

Inter-species combat (different species) is typically a form of hunting. There are no rules, and it is deadly. Surprise attacks are usually the best strategy, and the defender's best option is usually to try to run. The attacker will choose the easiest target, with the odds heavily in their favor before the decision to commit to the attack is made. If the prey cannot run, then the weapons employed are not the same that are used to dominate others of the same species. Snakes bite in defense, deer kick, elephants charge, etc. That is, the rules and strategies are completely different between the types of combat.

Humans are one of the few animals to engage in both types of combat against others of the same species. Sport fighting, or sports in general are in the same arena as the "intra-species" combat. Fairness rules. Some playground fights, and by extension, "barroom" fights follow the same pattern. In fact, apart from a sporting event, these types of fight generally are considered "mutual combat" or "dueling" and are illegal. (They are also against my interpretation of my religion.) The parallels are obvious. Challenges are issued and accepted, dominance is the goal, audiences are present, rules are followed.

When humans prey on other humans, however, the rules disappear. Just like in nature, different weapons are appropriate, different strategies are used, and the ability to win a "mutual combat" situation is not a guarantee for a "prey/predator" situation. Cheating is the norm, on both sides. Both sides will try to manipulate the odds to their advantage. For the "prey" (us) the goal is survival. For the predator, the goal is to take something of value from the prey with as little effort as possible. Nobody is fighting for honor, or dominance. The prey must always be alert, because the predator is looking to catch the prey by surprise.

Unfortunately, many in the Martial Arts world, and a large majority of YouTube users can't tell the difference. They think a predator's advances are a chance to prove dominance. Bad idea. Many think that every fight is a "intra-species" fight, and they prepare themselves only for this type of combat. When the reality of a predator/prey situation hits home, they are simply not able to handle it.

The rare few (many who have gravitated to this forum,) don't give a rip about fighting for dominance (outside of sporting events), but only prepare for defending themselves or loved ones from predators. Mutual combat is largely ignored, because the logic is simple: Mutual Combat (intra-species) requires a challenge to be issued and accepted -- if you never issue or accept a challenge, you will never find yourself in a "duel" and any attack initiated without the acceptance of a challenge means that it is an attack from a predator, and should be dealt with as such.

This is where you see the dudes get their clocks cleaned, because they initiate an attack under "mutual combat" rules, and the guy who they've picked on responds with "predator/prey" rules. Again, bad idea for the aggressor.

Back to the O.P., after a long rabbit trail -- many consider "prey" behavior to be "cowardly." They won't accept the challenges, and when they do fight, they don't follow the rules. The "prey" does not inspire dominance. However, to the predator, the alert prey is their downfall. They can't catch them, and they probably don't want to.

In fact, anything from the predator/prey situation cold be called "cowardly" from judging the situation from a "mutual combat" perspective. Both predator and prey are not following the rules.

However, the term "coward" is nothing to those in the predator/prey situation. Nobody cares - the focus is on other things entirely.

 

[Empty Hands]

It wasn't your point that I didn't see the logic in, Jeff, it was this one

I wasn't saying that you had to fight in the UFC or that banned moves wouldn't work. My point is that most of the people dissing these claims haven't been pressure tested. They haven't been punched in the face hard. They haven't had their conditioning tested. They haven't been kicked in the chest hard enough to break a rib or in the leg hard enough to hinder your mobility. If you've never been tested, if your skills won't hold up even under that relatively mild testing, I don't see how a few eye pokes are going to save your skin. Even my own seniors make similar points.

 

[morph4me]

I wasn't saying that you had to fight in the UFC or that banned moves wouldn't work. My point is that most of the people dissing these claims haven't been pressure tested. They haven't been punched in the face hard. They haven't had their conditioning tested. They haven't been kicked in the chest hard enough to break a rib or in the leg hard enough to hinder your mobility. If you've never been tested, if your skills won't hold up even under that relatively mild testing, I don't see how a few eye pokes are going to save your skin. Even my own seniors make similar points.

I definetly agree with you about being pressure tested at some point, it's just that some of us have been tested through no choice of our own, and it makes some of us a little sensitive about the issue.

I don't want to give you the wrong impression,I have no problem with MMA, I think it's a great sport, and it will definetly pressure test you. I just know that if I was in a situation where someone was hitting me like that, it would be a self defense situation, nothing that I'd be volunteering to do. To each his own :asian:

 

[geezer]

I wasn't saying that you had to fight in the UFC or that banned moves wouldn't work. My point is that most of the people dissing these claims haven't been pressure tested. They haven't been punched in the face hard. They haven't had their conditioning tested. They haven't been kicked in the chest hard enough to break a rib or in the leg hard enough to hinder your mobility. If you've never been tested, if your skills won't hold up even under that relatively mild testing, I don't see how a few eye pokes are going to save your skin. Even my own seniors make similar points.

"Pressure testing" at some point is a damn good idea. I probably haven't been through enough of it, but I have been been knocked out, had my face bloodied and been beat to hell in sparring a few times when I was in my twenties and early thirties. I've also had more than the usual number of broken limbs and joints in various other sporting mishaps. Now I'm in my fifties and I don't really enjoy that sort of thing. In another ten years or so, it will be out of the question. So if I have to defend myself or my family, I will crush my aggressor with my car, unload my shotgun on his sorry ****, beat him with my steering wheel lock, or play-dumb and then stick him with my knife ...in other words, basically whatever it takes. It may or may not work, but what else is there? (Now try that in the ring!) Oh, ...and thardey: excellent post. Thanks!

 

[grydth]

A while back I was reading a rather good historical account of Capoeira, and how it developed with roots in Africa and the slave trade to Brazil and the mixing pot and etc.

There was an account of a famous ex-slave capoeirista. Apparently he had been engaged in activities that had the elite upper classes and the law enforcement authorities all up in a bind, and somebody managed to catch him.

Well, upon being apprehended, the capoeirista collapsed into a blubbering heap, crying, shaking, pleading for his life. The guy who captured him was shocked, as this capoeirista was supposed to be fierce. That confusion was his undoing, as the capoeirista sprang up with a razor and cut his throat when least expected.

there is something to be said about fighting like a coward, and using a healthy dose of deception.

Amen to that! My first Tai Chi instructor repeatedly emphasized the use of deception, to include feigning fear and helplessness - anything to have the assailant lower his guard and give you an opening.

If you're fighting back, you are not a coward..... but seeming to be a coward can make your fight a successful one.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Some people may view the term.."fight like a coward" ....means that person use weapons or deceptions or NOT up and up like a boxing match.

To fight like a coward ...is the smartest thing one can do.....up and up is for sport fighting...

Poking someone in the eye ..could be consider "fighting like a coward" and so is running away....yet these are smart things to do!

I will always fight like a coward...and use what I can to succeed or escape ALIVE!

Samurai....was for Samurai's only ....on the streets...anything goes...

Just my thoughts.....or a coward's way of thinking....Aloha

 

[kidswarrior]

Amen to that! My first Tai Chi instructor repeatedly emphasized the use of deception, to include feigning fear and helplessness - anything to have the assailant lower his guard and give you an opening.

If you're fighting back, you are not a coward..... but seeming to be a coward can make your fight a successful one.

Wish I had something this profound to say, as this thread has turned out to be quite a thoughtful and elegant discussion. But all I can think of--if really honest with myself--is that fear and anger/ferocity are just two sides of the same coin for me. The more afraid I am, the more mayhem is likely for the other guy(s). At least that's how it's always been in the past, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[MJS]

The other day a friend of mine remarked, "A coward is more dangerous than a brave man". He was referring to some workplace backstabbing, but I thought it applied equally well to the martial arts, in a literal sense. In a self-defense situation, the most dangerous aggressor may be the coward. Similarly, in defending yourself, your best bet may be to resort to deception and any devious, underhanded, dirty tactic you can. Still everyone seems to reference sporting combat to justify the effectiveness of their art as self-defense. What about you, do you fight like a hero or a coward?

I see nothing wrong with talking your way out of something. If that means someone wants to look at me as a coward, thats fine...I've been called worse. But on the other hand, if someone is attacking you, I don't feel that you should turn the other cheek either.

As far as proving myself...why people thrive on that is beyond me. I don't run around with a camcorder looking for fights, I don't feel the need to prove myself to anyone. I don't need to get into a ring to prove something. I know how I train, I know how my teachers train and I know what I am/am not capable of, and thats all that matters to me.

 

[MJS]

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, but one of the points I was trying to make in the OP was that fighting for your life (or the lives of your loved ones) is nothing like sporting combat, cage fighting or any other form of dueling by choice. I get so sick of people saying that if you don't prove your skills in a public, full-contact MMA context, you shouldn't be teaching self defense of any kind. I believe that self defense skills may be especially valuable to those of us who are not physically or emotionally inclined to subject ourselves to that level of abuse by choice. Opinions?

Yes, I agree, and that unfortunately is what alot of people don't see.

 

[MJS]

If your skills aren't useful in that relatively benign context, what makes you think they will hold up under the fierce pressure and do-or-die nature of a real life-or-death situation?

As I said in another post, I personally don't feel that I need to step into a cage or run around with a video camera to prove myself. I also know that this has been said many times, but the cage and a real fight are 2 different things. Now, I know when people talk about an eye shot and things of that nature, the 'other' group always comments on those things. However, while we shouldn't have to rely on those things to win, they are still valuable tools. In the end, like I said in that other post, I'm confident with the way I train. Am I a superman? Nope and I don't claim to be one. On the other hand, someone who fights in the ring isn't a superman either.

 

[MJS]

I wasn't saying that you had to fight in the UFC or that banned moves wouldn't work. My point is that most of the people dissing these claims haven't been pressure tested. They haven't been punched in the face hard. They haven't had their conditioning tested. They haven't been kicked in the chest hard enough to break a rib or in the leg hard enough to hinder your mobility. If you've never been tested, if your skills won't hold up even under that relatively mild testing, I don't see how a few eye pokes are going to save your skin. Even my own seniors make similar points.

Well, that being said, I didn't see this reply before I posted to the other one. I agree...alot of people could benefit from a little realism, aliveness and contact in their training. To omit those things, is doing more harm than good IMO.

 

[Topeng]

I still consider myself new to martial arts. One thing that I've asked myself is if I could handle a situation on the street if it came up. In that, I've found a fear. Its not the fear of getting into a confrontation. Its not the fear of getting hit (we pressure test and body condition all the time). My real fear is that I'm going to hurt someone badly enough that they are going to end up in an ambulance or the morgue. When it comes down to it, I'm not going to duel with anyone. Its going to get ugly...early. Guro just today said "If your silat looks pretty, your'e probably not doing it right". I'm an FMA \ Silat guy if you haven't gathered.
I guess the thing I'm really focusing on right now is how much force to use in a given situation, and when to stop.
Anyone feel the same?

 

[jks9199]

On the general topic, which I kind of see as whether a real fight is bound by some form of "honorable" behavior... I have a simple viewpoint. I find that, even at it's worst moments, life is something I'm pretty attached to. I don't always have the luxury of walking away from danger; in fact, in my profession, you kind of have to be the sort that is drawn to the fire, instead of sent running. But -- given that attachment to this mortal coil, I find that when I must fight, I'm going at with a simple approach: I WILL WIN. My definition of winning may change (subdue the bad guy versus getting away alive, to mark the extremes) during the encounter -- but I AM GOING HOME.

When I have a choice -- I often look for the way that's going to get me out with the least chance of a fight. I'm old, relatively speaking. I don't heal up in a day. Given a choice, I want to end a situation peacefully. One of the slickest things I ever saw was a sergeant who talked a very big, very menacing guy with a history and rep for fighting into letting us cuff him without a fight. I admire that... NOBODY (most especially not me !:ubercool got hurt, the guy got cuffed... At the opposite end, I came real close one Christmas Eve to ending someone's life. Another veteran cop, thankfully, managed to calm the guy down -- but both of us were expecting that we were going to kill this guy at one point.

Like I said -- been there, done that. Never fun. If it's for real, make it quick. Do whatever it takes to make it quicker. Stack the odds... If I know I'm going to have to fight someone... I want 2 or 3 (or 10) of my brothers alongside of me... :mp5::apv:

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, but one of the points I was trying to make in the OP was that fighting for your life (or the lives of your loved ones) is nothing like sporting combat, cage fighting or any other form of dueling by choice. I get so sick of people saying that if you don't prove your skills in a public, full-contact MMA context, you shouldn't be teaching self defense of any kind. I believe that self defense skills may be especially valuable to those of us who are not physically or emotionally inclined to subject ourselves to that level of abuse by choice. Opinions?

I've been there, done that in both competition and real fights. They ain't the same. The best simulation is still only a pale shadow of a real fight or real life and death situation.

A sporting event where both people will (at least in theory) both play by the rules, and where the rules are enforced then and there is nowhere close. Instead, a real fight is often pretty lopsided... I've got to play by the rules, but the bad guy doesn't. And there's no ref to call him on it... (I'm sure we're all familar with the story about whether the rabbit will beat the fox...) But, remember, nothing says I can't stack the rules in my favor... Mr. Taser is a wonderful odds-adjuster, for example.:EG:

"If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin."

If you are forced to fight for your life, there should be no illusions that this is a "main street at high-noon" type situation. To many martial-artists have this warped sense of honor/fair-play. Unfortunately this type of thinking is perpetuated by too many instructors with their pacifistic "Mr. Miyagi"-type philosophical BS.

When the time comes to fight, the goal is to not only survive, but to prevail by any means necessary. When you reach a point at which you know it's time to make your move, you should be as violent and vicious as you can be.

Swiftness, Surprise, and Violence of Execution. Those are the bywords of real world violence. Whoever has them on their side... they're gonna win. 2 out of three? Odds are still in your favor.

Wish I had something this profound to say, as this thread has turned out to be quite a thoughtful and elegant discussion. But all I can think of--if really honest with myself--is that fear and anger/ferocity are just two sides of the same coin for me. The more afraid I am, the more mayhem is likely for the other guy(s). At least that's how it's always been in the past, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

It's been a good discussion. But I'd suggest you look closer at your reactions, and learn to shape them. If fear or anger triggers your reaction, you're not in control. The goal is for YOU to remain in control while removing the other guy's control. There's little in life more infuriating and frustrating than someone who won't get rattled, and calmly prepares. Yeah, the blustery types? They don't worry me. I'll know they're coming, and be ready. The guy I'm worried about is the stone cold killer, who'll come at me out of nowhere with no warning or build up. He's the guy that's hardest to defend against.

 

[Sagat]

I get so sick of people saying that if you don't prove your skills in a public, full-contact MMA context, you shouldn't be teaching self defense of any kind.

If you desire to learn a skill in a particular environment, would you want to learn from someone who has actually practiced this skill in said environment, or someone going by other people's experiences?


Self-defense
Simply put, someone who has been there themselves personally, and in a variety of circumstances will have a greater understanding of the subject than someone who has not.