What does it mean if someone "can fight" or "can't fight"?

Roy Kamen

White Belt
Joined
Oct 18, 2022
Messages
4
Reaction score
6
IMHO The fighting Martial aspect of the Art is a means to an end... that being: cultivating a strong and focused mind, cultivating a strong and flexible body for vitality in old age, and raising an indomitable spirit giving you the ability to enjoy life, to its fullest.

You must practice to maim and kill to reach the higher levels of spirituality.
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
This is exactly what I try to say.

My teacher always said, "When you fight, you should draw blood (箸閫蝥)." His statement sounds violent. But to me, his statement is non-violent. If in fighting, you will need to kill your opponent, you should ask yourself:

- Do I really hate him that much?
- Do I want to go to jail for the rest of my life by killing him?

If both answers are NO, to back off from a fight is very normal. So when you can see the consequence of the violent, you will become a non-violent person.

Fighting is not for fun. People can die or go to jail for it. If you want to fight, go fight in tournament.
Your instructor clearly doesnt know **** about violence in the real world.
Few fights require you to kill the other person. In fact the massive overwhelming number of fights have no need to kill the other person.

This idea that all fights are life and death situations is a false dichotomy
 

MadMartigan

Blue Belt
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
234
Reaction score
264
Few fights require you to kill the other person. In fact the massive overwhelming number of fights have no need to kill the other person.

This idea that all fights are life and death situations is a false dichotomy
True... but only partially. All fights are life and death situations; since all fights have the potential for death (whether accidental or not). You may not need or want to go to that level, but that doesn't mean it won't happen once the violence starts. This is why that dichotomy is useful.
As with (essentially) every TMA, I try to teach about the appropriate use of force. I agree that the end goal of martial arts training is 'can you fight?'. That needs to be tempered, however, with how and when to fight.
All fights have the possibility of ending in death. As a result, I believe and teach: 'If it's not worth killing or dying for, is it really worth fighting over?'
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
22,068
Reaction score
7,748
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Your instructor clearly doesnt know **** about violence in the real world.
Few fights require you to kill the other person. In fact the massive overwhelming number of fights have no need to kill the other person.

This idea that all fights are life and death situations is a false dichotomy
All fights are life and death situations. Because you do not necessarily know if the other person(s) intend to stop after the first punch, or kill you. You have to judge those things in the moment.

Expect the worst, hope for the best.
 
Last edited:

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
All fights are life and death situations. Because you do not necessarily know if the other person(s) intend to stop after the first punch, or kill you. You have to judge those things in the moment.

Expect the worst, hope for the best.
Just because you dont know their intent does not mean all self defense scenarios are life and death situations.

Also that is not remotely what the person I replied to said or was talking about.

They quite clearly stated in a self defense situation you will need to kill your opponent.
 
Last edited:

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
True... but only partially. All fights are life and death situations; since all fights have the potential for death (whether accidental or not). You may not need or want to go to that level, but that doesn't mean it won't happen once the violence starts. This is why that dichotomy is useful.
As with (essentially) every TMA, I try to teach about the appropriate use of force. I agree that the end goal of martial arts training is 'can you fight?'. That needs to be tempered, however, with how and when to fight.
All fights have the possibility of ending in death. As a result, I believe and teach: 'If it's not worth killing or dying for, is it really worth fighting over?'
No that doesnt make that dichotomy useful. At all.
Sure you could slip and crack your head on a curb in a self defense situation. You could also do that while walking out to your car.

This false dichotomy is likely the leading factor behind defenders using excessive force, and results in otherwise good people ending up in jail and confused about why.

But irrelevant since thats not the idea or concept I was addressing. The person I was addressing clearly stated that in a self defense situation you needed to kill the other person.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
22,068
Reaction score
7,748
Location
Pueblo West, CO
They quite clearly stated in a self defense situation you will need to kill your opponent.

My teacher always said, "When you fight, you should draw blood (箸閫蝥)." His statement sounds violent. But to me, his statement is non-violent. If in fighting, you will need to kill your opponent, you should ask yourself:
I've highlighted something you seem to have missed. Do you see it this time?
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
4,889
Your instructor clearly doesnt know **** about violence in the real world.
Few fights require you to kill the other person. In fact the massive overwhelming number of fights have no need to kill the other person.

This idea that all fights are life and death situations is a false dichotomy
I'll give an inner city perspective of "all fights are life and death situations."

Do a google search for "argument turns deadly" and "fight turns deadly"

Recognizing that a fight or argument CAN or MAY lead to something where you will have to "draw blood" would make people less willing to engage in a fight. Will all fights lead to death? Of course not. But as a teen and up to now, I never assume that a fight is just going to be unarmed punching and kicking against someone who I don't like or who is trying to hurt me. In GENERAL not everyone thinks like you/me/ us. Some people don't have any problems with taking a life during a fight. The difficulty with this perspective is that we don't know who is willing to take a fight to that extreme and who isn't. In some cases heated arguments among family can present the reality where one family member was willing to kill the other, but the one who died wasn't willing to go to that extreme either. Then to top it off. Not every conflict is avoidable. If someone attacks you while walking to your car or at night. Just remember. They didn't attack you because they wanted to be kind.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
4,889
All fights are life and death situations. Because you do not necessarily know if the other person(s) intend to stop after the first punch, or kill you. You have to judge those things in the moment.

Expect the worst, hope for the best.
This is how I think of it as well. It may not stop me from fighting in the event that I'm attacked, but it definite causes me to walk away from more BS than to engage in a conflict. Even if it's something I can't avoid, I try to let fighting be the last action and not the first.
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
I'll give an inner city perspective of "all fights are life and death situations."

Do a google search for "argument turns deadly" and "fight turns deadly"

Recognizing that a fight or argument CAN or MAY lead to something where you will have to "draw blood" would make people less willing to engage in a fight. Will all fights lead to death? Of course not. But as a teen and up to now, I never assume that a fight is just going to be unarmed punching and kicking against someone who I don't like or who is trying to hurt me. In GENERAL not everyone thinks like you/me/ us. Some people don't have any problems with taking a life during a fight. The difficulty with this perspective is that we don't know who is willing to take a fight to that extreme and who isn't. In some cases heated arguments among family can present the reality where one family member was willing to kill the other, but the one who died wasn't willing to go to that extreme either. Then to top it off. Not every conflict is avoidable. If someone attacks you while walking to your car or at night. Just remember. They didn't attack you because they wanted to be kind.
Anything can turn deadly.
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
But none of that stuff you are thinking of is the result of someone attacking you with the goal to do great harm to you.
now youre making assumptions about intent.
While great harm isnt a legal term here in the it sounds close to grave harm, which is a legal term here in the US.

Ive been in a number of physical altercations defending myself and others while working as hospital security. Not one of those altercations showed any indication the aggressor wanted to do grave, great, or serious bodily harm to me or anyone else.

Theres a huge difference between keeping it in the back of your mind that an aggressor could cause grave bodily harm or death intentionally or unintentionally, and actively believing that every physical altercation is a life and death situation.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
22,068
Reaction score
7,748
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Yes, it says if fighting you will need to kill the other person.
And this time you overlooked (or intentionally excluded) another word. Yes, the sentence structure is a bit unusual, but that's often the case with people for whom English is a second language (let's be honest, it's often true for native English speakers, which is a sad comment on the current educational system). Still, it doesn't require a huge effort to understand that he's saying 'if you are fighting, you might need to kill, so ask yourself these questions'.
 

windwalker099

Green Belt
Joined
Nov 8, 2022
Messages
130
Reaction score
59
it's often true for native English speakers, which is a sad comment on the current educational system). Still,

Or those who's main interactions are with non-native English speakers...
It does tend to influence ones thinking and writing..
 

kfman

Orange Belt
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Messages
61
Reaction score
19
In my opinion, there will be no satisfying answer to this question. Everyone has their own perspective on it, and defines it and draws the line in their own way, based on their own experiences. There is no common agreement on it. Discussion might be interesting in an academic way, but there will be no final answer so if you might hope for one, prepare for disappointment. I personally have no criteria. I dont really consider the issue very often. In that way, its kinda like My Little Pony. It just isnt on my radar, I dont think about it.

I am a kung fu guy who likes to train forms and abhors violence and has no interest in combat sports. Hell, I feel that hockey and American football are stupid. But that is my opinion and I dont try to shove it onto others. I suppose I probably cant fight. It makes no nevermind to me. Ill step away from this discussion now, I am sure I have little to contribute to it.
I agree. But I do like watching MMA because it gives me insight of what others do. No desire to fight but I will defend myself with what has been ingrained from training.

If you understand your forms with visualization, then hopefully in a real situation, your kung fu will come out.
 

geezer

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
7,202
Reaction score
3,322
Location
Phoenix, AZ
...the sentence structure is a bit unusual, but that's often the case with people for whom English is a second language (let's be honest, it's often true for native English speakers, which is a sad comment on the current educational system).
First of all, I agree with your previous post. Now if you will permit me, a brief digression commenting on the bolded words in the quote above.

The "sad comment" applies not just to our educational system but to the larger culture that shapes that system. As a public high school teacher for some 27 years, most of my students over the years do not value learning for its own sake nor do they care to discuss and debate ideas and issues.

This is not entirely their fault. They merely reflect the values of their families and our larger culture that is profoundly anti-intellectual, fearful of critical thinking, averse to any controversial topic, and meagerly funds public education. Despite this, there are always students whose bright insights, energy and enthusiasm gives me hope. :)

.....Soooo, like this forum, the few bright lights make all the idiocy endurable! :p
 

GojuTommy

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
514
Reaction score
189
And this time you overlooked (or intentionally excluded) another word. Yes, the sentence structure is a bit unusual, but that's often the case with people for whom English is a second language (let's be honest, it's often true for native English speakers, which is a sad comment on the current educational system). Still, it doesn't require a huge effort to understand that he's saying 'if you are fighting, you might need to kill, so ask yourself these questions'.
Thats a complete rewording and rephrasing of what was said.

I read it and assumed bad grammar. You read it and completely reworded/rephrased it.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,594
Reaction score
4,889
While great harm isnt a legal term here in the it sounds close to grave harm, which is a legal term here in the US.
Great harm is not the same as grave harm. Which is why I didn't use it. The harm that someone does can be great regardless of the intent.

If someone punches you, kicks you, slams you, as hard as they can then they are trying to do great harm to you. The question of "did it actually harm you" is a different thing. But what remains consistent is there effort and intention to hurt you with their full force. Grave harm is not defined as this which is.


Theres a huge difference between keeping it in the back of your mind that an aggressor could cause grave bodily harm or death intentionally or unintentionally, and actively believing that every physical altercation is a life and death situation.
I don't think anyone here has said that "every physical altercation is a life and death situation." I've know some assumptions have been made about kung fu wang said. But the fact that you "Keeping it in the back of your mind" pretty much validates what I think Wangs Teacher was saying.

If a person gets into an argument then, then understand that the argument can turn into a fight.
If a person gets into an fight then understand that the fight can turn into a life and death situation.
If a fight turns into a life and death situation then understand that it could be due to someone pulling a weapon out on you.
If someone pulls a weapon on you then you may be in a situation where you need to "draw blood."
If you do not "draw blood" then you may die. If you do "draw blood" then you may die. If you are not willing to take things to this level then try to end it before it gets to this level.

We never know what the other guy is going to try to do to us are how they will try to harm us. We also don't know if the great harm is going to come as a fight or if that harm is going to skip the physical fight and turn into a shooting.

Something to think about.
 
Top