# Do you fight like a Coward?



## geezer (Apr 24, 2008)

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?


----------



## thardey (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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?



An absolute coward all the way. If I am forced to fight, that means I am scared for my life, which means I will fight like a cornered, scared man, which is exactly what I will be!

That means I'll have to fight meaner, dirtier, cheat more, and be crueler than the bad guys.


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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?


 

Hmm, interesting philosophical idea...

Who is the coward in this situation?

Person A:  Chooses to walk away from a fight against a drunk knowing without a doubt that s/he could have "won" the fight, even though the drunk and others at the bar are calling him/her every name in the book for walking away and "not standing up" for themself.

Person B:  Is taunted by a drunk and is afraid of what his/her co-workers are going to say so s/he engages in the fight and beats the drunk down and "wins" the fight.

I can think of more situations where it takes more courage to walk away from a situation than it does to fight.

As to the other aspect, I think playing scared and fearful can be a good tactic in the right situations.  Of course, in the wrong situation I think it could invite someone to attack.  Kind of like when a shark smells blood in the water.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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 mdeception 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?



First rule of self-defense:  don't get into a situation where you need to defend yourself.

Second rule of self-defense:  run like hell

Third rule of self defense:  if you can't run, do whatever you need to do to get away; see second rule.

Corollary to third rule:  do it first, do it fast, do it dirty.

Now, if you consider the above to be the coward's way of fighting, then I guess I fight like a coward.  _However_, should the situation arise, I will also fight to protect others - which is definitely not the cowardly way to do things.  Self-defense, and the defense of the defenseless, is, ultimately, about self-preservation - which is a very selfish motive; being selfish is often seen as being cowardly.  So I guess it's all in your perspective on what a coward truly is.

For me, a coward is not someone who fights dirty when the circumstances warrant; for me, a coward is someone who starts an unfair fight (could be physical, mental, emotional, etc.) with a horribly unmatched opponent, and then proclaims loudly and proudly about his/her "wonderful victory" over that opponent... who then runs, crying foul, when someone who is closer to being evenly matched appears and offers a fair fight.

From "The Coward of the County" by Kenny Rogers:



> He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison.
> I took care of Tommy 'cause he was my brother's son.
> I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy:
> "Son, my life is over, but yours has just begun.
> ...


----------



## championmarius (Apr 24, 2008)

A wise man once told me this little gem of combat wisdom.

"Win Ugly"

Do whatever it takes to win, this is not a sport folks, you won't get points for sportsmanship.

So yeah, if you're gonna do it, do it dirty, but you better do it best and first. If that makes me a coward then yup, proud to wear this yellow.

But I see the logic of your inquiry, it is a thought provoking idea. It kinda reminds me of a Sun Tzu thought.



> Simulated Chaos is given birth from control. The illusion of fear is given birth from courage. Feigned weakness is given birth from strength. Order and Disorder are a question of numbers; courage and fear are a question of the strategic configuration of power; strength and weakness are a question of the deployment of forces.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 24, 2008)

yep i am a coward. I will walk away or run if I can get out of a dangerous situation.
If I have to fight it is to survive and I do not play fair or 
nice in that situation


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 24, 2008)

I am like some of the others walking or running are always first option, but if I have to fight then it is all balls to the walls theory. I will and have used whatever I needed to to win.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 24, 2008)

The question must also be asked: If I am going about my business, and some random assmunch or group thereof decides he wants what I have or am percieved to have( whether that be something material/spiritual/intangible or otherwise), and decides the only, or easiest,  way to get it is not to earn it himself but to attempt to take it from me, and tries to hurt/kill me just to have it, now who is the coward? 

And if your math works out same as mine does, and that person is the coward, given what the coward is prepared to stoop to....why does a coward deserve "honorable" treatment?

Just as there is a fine line between confidence and caution, so too is there a fine line between "heroism" and foolishness.


----------



## morph4me (Apr 24, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> yep i am a coward. I will walk away or run if I can get out of a dangerous situation.
> If I have to fight it is to survive and I do not play fair or
> nice in that situation


 

I'm with you, I only know of one way to fight, and that's to win, how I do that may not be pretty, but it will damn sure be effective.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 24, 2008)

My eldest brother taught me a valuable lesson with these few simple words... 
"There's no such thing as a fair fight!" 


"Everyone considered him the coward of the county"
~Kenny Rogers

"What is cowardice but the body's wisdom of its weakness? What is bravery but the body's wisdom of its strength. The coward and the hero march together within every man. So to call one man 'coward' and another 'brave' merely serves to indicate the possibilities of their achieving the opposite." - Master Po


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 24, 2008)

The brave man fights in spite of his fear.  The fool fight in the abscence of fear.

Me, I fight like a coward all the way and encourage those that train under my direction to do the same.  It may be a bit misleading to say like a coward though.  The implication of fighting like a coward is that one fights on pure, instinctive, panic.  I attempt to fight with the ferocity of a coward while still keeping as much of my wits about me as possible.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 24, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> The brave man fights in spite of his fear.  The fool fight in the abscence of fear.
> 
> Me, I fight like a coward all the way and encourage those that train under my direction to do the same.  It may be a bit misleading to say like a coward though.  The implication of fighting like a coward is that one fights on pure, instinctive, panic.  I attempt to fight with the ferocity of a coward while still keeping as much of my wits about me as possible.



Admirable, but difficult to do in the heat of the moment, especially if you're outnumbered. Difficult but possible. Training, discipline and self awareness have been for me, the key(s). 
Yet being human I still have fear(s).


----------



## JBrainard (Apr 24, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> The brave man fights in spite of his fear. The fool fight in the abscence of fear.


 
True. And it reminded me of something that hasn't been mentioned (but I'm sure we all know): If you experience fear, you must not show it. Showing fear gives off the "victim" vibe and thus your attacker will feel he is more able to victimize you. And that's true before, during, and after a confrontation.


----------



## geezer (Apr 24, 2008)

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?


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2008)

One thing I've learned for sure from the inside and the outside...

A guy who is angry at you will hurt you and hurt you pretty badly.
A guy who is frightened and doesn't think he has a way out will hurt you badly and may well kill you. 

I'd rather be able to fight like a cornered rat than stand up like a Manly Man and play knuckle tag with other Manly Men to get status and breeding rights.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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 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?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 24, 2008)

I do not fight like a coward because a coward is affraid.
 I do not fight like a hero because I have nothing to prove.
I fight like a warrior. Skilled tactiful looking and picking my targets.
In my experience growing up and fighting it all had to do with "Heart"
 meaning the heart or courage to put aside your fear and stick up for yourself a coward can not do that.


----------



## morph4me (Apr 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 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?


 
I have never competed in my life, but I have fought attackers who were out to hurt me or worse. I've done things to save my *** that aren't allowed in any ring. I've proven to my satisfaction that my skills are useful, and I've done it before the benefit of any martial arts training. I've learned that I don't like fighting, it's something I did to keep myself in one piece, and I know I'm not alone, so I'm with geezer on this one.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 24, 2008)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I do not fight like a coward because a coward is affraid.
> I do not fight like a hero because I have nothing to prove.
> I fight like a warrior. Skilled tactiful looking and picking my targets.
> In my experience growing up and fighting it all had to do with "Heart"
> meaning the heart or courage to put aside your fear and stick up for yourself a coward can not do that.


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.


----------



## morph4me (Apr 24, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

"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 (Apr 24, 2008)

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 (Apr 24, 2008)

morph4me said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

morph4me said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 24, 2008)

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 (Apr 24, 2008)

grydth said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2008)

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 (Apr 24, 2008)

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:



geezer said:


> 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:



kenpotex said:


> "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.



kidswarrior said:


> 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 (Apr 25, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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.


----------



## Jim Greenwood (Apr 25, 2008)

I would run, talk my way out of it or whatever I had to do to avoid physical confrontation but if I couldnt do that I would fight to survive and to end it quickly to whatever extent the situation called for.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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?


First of all, work place backstabbing is not cowardice. The last time I checked it was illeagle to fight it out in the parking lot. And, as you pointed out, backstabbing in the workplace is more effective. putting negative connotations on work politics by calling it backstabbing probably means you weren't playing the game as well.
Sean


----------



## USMATCSensei (Apr 25, 2008)

Coward all the way..


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

Prison all the way


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Prison all the way


Oh and looking for another job once you get out, and the stabbing starts all over again.
Sean


----------



## geezer (Apr 26, 2008)

Sagat said:


> 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?



That's the problem. On the one hand, of course I want to learn the real thing from someone whose been there --_on the street_ not the ring necessarily (although that's good too). On the other hand, I've been pretty successful at avoiding getting into "those kind" of situations. So by being successful at avoiding real life-and-death conflict, as well as severe injury and prison time, I guess I can't say I've learned real self defense. Oh well... I can live with that.


----------



## tellner (Apr 26, 2008)

There's another factor at work. Teaching is a skill. Fighting is a skill. Technical proficiency is a skill. Understanding can be hammered into the skill category. They overlap a little, but not all that much. As a student you want a teacher who can transmit the skills you need to get you where you need to go. 

Someone with a lot of technical skill, deep understanding and kickass fighting ability may be a lousy teacher. If he's got five times as much but can transmit a tenth as much to you as someone else you're probably better off with the better teacher who isn't quite as proficient. At another stage in your development you might need that extra polish on your skills or more intensity. You might be at a point where a guy's deficiencies as a teacher don't matter because you can see where he's going and what he's really trying to get across. 

It's not as simple as "Only learn from people who've been in a lot of fights." A lot of times they can't give you what you need. When they can it's great. The best trainers in the Muay Thai camps aren't always the ring champions. Some of them have never had a pro fight in their lives. But they know what to look for and how to develop a fighter into what he needs to be.

The KISS principle doesn't really apply because it ain't simple and you ain't stupid.


----------



## Kichigai-no-Okami (Apr 27, 2008)

The graveyard is full with very brave, and very DEAD men.  Ambush rather than linear fighting, assassination (figuratively (-ish) speaking) rather than subjugation. By whatever means nessesary, let the rightious man live.
:asian:


----------



## wrc619 (Apr 30, 2008)

Without a doubt, I fight like a coward.  Groin strikes, eyepokes, nearby objects.  Our ship cops teach us to be one up from the bad guy during security watch.  Our instructor was demonstrating to the children's class what to do if they were grabbed by a kidnapper.  The long and short, fight like a coward, even to the point of if they have glasses, rip them off and use them as a weapon.  I agree.  At work, when we stand guard, there are things we don't want bad guys to get.  We don't play John Wayne!


----------



## samurai69 (May 2, 2008)

i fight more like a cornered animal


----------



## Bodhisattva (May 2, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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?


 
Heh. Cowardice does not make people more dangerous.


----------



## chinto (May 5, 2008)

I don't know .. depends on the definition of coward... if you attack me and make me fight.. I guarantee that I will do any thing I can to survive!  that means i will use any weapon or advantage I can, and if I can shoot your *** from 800M from the back.. you bet your *** I will!  when a man fights it  is for survival and not for games! I will not fight if I have the choice, but if you threaten what i value enough to fight for .. I will give you war! no rules, no games but all the force and action I can to stop you! your survival is immaterial and actually provably counter productive!! .. you call it any thing you want!  You can have me or mine, but YOU WILL PAY THE BUTCHERS BILL FOR IT!!!


----------



## geezer (May 5, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Heh. Cowardice does not make people more dangerous.


 
True, but a vicious, vindictive and cowardly person _can_ be more dangerous than an "honorable" opponent, especially if you don't recognise them for what they are and let your guard down. I'm talking about the kind of person that gets pissed and loosens your lug nuts, cuts your brake lines, poisons your water or just sucker punches you out of the blue. These people are _very_ dangerous.

As for fighting _like_ a coward...that's a different thing altogether. That may be a necessity.


----------



## thardey (May 5, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Heh. Cowardice does not make people more dangerous.





geezer said:


> True, but a vicious, vindictive and cowardly person _can_ be more dangerous than an "honorable" opponent, especially if you don't recognise them for what they are and let your guard down. I'm talking about the kind of person that gets pissed and loosens your lug nuts, cuts your brake lines, poisons your water or just sucker punches you out of the blue. These people are _very_ dangerous.
> 
> As for fighting _like_ a coward...that's a different thing altogether. That may be a necessity.



If fighting like a hero made me more dangerous, then I would train to fight like a hero. However, fighting like a coward - cheating, running away, cheap shots, calling in help, lying, spitting, biting, throwing sand in his face, as well as well-trained basics. In short _surviving_ seems like a better idea, once the stigma of "cowardice" is shown in it's proper light.

And, that takes away the challenge of "what are ya? chicken?" I'll proudly stand up and cluck! 

But I refuse to be a victim. And the form of that refusal can be ugly.


----------



## chinto (May 6, 2008)

thardey said:


> If fighting like a hero made me more dangerous, then I would train to fight like a hero. However, fighting like a coward - cheating, running away, cheap shots, calling in help, lying, spitting, biting, throwing sand in his face, as well as well-trained basics. In short _surviving_ seems like a better idea, once the stigma of "cowardice" is shown in it's proper light.
> 
> And, that takes away the challenge of "what are ya? chicken?" I'll proudly stand up and cluck!
> 
> But I refuse to be a victim. And the form of that refusal can be ugly.




yep.. I will do what I must to survive and protect my own! the only rule in war is win... make the other bastard die for his country/ objectives.. not you!! 
I guarantee you if you do hurt one of mine you better move off the planet.. other wise i will do what I must to stop you.. no quarter given.. HAVOC!!  no rules but you do not  hurt mine or me...


----------



## Imminent (May 7, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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?


 
You are absolutely right on this.  Asocial violence is what you can't walk away from, anythign else is simply social posturing of some kind and can be avoided by choice.  Once it starts, if you fight by the rules or consider ANY KIND of social consideration in an asocially (i.e. criminally) violent setting you will be the victim.  When I get asked about what makes combative different from MMA or other MA I try to give a basic synopsis, the goal of MMA and most MA as they are now taught is to sport oriented, socially conscious - submit or inflict some *pain/damage*.  When you accidentally gouge an eye of deliver a throat shot or break something and cause real *traumatic injury*, that is the point at which we would consider the first salvo fired, it is our starting point.  We begin, and I think on the streets everyone should do this because there is no rewind, with the assumption that only traumatic injury, enough to cause debilitating structural damage that renders a person non-functional is the only acceptable outcome for any technique.  If we don't need terminal, it is easy to back it off a notch.  It is never easy to ramp up, because if your opponent starts the ramp up first you just became the victim.  The truth about the violence of the street confrontation is that one person is doing violence and the other is being done.  By the way, real violence is just a study of applied kinesiology to the human form so MMA competition/training has NO bearing on ability to succeed on the street.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 7, 2008)

geezer said:


> 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?


 
Devious and underhanded is not the sign of a coward. The coward appeases. A coward sells out. A coward leaves others to the mercy of whatever the threat is. A coward runs even if the threat is not great. 

Miyamoto Musashi wasn't a coward, but in his book he shows some good sneeky tactics. Neither was James Butler Hickok, but if need be he would 'buffalo' a man without warning.

Pre-emptive striking is not, by itself, a mark of a coward. Tactics to set up an opponent before the opponent strikes is not a mark of a coward. The coward would beg his opponent to let him live. The coward does not strike the strong, but stikes only those weaker than himself.

Deaf


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2008)

Imminent said:


> You are absolutely right on this. Asocial violence is what you can't walk away from, anythign else is simply social posturing of some kind and can be avoided by choice. Once it starts, if you fight by the rules or consider ANY KIND of social consideration in an asocially (i.e. criminally) violent setting you will be the victim. When I get asked about what makes combative different from MMA or other MA I try to give a basic synopsis, the goal of MMA and most MA as they are now taught is to sport oriented, socially conscious - submit or inflict some *pain/damage*. When you accidentally gouge an eye of deliver a throat shot or break something and cause real *traumatic injury*, that is the point at which we would consider the first salvo fired, it is our starting point. We begin, and I think on the streets everyone should do this because there is no rewind, with the assumption that only traumatic injury, enough to cause debilitating structural damage that renders a person non-functional is the only acceptable outcome for any technique. If we don't need terminal, it is easy to back it off a notch. It is never easy to ramp up, because if your opponent starts the ramp up first you just became the victim. The truth about the violence of the street confrontation is that one person is doing violence and the other is being done. By the way, real violence is just a study of applied kinesiology to the human form so MMA competition/training has NO bearing on ability to succeed on the street.


Training and conditioning has no bearing on the street? OK...


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 8, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> not the The coward does not strike the strong, but strikes only those weaker than himself.
> 
> Deaf


So you are saying they are smart.


----------



## thardey (May 8, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Devious and underhanded is not the sign of a coward.
> 
> The coward appeases.



Hmm, that would include buying the upset guy a beer, or moving off of "his" bar stool, right? Moving to the other side of the street to give them plenty of room? Apologizing, even if it's not my fault, if that's what it takes to talk the man down? 

Yep, yep, all tools in my toolbox. Often the first I'll use.



> A coward sells out.



I'm not going to fight for the honor of somebody else. If you don't like my favorite sporting team, so be it. I'm not going to defend them. "Selling out" implies not defending an _idea or a belief._ I'm not going to risk death to try and force anyone else to change their mind. I'll reason with them, talk to them, but if it gets violent, I'm gone. Many would call that "selling out."

When it comes to religion, I'm not allowed to use force to defend my beliefs. 

Even if you insulted my wife, I would not take the challenge, nor would she want me to. She wants me to protect her, and that involves only getting into fights where there's actual danger.



> A coward leaves others to the mercy of whatever the threat is.



Third-party intervention is always a tough call. On the other hand, If you're one of my "party." Then I will help you run and escape. If you're out with me, and get into trouble, but choose to be a hero, when you could have left with me, then you're on your own, and all of my friends understand that.



> A coward runs even if the threat is not great.



I have flat feet and run slow -- I'll need a head start.



> Miyamoto Musashi wasn't a coward, but in his book he shows some good sneeky tactics. Neither was James Butler Hickok, but if need be he would 'buffalo' a man without warning.



Mushashi accepted duels to the death, I won't.



> Pre-emptive striking is not, by itself, a mark of a coward. Tactics to set up an opponent before the opponent strikes is not a mark of a coward. The coward would beg his opponent to let him live. The coward does not strike the strong, but stikes only those weaker than himself.
> 
> Deaf



I'll beg, plead, bribe, threaten, and show pictures of my children, _if I have time_. Of course, that isn't my only plan. If it was, I would be a moron. If I can make him hesitate, or let down his guard for an instant by prostrating myself, that's my opportunity to take him by surprise.

The best example I ever saw of this: I was play sword-fighting with an 8-year old. Somehow he dropped his sword, and I stepped in front of it. Without hesitation, he dropped to his knees, clasped his hands, and begged for mercy. When I started laughing, he dove between my legs, and made a grab for the sword. That kid is my hero.

If bad guy is stronger than me, I will invoke a "force equalizer" before I attack. I will make sure I have the advantage, if I have a choice. Which means I will _chose_ only to attack those weaker than myself. Ever.

Color me Yellow!


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 8, 2008)

Appeasment does not work. That is why the coward is a fool to appease. It's a sign of weakness.

Buying a beer to reduce tensions is not appeasment. Giving over the contents of your wallet everyday day so you can walk the street is.

Deaf


----------



## thardey (May 8, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Appeasment does not work. That is why the coward is a fool to appease. It's a sign of weakness.
> 
> Buying a beer to reduce tensions is not appeasment. Giving over the contents of your wallet everyday day so you can walk the street is.
> 
> Deaf



Gotcha - I agree -- "ongoing appeasement" is a bad, bad idea. It invites abuse.


----------



## thardey (May 8, 2008)

Actually, you may have hit on a good distinction, there. 

Acting like a coward once in a while, at the appropriate times, is just good tactics.

Acting like that on a daily basis is going to make your life hell!


----------



## qwksilver61 (May 13, 2008)

The answer is;rest on the top of a volcano everyday


----------



## TheArtofDave (May 14, 2008)

*I think in most situations you have to go over your reasoning before you take action. Maybe 10% of the time you do go out you're not given the option to consider the reasons of a given situation.*

*When I go out I expect nothing to happen, that way if something does I have a little time to assess the situation. Whether its better for me to leave, or to fight.*

*I always see fighting as a last resort. I can easily call in a few favors. Believe me when I say I have a whole host of people who would either back me up on principle or because of finding out my history of when I grew up. I don't want their pity. Besides a few minor flaws I can do just as well as the next person.*

*When you examine the reasoning then you can decide your next step of action. I walk away most of the time. Here is an example from my life.*

*Awhile back I met 2 girls, at my little local bar. Asked them if they were going to this other one we went to. So I follwed them, and immediately ran into trouble. There was another guy who was talking to them, and he came over to me and told me to stop talking to them, or else I was going to get my "***" kicked. Then his brother came over, and told me that he, that guy I was having problems with, and all their friends were going to beat my ***, and they seemed more interested in him than me.*

*Then the dudes brother goes "Hey but you can do what you want." So my buddy was the dj that played the music over there so I said hey man I'm not putting up with this ********. I'm gone.*

*It could have been really easy for me to tell that guy those girls wanted me to talk to them which I did. But he wasn't going to follow any reason. So before it got out of hand I left. Incidentally I do not go back over there anymore.*

*I could have fought them, and won. But that would have not solved anything and I'd be going to jail because all of them would be calling the ICU their new found home. I took the smart road, and left. Leaving to go see another friend of mine.*

*Sorry for the long post but examining the reason before deciding on the action is also a good approach to take. Good points in the rest of the posts also.*


----------

