# Why We Fight



## Andrew Green (Aug 11, 2007)

*Why We Fight*

 Andrew Green
http://innovativema.ca

 Some people have a hard time understanding this, why do people glove up week after week and get punched in the head? Why do they seem happy about getting slammed into the ground?  Why are they and a good friend trying to knock each other down?

 Maybe we are nuts, but I don't think so.  People fight, all the time.  Not just physically, but in other ways too.  If you walk into your bosses office and demand a raise, you are fighting.  Your boss might not be trying to punch you in the face, but internally the feeling might be pretty close.

 Fighting is a skill that I believe everyone should have, the ability to keep calm under pressure, to act intelligently and to control your emotions while doing so. When sparring you cannot get angry, you can't give in to fear, and when you get tired and are loosing, you keep fighting.

 Martial arts, according to the advertisements, is supposed to build character.  Character is built through experience, not through sitting in the dark meditating.  Meditating is certainly beneficial, but even more so if you have experience to meditate on.   

 The truth is that we can all put on a show and be the person we want to present when there is no pressure. The internet is a perfect example of that.  Given anonymity and a keyboard a person can be anything and anyone they want.  Put a person under stress and you get to see a little more of what the person is really like.

 This is not just physical stress, like sparring, but any sort of stress.  If a person is fighting cancer, they learn a lot about themselves during that time. If they confront a supervisor about a problem, that experience, especially the first time, is a important one. The first time you kiss someone, the first time you kissed anyone remember the feelings before that?  For a lot of people it was a nerve wracking experience, and conquering it was a important step.  

 Sparring, especially hard sparring is no different.  The first time you decide to do it is often a frightening thought, learning to conquer that fear and to remain calm, act intelligently and to treat the person trying to physically punch you in the face with respect is a character trait well worth having in my opinion.  If a person can do that, keep that mindset and act intelligently and with respect when the stress is as immediate and direct as getting punched in the nose or slammed to the ground, then that person will hopefully be able to carry that off the mat with them.   

 Martial arts is a great vehicle for building confidence.  You learn exactly what you can do physically, you learn how much your body can take, you learn to fight clean and fair and you learn to deal with, and even enjoy working in stressful conditions.

 Martial arts training, on a very simple level is play-fighting.  Studies have shown that rough play is important to development, and I can't think of a single mammal that does not engage in play-fighting.  The difference is skill and purpose. Joining a debate team is basically arguing, which is a important skill.  People that know how to argue well tend to get what they want more often, they get promoted more often, paid more, and there ideas get used more often.  However learning proper debate is far different then two people yelling &#8220;Yes it is!&#8221; &#8220;No it isn't!&#8221; &#8220;Yes it is!&#8221; back and forth, it is a very complex skill with strategy, tactics and rules.   

 Martial arts is to play fighting what learning debate is too arguing, both are natural skills that everyone develops to some degree and although somewhat artificial in there practiced environments, are very practical skills.

 If you don't understand MMA watching a match will look shallow, like two people beating each other.  However the more you learn about it, the more it becomes apparent that everything is thought out, planned and precise.  A difference of an inch in positioning means the difference between winning or losing.  Baiting and trapping an opponent is a game of psychology.  It is a physical game, but it is also a very intelligent one.

 So why do we show up week after week to pound on each other?  Because it is the most intense physical, mental and spiritual workout we can find.  Because it is a lot of fun.  Because it is safe, yes, safe.  If your partners are injured you can't train.  If you are injured you can't train.  Contact fighting teaches you to protect your body, to take hits, to take falls, and to protect your partner as well.  No other sport that I know of spends as much time and detail on how to protect your body from injury as a full contact form of martial arts does, and that right there is a very handy skill to have.



*Further Reading*

 It's more than fun and games - http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar02/morefun.html
 Roughhousing May Be Essential to Social Development - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/03/kids_roughhousing.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 11, 2007)

A very well thought out article indeed, *Andy*.  Colour me most impressed :tup:.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 11, 2007)

Great post, Andrew... I'm going to have to think about it for a while before I answer - but in general, I agree with what you've written and referred to.

***EDIT***

All right... play - including play fighting - exists in animals to teach them the skills they need to survive.  Young lion cubs will play with each other - pouncing on tails, dragging things between their feet, and so on - to practice the skills they need to hunt and bring home prey when they are older.  Horse foals will play chase games with other foals that teach them to follow the herd in times of danger, and how to run in a group without falling or being trampled.  Human children play all manner of games - some taught by older children or adults, and some invented by the child(ren) - that copy the activities of adults in a way that allows them to learn the skills they will need later.  

Practice is necessary to learn any skill - especially skills that could cause injury or death if applied improperly.  In the animal kingdom, this generally refers to hunting skills - a lion, wolf, or eagle that scares away the prey instead of catching it risks its own survival, so the hunting skills must be learned, and perfected, before the hunter can survive - which requires practice; in many young animals, that practice takes the form of play.  In any animal that lives in hierarchical groups, ritualized combat - practiced as play in the younger members of the species - often plays a role in determining status and position, as well as determining territory; the animal with the best territory lives the best life.

In human beings, play serves the same purposes as it does in animals - practice of survival skills by copying the activities of adults, and practice of fighting skills (be they physical, verbal, or what have you) needed to determine status within a group.  The determination of status through fighting has been ritualized in many ways, often through competition.  Members of an orchestra who play the same instrument will compete for first chair.  Members of sports teams will compete for first-string positions.  Business persons will compete for money ("the one who dies with the most toys wins" mentality).  Students compete for grades.  "Keeping up with the Joneses" - or keeping ahead of them - is a form of competition that often knows no bounds.  In larger groupings, groups of human beings will fight for territory - which kids practice in any number of ways, of which playing cowboys and Indians is a stereotypical example. 

It does not surprise me that people fight - not even that they enjoy it.  It does not surprise me that fighting is necessary; winning fights - even if the fights are disguised as competitions - has a decided survival value.  What does surprise me is not the number of people who fight - it's the number of people who rise above the need to fight, who subsume their natural competitive drive into other activities that satisfy them without overt competition, who solve their problems through mediation and discussion instead of aggression.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 11, 2007)

Crap, Andrew, I hit edit instead of quote.... and I couldn't retrieve what you wrote, I am really sorry.

You said that you might agree or not, depending on what I meant by non-competition - giving examples of environmental and political competition, and then gave the quote below:



> Kacey said:
> 
> 
> > it's the number of people who rise above the need to fight, who subsume their natural competitive drive into other activities that satisfy them without overt competition, who solve their problems through mediation and discussion instead of aggression.
> ...



I was thinking Gandhi... although I suppose a case could be made that non-violent resistance could still be a type of competition.


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 12, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> However learning proper debate is far different then two people yelling &#8220;Yes it is!&#8221; &#8220;No it isn't!&#8221; &#8220;Yes it is!&#8221; back and forth, it is a very complex skill with strategy, tactics and rules.


 
... no it isn't.

Sorry, couldn't resist.   Great article, Andrew!


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 12, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I was thinking Gandhi... although I suppose a case could be made that non-violent resistance could still be a type of competition.


 
It is, and it requires a certain type of opponent to work.  If Gandhi had tried that with the Germans, we would not know who he was today.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 12, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I was thinking Gandhi... although I suppose a case could be made that non-violent resistance could still be a type of competition.




Ghandi I think is an example of my side 

To stand up to that, without fear and without letting emotion take over, that's exactly the sort of character trait I believe "fighting" can build.


----------

