# How real is MMA?



## INDYFIGHTER (Apr 24, 2007)

Lately I've been reading the same quote over and over from alot of different people saying that MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever.  "The closest thing to the street."

I don't believe that's completely true.  All kinds of things happen on the street.  Recently I personally had to choke the driver of a van while standing on the running board of a moving vehical.  I seen one punch fights where the only guy who ever laid on his back was the guy who got knocked out.  I've never seen anyones face get ground into a fence although I'm sure it does happen, occasionally.  

I'm not knocking MMA.  Just like most sports I feel it has it's place and it's athletes.  I'm just not buying this idea that it's the most realistic.  I've never once ever seen anyone throw a leg kick in a street fight!  And I've never seen anyone go for a side mount on the sidewalk.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 24, 2007)

Well, its probably the safest thing you can get. You can't exactly hand out broken bottles or live knives in a "sport" and expect the stars to live very long. Nor can you simulate every possible aspect of a non-scripted fight.

Is it perfect? Sure its not, but IMHO its one of the better options


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 24, 2007)

INDYFIGHTER said:


> Lately I've been reading the same quote over and over from alot of different people saying that MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever.  "The closest thing to the street."
> 
> I don't believe that's completely true.



Name a more realistic unarmed combat sport.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Name a more realistic unarmed combat sport.


 
Drinking in Newcastle on a Saturday night? or Cardiff, dear me there's a place for a fight!


----------



## Freestyler777 (Apr 24, 2007)

I am so glad someone else questioned the validity of MMA.  I agree with you, Indyfighter.  MMA is one of many combat sports.  "Completeness" is not a requisite skill for self-defense.  Efficacy is.  And punching with the hands is the most important skill, as well as balance, endurance, and a cool nerve.  You should also have some grappling skill to avoid being on bottom in the event of a groundfight.  I don't believe in kicks, the guard, or most takedowns.  And I train in BJJ!  I happen to love no-gi grappling, which has tremendous SD value, but I realize that there is no sport that is reality, so I will quote Bart Vale, founder of Shootfighting in America: "I never went to the ground in a real fight; I guess I hit them before they hit me."  Simple wisdom.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 24, 2007)

MMA like any other art or style can be real effective, or utter crap. It really depends on how your train, what you train, and who you train with.

Most MMA folks train in a more casual "gym" style in comfortable workout gear, rather than the often very strict style with special uniforms of the traditional arts.

MMA tends to omit the techniques that don't fit into much of todays society (ie sword disarms, fancy spinning kicks, and the like.) while focusing more on the basics needed to dominate in a one on one fight. Many schools use a grappling core as their foundation.

Some people train for the "UFC" type fights, which is to say for sport fighting, with it's rules, and controlled conditions. Others train in an anything goes lets see what works here and what doesn't work here way, which is more geared towards street defense. 

Basically, if you're looking for sport fighting, it's one of the best.
If you're looking for street defense, check out the place before hand as it can be very effective.
If you're looking for a combat art, look elsewhere.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Name a more realistic unarmed combat sport.


Wing Chun, Karate, Gung Fu, Arnis, Savate, Kenpo, Kempo, Systema..........You just have to train under someone legit, not someone who got their belt from a box of cracker jax.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 24, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Wing Chun, Karate, Gung Fu, Arnis, Savate, Kenpo, Kempo, Systema..........You just have to train under someone legit, not someone who got their belt from a box of cracker jax.



But as people keep telling me, those are not sports 

The claim is: "MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever."

So I'd like to know what a more realistic sport is, and what the rules and criteria for winning are.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Apr 24, 2007)

You have a point, Andrew.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> But as people keep telling me, those are not sports
> 
> The claim is: "MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever."
> 
> So I'd like to know what a more realistic sport is, and what the rules and criteria for winning are.


Old school ECW, with the tables, and chairs, and "international objects", and fire, and 10 on 1 gang ups. 

Just remove the ring, the ropes, the ref and the script. 

(*Says the dummy who has taken unprotected shots to the head with a kendo sword, a folding chair and a vcr - don't ask*)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 24, 2007)

But, seriously, MMA probably is the closest to a real fight you can get under controlled circumstances today in a sporting environment.  The key is to remember those last 2 words, "sporting environment". They don't allow broken bottles and tire irons in the UFC. Street fights....well....they're different. lol.


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Drinking in Newcastle on a Saturday night? or Cardiff, dear me there's a place for a fight!



Please. We're talking about sports here, not committed lifestyles


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> But as people keep telling me, those are not sports
> 
> The claim is: "MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever."
> 
> So I'd like to know what a more realistic sport is, and what the rules and criteria for winning are.



Unarmed it's pretty darned good. The Dog Brothers and WEKAF do a pretty good job with weapons. 

I was thinking that MMA in street clothes would be interesting. Then I realized it would be more dangerous. There'd be a lot of broken digits from clothing. And getting kicked with a shod foot would be much worse than bare. 

Of course, the debate isn't new. The ancient Greeks argued about whether the Pankration was "real" - the participants ended up wrestling on the ground rather than standing up the way they'd have to in battle.


----------



## rutherford (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> The claim is: "MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever."
> 
> So I'd like to know what a more realistic sport is, and what the rules and criteria for winning are.



Well, some people claim that the fighting sports which limit the time on the ground are more realistic.  I believe the arguement is that when you have to jump for a sub rather than set them up positionally, it's more like how groundfighting should be employed in a street or combat situation. 

But, I highly question the value of the claim.  It could both be the most realistic and still be worlds different.


----------



## bujuts (Apr 24, 2007)

I think its safe to say that its second to none for a sterilized environment.  A sterilized environment is one in which there are a few rules, no dangerous unknowns, no obstacles (a cage fence is not an obstacle), no threat of multiple assailants, the ever handy liability waiver, plenty of time, no weapons, medical attention within 15 seconds, and matted floors.  MMA training is always hard and against a resisting partner - a must for developing fighting ability.

"Effectiveness" means many things.  Its not a great for most sixty year olds, largely because its approach is focused on ending a fight with KO's and submissions, an approach requring, obviously, strength and stamina.  Its not a great idea for smaller framed women dealing with a would-be rapist.  Its not great at dealing with multiple assailants.  And in and of itself its not great at handling or dealing with weapons.

With all that said, the MMA'er still stands a better chance in a street altercation than most, if for no other reason they're conditioned, athletic, and are used to full contact training.  Academic martial artists, as many may be referred to, will bash MMA for its lack of principles and emphasize the fact that the cage isn't real.  Well, it isn't...but it is.  Its REAL tiring, REAL hard, and REAL demanding.  There are lessons all can gain from it, I in particular take the training methods to heart when I train, though I don't specifically train under a MMA school.

Good topic, look forward to more.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> But as people keep telling me, those are not sports
> 
> The claim is: "MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever."
> 
> So I'd like to know what a more realistic sport is, and what the rules and criteria for winning are.


Paintball or some other firearm/Simunition/Airsoft type game?

The reality of modern combat/self defense here in the US is that a lot of bad guys have guns.  And most people aren't interested in a fair, one-on-one fight.


----------



## bujuts (Apr 24, 2007)

I think its safe to say that its second to none for a sterilized environment.  A sterilized environment is one in which there are a few rules, no dangerous unknowns, no obstacles (a cage fence is not an obstacle), no threat of multiple assailants, plenty of time, no weapons, medical attention within 15 seconds, and matted floors.  MMA training is always hard and against a resisting partner - a must for developing fighting ability.

"Effectiveness" means many things.  Its not a great for most sixty year olds, largely because its approach is focused on ending a fight with KO's and submissions, an approach requring, obviously, strength and stamina.  Its not a great idea for smaller framed women dealing with a would-be rapist.  Its not great at dealing with multiple assailants.

With all that said, the MMA'er stands a better chance in a street altercation than most, if for no other reason they're conditioned, athletic, and are used to full contact training.  Academic martial artists, as many may be referred to, will bash MMA for its lack of principles and emphasize the fact that the cage isn't real.  Well...it isn't, but it is.  Its REAL tiring, REAL hard, and REAL demanding.  There are lessons all can gain from it, I in particular take the training methods to heart when I train, though I don't specifically train under a MMA school.

Good topic, look forward to more.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 24, 2007)

bujuts said:


> "Effectiveness" means many things.  Its not a great for most sixty year olds, largely because its approach is focused on ending a fight with KO's and submissions, an approach requring, obviously, strength and stamina.  Its not a great idea for smaller framed women dealing with a would-be rapist.  Its not great at dealing with multiple assailants.



One other thing...

Submissions suck for ending a REAL fight.  You're tied up with one person, and in many submissions in a way that you can't defend against someone else, and what are you going to do if you let him go & he decides to fight again?

Unless your job is to restrain someone, and you carry restraints with you, any self defense idea that ends where you're holding the bad guy...  NOT a good plan.  

And, I know, submission holds can become breaks, etc.  Break my arm, and you don't end the fight; you just take a weapon away.  But that's only if you actually carry the move through; they're not always as easy to do as you think.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 24, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> And, I know, submission holds can become breaks, etc.  Break my arm, and you don't end the fight; you just take a weapon away.  But that's only if you actually carry the move through; they're not always as easy to do as you think.




Most submissions can be snapped.  Just ignore the "gradual pressure" idea an explode through the joint.

It might not end a fight... but it probably will.  And if not it's going to swing it in your favour as much as a punch to the face would, well more 

But regardless, what you are talking about is tactics, not technique.  Not all MMA fighters use submission, even ones that are good at it.  Some prefer to ground & pound.  Some will submit after they have a guy hurt.  Others it depends on who they are fighting.  I can't see many people trying to submit BJ Penn for example.  

Tactics are dependant on who and where you are fighting, and are as important in being able to win.  But you need to have the tools to use different strategies depending on what you need to do.

MMA, while it is sport fighting, gives a person more tools to work with then any other form of sport fighting.


----------



## bujuts (Apr 24, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> And, I know, submission holds can become breaks, etc.  Break my arm, and you don't end the fight; you just take a weapon away.  But that's only if you actually carry the move through; they're not always as easy to do as you think.





Andrew Green said:


> Most submissions can be snapped. Just ignore the "gradual pressure" idea an explode through the joint.



One thing that is largely overlooked is breaking while on the feet.  The principles of levers and fulcrums apply just as they do on the ground, but its necessary to control a third dimension that is normally accomodated by mother earth. 

Good discussion.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## redfang (Apr 24, 2007)

I don't believe a lot of mma ground stuff would be as effective in a no rules environment. Its harder to choke me out if I can bite the arm thats doing it, and as unsavory as biting someone is I would rather do so than get choked out in a real fight. If someone put me in guard and I wanted out quickly, It's a position that leaves the old jewels fairly exposed; an eye poke or throat attack would be pretty doable also. 

That said, mma is not just those things. The striking and being used to having someone throw strikes at you is pretty realistic. Having to worry about the possibility of ground or staying aware of multiple weapons, all good stuff. For me, I use shoulder, wrist and elbow locks at work on a fairly regular basis, just from a standing position. These aren't exclusive to mma, but the way I train them when training mma is more realistic than any manner in which I had previously trained them. (Though where I am at, we don't ignore street situations by exclusively training for the 'rules')

Is it the most realistic? Who knows? I don't really care, It serves a purpose for me and I enjoy it, and that is really the important thing.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 24, 2007)

redfang said:


> I don't believe a lot of mma ground stuff would be as effective in a no rules environment. Its harder to choke me out if I can bite the arm thats doing it,



No offense, but if someone is choking you and you can bite there arm, then there choking technique sucks...



> and as unsavory as biting someone is I would rather do so than get choked out in a real fight. If someone put me in guard and I wanted out quickly, It's a position that leaves the old jewels fairly exposed; an eye poke or throat attack would be pretty doable also.



Not as much as you'd think.  Besides, VERY few fighters _want_ to be on the bottom in guard


One thing that a lot of people often forget is that yes, MMA has evolved into a sport with a fairly standardized rule set.  But that is a recent development.  15 years ago, and that is a very short period, MMA had no rules, apart from biting and gouging all these nasties where ok. 

And even then, you didn't lose, or get DQed, you got a fine payable to the other guy in the first batch of UFC's.  

But alot of MMA training is stilled geared towards no rules fights.  There is the competitive formats, which people looking to fight competitively train.  But MMA is no more confined solely to UFC rules then TKD is to Olympic fighting rules or Karate is to point fighting.  Some schools train for competition alone, others for no rules.  Others even through in fighting 2 on 1 or with weapons occasionally (ex. Dog Brothers)


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Apr 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Name a more realistic unarmed combat sport.


 
In my opinion there is not one more realistic than another because non can ever or will ever take into consideration all the variables associated with your everyday streetfight.  The friend, the bottle, the corner of the chair, the feeling you have when everythings on the line and it's all up to you.  I just don't think it can be replicated in a ring.  IMO.

I love watching ALL combat sports but some of the most interesting outcomes I've seen were outside a ring.  

Alright, if I was going to pick I'd say Pride would have to be my choice but even that is "Controled" to some extent.  

I study actually fight vids on youtube.  Bums, kids, barenuckle boxers....


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2007)

INDYFIGHTER said:


> Lately I've been reading the same quote over and over from alot of different people saying that MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever. "The closest thing to the street."
> 
> I don't believe that's completely true. All kinds of things happen on the street. Recently I personally had to choke the driver of a van while standing on the running board of a moving vehical. I seen one punch fights where the only guy who ever laid on his back was the guy who got knocked out. I've never seen anyones face get ground into a fence although I'm sure it does happen, occasionally.
> 
> I'm not knocking MMA. Just like most sports I feel it has it's place and it's athletes. I'm just not buying this idea that it's the most realistic. I've never once ever seen anyone throw a leg kick in a street fight! And I've never seen anyone go for a side mount on the sidewalk.


 
Anything has the potential to be effective, but as I always say, its how people train their art.  If a MMAist has a primary goal of ring work with nothing else included, then chances are, against weapons, mult. attackers, etc., they wouldn't fair well.  If they include that into their training, then yes, they will have the odds more in their favor.  Keep in mind that many MMA fighters come from a previous MA background.

As for the techniques used: Well, IMO, I'd rather throw a leg kick, which is very effective BTW, than risk a head kick, especially if my clothing does not allow it.  As for rolling on the ground:  Yes, in a real fight, thats the last place anyone should be IMO.  There are chokes and locks that can be applied from a standing position, of course, with some variation. 

Mike


----------



## tradrockrat (Apr 25, 2007)

INDYFIGHTER said:


> ...MMA is the most realistic fighting sport ever.


 
Realistically accurate to which street fight?  I've never seen a streetfight look like another one.

Lets be honest - MMA provides a very useful set of practical techniques at all fighting ranges.  In short, it prepares the practitioner for many different scenarios.  It also tends to create very fit practitioners - a definite plus on the street.  However - look at real fights on youtube (as somebody mentioned).  I've seen fights where the victor clearly knew boxing and that's all he needed to win - therefore, in that real streetfight, boxing was the most realistic fighting sport.  I've seen fights that went straight to the ground as the looser tried a takedown and the winner sprawled (textbook high school wrestling move) and knocked the guy clean out.  Wrestling was clearly the most realistic sport for that fight.

what makes MMA so good is that they train both.  But is it realistic to assume every fight will need both?

No.

so train what you want to and get good at it - that's my humble advice.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 25, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> And most people aren't interested in a fair, one-on-one fight.


 
Outside of the ring, a "fair fight" really doesn't exist... sucker punches, groin shots, improvised weapons, multiple attackers, relative weight class of protagonists, etc... none of these are fair.  Most of the people who get into fights aren't at all looking for fair fights... they're looking for the ones (they think) they can win.

As self-defense, MMA is probably as good as many other martial arts, and better than some because you are always working against a resisting opponent.  The best?  I too have my doubts on this one (and also think it's a completely unprovable opinion one way or the other).


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2007)

A fair fight? What's that? 

If you have to hit someone you do it in the way that stops him the quickest while putting you in the least danger. In the words of several real world class masters of this sort of thing - and I don't use that term lightly:

"Fighting _is_ cheating."
"If you fight you cheat. If you get caught you need to work on your cheating."
"Fairness and compassion are for before and after the fight."

Or you could just watch that scene from _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_, the one where someone challenges Cassidy for leadership of the gang. Watch it several times. It encapsulates at least a dozen indispensable lessons in the essence of the martial arts. I'm completely serious.

But then again I'm a nasty lowdown sort of guy who is more interested in getting home in one piece to make love to my beautiful wife than almost anything else. Compared to that the opinions that someone who wants to hurt me has about my character are so distant it would take the Hubble Telescope to find them.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 25, 2007)

I have not fought any MMA fights yet (outside of my school), but I have a training partner who has.   One thing about his fights is that he knew his opponents well in advance, inluding their record, tendancies, prior fight experience etc.. (He fought one guy he knew was a kickboxer so he could train for weeks against a certain dtyle of fighting).

One the other hand, when I've down Taekwondo tournaments, I did not know ahead of time who I would fight or even how many fights I would have.  And at my age, there were not enough fighters so we didn't even get weight classes so we fought whomever. 

Without getting into the wider context of Taekwondo and MMA fighting this is one small area where I thought Taekwondo was actually more 'street realistic' than MMA.  In a street fight, you don't get to choose your opponents, you don't get to know who they are days or weeks in advance, you don't get to fight people 'your weight', and you don't even know how many times or how many people you will have to fight.

Just throwing some more thoughts into the mix.


----------



## K' Evans (Apr 26, 2007)

I will just add in my two cents, though bear in mind that I am totally new to this, so it's just my initial thoughts. 

I did some MMA practice with my friends and also attended a couple of MMA seminars. I do recognise, along with previous posts, that MMA, if conducted vigorously and incorporating tough conditioning routines, will provide the practitioner with a level of fitness that's significantly above an attacker who is untrained and unfit. Because MMA incorporates a holistic approach to fighting, it also provides more benefits compared to other martial arts that may theoretically be too narrow. Whether striking or grappling, a well-trained MMA fighter is a formidable fighter. 

On the other hand, I do feel that the MMA practitioner shouldn't let it get to their head that it makes them a guaranteed winner in a street fighter. Most particularly, I am pretty critical about the grappling aspect of MMA. Yes, I do think that street fights can end up on the ground, but I find it an unfavorable strategy. From my experience in grappling, I found myself restricted in what I potentially would do, which is what I think a real fight would be like. Things like groin hitting, gorging eyes, biting someone, and etc aren't allowed during sparring, but in a real fight, these things will happen. Also, the attacker, even if inexperienced, will seriously resist and put up an unfair fight as compared to a MMA fighter in a controlled environment. 

The thing about joint locks and other submission holds is that it takes so much considerable effort to get into that position and further, if someone has effectively disabled any of your limbs (either by stabbing or breaking it), you are going to have a serious hard time. If someone keeps hitting your groin, you have to wrestle endlessly or maybe even with one hand. 

Now I don't doubt that experienced grapplers can perform very well, with speed and strength, and have the potential to win street fights with these skills. But I believe there is a reason self-defence systems are taught differently from MMA, and that these SD systems essentially advocate simple, uncomplicated but real damaging moves. Sure, SD systems may have some grappling involved (and perhaps stand-up grappling is shown to be more impt), but it's just not constructed in a sports-oriented manner, which makes the difference. 

I asked one of my MMA friends what he would do if he were to be confronted by a 300-pound bodybuilder huge attacker, and his answer essentially is that he will beg for his life. Just like any martial arts system, there are still some limits to be recognised, and it is impt to be aware of them so as to avoid being too carried away into thinking you are invincible everyday, everytime and for all situations.


----------



## Adept (Apr 26, 2007)

K' Evans said:


> Yes, I do think that street fights can end up on the ground, but I find it an unfavorable strategy.



I agree with you, but for different reasons.

I don't like being on the ground because I can't move, and my arms are busy. If I have to deal with two people at once and one of them takes me to the ground, then I have to grapple with the one guy while his buddy wails on my noggin with a pool-cue. Not a favourable situation, IMO.



K' Evans said:


> The thing about joint locks and other submission holds is that it takes so much considerable effort to get into that position



Speaking as a bouncer, it's not that hard. Granted, I usually have the element of surprise, and the benefit of a drunken opponent, but I rarely have much trouble applying some kind of walking hold, or even just choking someone out, and getting them out of the venue.


----------



## tellner (Apr 26, 2007)

The laws must be a little different over there. Here choking someone out is considered deadly force, equivalent to putting his head to the curb and delivering the Berkeley Stomp or just shooting him.


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 26, 2007)

I don`t know how much Robert Heinlein knew about martial arts but i like the way he put it.



> "Unarmed hand-to-hand fighting does not change through the ages; only the name changes, and it has only one rule: do it first, do it fast, do it dirtiest."


 
Sport fights do simply not follow this rule.


----------



## Adept (Apr 26, 2007)

tellner said:


> The laws must be a little different over there. Here choking someone out is considered deadly force, equivalent to putting his head to the curb and delivering the Berkeley Stomp or just shooting him.



Holy smokes, batman!

Really? Thats crazy. The cops here have actually thrown unconscious patrons into the back of their squad cars after we've administered 50cc's of shut-the-heck-up, from time to time.

We always take pretty good care of them. As soon as they are out, we put them into the recovery position (still maintaining control of them) and wait for them to wake up. Sometimes they wake up with all the fight taken out of them, other times they wake up keen for round two, but they always wake up. Our theory is that an unconscious person can't hurt us, can't hurt themselves, and is less likely to be inadvertanly hurt during an ejection.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Apr 26, 2007)

I think MMA is a fair fight between two men, skilled in martial arts, with none of the chaos, or hatred, of real violence.    

I think being a trained sportfighter (judo, wrestling, BJJ) helps, in fact anything is better than nothing!  There are too many variables in real violence to train what-if scenarios.  And anyway, streetfighting is for retarded gorillas, so it is better to train in your style and be happy.  Grappling helps you in the 99.9% of the time that you are not fighting, as well as those rare occurences when you're being hassled by some jerk.

Just my opinion.  I have no street experience of my own, but I trust in the wisdom of my teachers and their experience.


----------



## tellner (Apr 26, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I think MMA is a fair fight between two men, skilled in martial arts, with none of the chaos, or hatred, of real violence.



There's one of the important points. Tapping out might not help you in a self defense situation.


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Apr 26, 2007)

Adept said:


> Holy smokes, batman!
> 
> Really? Thats crazy. The cops here have actually thrown unconscious patrons into the back of their squad cars after we've administered 50cc's of shut-the-heck-up, from time to time.
> 
> We always take pretty good care of them. As soon as they are out, we put them into the recovery position (still maintaining control of them) and wait for them to wake up. Sometimes they wake up with all the fight taken out of them, other times they wake up keen for round two, but they always wake up. Our theory is that an unconscious person can't hurt us, can't hurt themselves, and is less likely to be inadvertanly hurt during an ejection.


 

I'm not sure where he's from but here in Indiana I've been told it's not a good idea and to try to avoid the head at all costs.  On the other hand I too have choked patrons out while bouncing and had help from a LEO getting them outside before they woke up.  The story I was told was a New York bouncer accidentally broke some guys neck and killed him and now he's still doing time in prison.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 26, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I think MMA is a fair fight between two *men*, skilled in martial arts, with none of the chaos, or hatred, of real violence.
> 
> I.


 
Excuse me! women fight too!


----------

