# Every fight is potentially a life-or-death event



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 8, 2017)

I've said this before; I think it bears repeating.  Getting into a fight willingly, when you can disengage and walk or run away, is not 'self-defense'

The reason is that self-defense is about defending one's own life.  Fighting is a last resort, not a first resort, because fighting can end in death, even when it was never the intent.

Here's another example...

Suspect facing murder charges after man he punched in face dies

_"A St. Cloud man who punched another man in the face early Saturday is now in jail and facing murder charges in connection with the victim's death, St. Cloud police said.

It was around 2:40 a.m. when the 21-year-old suspect got into a verbal dispute with the victim, identified by police as Anthony Quinn Shriver, 22, of Waconia.

Shriver was walking home with friends when he encountered the suspect. The two exchanged words and the suspect punched Shriver in the face near the intersection of 9th Avenue and 7th Street, witnesses on the scene told police.

Shriver complained of a headache but had no other visible signs of injury after the early-morning confrontation and refused medical treatment. He went home with friends, but several hours later officers were sent to a residence on 10th Avenue S. where Shriver was found unresponsive.

Paramedics initiated lifesaving measures but were unable to revive him, said assistant chief Jeff Oxton.

Police determined that Shriver was the victim of the assault that occurred earlier that morning, Oxton said."_​
One punch.  A young man punches another young man in the face after closing time.  Some time later, the man who was punched dies.  What was a simple assault charge is now a murder charge.

Why? 

Because you're responsible for your actions. The fact that you didn't mean to kill the person you punched means very little.

If you can avoid fighting, that is true self-defense.  Fighting is for when there is no other option.

We train to fight to defend ourselves.  But if we can disengage without fighting, we're actually respecting the principles of self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 8, 2017)

This is one of the concepts I discuss with my students. Even if I "know" I could win a fight, I'd rather walk away. No matter how good I am, there's always a chance the other guy gets past my defense (he's better than I think, or I make a mistake, or I slip/trip on something).

How much is the chance? I don't think we can really quantify it accurately, because it changes based on too many different variables. What I know is there's a lesser chance of getting hurt or killed if the fight doesn't ever happen.

The tricky part is balancing that with proper pre-emption. We have to make a judgment call as to whether it's still possible to avoid the fight (that requires their cooperation).


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 8, 2017)

Well, no, we shouldn't be too quick to get into fights.  But there is that pesky combination of alcohol and ego.

Even without the tragic death, there could have been a charge of assault and battery.  Personally, as much as we as MA tend to have Type A personalities, a little ego loss is better than a long time freedom loss in the hoosegow.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 8, 2017)

Dr. John Painter told a story at one of his seminars, a few years back, about a question he asked his teacher

He asked what he should he get involved and fight with a guy who is being a bully and his teacher responded with don't fight.
He came up with multiple scenarios and asked his teacher many more times about what he should do and his teacher continued to answer "don't fight"
Finally he came up with one where he was cornered and left no choice but to fight. His teacher responded with "Kill him"....then go kill his family so they can't seek revenge on you. Dr. Painter said "I don't want to kill anyone". His teacher then said "Don't fight"

My Jujutsu Sensei who was a 2nd or 3rd degree black belt (sorry, I'm getting old and can't remember how many strips he had) in Jujutsu, black belt in karate, studied Kung fu and was a master fencer instilled in us that fighting was a very serious thing and not to be taken lightly. If you fight, you have to understand that you will have to live with the consequences of that fight. Only fight when there is no other choice. He also use to tell us stories about situations he was face with where people wanted to fight and how he solved it by running away.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> What I know is there's a lesser chance of getting hurt or killed if the fight doesn't ever happen.


Bam!

Here's a conversation I had with a fellow student once, who had just gotten into a 'self-defense' fight.

"Could you have walked away without being injured?"
"Well, yeah, but he..."
"Nope, don't want to hear it.  That's not self-defense.  Glad you're OK, but if you think you were engaging in self-defense, you're mistaken."

If you have the option to walk without risk, take it.  If not, then fight.  Refer to your excellent statement above for risk factors.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 8, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've said this before; I think it bears repeating.  Getting into a fight willingly, when you can disengage and walk or run away, is not 'self-defense'
> 
> The reason is that self-defense is about defending one's own life.  Fighting is a last resort, not a first resort, because fighting can end in death, even when it was never the intent.
> 
> ...


I'm going to address the Victim.  Always manage the conflicts that you get into.  Don't rely on the other person to see "good reasoning" or to have a desire to walk away.  Manage the distance so it takes more effort for someone to reach you. If you are going to take a risk at being punched then don't risk a clean and solid hit


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 8, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm going to address the Victim.  Always manage the conflicts that you get into.  Don't rely on the other person to see "good reasoning" or to have a desire to walk away.  Manage the distance so it takes more effort for someone to reach you. If you are going to take a risk at being punched then don't risk a clean and solid hit



Consider also that even if a person is hit with a sloppy or otherwise terrible technique, if the person hit slips and falls, hits his head, and dies, it's still a homicide.  Consider that people have died of heart attacks after being assaulted, people have been mildly injured, developed complications, and died of those.  All possibilities are on the attacker as far as the law is concerned, generally speaking.

In the case I cited, it appears the victim thought he was OK, refused medical treatment, went home.  The person who hit him was originally cited for a low-grade misdemeanor assault and released.  The charge was upgraded after the victim passed.

Anything can happen.  It doesn't have to be a good clean hit.  It could be a swing and a miss, followed by slipping on ice or loose gravel, and whacking one's head on the ground.  It's happened - happened near here a few years ago.  Just two drunks in a bar parking lot.  One guy swung wild at the other, the other jumped back, slipped on a parking divider, and whammo.  Game over.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 8, 2017)

You can't always avoid things in your life just because there is risk involved.

You just don't get any life done that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can't always avoid things in your life just because there is risk involved.
> 
> You just don't get any life done that way.


No, but you can avoid things because risk is involved and no real reward, when you have a choice. I enjoyed rock climbing - some controlled risk there, but a lot of reward, too.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 8, 2017)

While I agree with the sentiment, I dislike using anecdotes like this. It comes off to me as fear mongering, like that person who tells a teenager a story about a girl who got pregnant even though they used protection, so you shouldn't have sex.

Obviously a different scenario, but in both you're using a very low probability (you're probably not going to kill a guy with a punch, and you're probably not going to get your girlfriend pregnant if you use protection), to encourage people to not engage in a risky situation with less extreme consequences (in both situations). It's just not effective.

As for your statement about it not being self-defense, that depends. You could be defending your ego, which is part of yourself, your pride, your body etc. Are those worth the risk to defend? Probably not, at least from my opinion/experience, and it would be better to take the hit to whatever than risk your life/jail time, but they are still technically defending themselves.


----------



## Steve (Aug 8, 2017)

Every thing is potentially life or death.   Isn't it?  I don't quite understand the distinction here.


----------



## Brian King (Aug 8, 2017)

While you may want to 'fight' you should be willing to walk away from it. That said, you should be willing and able to fight. Often that willingness is, if not the, at least a, key in successful de-escalation. It takes at least two for de-escalation to work and often the willingness of the fight is sensed by the other and that sometimes brings in doubt and fear. That willingness to fight along with the willingness to walk away by 'the victim' permits saving of ego by an aggressor as well as permission to disengage.
Your mileage may vary
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 8, 2017)

Self-defense is more than just to defense yourself. It also includes to protect others. When someone attacks your love one, even if you can walk away, you shouldn't.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> No, but you can avoid things because risk is involved and no real reward, when you have a choice. I enjoyed rock climbing - some controlled risk there, but a lot of reward, too.



I still don't think this focus on risk is very good at mentally preparing someone for engaging in the exact same risky behavior you are training them for.

So while it sells memberships and sounds great. I do not think violence as a last resort because you could die or kill someone is the right way to approach this discussion.

I also believe good mental preparation is vital for any self defence training and does not necessarily get the depth of training it deserves within the self defence industry.

When we weigh the risks we need to be mindful of the outcomes. But also be able to engage in that risky action with enough confidence to achieve the task. This comes down to my ongoing idea that fighting really needs to be a clinical decision. And not based on mood.

Bear in mind fighting is not a last resort. Choosing to stand there and get your face smashed in is.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 9, 2017)

Brian King said:


> While you may want to 'fight' you should be willing to walk away from it. That said, you should be willing and able to fight. Often that willingness is, if not the, at least a, key in successful de-escalation. It takes at least two for de-escalation to work and often the willingness of the fight is sensed by the other and that sometimes brings in doubt and fear. That willingness to fight along with the willingness to walk away by 'the victim' permits saving of ego by an aggressor as well as permission to disengage.
> Your mileage may vary
> Regards
> Brian King


In my view yours is concise and accurate thinking Brian I would believe is gathered from experience! 

For me, to fight have often been not at all the last resort yet it have been the resort for the most decisive outcome overall because for me leastwise, physical aggression is not always one single solitary incident.. 

I had walked away where I worked plenty of time and was accosted later when I left by that person who externalise and attach all of their ongoing problems to me! and right there at that point is not space in their mind for rational communication, that option is devalued to zero. I had found in that situation, even to run away do not preclude them returning subsequently.. is dojo mentality to draw conclusions that are absolutes.. I cannot see absolutes

Likewise, the saving of face as you outline Brian I too have found this a crucial aspect of diffusion in both equally important aspects: first in concluding a physical confrontation and but moreover, in ameliorating that person anger towards me or perhaps some one I had work alongside and thereby mitigating chances of the same situation happen over again! To not fight would not contribute to this..

Saving of face yes, to allow someone, irrespective of it being that person who began that aggression, to disengage on their terms rather than trying to either win over them or run away from them and but -if my martial art work at all- to use physical technique to show to them they cannot achieve what they are try to achieve by the means they are trying to achieve it, and that further, it is them -and but only of their own volition- who must capitulate.. that is what I continually conclude to be the means to the most harmonious outcome in any physical altercation..

To avoid or run away yes that can work of course, is entirely dependent upon situation, like you rightly say, mileage may vary, however to suggest this is exclusively "true" defence, no I could not assent to that by any implied statute of man or higher Jxoxo


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can't always avoid things in your life just because there is risk involved.
> 
> You just don't get any life done that way.



You can't always avoid.  But you may know that at least in the USA business community and the military, Risk Assessment is a very formalized response to the possibility to threats.  So first, a Threat Assessment, then a Risk Assessment.  Then mitigation proposals. 

Nice that these formal assessments can be usually be checked out and discussed over a relatively long time.  Unfortunately, given a threat 'on the street,' there may be little time.  But physical training, aforehand brainstorming (going through possible scenarios), and any past experience by the potential victim or other sources, may help.  I am encouraged that you seem to agree.



drop bear said:


> I still don't think this focus on risk is very good at mentally preparing someone for engaging in the exact same risky behavior you are training them for.
> 
> So while it sells memberships and sounds great. I do not think violence as a last resort because you could die or kill someone is the right way to approach this discussion.
> 
> ...



*Bolded:*


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I still don't think this focus on risk is very good at mentally preparing someone for engaging in the exact same risky behavior you are training them for.
> 
> So while it sells memberships and sounds great. I do not think violence as a last resort because you could die or kill someone is the right way to approach this discussion.
> 
> ...


I agree, its probably best not to get into fights with people,but some times confrontations are unavoidable and some times that leads to threats of violence and some times to pushing and shoving and some times to actual violence.

I let a let of stuff go now that when I was younger I would be squaring up to some body over. I really can't be bothered, but some times you need to speak up and some times that leads to a fight

I am of the opinion that representing strengh ie looking like you are up for,a,fight is one of the best ways of avoiding a,fight


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2017)

Many of the comments expressed here are quite wise and mature.  Others are immature, blustering, and ignorant, even coming from older people, which goes quite a ways towards explaining why there is so much idiotic violence in the world.  People who can't or won't back down, people who feel that being challenged or taunted or cussed at is a good reason to fight, even if they have the option to walk away.   Unfortunate in the extreme.  College frat boy idiocy run wild.


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Many of the comments expressed here are quite wise and mature.  Others are immature, blustering, and ignorant, even coming from older people, which goes quite a ways towards explaining why there is so much idiotic violence in the world.  People who can't or won't back down, people who feel that being challenged or taunted or cussed at is a good reason to fight, even if they have the option to walk away.   Unfortunate in the extreme.  College frat boy idiocy run wild.


its your right to back down if you wish, but why are you so judgmental of people who choose to stick up for themselves, that their right and their risk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> its your right to back down if you wish, but why are you so judgmental of people who choose to stick up for themselves, that their right and their risk



Because every foolish and unnecessary death diminishes us all, not to mention costs our society dearly in the form of services and money for hospitals, courts, prisons, and so on.  Because road rage.  Because morons start wars when they can't walk away and innocent people die.  Because angry drunks firing blindly into bars because they were challenged and lost a fight, so they went home and got a gun and started blasting away.  Because angry punks driving cars into crowds because they were made fun of.  Because our society can't suffer these fools anymore.

That's why I'm so judgmental.  It's your choice, but the consequences are paid by all of us.  And I've had it up to here with that kind of nonsense.


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Because every foolish and unnecessary death diminishes us all, not to mention costs our society dearly in the form of services and money for hospitals, courts, prisons, and so on.  Because road rage.  Because morons start wars when they can't walk away and innocent people die.  Because angry drunks firing blindly into bars because they were challenged and lost a fight, so they went home and got a gun and started blasting away.  Because angry punks driving cars into crowds because they were made fun of.  Because our society can't suffer these fools anymore.
> 
> That's why I'm so judgmental.  It's your choice, but the consequences are paid by all of us.  And I've had it up to here with that kind of nonsense.


that's just outraged nonsense, that has nothing to do with someone standing up to a bully or an idiot, if you want to back down to any idiot that threatens you that fine, but nit all of us want to live that life


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's just outraged nonsense, that has nothing to do with someone standing up to a bully or an idiot, if you want to back down to any idiot that threatens you that fine, but nit all of us want to live that life



Self-involved twaddle.  People who choose to engage in fisticuffs when it is not absolutely required think their little sphere only involves themselves and is no one else's business.  I don't care what kind of life you want to live; if you put my life in danger, or frankly if you cost me money having your wounds stitched up at the local ER when you get tanked up and stupid with no health insurance, it's my business and I'm going to comment on it whether you like it or not.  You lose the option to object when you get on my dime, bub.  When your choices affect me, you best believe I get a say.

And frankly, it's the bullies mantra to refer to 'not fighting' as 'backing down'.  Sure, cast the intelligent choice, the wise choice, as a coward slinking away instead of a human being intelligently applying the basic principles of self-defense.  I train to fight.  I have fought.  I fight well, in general terms.  I trust my abilities in a fight and I sure as hell am not afraid to go toe-to-toe.  I choose to defend myself whenever possible by NOT fighting.  Call that 'backing down' if you wish.  It doesn't keep me up at night.

I once again broke my rule and unignored your asinine comments.  Once again I pay the price for that.  OK, for my blood pressure and peace of mind, back you go.  I don't even like to know people like you exist.  Sometimes I read your comments and agree with them.  We're from the same generation, sounds like we've seen some of the same things.  But you ain't my kind, and that's the name of that tune.


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Self-involved twaddle.  People who choose to engage in fisticuffs when it is not absolutely required think their little sphere only involves themselves and is no one else's business.  I don't care what kind of life you want to live; if you put my life in danger, or frankly if you cost me money having your wounds stitched up at the local ER when you get tanked up and stupid with no health insurance, it's my business and I'm going to comment on it whether you like it or not.  You lose the option to object when you get on my dime, bub.  When your choices affect me, you best believe I get a say.
> 
> And frankly, it's the bullies mantra to refer to 'not fighting' as 'backing down'.  Sure, cast the intelligent choice, the wise choice, as a coward slinking away instead of a human being intelligently applying the basic principles of self-defense.  I train to fight.  I have fought.  I fight well, in general terms.  I trust my abilities in a fight and I sure as hell am not afraid to go toe-to-toe.  I choose to defend myself whenever possible by NOT fighting.  Call that 'backing down' if you wish.  It doesn't keep me up at night.
> 
> I once again broke my rule and unignored your asinine comments.  Once again I pay the price for that.  OK, for my blood pressure and peace of mind, back you go.  I don't even like to know people like you exist.  Sometimes I read your comments and agree with them.  We're from the same generation, sounds like we've seen some of the same things.  But you ain't my kind, and that's the name of that tune.


in the words of Kenny Rodgers," sometimes you have to fight to be a man"

Ps I don't drink, and I don't live in the usa


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> in the words of Kenny Rodgers," sometimes you have to fight to be a man"
> 
> Ps I don't drink, and I don't live in the usa



Sorry, it's "sometimes you have to fight *when you are* a man."

And although Kenny Rogers sang the song, he did not write it, but I understand a reference to Kenny Rogers as most people may not realize that most singers or their recorders buy songs, not write them themselves.  There's probably more money in writing than singing, if you are good enough.

If you read the article written below, you will find that "Tommy" may have been more in agreement with Bill Mattocks than you.  Certainly "Tommy's" father was, and "Tommy" tried to follow his father's plea.

From: Coward of the County - Wikipedia

*Coward of the County*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*Coward of the County*" is a country song written by Roger Bowling and Billy Ed Wheeler, and recorded by American country music singer Kenny Rogers. It was released in November 1979 as the second single from the multi-platinum album _Kenny_. A million-selling gold-certified 45, it is one of Rogers' biggest hits.

The song is about a man's nephew who is a reputed coward, but finally takes a stand for his lover. The song reached number one on the _Billboard_ Hot Country Singles chart. It also hit #1 on the Cash Box singles chart and #3 on the _Billboard_ Hot 100 chart. In addition, it hit #1 on the UK Singles chart.[1] It was the most recent traditional country music song to hit number one in the UK, in February 1980. In Ireland, the song was #1 for six consecutive weeks.



*Contents*
 [1 The song's story

2 Controversy regarding "The Gatlin Boys" lyric

3 Chart performance

4 Cover versions

5 Film adaptation

6 References

7 External links


*The song's story[edit]*
The song tells the story of a young man named Tommy, who earns a notorious reputation as the "coward of the county" (and is nicknamed "Yellow", a slang term for a cowardly person) since he never stood up for himself one single time to prove the county wrong.

Tommy's non-confrontational attitude was influenced, at age 10, by his final visit with his imprisoned father, shortly before he dies there (accompanied by the singer, portraying Tommy's uncle). In his final words to Tommy, his father tells him that to "turn the other cheek" isn't altogether a sign of weakness, and implores him to promise "not to do the things I've done; walk away from trouble if you can" (implying that not "turning the other cheek" was what may have landed Tommy's father in prison).

Despite his cowardly reputation, Tommy falls in love with Becky, a local girl who loves Tommy for who he is without having to prove to her that he was a man. One day, while Tommy was working, the three Gatlin brothers came to Becky's house, attacked and "took turns at Becky." Tommy returns home and finds Becky crying and her dress torn. Reaching above the fireplace and taking down his daddy's picture, he faces the dilemma of choosing between upholding his father's plea of "walking away from trouble", or achieving justice for Becky.

Tommy chooses to visit the bar where the Gatlin boys are. Amid laughter upon Tommy's entrance, and after "one of them got up and met him halfway 'cross the floor," Tommy turns around, and the Gatlins assume he once again is going to walk away like a coward ("they said, hey look old yellow's leaving"). However he actually turned to lock the door behind him ("you coulda heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and locked the door") and trap the Gatlin boys inside with him. Fueled by "twenty years of crawlin'" that "was bottled up inside him," Tommy engages in a relentless barroom brawl that leaves all three Gatlin boys unconscious on the barroom floor.

Tommy then reflects on his dead father's plea, addressing him respectfully that while he did his best to avoid trouble, he hopes he understands that "sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, it's "sometimes you have to fight *when you are* a man."
> 
> And although Kenny Rogers sang the song, he did not write it, but I understand a reference to Kenny Rogers as most people may not realize that most singers or their recorders buy songs, not write them themselves.  There's probably more money in writing than singing, if you are good enough.
> 
> ...


he " crawled( like a mangey dog) for twenty years, before finally coming to the,conclusion that manhood involved fighting, sometimes. I'm not sure how that supports bills suggestion that every one should spend a life time crawling (lower than a snakes belly) to every passing bully,
 its one of the law of the universe that sooner or later the bully will pick on the wron g person, you can't dennie Karma its end goal


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, it's "sometimes you have to fight *when you are* a man."
> 
> And although Kenny Rogers sang the song, he did not write it, but I understand a reference to Kenny Rogers as most people may not realize that most singers or their recorders buy songs, not write them themselves.  There's probably more money in writing than singing, if you are good enough.
> 
> ...


Ya, we all have access to Wikipedia. Honestly, if you need to Wikipedia a reference like that, it wasn't for you.

Youngsters....


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> he " crawled( like a mangey dog) for twenty years, before finally coming to the,conclusion that manhood involved fighting, sometimes. I'm not sure how that supports bills suggestion that every one should spend a life time crawling (lower than a snakes belly)



It is amazing to me.  Sometimes you say really meaningful and thoughtful things.  But so many times you come up with posts that I have quoted here.  Bill never said that BTW.

I have mentioned before that I have never put anyone on ignore.  I don't intend to yet.  I don't think I need to do that as I can simply ignore without the aid of software.  So if I don't seem to be paying attention to you, you will know what happened. If you care.  Somehow, we just don't seem to be on the same wave length.


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> It is amazing to me.  Sometimes you say really meaningful and thoughtful things.  But so many times you come up with posts that I have quoted here.  Bill never said that BTW.
> 
> I have mentioned before that I have never put anyone on ignore.  I don't intend to yet.  I don't think I need to do that as I can simply ignore without the aid of software.  So if I don't seem to be paying attention to you, you will know what happened. If you care.  Somehow, we just don't seem to be on the same wave length.


I'm fascinated by the ignore function and the fact that people just can't ignore you, they have to tell you that they are putting you on ignore, then take you off ignore so that they can tell you that they are putting you on again, they seem to think that you care.

in your case, you have just posted ,to telling me that you might ignore me in the,future rather than just ignore me ?????,

there is a major sense of humour issue with some on this forum , there's not much I can do about that,


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 9, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Consider also that even if a person is hit with a sloppy or otherwise terrible technique, if the person hit slips and falls, hits his head, and dies, it's still a homicide.  Consider that people have died of heart attacks after being assaulted, people have been mildly injured, developed complications, and died of those.  All possibilities are on the attacker as far as the law is concerned, generally speaking.
> 
> In the case I cited, it appears the victim thought he was OK, refused medical treatment, went home.  The person who hit him was originally cited for a low-grade misdemeanor assault and released.  The charge was upgraded after the victim passed.
> 
> Anything can happen.  It doesn't have to be a good clean hit.  It could be a swing and a miss, followed by slipping on ice or loose gravel, and whacking one's head on the ground.  It's happened - happened near here a few years ago.  Just two drunks in a bar parking lot.  One guy swung wild at the other, the other jumped back, slipped on a parking divider, and whammo.  Game over.


As for the environment the victim would need to be aware of it. That way he can use the environment to his advantage or he can better navigate the dangers a risks that the environment presents.  The good thing about environmental factors is that the risks are there for the attacker as well.  Slipping and tripping can be addressed by doing some simple foot work and stance training exercises.  There will always be risks but it doesn't mean that one can't reduce them.  we don't control the environment, we navigate through it.  The better we can do this the less of a risk it is. The risk will always be there.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 9, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Ya, we all have access to Wikipedia. Honestly, if you need to Wikipedia a reference like that, it wasn't for you.
> 
> *Youngsters*....



LOL.  Sometimes I wish.



oftheherd1 said:


> ...
> 
> I have mentioned before that I have never put anyone on ignore.  I don't intend to yet.  I don't think I need to do that as I can simply ignore without the aid of software.  So if I don't seem to be paying attention to you, you will know what happened. If you care.  Somehow, we just don't seem to be on the same wave length.



I edited out what I thought didn't apply.


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> LOL.  Sometimes I wish.
> 
> 
> 
> I edited out what I thought didn't apply.


so so far your really doing a bad job of ignoring me,


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> LOL.  Sometimes I wish.
> 
> 
> 
> I edited out what I thought didn't apply.


You post that second bit as if I care. You are 'of the herd' in more than just name. I am not.

The sort of guy that would post an entire Wikipedia page in response to a self evident song reference just to pedantically correct a grammatical error isn't the sort I would miss anyway.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 9, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Many of the comments expressed here are quite wise and mature.  Others are immature, blustering, and ignorant, even coming from older people, which goes quite a ways towards explaining why there is so much idiotic violence in the world.  People who can't or won't back down, people who feel that being challenged or taunted or cussed at is a good reason to fight, even if they have the option to walk away.   Unfortunate in the extreme.  College frat boy idiocy run wild.


The thing about what you say can apply to those who are attacking the victim in the first place.  For me I don't mind losing a confrontation as long as I can choose how to lose.  Attackers who fight for the same reasons you listed. Normally I would have only discussed the risk of killing someone with a punch, but the other side of the coin is the victim who died. Was there any thing he could have done to recognize the dangers.  while reading the OP, it made me think of the kung fu legends about someone fighting and dying the next day.  I wonder if things like this is what those legends were based on.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 9, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> The thing about what you say can apply to those who are attacking the victim in the first place.  For me I don't mind losing a confrontation as long as I can choose how to lose.  Attackers who fight for the same reasons you listed. Normally I would have only discussed the risk of killing someone with a punch, but the other side of the coin is the victim who died. Was there any thing he could have done to recognize the dangers.  while reading the OP, it made me think of the kung fu legends about someone fighting and dying the next day.  I wonder if things like this is what those legends were based on.


The "delayed death touch."  Along with bruising someone's heart and it taking about 6 months for them to have a heart attack, rupturing someone's spleen and they slowly fatally bleed internally.  They didn't have the medical care and technology we currently have.

Most of it had to be superstitious nonsense though.  And it's highly doubtful anyone could intentionally kill someone this way (delayed death touch) if they tried.  You'd need an exact force on an exact angle for it to intentionally work.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 9, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> The "delayed death touch."  Along with bruising someone's heart and it taking about 6 months for them to have a heart attack, rupturing someone's spleen and they slowly fatally bleed internally.  They didn't have the medical care and technology we currently have.
> 
> Most of it had to be superstitious nonsense though.  And it's highly doubtful anyone could intentionally kill someone this way (delayed death touch) if they tried.  You'd need an exact force on an exact angle for it to intentionally work.



I have always thought that the 'dem mak' was more superstition myself.  But in Korea I know a Korean soldier was killed by a booted kick to the xiphoid process that damaged the heart.  He however, died instantly. 

In Vietnam a villager died from a malarial spleen.  It seems they often fill with blood to the point that a small trauma from the front, or even an event like jumping off a bench, can cause the spleen to rupture and the person will bleed to death, but not necessarily quickly, as in minutes.  Probably not days, and certainly not months though either.

Who knows if MA caused either of the above injuries and thought they had come up with a perfect strike procedure that would kill slowly.  It could be that the person who took the blow, and was told what it was thought to be, aided in his own death by just sort of giving up?


----------



## Buka (Aug 9, 2017)

Some folks dismiss the "delayed death touch" out of Martial habit. You do so at your own peril, my friends. Known as _moram mortem_ in some early early Latin circles, it is now commonly referred to as_ marriage_.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 9, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Many of the comments expressed here are quite wise and mature.  Others are immature, blustering, and ignorant, even coming from older people, which goes quite a ways towards explaining why there is so much idiotic violence in the world.  People who can't or won't back down, people who feel that being challenged or taunted or cussed at is a good reason to fight, even if they have the option to walk away.   Unfortunate in the extreme.  College frat boy idiocy run wild.



Or it is a call for cowardice an excuse to not act when needed to.

We can all make emotional posts.

Personally I think it is a risk vs reward game. And I dont think the risk is being addressed as realistically as it could be. This is because of the emotional nature of this discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

Steve said:


> Every thing is potentially life or death.   Isn't it?  I don't quite understand the distinction here.


It's about reasonable risk. I could die driving my car, but not getting in a car has a HUGE downside from where I live (no work, groceries, etc.). What's the downside to not getting in the fight? If the downside is big, take the risk. If the downside is someone will think you're a wuss, who cares?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I still don't think this focus on risk is very good at mentally preparing someone for engaging in the exact same risky behavior you are training them for.
> 
> So while it sells memberships and sounds great. I do not think violence as a last resort because you could die or kill someone is the right way to approach this discussion.
> 
> ...


I see your point, but I don't agree with the premise. I don't think making this argument (that fighting is inherently high-risk, and so should be avoided unless the risk accompanying avoidance is high) reduces confidence in fighting. I think it helps avoid the over-confidence I see in some martial artists (myself, included, at one point back in my 20's) who come to believe they can handle situations without risk.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> in the words of Kenny Rodgers," sometimes you have to fight to be a man"
> 
> Ps I don't drink, and I don't live in the usa


That's a misquote of The Gambler. It actually says, "you don't have to fight to be a man" and, "sometimes you have to fight when you're a man." Fighting doesn't make you a man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> he " crawled( like a mangey dog) for twenty years, before finally coming to the,conclusion that manhood involved fighting, sometimes. I'm not sure how that supports bills suggestion that every one should spend a life time crawling (lower than a snakes belly) to every passing bully,
> its one of the law of the universe that sooner or later the bully will pick on the wron g person, you can't dennie Karma its end goal


Epic strawman. At no point did Bill imply or state that people should "spend a life time crawling (lower than a snakes belly)" to anyone, much less "every passing bully".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm fascinated by the ignore function and the fact that people just can't ignore you, they have to tell you that they are putting you on ignore, then take you off ignore so that they can tell you that they are putting you on again, they seem to think that you care.
> 
> in your case, you have just posted ,to telling me that you might ignore me in the,future rather than just ignore me ?????,
> 
> there is a major sense of humour issue with some on this forum , there's not much I can do about that,


Actually, most people tell others when they put them on ignore out of courtesy, so the other party knows they won't get a reply.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

Martial D said:


> You post that second bit as if I care. You are 'of the herd' in more than just name. I am not.
> 
> The sort of guy that would post an entire Wikipedia page in response to a self evident song reference just to pedantically correct a grammatical error isn't the sort I would miss anyway.


Did you miss that the "grammatical error" was a complete reversal of the moral of the song?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> The "delayed death touch."  Along with bruising someone's heart and it taking about 6 months for them to have a heart attack, rupturing someone's spleen and they slowly fatally bleed internally.  They didn't have the medical care and technology we currently have.
> 
> Most of it had to be superstitious nonsense though.  And it's highly doubtful anyone could intentionally kill someone this way (delayed death touch) if they tried.  You'd need an exact force on an exact angle for it to intentionally work.


Most likely some (maybe most) of it was this sort of delayed death and the actor used that to build their reputation by claiming they could teach it. They may even have believed it, themselves.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's about reasonable risk. I could die driving my car, but not getting in a car has a HUGE downside from where I live (no work, groceries, etc.). What's the downside to not getting in the fight? If the downside is big, take the risk. If the downside is someone will think you're a wuss, who cares?


It's just not true that every fight is life or death.   Even when you're being mugged, raped or assaulted.   The goal of a very, very rare few crimes is homicide.   So, sure.   Avoiding a fight when you can is good sense.   But saying you will only fight if it's kill or be killed is overly dramatic.   Choosing to fight or not to fight is very contextual, and can be somewhere between frivolous and deadly.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's a misquote of The Gambler. It actually says, "you don't have to fight to be a man" and, "sometimes you have to fight when you're a man." Fighting doesn't make you a man.



But you do have to fight for your right to party.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I see your point, but I don't agree with the premise. I don't think making this argument (that fighting is inherently high-risk, and so should be avoided unless the risk accompanying avoidance is high) reduces confidence in fighting. I think it helps avoid the over-confidence I see in some martial artists (myself, included, at one point back in my 20's) who come to believe they can handle situations without risk.


I would be surprised if focusing on risk helps a person achieve their task. When we corner guys in the ring we tend to avoid topics like, you could be crippled or killed, and you don't have to do this.

It wasn't a useful thought going in to street fights for me.

And you have expressed issues in being able to pull the trigger on people.

And well if we go back to your rock climbing you probably don't remind people that they can fall to their death unless you enjoy watching them stuck to a cliff face.

But I am trying to find any psychology that suggests the correct method to prepare people to take risks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's just not true that every fight is life or death.   Even when you're being mugged, raped or assaulted.   The goal of a very, very rare few crimes is homicide.   So, sure.   Avoiding a fight when you can is good sense.   But saying you will only fight if it's kill or be killed is overly dramatic.   Choosing to fight or not to fight is very contextual, and can be somewhere between frivolous and deadly.


The point of the OP is that even those not intending to be life-or-death can become such. And in the risk assessment, it's a good idea to keep that in mind. You have to evaluate the risk of fighting (including the remote, but real, chance of death) against the risk of not fighting. I definitely agree with your last statement - every word.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> But you do have to fight for your right to party.


Well, yeah. (Now I have to go put on some Sister)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I would be surprised if focusing on risk helps a person achieve their task. When we corner guys in the ring we tend to avoid topics like, you could be crippled or killed, and you don't have to do this.
> 
> It wasn't a useful thought going in to street fights for me.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you got that I've expressed issues on pulling the trigger. I don't like hurting people, unless they make it necessary. Period. And, actually, my dad often reminded me of the risks of not tying the knots properly, not communicating well with climbing partners, etc. It kept me paying attention to details that matter, just as similar warnings did in my MA training.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Well, yeah. (Now I have to go put on some Sister)


It's the Beastie Boys, but we'll forgive you.


----------



## Steve (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The point of the OP is that even those not intending to be life-or-death can become such. And in the risk assessment, it's a good idea to keep that in mind. You have to evaluate the risk of fighting (including the remote, but real, chance of death) against the risk of not fighting. I definitely agree with your last statement - every word.


And again, how is that different from anything else in life?  Which was my first post...  Driving a car is a calculated risk, as is everything else.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't like *hurting* people, unless they make it necessary.


In this thread, the discussion of "侠 (Xia) - help the weaker" is not mentioned. Without it, the MA training is meaningless.

I still remember my teacher told me, "If you don't have a good reason to fight and you fight, I'll beat you up when I find out. Also if you have a good reason to fight but you didn't fight, I'll still beat you up when I find out".

When a guy tries to drag a girl into his car and that girl is screaming for help. There are no cops around. All people on the street just look with cold heart. You can

- help that girl and put your life in risk.
- pretend nothing has happened and walk away.

You don't need to hurt someone to protect yourself. You do need to hurt someone to protect others. That others can be a stranger, your friend, your wife, your daughter, or ...


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> But you do have to fight for your right to party.


No no, you've reversed the moral of the song. Let me dig up and copy pasta a 2000 word Wikipedia article to show how wrong you are.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's about reasonable risk. I could die driving my car, but not getting in a car has a HUGE downside from where I live (no work, groceries, etc.). What's the downside to not getting in the fight? If the downside is big, take the risk. If the downside is someone will think you're a wuss, who cares?


 Depending on the age and where you are, being considered a wuss could be a huge downside.  It may have the potential to guarantee that the harassment will not only continue but it will also get worse, such is the case with bullying these days.  Sometimes it's better to may Bullying an expensive practice.  Every time someone bullies me, they earn a punch in the face. From there the bully can determine how many "frequent flier miles" on bully airlines he wants to earn.  I'm pretty sure that somewhere down the line the bully isn't going to see that other kid as a destination.

I don't know how adult bullying is these days, but my approach has always been.  "Come get some, if you want to" and " he must have not cared about it to much because he kept walking."   The first one has the logic of, if someone is willing to go all out to the end, then maybe it's not worth messing with that guy.  The other one has the logic of, if someone doesn't care enough about harassing to the point where they want to hit me, then I'll let it go and will be more than happy to walk away.

The one thing I don't ever want to appear is weak.  The appearance of weakness attracts predators


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure where you got that I've expressed issues on pulling the trigger. I don't like hurting people, unless they make it necessary. Period. And, actually, my dad often reminded me of the risks of not tying the knots properly, not communicating well with climbing partners, etc. It kept me paying attention to details that matter, just as similar warnings did in my MA training.



Your issues with training competitively. Or training with risk of someone getting hurt.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Depending on the age and where you are, being considered a wuss could be a huge downside.  It may have the potential to guarantee that the harassment will not only continue but it will also get worse, such is the case with bullying these days.  Sometimes it's better to may Bullying an expensive practice.  Every time someone bullies me, they earn a punch in the face. From there the bully can determine how many "frequent flier miles" on bully airlines he wants to earn.  I'm pretty sure that somewhere down the line the bully isn't going to see that other kid as a destination.
> 
> I don't know how adult bullying is these days, but my approach has always been.  "Come get some, if you want to" and " he must have not cared about it to much because he kept walking."   The first one has the logic of, if someone is willing to go all out to the end, then maybe it's not worth messing with that guy.  The other one has the logic of, if someone doesn't care enough about harassing to the point where they want to hit me, then I'll let it go and will be more than happy to walk away.
> 
> The one thing I don't ever want to appear is weak.  The appearance of weakness attracts predators



I am middle of the road on this. I will back down if I can get away with it. But I will act before I come to the end of my tether.

The point still being here is we are making a conscious decision rather than having the decision forced on us either through anger or fear.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's a misquote of The Gambler. It actually says, "you don't have to fight to be a man" and, "sometimes you have to fight when you're a man." Fighting doesn't make you a man.


if your going to ell me I'm incorrect, at least be correct yourself

"its coward of the county"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> It's the Beastie Boys, but we'll forgive you.


Yeah, but the chain of consciousness always leads me right to Sister on that one. Even when I hear the actual song, I gotta hear We're Not Gonna Take It.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> And again, how is that different from anything else in life?  Which was my first post...  Driving a car is a calculated risk, as is everything else.


It's not different from anything else. That was my point. If driving were reasonably high risk and pretty low reward (or low alternative risk), I'd avoid it, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Depending on the age and where you are, being considered a wuss could be a huge downside.  It may have the potential to guarantee that the harassment will not only continue but it will also get worse, such is the case with bullying these days.  Sometimes it's better to may Bullying an expensive practice.  Every time someone bullies me, they earn a punch in the face. From there the bully can determine how many "frequent flier miles" on bully airlines he wants to earn.  I'm pretty sure that somewhere down the line the bully isn't going to see that other kid as a destination.
> 
> I don't know how adult bullying is these days, but my approach has always been.  "Come get some, if you want to" and " he must have not cared about it to much because he kept walking."   The first one has the logic of, if someone is willing to go all out to the end, then maybe it's not worth messing with that guy.  The other one has the logic of, if someone doesn't care enough about harassing to the point where they want to hit me, then I'll let it go and will be more than happy to walk away.
> 
> The one thing I don't ever want to appear is weak.  The appearance of weakness attracts predators


It can, but that's situational. If it's some goomba on the street, there's little downside to him talking **** with his buddies that night. Most of us don't live in an area where we have to worry about gangs and such. With bullies, fighting is rarely necessary to back them down - that willingness to fight that DB and others have mentioned usually does the trick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Your issues with training competitively. Or training with risk of someone getting hurt.


That has never been an issue with defense, though. And there's always a risk of someone getting hurt, if you train with any intensity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> if your going to ell me I'm incorrect, at least be correct yourself
> 
> "its coward of the county"


"The Gambler" was often used to refer to the singer, himself.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> "The Gambler" was often used to refer to the singer, himself.


so your wrong then and ate just scratching about making up silly excuses, sometime you have to admit your mistakes to be a man


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> so your wrong then and ate just scratching about making up silly excuses, sometime you have to admit your mistakes to be a man


Unclear, not wrong. If I'd said "That's a misquote of Kenny Rogers", it would have been clearer than saying, "That's a misquote of The Gambler". 

I was wrong in another post when my mind leaped straight from a Beastie Boys song to the Twisted Sister song I always think of with it. In this one, I was just communicating badly.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> It's just not true that every fight is life or death.   Even when you're being mugged, raped or assaulted.   The goal of a very, very rare few crimes is homicide.   So, sure.   Avoiding a fight when you can is good sense.   But saying you will only fight if it's kill or be killed is overly dramatic.   Choosing to fight or not to fight is very contextual, and can be somewhere between frivolous and deadly.



 Quite correct.  Except at what point do you have enough information to know if you are in a situation of kill or be killed?  If it is after you have begun to fight, it is probably harder to get out of the situation.


----------



## Steve (Aug 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Quite correct.  Except at what point do you have enough information to know if you are in a situation of kill or be killed?  If it is after you have begun to fight, it is probably harder to get out of the situation.


Good point.  Hopefully before you eye gouge the guy or curb stomp his head.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> Good point.  Hopefully before you eye gouge the guy or curb stomp his head.



Quite true, and I think that was Bill's original intent, that it is often better to just get away than have a consequence of maiming or killing an opponent (or being maimed or killed).

BTW, I seem to be noticing a trend (this is anecdotal, as I haven't taken time to look up any statistics) where robberies more often turn to attempted or actual murder.  It used to be that victims were told to simply give up valuables and let the miscreant get away.  Now it seems to happen more that victims are shot or stabbed.  Have you noticed any such thing in your part of the country?


----------



## Steve (Aug 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Quite true, and I think that was Bill's original intent, that it is often better to just get away than have a consequence of maiming or killing an opponent (or being maimed or killed).
> 
> BTW, I seem to be noticing a trend (this is anecdotal, as I haven't taken time to look up any statistics) where robberies more often turn to attempted or actual murder.  It used to be that victims were told to simply give up valuables and let the miscreant get away.  Now it seems to happen more that victims are shot or stabbed.  Have you noticed any such thing in your part of the country?


Not enough information.   Homicide is exceedingly rare, even in the most  dangerous areas.   Homicide tends to be crime of passion, gang related, drug related, or just bad luck (I.e. wrong place, wrong time.)

Used to be, more people were being killed, but it's hard to see that if you don't look at the statistics.   Of course, there are areas that at anomalous.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That has never been an issue with defense, though. And there's always a risk of someone getting hurt, if you train with any intensity.



So you haven't had to deal with psychological barriers going from threat to action?

I have it can be a pretty big deal. Springs out on you as well. Sometimes for no good reason. 

It is something worthwile being aware of if you are mentally preparing people for those sorts of engagements. And something the tough guys will rarely talk about.

You have said you actively avoid intence engagements. Not just don't like them. You don't do them.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Quite correct.  Except at what point do you have enough information to know if you are in a situation of kill or be killed?  If it is after you have begun to fight, it is probably harder to get out of the situation.



Goes back to this fear of risk. You can't deal with the concept where there is risk involved. You are focused on the worst case scenario. And I dont think it helps make rational decisions.

You either over cook the situation of let it progress too far with inaction.

Or let it progress to far then overcook it.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2017)

Trying to find information on successful risk taking. Which is the crux of this thread.

Found an opinion piece here. No real studies. But as opinion goes it does seem to gel with what I would consider good risk taking skills.

Take A Risk: The Odds Are Better Than You Think


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So you haven't had to deal with psychological barriers going from threat to action?
> 
> I have it can be a pretty big deal. Springs out on you as well. Sometimes for no good reason.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed.



By the way. Have a look at that article on risk. It comes up with some good points.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> By the way. Have a look at that article on risk. It comes up with some good points.


I'm familiar with that author's work. Of the 4 points, the 4th is the one that most applies to me. I definitely tend to underestimate the risk of inaction - this bites me in business on a regular basis. I tend to swing in the other direction on the first two - being overly optimistic about risk. That's actually part of my personality profile, and probably hard-wired, so something I've had to learn to counter with conscious consideration.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm familiar with that author's work. Of the 4 points, the 4th is the one that most applies to me. I definitely tend to underestimate the risk of inaction - this bites me in business on a regular basis. I tend to swing in the other direction on the first two - being overly optimistic about risk. That's actually part of my personality profile, and probably hard-wired, so something I've had to learn to counter with conscious consideration.



I don't think it is uncommon. It is especially applicable in bouncing. Especially wanting to wait rather than act.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I don't think it is uncommon. It is especially applicable in bouncing. Especially wanting to wait rather than act.


I can see that. I assume that experience tempers that reluctance, eventually (if they last)? I've been on both sides of that (not bouncing, obviously, but analogous situations), and I'm likely to wait a bit longer than I should, which makes a physical solution more difficult.


----------

