Do you fight like a Coward?

[Jim Greenwood]

I would run, talk my way out of it or whatever I had to do to avoid physical confrontation but if I couldn’t do that I would fight to survive and to end it quickly to whatever extent the situation called for.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The other day a friend of mine remarked, "A coward is more dangerous than a brave man". He was referring to some workplace backstabbing, but I thought it applied equally well to the martial arts, in a literal sense. In a self-defense situation, the most dangerous aggressor may be the coward. Similarly, in defending yourself, your best bet may be to resort to deception and any devious, underhanded, dirty tactic you can. Still everyone seems to reference sporting combat to justify the effectiveness of their art as self-defense. What about you, do you fight like a hero or a coward?

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

 

[USMATCSensei]

Coward all the way..

 

[Touch Of Death]

Prison all the way

 

[Touch Of Death]

Prison all the way

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

 

[geezer]

If you desire to learn a skill in a particular environment, would you want to learn from someone who has actually practiced this skill in said environment, or someone going by other people's experiences?

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

 

[tellner]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kichigai-no-Okami]

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

 

[wrc619]

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

 

[samurai69]

i fight more like a cornered animal

 

[Bodhisattva]

The other day a friend of mine remarked, "A coward is more dangerous than a brave man". He was referring to some workplace backstabbing, but I thought it applied equally well to the martial arts, in a literal sense. In a self-defense situation, the most dangerous aggressor may be the coward. Similarly, in defending yourself, your best bet may be to resort to deception and any devious, underhanded, dirty tactic you can. Still everyone seems to reference sporting combat to justify the effectiveness of their art as self-defense. What about you, do you fight like a hero or a coward?

Heh. Cowardice does not make people more dangerous.

 

[chinto]

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

 

[geezer]

Heh. Cowardice does not make people more dangerous.

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

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

 

[thardey]

Heh. Cowardice does not make people more dangerous.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[chinto]

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

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

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

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

 

[Imminent]

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, but one of the points I was trying to make in the OP was that fighting for your life (or the lives of your loved ones) is nothing like sporting combat, cage fighting or any other form of dueling by choice. I get so sick of people saying that if you don't prove your skills in a public, full-contact MMA context, you shouldn't be teaching self defense of any kind. I believe that self defense skills may be especially valuable to those of us who are not physically or emotionally inclined to subject ourselves to that level of abuse by choice. Opinions?

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

 

[Deaf Smith]

The other day a friend of mine remarked, "A coward is more dangerous than a brave man". He was referring to some workplace backstabbing, but I thought it applied equally well to the martial arts, in a literal sense. In a self-defense situation, the most dangerous aggressor may be the coward. Similarly, in defending yourself, your best bet may be to resort to deception and any devious, underhanded, dirty tactic you can. Still everyone seems to reference sporting combat to justify the effectiveness of their art as self-defense. What about you, do you fight like a hero or a coward?

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

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

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

Deaf

 

[Touch Of Death]

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

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

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

Deaf

So you are saying they are smart.

 

[thardey]

Devious and underhanded is not the sign of a coward.

The coward appeases.

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

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

A coward sells out.

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

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

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

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

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

A coward runs even if the threat is not great.

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

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

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

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

Deaf

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

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

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

Color me Yellow!