Fighting Unfairly=Fighting Effectively?

[Gary Crawford]

Gentlemen,I think evryone here pretty much has it right in regaurds to avoiding if all possible,but when avoiding is not in the cards: Q:What do you call a guy who fights fair? A: Looser!

 

[8253]

Originally posted by Acronym
What is your opinion of this? Do you abide to a moral code when in a "street" fight?

Is there actually a fair street fight? I do not believe that there could be, because if there were two "fair" people about to get into a street fight, the fight would not occur. Reason outweighs the urge to fight in a fair person. As far as morals go, if they are trying to kill you how are you going to know to step up your defense for a higher level of threat when you are already on the ground dead

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by 8253
Is there actually a fair street fight? I do not believe that there could be, because if there were two "fair" people about to get into a street fight, the fight would not occur. Reason outweighs the urge to fight in a fair person. As far as morals go, if they are trying to kill you how are you going to know to step up your defense for a higher level of threat when you are already on the ground dead

Not necessarily, fair and reasonable are not the same thing. There are plenty of people I know that will throwdown without hesitation for stupid reasons, but they don't use dirty tricks or what most people would consider "unfair" tactics. Many ethnic cultures promote the idea of scrapping, but detest the idea of sneaky methods.

 

[8253]

However OULobo what are considered to be dirty tricks or unfair tactics to you may not be dirty or unfair to me. After all are there really any rules in a fight?

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by 8253
However OULobo what are considered to be dirty tricks or unfair tactics to you may not be dirty or unfair to me. After all are there really any rules in a fight?

My contention is with the statement

"I do not believe that there could be, because if there were two "fair" people about to get into a street fight, the fight would not occur. Reason outweighs the urge to fight in a fair person."

As always "fair" is a relative term and subject to the standards of the society that uses the term. So semantics aside, reason does not always outway the urge to fight and reason is not a requirement to be "fair". I have seen "fair", but unreasonable people in streetfights. They are really fairly (pardon the pun) entertaining. They are people usually defending some warped sense of honor and believe that a toe-to-toe style empty-hand duel is a good way to settle the disagreement. If things go as planned then one walks with some minor damage and the other walks with some minor damage and a bruised ego. By no means is this common now-a-days, but it still happens. I would say these men are fair, they are just unresonable. Most of these people believe in the early American rules for fairness.

"Streetfight" is another term of different interpretation. To me streetfight is any fight that happens in an unsanctioned environment, that could be a struggle to resist a rape or a confrontation to settle an argument among friends. Obviously the tactics used in either encounter are different. Most of the fights I have seen to settle disputes behind bars or in backalleys are subject to a loose set of rules that are enforced by the bystanders and friends of the fighters that are usually in attendance. Needless to say tactics that are deemed dirty are subject to sanctions usually in the form of multiple attackers. Is this reasonable, prolly not, could this be considered "fair", I think so.

 

[8253]

My contention is with the statement

"I do not believe that there could be, because if there were two "fair" people about to get into a street fight, the fight would not occur. Reason outweighs the urge to fight in a fair person."

As always "fair" is a relative term and subject to the standards of the society that uses the term. So semantics aside, reason does not always outway the urge to fight and reason is not a requirement to be "fair". I have seen "fair", but unreasonable people in streetfights. They are really fairly (pardon the pun) entertaining. They are people usually defending some warped sense of honor and believe that a toe-to-toe style empty-hand duel is a good way to settle the disagreement. If things go as planned then one walks with some minor damage and the other walks with some minor damage and a bruised ego. By no means is this common now-a-days, but it still happens. I would say these men are fair, they are just unresonable. Most of these people believe in the early American rules for fairness.

"Streetfight" is another term of different interpretation. To me streetfight is any fight that happens in an unsanctioned environment, that could be a struggle to resist a rape or a confrontation to settle an argument among friends. Obviously the tactics used in either encounter are different. Most of the fights I have seen to settle disputes behind bars or in backalleys are subject to a loose set of rules that are enforced by the bystanders and friends of the fighters that are usually in attendance. Needless to say tactics that are deemed dirty are subject to sanctions usually in the form of multiple attackers. Is this reasonable, prolly not, could this be considered "fair", I think so.

The thing of it is if there were two people in an arguement could it not be considered fair to listen to one anothers opinions or ideas and then reason that it is thier idea only. Then just walk away. As far as resisting a rape goes the things that are being taught in todays world, as far as philosophy goes, are not very good defenses. There should be more of a viscious type of system taught for defenses against rape, child molestation, etc.

As far as someone thinking that i dont fight fair, if they were to jump me in the middle of a fight and i then had a group fighting me, i have just one thing to say to them. I have lost fights before, but i have never lost an ambush

 

[OULobo]

The thing of it is if there were two people in an arguement could it not be considered fair to listen to one anothers opinions or ideas and then reason that it is thier idea only. Then just walk away. As far as resisting a rape goes the things that are being taught in todays world, as far as philosophy goes, are not very good defenses. There should be more of a viscious type of system taught for defenses against rape, child molestation, etc.

As far as someone thinking that i dont fight fair, if they were to jump me in the middle of a fight and i then had a group fighting me, i have just one thing to say to them. I have lost fights before, but i have never lost an ambush

Yes, it's fair to talk it out, but its no less fair to fight it out. It's smarter, safer and more acceptable to talk and not fight, but no more fair.

Total agreement on the rape thing, but I think most rape prevention systems are based on simplicity.

 

[8253]

Yes, it's fair to talk it out, but its no less fair to fight it out. It's smarter, safer and more acceptable to talk and not fight, but no more fair.

Total agreement on the rape thing, but I think most rape prevention systems are based on simplicity.

I think that maybe we were trying to go the same place, just using different routes.

 

[Tony]

There are rules in the class and there are rules whe you are fighting in tournaments but if my life were on the line I would do everthing necessary to escape unharmed! If that means a broken leg or eye gouging or kicking someone hard in the groin or shin then I'm going to do it!
A friend of mine was attacked by a stronger person and didn't want to kick him in the groin because he thought it would make him even more mad!

 

[KennethKu]

What is your opinion of this? Do you abide to a moral code when in a "street" fight?

A streetfight is a no hold barred encounter. It is unrestricted warfare where deceptions and dirty tricks are employed to prevail over you, at the expense of your wellbeing or life. Unless you define 'streetfighting' differently, the answer to your question is obvious.

 

[elcajon555]

I don;t like the idea of fighting "dirty" however, anything goes in a self defense seniro, when you abide by "rules" during a street fight a few things are happening. For starters you are limiting your options, also you are holding yourself to a higher sandard then your oppenent and living is more important then fighting fair. At New years Eve my friend, who is part of my school, was fighting for fun with another person(messing around not to hurt each other sort of thing), they ended up on the ground, my friend went into the guard(meaning he was on his back with his shoulders on the ground), after that he got the other guy into a choke and could have choked him out, if it were a real life situation. Now with declaring a winner in such an event, it was obviously my friend because he would have choked out the person if he were truely being attacked by the other person. Now the other guy was saying that he actually won because when my friend's shoulders hit the ground, he was pinned by wrestling rules, and he didn;t if take into consideration that he would have been choked out, because he got the pin. Moral of the story rules don;t matter on the street just survival and anything goes.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

What is your opinion of this? Do you abide to a moral code when in a "street" fight?

To an extent, yes. A good system/training background should give you plenty of tools, allowing you to match the intensity of the circumstance. No need for deadly force in a bar brawl, but it's nice to be able to take a stand and throw down if someone starts in on you. So, for me, the code is to not over do it with the weapons pulled out of the bag of tricks...and to live with it. If I get in a non-lethal bar-fight, and the other guys a better bar-fighter than I, that doesn't mean I start going for lethal or maiming shots just to avoid defeat. It means I concede defeat, go home to put an ice-pack on my swollen lip and black eye, and wonder what I could have done differently or better.

Now, if the guy pulls out a weapon, or there are more than one, that changes everything. But I think it takes a true follower of the bushido -- honor, courage, wisdom, strength, mercy, etc. -- to accept a well-deserved loss in a given corcumstance. Do you pull out a gun and shoot a guy, just because he's beating you in a tournament?

Live well, die honorably,

D.

 

[7starmantis]

I believe there is a thin line to walk in these situations. One side is that you don't want to really seriously injure or hurt someone who didn't have as lethal an intent. However, on the other side of this ever thinning line is the fact that you cannot possibly predict the intentions of an attacker correctly 100% of the time.

I tend to find myself on the later side but very close to the line, simply because at 26 years of age, if I'm fighting its not over something that will be laid to rest with me conceding a fight. I'm fighting to defend my life or to protect another person. To me if someone attacks me they have refused their rights of not getting hurt. I have no way of knowing their intent and once they attack me I have to defend myself completely. Now, there are times when a drunk buddy takes a swing at you and like I said you just have to understand and know that line. I'm not saying its an easy one to see, but each person has to ask themselves where that line is within themselves. See, once a weapon is produced it could be way too late to react. I go by the general rule that once their hands are laid on me, I'll do whatever needed to incapacitate them and remove the threat they placed on my life. No one ever takes into consideration the injuries you could have from your surroundings or from trying to dodge a fight as threats, they are and are very real.


JMHO,
7sm

 

[loki09789]

If Fighting 'unfairly' means crafty, creative and resulting in be making it home to my son and wife.... I am for 'unfair' fighting - as long as I am using a justifiable response to a reasonably percieved threat.

I think a thorough knowledge of your states use of force/deadly force laws is the solution to this in general. Though it doesn't define fair or effective, it does outline the justification of an appropriate level of response to a reasonably percieved threat. Consulting with LEO/experienced folks (security, bouncers that are actually people and not knuckleheads, lawyers....) to get a working definition of reasonable and justified.legal professionals on this stuff will help.

I hesitate to use codes like Bushido/Chivalry in the modern day to either justify my use or limit my use of certain tricks of the trade of Self Defense. Historically, these 'codes' were set down long after relative peace had been established with less than Honorable methods and a code of conduct needed to be established in writing to keep the young future nobles/warriors from killing each other off in unauthorized street fights and duels trying to emulate their heroes.

Is it fair to stand so that the sun is in your opponents eyes? Is it fair to maintain a superior tactical advantage (numbers, weapons, ....)? Is it fair to use psychological manipulations if possible?

Given the goal of self defense in a real world situation, yes to all of the above. Remember too that Miyamoto Musashi, a mythic Bushido embodiment, used the first two on a regular basis.... fair? I don't know for sure, but tactical at least.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

if I'm fighting its not over something that will be laid to rest with me conceding a fight. I'm fighting to defend my life or to protect another person. To me if someone attacks me they have refused their rights of not getting hurt. I have no way of knowing their intent and once they attack me I have to defend myself completely. Now, there are times when a drunk buddy takes a swing at you and like I said you just have to understand and know that line. I'm not saying its an easy one to see, but each person has to ask themselves where that line is within themselves. See, once a weapon is produced it could be way too late to react. I go by the general rule that once their hands are laid on me, I'll do whatever needed to incapacitate them and remove the threat they placed on my life. No one ever takes into consideration the injuries you could have from your surroundings or from trying to dodge a fight as threats, they are and are very real.


JMHO,
7sm

The ability to make distinctions about appropriate levels of force is a paramount responsibility of the trained warrior. In my younger, testosterone driven days, I hung out with a San Soo+Wing Chun+Xaoling 5-Animal Lo Zhu instructor who lacked the idea of gradation. Guy swung at him in a Hughes Market parking lot over heated words, and he blew out the guys elbow joint out and cracked his skull. All over a middle-finger gesture. Bouncing at a party with my ego in the drivers seat, I dislocated a guys shoulder and wrecked his rotator cuff, just because he wanted to go out in the front yard with an opened container, and counter-grabbed me when I tried to stop him. Peoples lives and bodies scarred, unnecessarily. All I'm saying is that life presents us with many opportunities, and they do not all require lethal or maiming force.

Sometimes a good jab to bloody a guys nose and water his eyes is the only thing needed, and the follow-up stamp to the knee is just unnecessary, and uncool.

Until we meet again in that place where we are all one,

Dr. Dave

 

[7starmantis]

The ability to make distinctions about appropriate levels of force is a paramount responsibility of the trained warrior. In my younger, testosterone driven days, I hung out with a San Soo+Wing Chun+Xaoling 5-Animal Lo Zhu instructor who lacked the idea of gradation. Guy swung at him in a Hughes Market parking lot over heated words, and he blew out the guys elbow joint out and cracked his skull. All over a middle-finger gesture. Bouncing at a party with my ego in the drivers seat, I dislocated a guys shoulder and wrecked his rotator cuff, just because he wanted to go out in the front yard with an opened container, and counter-grabbed me when I tried to stop him. Peoples lives and bodies scarred, unnecessarily. All I'm saying is that life presents us with many opportunities, and they do not all require lethal or maiming force.

Sometimes a good jab to bloody a guys nose and water his eyes is the only thing needed, and the follow-up stamp to the knee is just unnecessary, and uncool.

Very true, thats why I said there is a thin line to walk. On one hand your situations make sense, on the other if I'm out in downtown Dallas and someone grabs me, their intent is not known and stopping after one hit could get you killed. Its about "feel". If you have good feel you will know when the attacker is "done" and you can thus stop a well.

7sm

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

If you have good feel you will know when the attacker is "done" and you can thus stop a well.

7sm

Well said. I also think it's beneficial to compartmentalize your knowledge to whatever extent possible. There was a So Cal kenpo legend who liked the phrase, "Sting him; stun him; stop him.", to describe three of the myriad capabilities/options that present in combat. He even used to advocate Blauer-type panic training (called it "Red Line"), with three clashes to the poor guy in the body armor training suit. 1st volley = stinging blows (lighter shots to non-lethal targets); back off for 1/2 a heartbeat to reassess, then go in for a 2nd volley of stunning blows (harder blows to softer targets), back off and reassess, then go in for the kill. In between, extremities or joints are maintained in entanglements. It was an interesting way of training for choice, and one never stops being engaged in the act of combat maintenence, or controlling the opponent.

Namsate!

Dr. Dave