Is it really the only right way?

[Mallic]

One of our shihans said once that while a competition fight in our style lasts 3 minutes, a real fight is often over in 30 seconds, unless those involved don't know what they are doing.

30 to 60 seconds. Which doesn't seem like much but I learned recently A LOT can happen in a minute.

 

[Fungus]

I friendly fighting you are always looking for the "allowed opportunity", there are often alot more opportunities if you count all those that are illegal, or does not care about consequences. Which is exactly why an opponent that has nothing to loose, is the most dangerous of all becuase they play by a different ruleset.

In a real fight the only rule is "proportionality" I think.

Someone wants to kill me, then all is allowed.
But someone just want to rob me, crushing their throat or temple would not be near proportional of course, so you will be judged as the bad guy.

 

[Mallic]

I friendly fighting you are always looking for the "allowed opportunity", there are often alot more opportunities if you count all those that are illegal, or does not care about consequences. Which is exactly why an opponent that has nothing to loose, is the most dangerous of all becuase they play by a different ruleset.

In a real fight the only rule is "proportionality" I think.

Someone wants to kill me, then all is allowed.
But someone just want to rob me, crushing their throat or temple would not be near proportional of course, so you will be judged as the bad guy.

For me I only have one real rule, avoid taking their life if possible everything else is fair game.

And yes I understand this puts me at a disadvantage and they might end up dead anyway, but I can at least say I tried.

 

[Gyakuto]

I feel that's easier said then done, in fact I'd argue many who claim to hate fighting do so cause they know they would be fueled by bloodlust.

Ahhh…the bloodlust

 

[Gyakuto]

The rest of the world sounds a lot more vicious and bloodthirsty than little ol’ south Devon

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

As dropbear said, do mma.
But seriously, get some training in. The short answer is no, that's not the only right way.

But what you're doing is akin to if I started theorizing about tennis and trying to determine the benefits of being a counter puncher vs. aggressive baseliner and trying to figure out how to make a middle ground, despite never playing tennis. While if I just went and played tennis, I could figure it out way easier, and know which of my theories works/doesn't work.

 

[jks9199]

I know of at least one martial system dedicated to avoiding harming an attacker; the Bando Monk System. This system demands an extremely high level of self control and self discipline, as well as intensive training. Practitioners learn high levels of evasion, and use pushes and holds rather than strikes. Very few people have the slef discipline to master the system; it's MUCH easier to stop an attacker with greater force than avoiding doing harm, or limiting the harm to minor and recoverable injuries.

Even outside of that system -- in a practical sense, most martial arts that sincerly teach self defense skills work on responding at an appropriate level to the threat and attack presented. We used to call them "drunk uncle" or "drunk friends" techniques; approaches that let you subdue someone whom you don't want to visit extreme injury upon. There are moral and legal implications to doing serious harm to someone, and a serious program will address them.

 

[Mallic]

I know of at least one martial system dedicated to avoiding harming an attacker; the Bando Monk System. This system demands an extremely high level of self control and self discipline, as well as intensive training. Practitioners learn high levels of evasion, and use pushes and holds rather than strikes. Very few people have the slef discipline to master the system; it's MUCH easier to stop an attacker with greater force than avoiding doing harm, or limiting the harm to minor and recoverable injuries.

Even outside of that system -- in a practical sense, most martial arts that sincerly teach self defense skills work on responding at an appropriate level to the threat and attack presented. We used to call them "drunk uncle" or "drunk friends" techniques; approaches that let you subdue someone whom you don't want to visit extreme injury upon. There are moral and legal implications to doing serious harm to someone, and a serious program will address them.

That is actually very fascinating

 

[isshinryuronin]

There are two basic ways of learning - mental and physical. Both are needed to learn MA. IMO, the most efficient way is to first learn by doing, learning physically.

If you start with the intellectual approach (beyond a basic explanation) teaching the mind by reading, hearing or watching, you still need to physically do the move to teach the body and experience the "feel."

If you start off doing the move (again, with a little guidance) and teach the body the technique, the mind will simultaneously be taught as well to a large extent. You can kill two birds with one stone. You've learned the "what" and "how," the "why" it works and theory can be explained after. "...to feel is to know." (Ed Parker)

 

[Buka]

What would Master Ken do?

 

[Gyakuto]

I know of at least one martial system dedicated to avoiding harming an attacker; the Bando Monk System. This system demands an extremely high level of self control and self discipline, as well as intensive training. Practitioners learn high levels of evasion, and use pushes and holds rather than strikes. Very few people have the slef discipline to master the system; it's MUCH easier to stop an attacker with greater force than avoiding doing harm, or limiting the harm to minor and recoverable injuries.

Even outside of that system -- in a practical sense, most martial arts that sincerly teach self defense skills work on responding at an appropriate level to the threat and attack presented. We used to call them "drunk uncle" or "drunk friends" techniques; approaches that let you subdue someone whom you don't want to visit extreme injury upon. There are moral and legal implications to doing serious harm to someone, and a serious program will address them.

Master Wong…is that you?

 

[Dirty Dog]

To sum it up, is the only "Right" way to fight, to overwhelm them with raw aggression and simply beat someone down before they even have a chance to react?

Of course not. I am in FAR more physical conflicts than most. More than my cop kids. And I never "overwhelm them with raw aggression". I take a measured approach that results in their being incapacitated. They experience pain, but in 40 years in the ER only 1 had an actual injury.

Or in other words is the only right way to fight...to make it so you can't even call it a fight?

Why wouldn't you be able to call it a fight?

 

[Dirty Dog]

What would Master Ken do?

He'd remember to re-stomp the groin.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I feel that's easier said then done, in fact I'd argue many who claim to hate fighting do so cause they know they would be fueled by bloodlust.

What do you base this on? I hate fighting. I have never been "fueled by bloodlust".

 

[Gyakuto]

What do you base this on? I hate fighting. I have never been "fueled by bloodlust".

That’s because you’re not a Klingon. (Klingons are in Star Trek, the film with the giant elf, the horny captain and shouty doctor who are able to dissolve and reappear elsewhere at will).

 

[HighKick]

Of course not. I am in FAR more physical conflicts than most. More than my cop kids. And I never "overwhelm them with raw aggression". I take a measured approach that results in their being incapacitated. They experience pain, but in 40 years in the ER only 1 had an actual injury.

Why wouldn't you be able to call it a fight?

Nail on the head. This is something near impossible for a MA's learned person to understand.

 

[jks9199]

That is actually very fascinating

More info is available at: Monk System | American Bando Association

 

[Buka]

I think it depends on the circumstance of the fight. If you don’t see it coming (get sucker punched or attacked from behind) the natural instinct of self preservation comes forward.

In that circumstance “choice” of response probably isn’t going to be one of your options.

If you DO see it coming, “situational awareness” comes in to play. You’re already dealing with the problem, have probably already started moving, shifting your weight, running away, or maybe accessing a weapon.

And a lot of people change as they age. I’ve always taught if it’s someone that wants your wallet just give it to them. If he already has a firearm pointed at me I’ll do just that.

But if he doesn’t, he’s just a man about to have a bad day. I’ll always allow him to decide just how bad of a day he wants.

There shouldn’t be a reason to go overboard. If you do you’re as bad as he is. Then it’s a case of two asshats going at it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So as I've continued my research into martial arts philosophy, I've generally noticed a pattern and sentiment in regards to conventional methods of combat.

Now those who are more experienced then I are free to correct me, but it seems the most widely accepted mentality(Assuming you've chosen to fight or have been left with no choice but to do so) is to put it in very simple terms, overwhelm your opponent with brute force and raw aggression with the intend to take their life.

I haven't seen that mentality here - the intent to take a life, that is.

What I have seen is that if there is no choice but to fight, then fight to end the confrontation as quickly as possible and disengage. Whether or not that ends in a fatality is not part of the equation; it could happen, but it's not the desired outcome. In fact, whether the attacker lives or dies isn't part of the discussion at all. END THE CONFRONTATION. That's what matters.

This is somewhat the same as the training that was given to me when I was a military policeman in the Marine Corps. Avoid shooting anyone, but if you have to shoot, shoot to stop. We aimed for the so-called 'ten ring'. Will that kill them? It very well may, but we are NOT "shooting to kill." We are shooting to stop. Death may well go along with that, but it's not the intent. Get it?

I don't want my attacker to die. I want them to stop attacking me. If that means they stop fighting and run away, I'm perfectly happy to let them do that. If it means they fall down and cry and beg me to stop hurting them, also good. If they cease biological activities as a result of response to their attack, then I'm sorry for that outcome, but they chose it, not me. I did not intend for them to die; I intended for them to stop attacking me.

However, I will not intentionally prolong an attack on myself so that I can use less lethal or brutal methods. I am being attacked. Every moment I am still being attacked, I could be seriously injured or killed. And you know what's more important than my attacker's life? My life.

Fighting is chaotic. There are no set-piece self-defense scenarios. It often comes without warning and goes sideways very quickly. You throw a punch and slip on gravel and hit your head and die; don't laugh, it happens. Every single moment that a fight continues, the risk of serious injury or death goes up. A basic principle of self-defense to get yourself out of danger as quickly as possible; that's the first priority.

I don't want my attacker to die. If they do die, that's entirely on them. They chose to attack me; that ended their choice in how things end up. They don't get a vote after that moment.

 

[drop bear]

I think it depends on the circumstance of the fight. If you don’t see it coming (get sucker punched or attacked from behind) the natural instinct of self preservation comes forward.

In that circumstance “choice” of response probably isn’t going to be one of your options.

If you DO see it coming, “situational awareness” comes in to play. You’re already dealing with the problem, have probably already started moving, shifting your weight, running away, or maybe accessing a weapon.

And a lot of people change as they age. I’ve always taught if it’s someone that wants your wallet just give it to them. If he already has a firearm pointed at me I’ll do just that.

But if he doesn’t, he’s just a man about to have a bad day. I’ll always allow him to decide just how bad of a day he wants.

There shouldn’t be a reason to go overboard. If you do you’re as bad as he is. Then it’s a case of two asshats going at it.

Pretty hard to beat someone to death though.

Obviously untill it isn't.

But you know what I mean