KyleShort said:
Nimravus I disagree...that is how you define fighting...it is just a word and no generally accepted meaning can really be applied to it. I might choose the term fighting to describe a life and death struggle with blades, or I might call it the "dance of steel"...it does not matter. What is important is to recognize the intention. I do believe that he meant fighting as in defending oneself.
I'd like to quote mr Marc Animal MacYoung on the subject, because I feel his descriptions of the concepts reflect my own opinions the most.
"In many ways a duel is a ritualized fight. Much in the same way that the sports of boxing, ring sparring, sumo, grappling and muay Thai are ritualized and controlled aspects of fighting. A duel, however, is not self-defense, any more that
self-defense is fighting, or that a fight is combat. This failure to
differentiate between topics, while a bonanza for sleaze bucket instructors, is pure marketing. Odds are against what you are being taught saving your *** against a dedicated attacker. And if you use it on a non-dedicated attacker, then your *** is going to be getting a lot of action in the prison showers.
But let's look at some of the salient points that dueling, fighting and sports contests share. First of all, what they all have in common is choice. By definition, with all of them you choose to be there. And that is an incredibly important point, because by this choice, you approach the event with a different mindset. One that is prepared to engage. Yes, you mentally psyche yourself up
Second in all of them you have the ability to withdraw before the contest.
Third, you are facing a similarly equipped, trained and/or hostile person. In short, it is theoretically a level playing field.
Fourth, they all have rules. If you object to applying that concept to a "fight" then you better go out and do some reading on A) legal issues B) social hierarchy process and C) human aggression. Fighting is a social process to achieve dominance and/or a means of acquisition. Whereas a duel, might encompass those elements, but it also includes issues as pride, honor and revenge.
So in light of these, let's look at dueling. A duel, as a fight, means you choose to be there. This includes the fact that you had the chance to withdraw, usually by means of a public apology and a change in your behavior. If you choose not to, then you are willingly and consensually engaging in conflict against an equally equipped opponent.
Quite simply, dueling is about pride, revenge and your perceptions of face/honor. In short, it is about maintaining your social position/self-esteem... not about staying alive. Another way of putting it is it is about what you want, not what you need in order to survive. And quite often duels resulted because both parties were being *******s. That same motivation as with less formalized and spontaneous fighting.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but someone who intends to kill you by any means possible is going to attack differently than someone who is concerned about the damage you can do to him because you are similarly equipped. There is an world of differences in strategies.
In case you missed the significance, let me repeat that in clear, concise terms:
You attack and defend differently against an equally armed, equally prepared and equally skilled opponent than you do when you are trying to murder someone before they can defend themselves.
This is why I say that an overwhelming majority of the training and drills that is done in Americanized martial arts is training for the duel. It is
EXACTLY what you need to do and train for when you opponent is equally armed. And for those
exact circumstances it is pretty damned effective(5). It is for when you and your opponent are both very concerned about the damage that each the other can inflict, but not concerned enough to withdraw.
It is not like combat where you need to kill him quick and move on. It's not like self-defense where getting away safely is your only goal. No, it is more punitive in nature. It means you are going to stay there and engage, possibly kill him, for other reasons than personal safety. Usually, among hot heads, that is pride, anger or revenge for perceived insults or wrongs.
DO NOT underestimate or dismiss the influence that this punitive aspect has on the strategies and tactics employed in real life and how it influences your training. In most cases, conflict is personal. It is very much about punishment, torture and dominance A duelist and/or fighter wants the person to know who is punishing him; who is doing this to him. It is all about "winning" and he will stay and engage in order to let you know that he won.
Whereas a professional doesn't care about you knowing that he has won. What matters is the job is done. This comes in many forms: maybe he shoots you from a distance, maybe he steps out of the shadows with a shotgun and shoots you in the back without saying anything, maybe he hires someone else to kill you or, in the case of the criminal, without warning, you're down and out and he has your money. Whether he busted you over the back of the head with a tire iron or just walked up and shot you, it is the both the ferocity and unexpectedness of the attack that makes it effective.
The absolute last thing any of these are interested in is fighting you. And that mindset is going to drastically effect how such a person attacks. Up to and including, striking with full lethal force, before you have a chance to defend yourself. Sadly enough, this same attitude is common among bullies and violent people. They don't want to fight you, they don't want to fight at all, they just want to attack you and get their way. In this case their attack strategy is very much about torture, punishment and dominance, but without the cost of a fight. And to get it, he will attack in many of the same unexpected ways as a professional. This is the non-dueling/fighting mindset. And it is far more common among those who use violence to get what they want than the dueling mindset. Unlike the conditions of dueling, he doesn't want you to be his equal. Therefore odds are he will attack, and attempt to overwhelm you before you have a chance to deploy your weapon and duel with him. Like a duelist, he fears and respects your weapons. Unlike a duelist, his answer instead of fighting accordingly, he's going to do his best to make sure you never get a chance to fight back."
"Simply stated if you are fighting you are part of the problem. Fighting implies that you are not only part of the conflict, but that you assisted in its creation and escalation. This is what we meant when we said your pre-conflict behavior will be carefully reviewed. If you, in any way, were a) instrumental in the creation of the problem that lead to the physical violence, (e.g. if you were threatening him, insulting him or arguing with him), b) continued to attack after he was obviously losing and/or had broken off his offensive actions or c) instead of attempting to escape you stayed there and fought to "win" you are fighting, you are not defending yourself. Straight up, police arrest both combatants of a fight... no matter who started it.
We address the difference between
fighting and self-defense more fully elsewhere. In this section we would like to address another critical difference. A difference that is by and large why experienced fighters so often speak of the martial arts failing in "real fights" And that is the difference between assaultive behavior and a fight.
Unfortunately, when most martial artists dream of fighting, what they are picturing is assaultive behavior. A situation where you charge in and immediately overwhelm your opponent with a flurry of kicks and blows is not a fight, it is far, far closer to the legal definition of assault and battery. Putting it bluntly, charging in and beating the hell out of someone before they can defend themselves is a pretty reliable strategy. That is why it is so commonly used by aggressors.
It is not, however, a fight. If you have seen this strategy, you were not witnessing a fight, what you saw is legally deemed an assault.
Legal issues aside there is another critical component. With an assault you have the confidence of success because you are initiating the violence. In other words, you are pretty safe because you are launching the attacks and by immediately overwhelming your opponent you pretty well assure your safety. As such, even though there is an adrenalin dump and excitement, you're not overly concerned with your personal safety.
Not so in an actual fight. A "fight" is a knock down, drag out, tooth and nail conflict with someone who is just as tough -- if not tougher -- than yourself. And that somebody is as dedicated to getting a piece out of you as you are dedicated to getting him. And that means the only thing keeping from doing unto you before you do unto him is you and your fighting skills. Here's a hint, how to tell if you're in a fight, you fire your best shot and he shakes it off and charges in firing back.
When you find yourself in a fight, all the confidence of an assault goes out the window. You now have to deal with the fear of getting your *** kicked. And putting it mildly, this can result in performance anxiety, especially when you find your defensive moves crumbling before his attacks. Now you have the extra stress of making him go down before you do.
This happens even in empty handed slug-fests where the fighters are not trying to kill each other, but rather establish dominance, punish one another for misconduct, ego-preservation, revenge, seeking a "prize" or any of the other sociological/psychological reasons people fight. If you aren't scared of damage being inflicted on you, you aren't in a fight, you're assaulting someone.
Let me tell you, you know you've done treed yourself a bad one when he takes your best shot, his head whips back and glares at you for a split second before launching himself back at you. When that happens you know you're in a fight and it is a bad, bad sinking feeling. 'Cause win, lose or draw, you know this one is gonna hurt..."
