Would you rather win at all costs? Or win correctly?

[Ivan]

I recently had a thought sparked by my favourite work of fiction, Baki. I’ve watched the original anime, and watched the modern adaption on the alter arcs of the Manga numerous times. I think i’ve easily rewatched it over 5 times now. I love the fighting scenes, the presentation of different martial arts and their history, and the clashes of different ideologies when two characters duke it out.

Recently in the mangas, a fight has been brewing between two main characters who are completely different in every way. Especially in ideology. One of them believes that a fighter should seek to win every encounter at all costs. In contrast, the other believes that a fight should be won in a manner that is fair to the opponent.

I have always had the latter mindset. To me, a victory in a match, or rolling, in jiujitsu has to be earned correctly, so that there is no room for doubt. I don’t like it when I tap my sparring partner out because I surprised him with a certain submission or move they haven’t experienced before. I remember being in this exact situation when I placed a sparring partner of higher rank than me into a Goth lock (An Americana lock using your legs from the Scarf Hold/Kesa Gatame position). He had never experienced it before and was so surprised that he barely got time to tap to it. It was one of my first times ever tapping him, and he tapped me multiple times almost every time we sparred, but this felt so hollow to me.

I don’t like taking my opponents by surprise. I don’t like winning by points in competition, and I don’t like using moves that are considered “biffy” (over reliant on strength) or “dick” moves. For me, the perfect victory is when the opponent knows what technique/submissions I am looking to execute, and do their best to fight against, but my technique or execution is too good for them to do anything about it.

I find it very important to my identity and being to be as moral and honourable as possible. It’s a core part of me. I think I just internalised the traits of many stoic characters in fiction as I grew up, and associated with the masculine ideal; my favourite example of this is probably Ned Stark, but others include Aragorn, The Predators, Obi Wan Kenobi, Thrall, The Bloodhoofs etc.

What mindset is more beneficial to a competitive athlete or fighter? What about to a martial artist? And what mindset do you hold?

 

[isshinryuronin]

I don’t like taking my opponents by surprise.....the perfect victory is when the opponent knows what technique/submissions I am looking to execute, and do their best to fight against,

So, you don't believe in feints? Launching an attack when/where the opponent doesn't expect it? No tactics? Relying only on explosive speed and power? But wouldn't even that surprise him?

 

[skribs]

Since we're using anime logic, I'm going to use video game logic. If I lose because I made a mistake or made the worse move, that's on me. If I lose because my opponent had a better strategy or made a great play, that sucks for me, but it was fair. If I lose because of a game bug, lag, or something broken...that's when I get upset at the game.

Mechwarrior Online is a great example of this:

• My opponent cored my head component and I instantly am destroyed. Good on him.
• My opponent cored my head component because he's using an aimbot. Bad on the developers for not protecting the game from this.
• I walk around a corner and there's 5 enemies there and I go down in a hail of lead and lasers. Good on them for being in formation, bad on me for getting caught out of position.
• I walk around a corner and shoot at the enemy Mech. My lasers hit an invisible wall. He takes a step further and gets me. Bad on the developers for not caring about hitbox geometry in the level design.

In your example in BJJ, I don't see the issue. It's an issue if you look at every individual roll as a battle. But this was a learning experience for your partner, who will now know that submission exists and be wary of it next time. I had something similar the other day. I came up with a new (to me) version of the Americana: a one-handed version that gets tight really fast. It's sneaky, because it starts off like a "bad" version of a traditional Americana until you switch the grip over. (I've still got the seatbelt grip on my opponent). It was a good learning experience for me. I used it the next day and was able to repeat success with it. I think that's going to be my go-to attack when I've got a seatbelt grip for the foreseeable future.

What would be bad is if you beat your partner by slamming him, ripping a submission, ripping a massive fart, targeting his injured shoulder, etc. If you're beating him within the rules with something he doesn't know, that's fine. If you're cheating to beat him, that's a problem.

 

[Simfers]

If the technique is legal under the ruleset in which you operate and you arrive at it through righteous means (for example, no eye-gouging to open up a sumbission opportunity), then it's fair game and any victory gained using said technique is proper. That's my view, anyway. And if I manage to tap a higher belt (heck, ANYONE) with something they've never seen before, I take great delight in showing them how I did it. That way they improve too.

The only way catching someone in something could feel hollow is if I just luck into it. Like, I need to actually know what I'm doing for it to count.

 

[drop bear]

I would prefer to win with a dick move.

It's just funnier.

I activity try not to injure people in training though.

 

[O'Malley]

I have always had the latter mindset. To me, a victory in a match, or rolling, in jiujitsu has to be earned correctly, so that there is no room for doubt. I don’t like it when I tap my sparring partner out because I surprised him with a certain submission or move they haven’t experienced before. I remember being in this exact situation when I placed a sparring partner of higher rank than me into a Goth lock (An Americana lock using your legs from the Scarf Hold/Kesa Gatame position). He had never experienced it before and was so surprised that he barely got time to tap to it. It was one of my first times ever tapping him, and he tapped me multiple times almost every time we sparred, but this felt so hollow to me.

You're worrying too much IMO. People have been hitting you with stuff you don't know about since your first day on the mat. If anything, you helped your partner grow by showing him something he didn't know about, and you would have every right to abuse it until he figures out a counter. That way, thanks to you he won't be caught by it in competition.

I don’t like taking my opponents by surprise. I don’t like winning by points in competition, and I don’t like using moves that are considered “biffy” (over reliant on strength) or “dick” moves. For me, the perfect victory is when the opponent knows what technique/submissions I am looking to execute, and do their best to fight against, but my technique or execution is too good for them to do anything about it.

This might mean that you're mostly enjoying victories against people that are weaker/less skilled. Depending on how you put it, one could see it as less "honorable"

I would find it honorable to respect your partner/opponent by giving your all during an encounter (be it sparring, competition, etc.). The limitations I'd put on this would be:

- don't injure the other guy;
- respect the rules and etiquette (e.g. if you catch a kick only because it was pulled, don't sweep);
- in sparring, respect the intensity level and adjust to your partner's skill level.

The rest is fair game. And, when I avoid using strength, it's because it prevents me from working on technique. I'm not even thinking about "winning".

I find it very important to my identity and being to be as moral and honourable as possible. It’s a core part of me. I think I just internalised the traits of many stoic characters in fiction as I grew up, and associated with the masculine ideal; my favourite example of this is probably Ned Stark, but others include Aragorn, The Predators, Obi Wan Kenobi, Thrall, The Bloodhoofs etc.

What mindset is more beneficial to a competitive athlete or fighter? What about to a martial artist? And what mindset do you hold?

Fair enough, many people do (including yours truly). Just remember that those people are fictional, and that, for this reason, their authors present only one fraction of the real person they would be. I wonder how Obi Wan would act when filing his taxes, mounting Ikea furniture or getting a rectal exam. Real people are quite complex, and so are you

 

[Ivan]

So, you don't believe in feints? Launching an attack when/where the opponent doesn't expect it? No tactics? Relying only on explosive speed and power? But wouldn't even that surprise him?

I think I should clarify. What I meant by taking them by surprise is using a technique they’re not aware of. If I surprise a black belt with a technique he’s never seen, I might catch him once, but once he learns how to defend it, he will be able to easily do so against me because he has better experience and technique.

Winning because your opponent is lacking in knowledge is not the same as winning because you’re better.

 

[Badhabits]

Isn't fighting sort of inherently unfair? It's all about deception. Catching opponent of guard, when guard is down, baiting them...... That's how you win, by using various tactics to deceive to facilitate landing a blow, getting a submission whatever. Part of what a ruleset does is try to level the playing field to make it more fair. I'm happy to use something my opponent isn't prepared for if winning is the goal.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Isn't fighting sort of inherently unfair?

Ideally...

 

[skribs]

Isn't fighting sort of inherently unfair? It's all about deception. Catching opponent of guard, when guard is down, baiting them...... That's how you win, by using various tactics to deceive to facilitate landing a blow, getting a submission whatever. Part of what a ruleset does is try to level the playing field to make it more fair. I'm happy to use something my opponent isn't prepared for if winning is the goal.

There's an old quote from Colion Noir (gun rights advocate) that goes something like: "I want the odds stacked so much in my favor that the devil himself wouldn't dare f...mess with me."

 

[Prince_Alarming]

The exception being when you get paired up with the littlest kid in the room in sparring. In those circumstances, I usually let them win, ideally in ways that give them an insight into how best to apply what they've been learning, because what does it prove if you're able to beat up Ron Weasley?

 

[John_Moscato]

I recently had a thought sparked by my favourite work of fiction, Baki. I’ve watched the original anime, and watched the modern adaption on the alter arcs of the Manga numerous times. I think i’ve easily rewatched it over 5 times now. I love the fighting scenes, the presentation of different martial arts and their history, and the clashes of different ideologies when two characters duke it out.

Recently in the mangas, a fight has been brewing between two main characters who are completely different in every way. Especially in ideology. One of them believes that a fighter should seek to win every encounter at all costs. In contrast, the other believes that a fight should be won in a manner that is fair to the opponent.

I have always had the latter mindset. To me, a victory in a match, or rolling, in jiujitsu has to be earned correctly, so that there is no room for doubt. I don’t like it when I tap my sparring partner out because I surprised him with a certain submission or move they haven’t experienced before. I remember being in this exact situation when I placed a sparring partner of higher rank than me into a Goth lock (An Americana lock using your legs from the Scarf Hold/Kesa Gatame position). He had never experienced it before and was so surprised that he barely got time to tap to it. It was one of my first times ever tapping him, and he tapped me multiple times almost every time we sparred, but this felt so hollow to me.

I don’t like taking my opponents by surprise. I don’t like winning by points in competition, and I don’t like using moves that are considered “biffy” (over reliant on strength) or “dick” moves. For me, the perfect victory is when the opponent knows what technique/submissions I am looking to execute, and do their best to fight against, but my technique or execution is too good for them to do anything about it.

I find it very important to my identity and being to be as moral and honourable as possible. It’s a core part of me. I think I just internalised the traits of many stoic characters in fiction as I grew up, and associated with the masculine ideal; my favourite example of this is probably Ned Stark, but others include Aragorn, The Predators, Obi Wan Kenobi, Thrall, The Bloodhoofs etc.

What mindset is more beneficial to a competitive athlete or fighter? What about to a martial artist? And what mindset do you hold?

Depends. In tournament play, there is no winning without following the rules. On the street the only thing that matters is surviving the fight.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

On the street the only thing that matters is surviving the fight.

That and humiliating your opponent.

 

[John_Moscato]

That and humiliating your opponent.

That is foolish, wastes energy, and exposes you to unnecessary risk and liability. Finish the fight and get out.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

That is foolish, wastes energy, and exposes you to unnecessary risk and liability. Finish the fight and get out.

It also makes you look cool, hence it's a winning strategy

 

[Holmejr]

sparring or street self defense?

Our “sparring” is what we call tapi tapi. In tapi tapi we have rules. Close quarters, typically with a rattan stick. Easy to hurt someone.

Street self defense is all we train for. There it’s all or nothing, governed by the threat level.

Come visit us.
Eskrido De Alcuizar
World Eskrido Federation
Buena Park, CA

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I think I should clarify. What I meant by taking them by surprise is using a technique they’re not aware of. If I surprise a black belt with a technique he’s never seen, I might catch him once, but once he learns how to defend it, he will be able to easily do so against me because he has better experience and technique.

Winning because your opponent is lacking in knowledge is not the same as winning because you’re better.

All war is deception. Your enemy does not care about your morals.

 

[HighKick]

I recently had a thought sparked by my favourite work of fiction, Baki. I’ve watched the original anime, and watched the modern adaption on the alter arcs of the Manga numerous times. I think i’ve easily rewatched it over 5 times now. I love the fighting scenes, the presentation of different martial arts and their history, and the clashes of different ideologies when two characters duke it out.

Recently in the mangas, a fight has been brewing between two main characters who are completely different in every way. Especially in ideology. One of them believes that a fighter should seek to win every encounter at all costs. In contrast, the other believes that a fight should be won in a manner that is fair to the opponent.

I have always had the latter mindset. To me, a victory in a match, or rolling, in jiujitsu has to be earned correctly, so that there is no room for doubt. I don’t like it when I tap my sparring partner out because I surprised him with a certain submission or move they haven’t experienced before. I remember being in this exact situation when I placed a sparring partner of higher rank than me into a Goth lock (An Americana lock using your legs from the Scarf Hold/Kesa Gatame position). He had never experienced it before and was so surprised that he barely got time to tap to it. It was one of my first times ever tapping him, and he tapped me multiple times almost every time we sparred, but this felt so hollow to me.

I don’t like taking my opponents by surprise. I don’t like winning by points in competition, and I don’t like using moves that are considered “biffy” (over reliant on strength) or “dick” moves. For me, the perfect victory is when the opponent knows what technique/submissions I am looking to execute, and do their best to fight against, but my technique or execution is too good for them to do anything about it.

I find it very important to my identity and being to be as moral and honourable as possible. It’s a core part of me. I think I just internalised the traits of many stoic characters in fiction as I grew up, and associated with the masculine ideal; my favourite example of this is probably Ned Stark, but others include Aragorn, The Predators, Obi Wan Kenobi, Thrall, The Bloodhoofs etc.

What mindset is more beneficial to a competitive athlete or fighter? What about to a martial artist? And what mindset do you hold?

You are referring to rules bound competition, so there will always be a degree or parity, or at least several control mechanisms so that you cannot 'win at all costs'.

It is hard to compare the competition environment to most real-world fighting situations. When I was young, me and my 'crew' regularly got into bar fights. It was a rite of passage. Understand, it was in a time when there was some degree of honor to most fights, and you seldom had to worry about a knife, much less a gun being drawn on you. That said, you never knew the other persons 'fighting style', real intent, or how far they were willing to take the fight, so you were wise to always be on-guard.

When I was a LEO, you would measure up an assailant through previous encounters, observation and conversation as much as possible before going hands-on. At that point, my intention was to get the cuffs on and get them in the back of the patrol car as fast as I could, ideally before they could fully process what was going on and have their emotions amp up. Believe me when I say this makes a Huge difference, especially when a person is altered by booze, drugs, or otherwise.
I am a smaller guy (I competed at lightweight in WT). If I was dealing with a big(er) guy and I was on my own, one of my goto's was to do literally jump on their back and ride them in a rear naked choke until they started going out. I was darn good at it and never got thrown. Smashed into a wall or car? Yes, but never let go. Like I said earlier, it was a different time before phone cameras, and you could be (much) more physical. We were a smallish town, so it was not uncommon to be on the road by yourself. You had to learn and be willing to take care of yourself, and pulling your firearm was not your first move. No, we did not have tasers so you learned to do what you had to within the law. A very different mindset from you OP.

I say all this to say, off the mat, there was/is a 'win at all cost' mindset that could save your life. On the mat, unless it was clearly an overwhelmingly out-matched opponent, within the rules, I was going to make sure I would win, if at all possible.

 

[Simfers]

Winning because your opponent is lacking in knowledge is not the same as winning because you’re better.

I think I'll push back on this slightly. If I know more than my opponent, that does mean I'm better by at least one metric: I have more knowledge. It may be a temporary situation, but in that moment, I was, indeed, better. I had more tools at my disposal AND the skill to use them.

 

[Haruhiko]

So, you don't believe in feints? Launching an attack when/where the opponent doesn't expect it? No tactics? Relying only on explosive speed and power? But wouldn't even that surprise him?

This is taught (somewhat) in Musashi's school.

"When I turned 30, I looked back on my past victories and saw that I had won not because of superior skill but because my opponents' strategies were lacking. From then on, I pursued the true way... To rely on solely on technique is shallow; the true way is in understanding and perception.”

Having said that, it was a different time when winning meant not dying.

It's a personal question as well - reveals a lot about someone's martial philosophy. What if someone considered winning at all costs was indeed the correct way to win?

There's honour and code to respect, but what's the cost? What's the scenario? Does the cost justify the means and if so/not, it is still considered "correct"?

Interesting topic nonetheless.