5 ms·

> It makes for terrible television, but it seems to be built into the nature of fighting. I think you probably mean “fighting sport” rather than just fighting.

> It makes for terrible television, but it seems to be built into the nature of fighting. I think you probably mean “fighting sport” rather than just fighting. Fighting in real life is over in seconds typically. Sports have rules around them that can be gamed, hence why there’s stalling to “win” In real life if your defending yourself you want the confrontation over as quickly as possible or to exit the situation, delays only put you more in danger. I believe on average it’s something like over in 15 seconds, after that it typically ends up on the ground and even then it’s over in less than a minute. Probably being pedantic, but people sometimes confuse UFC and other martial arts contests with real self defense/street fighting. Here are the things that you can’t do in UFC for instance that would otherwise end a fight quickly: https://www.ufc.com/unified-rules-mixed-martial-arts https://www.ufc.com/unified-rules-mixed-martial-arts

WalterBright 5y ago
I've always suspected that real sword fighting was: 1. parry 2. thrust 3. game over
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  Often there’s not even a parry. Many katana skills involves drawing the sword simultaneously with a killing blow, even from a seated position. Check out Akira Kurosawa’s films for some fairly accurate samurai fights. https://youtu.be/GF5U83UIX1o https://youtu.be/GF5U83UIX1o https://youtu.be/zCjsazHO0c0 https://youtu.be/zCjsazHO0c0
- doikor 5y ago
  Depends on the time period and how rich/sell equipped the fighters were. Basically just before guns became popular armor was so good that sword fights usually turned into wrestling followed trying to stick a small knife into some small gap. Various hammers/clubs (or using the pommel of your sword as a hammer) were much more efficient weapons against a person in full plate.
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    You wouldn't even bother using swords in a battle of plate wearers. Simply too ineffective. That's when they'd use the knightly pollaxe. Now that'll do the job.
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      Agreed - swords were also ineffective against spears: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk It does seem like swords were more decorative than actual effective weapons...they do look cool when wielded though.
- xen0 5y ago
  One-hit Epee is a thing. First touch wins the bout; double hits aren't counted. It's part of the modern Pentathlon.
  - charles_f 5y ago
    I think you're referring to foil, which was invented as a discipline to prevent "making two widows" during duels (or so my master of arms said, I never bothered to check)
    - xen0 5y ago
      No, foil fencing definitely _not_ one-hit epee and is not part of the modern pentathlon. Note, I'm a foil fencer.
      - fourtrees 5y ago
        Yep OP has it backwards. Epee is the one-hit, entire-body-is-a-target, double-touch-counts sport. These sorts of rules should be good for the sport, so long as they don't encourage excessive aggression and risk-taking. From what little epee I've actually done, defensive strategies (which to the camera might look like doing nothing), can be effective depending on the opponent's strategy.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Depending on the time period there is also an additional option. 1. Block the sword (parry) 2. Draw dagger 3. Stab opponent to death
- inawarminister 5y ago
  Hmm, for longsword, some schools (like Kunst des Fechtens, the school descended from Master Lichtenauer of Northern Germany and was active until the 1620s) advocate seizing the initiative and there are a few special techniques that cover your body while attacking at the same time. For rapiers, I think the same applies. Meyer advocates the same with single-hand sword, with more emphasis on feinting. I studied Thibault for a few weeks and while I am no expert, his style focuses on geometrical relationship between your sword and body with the enemy's. All are fun, though if the fight is lethal they would be horrendous to see.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
The most important thing I learned across my ~30 years of training (various incantations of self defence) was to keep my 110 m hurdles skills top notch. Running away is always the best solution long term. This is also what I insisted on with my teen children. They were training since 4 years old and the rare times they got into a confrontation they said sorry and left. 10 minutes of humiliation is better than a life long death. There were very rare cases when either me or them had no other way than fight (a total of maybe four cases). The fight was over after 3 or 5 seconds, with the adversary trying not to choke on his teeth and looking for his testicles while hopping. It was fast, brutal and nobody was proud of that because it could have ended with a bad strike or a knife in the stomach. Real fighting is dangerous.
hash872 5y ago
If you were in a street fight with a professional fighter, and you used some of these techniques that 'would otherwise end a fight quickly', could you defeat them? Of course not. MMA is the fundamentals of one-on-one fighting, various dirty techniques are the 'extra' on top of that but don't constitute an entire methodology. If you're interested in self defense, just learning the fundamentals of MMA makes the most sense
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  > MMA is the fundamentals of one-on-one fighting MMA, is not itself a fighting technique, but the name of the sport. It is the official sport rules for using various martial arts techniques together in sporting competitions. UFC is the main organization that promotes the MMA sport. But yes, if someone trained in kick boxing, judo, Jiu-jitsu etc was attacking me and didn’t use those techniques the fight would indeed end very quickly. I train specifically to use those techniques first… (Krav Maga), to incapacitate the attacker as fast as possible, and then leave the situation. If for some reason I was unsuccessful, then my attempt would immediately cause the attacker to also attempt to use those techniques. Either way it would end very fast. No matter how strong someone is, they can’t work out their eyes, grown, throat etc. Krav Maga, btw can be used under the MMA sport rules, however it’s uncommon, since most of the techniques are banned. > If you're interested in self defense, just learning the fundamentals of MMA makes the most sense This is actually the misunderstanding. If you want to learn self defense then learn self defense, not a sport. If you’re focused on MMA your not going to learn how to deal with attackers with knives, guns, etc, or how to deal with attackers using the most incapacitating techniques. You’re also not going to learn how to end the confrontation as quickly as possible since MMA is all about entertainment and sport, meaning fights that last many rounds. Criminals and street fights are dirty by definition, and there’s no holding back.
  - hash872 5y ago
    The issue is that 'Krav Maga' or 'dirty techniques' are not immediately, 100% effective. This is fallacious/magical thinking. So is 'learning how to deal with attackers with knives, guns'. Just because a Krav Maga instructor told that you these things work, doesn't mean that they actually do. If you are unarmed, there are literally no techniques that are effective against a knife- I feel like I shouldn't have to even mention guns. The earliest MMA events were vale tudo/'anything goes' matches in Brazil where there were no illegal strikes, and yet solid MMA technique prevailed. Guys could attack the eyes, kick the groin, etc., yet the BJJ guys won! No one won because they were solely a Krav Maga eye gouger or something

WalterBright 5y ago

I've always suspected that real sword fighting was: 1. parry 2. thrust 3. game over

crazydoggers 5y ago
Often there’s not even a parry. Many katana skills involves drawing the sword simultaneously with a killing blow, even from a seated position. Check out Akira Kurosawa’s films for some fairly accurate samurai fights. https://youtu.be/GF5U83UIX1o https://youtu.be/GF5U83UIX1o https://youtu.be/zCjsazHO0c0 https://youtu.be/zCjsazHO0c0
doikor 5y ago
Depends on the time period and how rich/sell equipped the fighters were. Basically just before guns became popular armor was so good that sword fights usually turned into wrestling followed trying to stick a small knife into some small gap. Various hammers/clubs (or using the pommel of your sword as a hammer) were much more efficient weapons against a person in full plate.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  You wouldn't even bother using swords in a battle of plate wearers. Simply too ineffective. That's when they'd use the knightly pollaxe. Now that'll do the job.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    Agreed - swords were also ineffective against spears: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk It does seem like swords were more decorative than actual effective weapons...they do look cool when wielded though.
xen0 5y ago
One-hit Epee is a thing. First touch wins the bout; double hits aren't counted. It's part of the modern Pentathlon.
- charles_f 5y ago
  I think you're referring to foil, which was invented as a discipline to prevent "making two widows" during duels (or so my master of arms said, I never bothered to check)
  - xen0 5y ago
    No, foil fencing definitely _not_ one-hit epee and is not part of the modern pentathlon. Note, I'm a foil fencer.
    - fourtrees 5y ago
      Yep OP has it backwards. Epee is the one-hit, entire-body-is-a-target, double-touch-counts sport. These sorts of rules should be good for the sport, so long as they don't encourage excessive aggression and risk-taking. From what little epee I've actually done, defensive strategies (which to the camera might look like doing nothing), can be effective depending on the opponent's strategy.
sdoering 5y ago
Depending on the time period there is also an additional option. 1. Block the sword (parry) 2. Draw dagger 3. Stab opponent to death
inawarminister 5y ago
Hmm, for longsword, some schools (like Kunst des Fechtens, the school descended from Master Lichtenauer of Northern Germany and was active until the 1620s) advocate seizing the initiative and there are a few special techniques that cover your body while attacking at the same time. For rapiers, I think the same applies. Meyer advocates the same with single-hand sword, with more emphasis on feinting. I studied Thibault for a few weeks and while I am no expert, his style focuses on geometrical relationship between your sword and body with the enemy's. All are fun, though if the fight is lethal they would be horrendous to see.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

The most important thing I learned across my ~30 years of training (various incantations of self defence) was to keep my 110 m hurdles skills top notch. Running away is always the best solution long term. This is also what I insisted on with my teen children. They were training since 4 years old and the rare times they got into a confrontation they said sorry and left. 10 minutes of humiliation is better than a life long death. There were very rare cases when either me or them had no other way than fight (a total of maybe four cases). The fight was over after 3 or 5 seconds, with the adversary trying not to choke on his teeth and looking for his testicles while hopping. It was fast, brutal and nobody was proud of that because it could have ended with a bad strike or a knife in the stomach. Real fighting is dangerous.

hash872 5y ago

If you were in a street fight with a professional fighter, and you used some of these techniques that 'would otherwise end a fight quickly', could you defeat them? Of course not. MMA is the fundamentals of one-on-one fighting, various dirty techniques are the 'extra' on top of that but don't constitute an entire methodology. If you're interested in self defense, just learning the fundamentals of MMA makes the most sense

crazydoggers 5y ago
> MMA is the fundamentals of one-on-one fighting MMA, is not itself a fighting technique, but the name of the sport. It is the official sport rules for using various martial arts techniques together in sporting competitions. UFC is the main organization that promotes the MMA sport. But yes, if someone trained in kick boxing, judo, Jiu-jitsu etc was attacking me and didn’t use those techniques the fight would indeed end very quickly. I train specifically to use those techniques first… (Krav Maga), to incapacitate the attacker as fast as possible, and then leave the situation. If for some reason I was unsuccessful, then my attempt would immediately cause the attacker to also attempt to use those techniques. Either way it would end very fast. No matter how strong someone is, they can’t work out their eyes, grown, throat etc. Krav Maga, btw can be used under the MMA sport rules, however it’s uncommon, since most of the techniques are banned. > If you're interested in self defense, just learning the fundamentals of MMA makes the most sense This is actually the misunderstanding. If you want to learn self defense then learn self defense, not a sport. If you’re focused on MMA your not going to learn how to deal with attackers with knives, guns, etc, or how to deal with attackers using the most incapacitating techniques. You’re also not going to learn how to end the confrontation as quickly as possible since MMA is all about entertainment and sport, meaning fights that last many rounds. Criminals and street fights are dirty by definition, and there’s no holding back.
- hash872 5y ago
  The issue is that 'Krav Maga' or 'dirty techniques' are not immediately, 100% effective. This is fallacious/magical thinking. So is 'learning how to deal with attackers with knives, guns'. Just because a Krav Maga instructor told that you these things work, doesn't mean that they actually do. If you are unarmed, there are literally no techniques that are effective against a knife- I feel like I shouldn't have to even mention guns. The earliest MMA events were vale tudo/'anything goes' matches in Brazil where there were no illegal strikes, and yet solid MMA technique prevailed. Guys could attack the eyes, kick the groin, etc., yet the BJJ guys won! No one won because they were solely a Krav Maga eye gouger or something