Many conversations on the forum ask, what is the point of this or that? What would be the result if this aspect was removed from training, or if this was replaced with that. Few take an additive approach. I thought it would be interesting to have a go from the other way. To start with the barest minimum sufficient to learn how to fight and build up from there. To learn how to fight it is sufficient that a person have fights. Win or loose they will learn something. Which begs the question. Why is there not an art that solely consists of organising fights. You turn up to the “class” you fight. You go home. Next “class” you fight again. The more you fight the better you get. I suggest this is because there is more to take into account when learning how to fight than simply being able to fight. Such as · efficiency – who much one improves ones ability to fight with a given effort of training. · risk – the chance of harm occurring multiplied by the degree of harm that might occur while training. · Utility – how widely applicable ones new skills are in fighting in the "real" world (whatever that is). If you were building an art from the ground up. What would you add in addition to fighting, and why?