What constitutes a 'real' fight?

It obviously isn't just me that finds this thread topic a bit pointless... ..all this "real fight" nonsense tends to be the breeding ground of elitism, with a bunch of guys in group A trying to discredit the guys in group B by telling group C that group B isn't prepared for a "REAL FIGHT!!!".

BUT the issue of "what are we training for" is a very important one to discuss.

We should recognise first that fighting is context based and there is no meaningful fix all template that represents a universal norm for violence. There would seem to be some common forms of violence like a bar room punch up and there are also certainly some very dangerous forms of violence for example; 3 guys on coke coming for you with knives. The question remains however, "Who is the authority that gave either of these scenarios the title of "real" violence?" What makes getting rid of an aggressive drunk patron any more "legitamate" in it's application of violence than fending off a prison stabbing?

While a mugging and a football hooligan brawl ARE on different parts of the sliding scale of intesity and frequency, one is not a more honest depiction of violence than the other. For your own sake, just figure out which "reality" it is that you are training for and get to work. From battling desperate crack addicts, to rolling with friends on a saturday afternoon, there are plenty of different fields of "real fighting" to excell in!

As my wrestling coach says... ..."less yapping more working!"

 

Great post Giacomo. With something as chaotic as violence, it doesn't take much to tip the scales from a mere encounter to deadly force, depending on the circumstances.

My old boxing coach used to say if we had the energy to talk, we obviously weren't working hard enough (and would quickly rectify that). Always something we need to keep in mind.

 

A personal definition/experience of a fight is not the same as defining "violence".... and yes, it (the topic) is nothing more than a forum debate/opinions. A bit like the coffee-time crossword in a cheap newspaper.

True enough, but If that were to be the case there would be nobody on the forum(s).

 

You know you're allowed to address the actual content of his post as well Guyin

 

Real fight:
1. May end in a knock out
2. May end with submission
3. May end with a draw
4. "Mortal Kombat" style fatality

Once two people get physical, you bet that's a real fight.

 

Once again, that has not been my experience - I've been in physical confrontations but not considered them a fight.

Violence is violence IMO, but personal experience of a fight/fighting can vary (obviously). It isn't that important as such, however, it does bring to light the old chestnut of 'real fighting experience' if you are claiming, or advertising yourself as a SD/Combat/or M.arts instructor and maybe embellishing your resume with things like "worked the doors", "ex-special forces", "trained the seals" etc. etc.

In context to advertising it's mostly bull IMO.

 

Is this STILL going on?
To reiterate...

Someone trying to hurt you?
You trying to stop 'em?
You fightin'.

You trying to hurt someone?
They trying to stop you?
You fightin'.

No-one trying to hurt no-one?
You ain't fightin'.

 

You can reiterate as long as you like - but it's just your opinion

 

fixed

 

Likewise yours dude, but however often you iterate it, I haven't noticed much substance to it other then 'naaaaah, that's not a real fight, THIS is a real fight!'




Only without anything as substantial as the example.

 

Did you get punched/kicked/stabbed/thrown on the ground during your physical confrontation?

I mean, what is it supposed to take, a gladiator fight to death in order to be a "real" fight?

 

Ah now because you really haven't got a leg to stand on with your lame armchair/semantics based arguments you've decided to try and discredit those who do have experience as a trainer/coach or working on doors/security or as a LEO. So lame. Should we pick apart the stupidity of your post or just let people be blinded by its perverse form of sour grapes?

You're pathetic.

 

Tough to choose. Can we only pick one? :thinking:

 

There can be only one.....
- Highlander

 

Best of both worlds!

 

Trolling again slipthejab?? No surprise there.

I guess you can't read properly, as you seem to making your mind up as to what I've written....

It's another thread altogether, but yes, in context to teaching or, advertising your ability to teach effective combat skills none of the aforementioned guarantee any aptitude in combat skills, effective technique/principles.

Doorman= combat instructor? er, no.
LEO = combat instructor? er, no.
Ex Navy seal = combat instructor? er, no.

You get the picture... or maybe you don't, as you seem unable to read anything without the urge to Troll! Fool.

 

Sorry sweetheart but not the case. Dream on. You are found trying to field lame arguments that as full of holes as Swiss cheese and it's others who are trolling. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

What are you on about? No one has been in the thread advertising. This is your straw man to try and shift the focus from your flim flam arguments about what a fight is. So just hush with your fuss. Since when was anyone traipsing through the thread advertising that they were teaching combat effectiveness? Oh wait... that's right... they weren't. More lame stuff you tried to interject.

lol... now now dear don't get your panties in a knot because you've been caught out.
No doubt we can expect more waffle from you. Waffle on waffler.

 

@ Kuma...

Brilliant!!! From where did you steal my picture?:happy:

@slipthejab - you're not only an idiot but probably the best troll on here.

@oddboskins

You seem to be missing the point and are more intent on winning an argument - it's nothing to do with being right or wrong (can anyone read the question?) it is your perception/experience as you see it.

No, I didn't. So it wasn't a real fight! Or was it to you?

 

Ahh no, to be honest, I just don't get many chances to paraphrase Crocodile Dundee

In all seriousness though I thought the point of posing the question was to reach a mutually satisfactory definition?