The lost art of teaching reallity

Greetings to you all,
Many argue that fencing is not like real combat, nor is martial arts like
karate or aikido and finaly nor is boxing. Then I must ask, is something
really like a real fight? Do people believe that a fight for life, honor or
simple self defence is something modern society think gone? Okay maybe sword
fight is a little excessive, but as gun practice range are. Maybe were to
much a law based society and we shouldn't care about fighting anymore.
However for my part Ive been in 8 fight I that I had no choice else than
fight or run, I am better at fighting than running so I had fight. Was it
luck or skill I haven't got hurted more than a black eye, considering how
was my opponents I could considering me winner. I even face a man with a
knife, I hope something like this never happen again, however if it would I
would really appreciate martial trainning of some sort. Then if nothing is
real. Why havn't anybody tough of creating someting?

Hope you have some impressions on this!

Agleos Arkeneight

In article <pRvoc.1206$_Y6.3120@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:

> Greetings to you all,
> Many argue that fencing is not like real combat, nor is martial arts like
> karate or aikido and finaly nor is boxing. Then I must ask, is something
> really like a real fight? Do people believe that a fight for life, honor or
> simple self defence is something modern society think gone? Okay maybe sword
> fight is a little excessive, but as gun practice range are. Maybe were to
> much a law based society and we shouldn't care about fighting anymore.
> However for my part Ive been in 8 fight I that I had no choice else than
> fight or run, I am better at fighting than running so I had fight. Was it
> luck or skill I haven't got hurted more than a black eye, considering how
> was my opponents I could considering me winner. I even face a man with a
> knife, I hope something like this never happen again, however if it would I
> would really appreciate martial trainning of some sort. Then if nothing is
> real. Why havn't anybody tough of creating someting?
>
> Hope you have some impressions on this!


Supposedly combat hapkido is designed for realistic self-defense:

http://www.ichf.com/

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On 2004-05-12 17:09:10 -0400, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> said:

> In article <pRvoc.1206$_Y6.3120@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
>> Greetings to you all,
>> Many argue that fencing is not like real combat, nor is martial arts like
>> karate or aikido and finaly nor is boxing. Then I must ask, is something
>> really like a real fight? Do people believe that a fight for life, honor or
>> simple self defence is something modern society think gone? Okay maybe sword
>> fight is a little excessive, but as gun practice range are. Maybe were to
>> much a law based society and we shouldn't care about fighting anymore.
>> However for my part Ive been in 8 fight I that I had no choice else than
>> fight or run, I am better at fighting than running so I had fight. Was it
>> luck or skill I haven't got hurted more than a black eye, considering how
>> was my opponents I could considering me winner. I even face a man with a
>> knife, I hope something like this never happen again, however if it would I
>> would really appreciate martial trainning of some sort. Then if nothing is
>> real. Why havn't anybody tough of creating someting?
>>
>> Hope you have some impressions on this!
>
>
> Supposedly combat hapkido is designed for realistic self-defense:
>
> http://www.ichf.com/
>
> --Harold Buck

Aikido is specifically designed for defending oneself. There are no
offensive aspects to Aikido. Hapkido is specifically designed for
winning fights, by any means necessary. There are no Hapkido
tournaments. There is no sport aspect to it.

gary hayenga (who did not voluntarily take hapkido, but whose taekwando
instructor also had a sixth degree black belt in hapkido and would
ocassionally insist that we spend the class time working on hapkido
moves)

Agleos Arkeneight writes:

>Many argue that fencing is not like real combat, nor is martial arts like
>karate or aikido and finaly nor is boxing. Then I must ask, is something
>really like a real fight?

There are hundreds of military organizations in this world, most of which have
their own ways of training people in real deadly combat. There are thousands
of police organizations in this world, many of which also train their members
in combat. There are also various self-defense training groups that don't try
to turn fighting into a sport but take it seriously as self-defense.

If you want the best training available for fighting and surviving deadly
combat, you should join one of those militaries. (Well, join a good one,
anyway.) Of course, that's a big price, so you may choose to make do with a
less formal self-defense course.

Joe

In rec.sport.fencing on 13 May 2004 12:48:15 GMT
JDzik <jdzik@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If you want the best training available for fighting and surviving deadly
> combat, you should join one of those militaries. (Well, join a good one,
> anyway.) Of course, that's a big price, so you may choose to make do with a
> less formal self-defense course.

I don't think many militaries expect their soldiers to be top notch in
hand to hand combat. They teach it, but then they used to teach bayonet
work too, and that's even less commmon nowadays. It's just not a useful
way to spend their time.

I found http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ useful, and intelligent
about this. Written by a guy who had been in his share of fights, and
had taught both police and military, it points out that few if any hand
to hand fights are single combat with both of you starting out staring
at each other. Because bad guys travel in packs and like to get you
first when you aren't looking.

I think training for fighting hand to hand is difficult because of the
"don't want to hurt your friends" problem. Even the "ultimate fighting"
contests have rules. And those rules favour systems that are going to
get you badly hurt if there's more than one attacker.

Fencing has the commitment problem. If you use flexible weapons and
protective kit, you learn to commit, but don't really learn to defend.
You can be taught to defend via a ruleset, but it doesn't work all that
well to ingrain habit, not like facing a sharp sword would! On the
other hand, using sharp swords or no protective kit means you don't
learn to commit, you learn to pretend. And to move slowly and
carefully.

Want to train for a real fight? Get smashed up by some kickboxers so
you know what being hurt feels like, then find another couple of equally
weird people and go out and pick a few fights. You'll be good or
crippled after a while of that...

Me, I'll stick to my not-useful-as-self-defence fencing, because I have
neither the need nor the desire to fight for real.

Zebee

The need is not something you chose, an agressor don't care if it suit you
or not
Wanna know if your at risk try, this little quiz seem to be serious
however i wouldnt trust it to much
www.testyourrisk.com

Agleos


> Me, I'll stick to my not-useful-as-self-defence fencing, because I have
> neither the need nor the desire to fight for real.
>
> Zebee

Sorry the link is www.rateyourrisk.com


"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:G17pc.79458$FH5.1815109@news20.bellglobal.com ...
> The need is not something you chose, an agressor don't care if it suit you
> or not
> Wanna know if your at risk try, this little quiz seem to be serious
> however i wouldnt trust it to much
> www.testyourrisk.com
>
> Agleos
>
>
> > Me, I'll stick to my not-useful-as-self-defence fencing, because I have
> > neither the need nor the desire to fight for real.
> >
> > Zebee
>
>

Agleos writes:

>The need is not something you chose, an agressor don't care if it suit you
>or not

You've got plenty of control over risk factors.

>Wanna know if your at risk try, this little quiz seem to be serious
>however i wouldnt trust it to much

I don't trust it at all. I lead a fairly sedate life, with extremely low risk
factors. The test gives me a chance to be murdered factor of 2 (where low
numbers are bad). That's just plain ridiculous.

To take one item, statistically, having a gun in your house makes you more
likely to die by violence, as the people most likely to be killed by a gun in
the house are the people who live in that house.
(Admittedly, much of that risk is suicide, but still...) That test lowers the
risk of being murdered if you keep a gun.

Joe

JDzik writes:
> To take one item, statistically, having a gun in your house makes you
> more likely to die by violence, as the people most likely to be killed by
> a gun in the house are the people who live in that house.

Correlation is not causation. Violent people are likely to live with other
violent people of the sort who are likely to have guns and shoot people (or
knife them). It does not follow, however, that the presence of a pistol
causes an increase in the likelihood of murder in the absence of any
prediliction for violence.

> Admittedly, much of that risk is suicide, but still...

The inclusion of suicide largely invalidates those statistics.

> That test lowers the risk of being murdered if you keep a gun.

All such tests are crap. However, there may very well be a population for
whom possession of a gun increases personal safety.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

JDzik wrote:
> There are hundreds of military organizations in this world, most of which have
> their own ways of training people in real deadly combat. There are thousands
> of police organizations in this world, many of which also train their members
> in combat.

Exactly. And most of them are either already teaching or seriously
considering Israeli Krav Maga

Sayeret Duvdevan soldiers are practicing it as much as possible because
they need to take down suspect in the middle of a crowd VERY fast.

John Hasler writes:

>Correlation is not causation.

Admitted. Note, though, that the nature of the test to which I was responding
was more in the nature of correlation than causation. That test noted a
reduced risk of being murdered if you happened to have a gun in your house -
purely a question of correlation. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.
(Again, admitting that I'm not sure how the suicide figures influence this.)

>However, there may very well be a population for
>whom possession of a gun increases personal safety.

Absolutely. Almost any statement based on statistics will have exceptions.
That's in the nature of statistics, after all.

Just as, demonstrably, having expert training with guns doesn't remove all
risks associated with them.

Joe