In another thread I brought up the question of what is a "real fight". This is of interest to me becuase I have found many martial artists/hobbyists who talk a lot about "fighting" and believe they themselves can fight despite the fact that they never have! And I'll own up right now, that I used to be one of them.
I have since come to believe that if you want to be able to fight, you must actually fight some. And if an art claims to be able to teach you to fight, it must include some real fighting in the training. All of that, however, begs the question of what is a fight?
Websters defines fight as, 1. To contend against another in battle or physical combat. I like that definition, and think it only needs slight modification for these type of discussions. I would insert "attempt to overcome" along with "to contend against", to flesh it out some. So my working definition of a fight is to contend against, or attempt to overcome another in battle or physical combat.
So, to me, such a definition would include any contest or practice where you are fighting physically (ie. with full contact) against someone fully resisting and attempting to do the same to you. Boxing, K1, submission grappling, etc. would therefor all be real fights. But non-continuous light contact point sparring and preset drills (no matter how forcefully applied) would not be. And this would also means that you can "fight" even in practice and training.
So what about the old ring versus street debate? In this case there is none. Both are still real fights, only with differing rules. But in both you are still attempting to overcome your opponent(s) through physical combat.
Regards,
Matt
Homer: What do you have to wash this awful taste down with?
Vendor: Crab juice and Mountain Dew.
Homer: Yeeuch! Bleh! Ugh! ... I'll have a crab juice!
TKDist
9/02/2003 11:03am,
I'll concede that boxing and K1 are more akin to "street fighting" than point sparring, but I don't think that any sportive contest can be considered a "real fight" because of their rules. Any contest that places limits or restrictions contact, specifically where, how and with what you can hit ceases to be "real." The more limits on contact, the less real the contest.
I wouldn't even define a no holds barred contest as "real" because in a real fight opponents aren't limited to unarmed, hand to hand combat. In a real fight all bets are off. An attacker can use weapons, involve multiple attackers, or a number of other unpredictable things that wouldn't be allowed in any competition ring. Additionally, the intent of the "real fighter" is to do you "real harm." He/she isn't concerned with winning a contest, but rather with hurting you by any means necessary.
I don't think it's possible to duplicate a real fit in competition or practice because "real fights" are completely unregulated and then intention of the fighters is different. Safeguards need to be employed in practice or competition to ensure fairness and the safety of the fighters that just wouldn't be there in a real fight. Just my opinion.
lechuza
9/02/2003 11:24am,
Matt W.:
have you ever seen a bunch of rats in a cage burst into a spontaneous brawl? The Alpha rat sytematically punks all the others. Some human fights bear a haunting resemblance.
<hr>"...the cookie is in no position to know the future!"
HAPKO3
9/02/2003 11:25am,
I would say that in order for somethingto be a "real" fight, there must be as few rules as possible, and, most importantly ***intent*** on both sides of the confrontation.
Thus sparring, even if it's full contact, wuold not be classified as a real fight. This is because when I spar, even if I'm not pulling any punches, I'm also not teying to KO my partner, much less seriously hurt him. In the ring, though, the intent is usually there (I can only speak from my amateur boxing exparience).
However, good sparring can be a close enough approximation of a "real fight" that the experience will be directly applicable.
Matt W.
9/02/2003 11:35am,
None of that is real fighting.
That's easy to say, but how about explaining why you think that? And how about a definition of real fighting?
Regards,
Matt
Homer: What do you have to wash this awful taste down with?
Vendor: Crab juice and Mountain Dew.
Homer: Yeeuch! Bleh! Ugh! ... I'll have a crab juice!
Matt W.
9/02/2003 11:40am,
This is because when I spar, even if I'm not pulling any punches, I'm also not teying to KO my partner, much less seriously hurt him. In the ring, though, the intent is usually there
Now that, I could maybe buy. The key part of the definition that I put up is the "overcoming" through "physical combat". In a sparring match where you are working on technique and such, that might not be the case. But it certainly would be the case in, say, a K1 match.
For those of you that think fights with rules aren't or can't be real fights I'd like to know how you are defining "real fight" and why?
Regards,
Matt
Homer: What do you have to wash this awful taste down with?
Vendor: Crab juice and Mountain Dew.
Homer: Yeeuch! Bleh! Ugh! ... I'll have a crab juice!
yanewbs
9/02/2003 12:21pm,
Would it be possible to hold a MMA event and allow 2 on 1 fights? That would be interesting. I bet Tank Abbot would be willing to go against 2 others ;-)
HAPKO3
9/02/2003 12:36pm,
That would be another step towards discrediting the sport in the eyes of the general public.
deus ex machina
9/02/2003 4:34pm,
If it was a "real" fight, I'd be fighting for my life or the lives of my family and/or friends, because I don't get into fights casually.
Everything else is simply a game.
~
danny
"That baby better watch his mouth. I rape kids like him as part of my warm-up for raping teenagers, grown men, and eventually charging rhinos." - Boyd
"Deus practices the love that dare not speak its name." - Samuel Browning
Mercurius
9/02/2003 4:48pm,
Real fights go to the ground... at least, 95% of them do. If it doesn't go to the ground, it's not a real fight, because no one grapples, and as the esteemed Tank Abbott teaches us, "If you don't know how to Grapple/Wrestle you don't know how to fight, that's the prerequisite to fighting."
Spunky
9/02/2003 5:17pm,
I think Websters had it pretty well to begin with. Introducing the goal of "overcoming" is unecessary in my opinion, it seems to primarily be a qualifier for competition matches to meet the definition of a real fight.
The primary goal of warfare is ultimately self-preservation, not the defeat of the enemy. Victory is arbritrary in meaning, and a clear definition of it only exists in games (including competition). These conditions do not exist in reality, except on isolated timelines where success is defined on a strategic level (we controlled hill "A" at the end of this day). But even on a strategic level the goal is the well being of the nation, and "victory" can only exist temporarily and on paper... it is a consensual fabrication that abstracts reality into the attributes of a game, which functions at the level of the people doing the actual fighting as a morale tool.
I would have to think of a real fight as a completely unconditional physical encounter that is driven by the need to protect the well being of oneself or others.
DJeter1234
9/02/2003 7:55pm,
dues, where the hell is that picture from. Remind me of the front of the book of SubGenius
