Is the "kickass" female a stereotype?

The discussion was specifically NOT about average people, though, but about those women who had been trained to use the advantages they have.

What I meant by average, was the physically average female. In the movie, Kate Beckingsale is a slim and short person, without a lot of muscle. Or in other words, an average woman. Let's go with your point: a physically excellent man by a man's standards (lot of muscle etc.) vs a physically excellent woman for a woman's standards (bit more muscle, not even close to the man's level). The man in this situation will still win 9 times out of 10. The 1 in 10 is caused by the woman landing a precision strike, something very difficult in actual combat(or she got lucky). Ring combat is different from actual life-or-death combat. If the woman is trained slightly more, she will still lose most of the times. You need A LOT of technical training to compensate for innate less power and speed, not follow a quick course of a couple of months as you seem to imply.

So if I poke you in the eye, it won't hurt or impair your ability to see?
If I break your windpipe, it won't be a worry?

Definitely, it will hurt me or incapacitate me. IF someone were to get that precision strike in, in combat, filled with adrenaline, while trying to avoid getting hit or put in a hold by someone twice as pysically strong (also filled with adrenaline) or more and significantly taller.

It is basic biology and physics just like this that make ANY human body as vulnerable as the next and the exploitation of these that allow a trained female to be on equal footing with males.

Technically true, but unless 'trained to be on equal footing with males' means '3-5 years of training to be on equal footing with an average man' we disagree. I'm not denying women can be on equal footing with men in real combat. I'm denying it is easy to do and that the difference between male and female combat abilities are small, as you are implying.

Men have bigger muscles. This makes them stronger and movements of certain bodyparts faster.

Can they break the laws of physics?
If not, then it's no advantage.

Hahaha, what? So if I tell you that a plane is faster than a car because it has huge engines and whatnot, you'll tell me that those huge engines don't give the plane an advantage, because they don't break the laws of physics? Interesting.

They still take time to reach their target.

True. I don't really get what you are trying to say with this. Yes it takes time. I'm just saying this to explain that their movement is faster. If I tell you bullets travel faster than arrows, will you also argue that 'they still take time to reach their target, ergo, bullets and arrows are (almost) equal in strength/efficiency'? Yes, they take time. They are simply faster than arrows. So they aren't equal. The same goes for men and women.

Aggression is often as much a hindrance as an advantage.

Except in real combat. Agression is definitely not a hindrance in combat. Maybe in ring fights, but not on the street. Agression usually makes a person much more dangerous in a fight. Don't believe the movies where a calm protagonist takes down 10 agressive guys. You might be talking about 'blind rage' though. And against a proficient martial artist or a master, the enraged person will lose. But if we are talking an enraged man versus a 'less enraged' woman who has had a couple of self-defence lessons, the man wins, 9 times out of 10.

Then they'd better hope that hit lands.

That doesn't really constitute as an argument. Imagine if I responded to your points like that. You: "Women are smaller, therefore harder to hit" Me: "Well, then they had better hope they can avoid those punches" See how it isn't a valid counter-argument and doesn't add anything to the discussion?

As with driving a car, flying a plane, riding a bike and so many other examples, big movements in situations tend to end in bad things, whereas fine control and small corrections result in precision.

That's a weird and invalid comparison. Let me give you another one, to demonstrate why: Me: "People with bigger muscles can deal out harder punches." You: "Well, but people with bigger muscles can't scratch their back or wipe their ass. So because big muscles are a disadvantage in those combat-irrelevant situations, big muscles are also a disadvantage in combat situations." See? Doesn't make sense. Two more things: 1:precision is hard in a real fight, because of movement and adrenaline. 2: I was talking about arm movement. And moving your arm exactly one centimeter instead of two, is not very relevant in real combat. So small corrections (on the scale I described) don't work in combat.

Men also have bigger lung capacity.

How nice.

Do I really need to explain the benefits of a bigger lung capacity in combat?

Unless that target is coming straight at you.
It's also harder to hit a smaller moving target

You confuse two types of hitting. I was talking about how it's hard for a woman (a man too, but we weren't talking about that) to land a precision strike during a fight. And who guarantees that the target comes straight at you? Did you know some people use kicks? Try to crush the throat of a guy kicking you in the side/legs/head from 1.5 meters distance.
Even if a target comes straight at you, it's still hard to hit him/her on precise points, like the throat. Unless he/she is moving real slow, but like I said, this is a fight. The guy is throwing out a punch, not walking toward you with his hands down.

It's also harder to hit a smaller moving target.

Though women are generally smaller, they aren't midgets or smurfs, so it's not THAT hard. And a man doesn't need to hit the precision points, remember? So he's at an advantage there as well.

Plenty of smaller, lighter men have won fights against opponents with greater physical characteristics - How do you explain that?

First of all, skill. Lots and lots of it, not a couple of self defence classes as you seem to think is possible. Second possibility is that they may have had more muscle, you didn't specify the bigger guys had more muscle or just fat. Thirdly, condition, since I assume you aren't talking about street fights; the smaller men may have had a greater endurance and worn the other guy out. And fourthly, luck: you are right, smaller, lighter men and women have beaten bigger, heavier men and women. Unfortunately for your argument, bigger and heavier people have won much, much, much more fights against smaller and lighter people. So sure, it's possible for smaller and lighter people to beat heavier and bigger people, I never denied that. The chances are just much lower.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

In the movie, Kate Beckingsale is a slim and short person, without a lot of muscle. Or in other words, an average woman.

No, she's an agent/operative with a lot of training. The actress portraying her may not exactly resemble what you might expect for the character, but not only is she actually pretty toned, her physicality does not matter as much as you seem to suggest.
Heck, I'm almost the same build and I do pretty well!

The 1 in 10 is caused by the woman landing a precision strike, something very difficult in actual combat(or she got lucky).

The strike does not have to be that precise, which is why physicality is not as much of an issue as people think.

Ring combat is different from actual life-or-death combat.

Yup... and it is exactly outside the ring, where there are no rules against certain strikes, where women can (with some training) start to level the field.
Women lose more often in the ring precisely because those 'equaliser-shots' are often illegal.

You need A LOT of technical training to compensate for innate less power and speed, not follow a quick course of a couple of months as you seem to imply.

Full on compensation, yes, but against a majority of opponents, it really does take just a bit of training... because it is the principles behind that training that teach you the advantages. It's as much (if not more) mental understanding of what you're doing as physical ability.

IF someone were to get that precision strike in, in combat, filled with adrenaline, while trying to avoid getting hit or put in a hold by someone twice as pysically strong (also filled with adrenaline) or more and significantly taller.

Body mechanics make a lot of these "precision strikes" quite easy. The doctrines of certain martial arts often hamper the very body mechanics and mental processes you need to make it happen.

Technically true, but unless 'trained to be on equal footing with males' means '3-5 years of training to be on equal footing with an average man' we disagree.

It works for all roughly normal humans regardless of gender... and the basics can be explained/demonstrated in 8 minutes. Spend a bit of time trying to disprove irrefutable laws of physics, find that they're true and spend the rest of the two hour lesson learning their application. Within weeks of practice, you will be a significantly better fighter straight off and it only ever improves.

I'm denying it is easy to do and that the difference between male and female combat abilities are small, as you are implying.

It's not easy-peasey lemon-squeezy, but far easier than most people give it (and themselves) credit for.

So if I tell you that a plane is faster than a car because it has huge engines and whatnot, you'll tell me that those huge engines don't give the plane an advantage, because they don't break the laws of physics? Interesting.

Overall, sure, the plane will be faster, but it depends what the plane and car are doing...
Over a quarter mile my motorcycle will probably be faster than both, as that does 0-60mph in 2.8 seconds.

True. I don't really get what you are trying to say with this.

Ever heard how "the hand is faster than the eye"?
You step in to range, twist your body round and launch a punch from the shoulder... That's 3 separate movements, all of which take units of time. Call that 3 Times.
From the moment you start moving, I am watching and picking my moment. I have 3 Times in which to gauge distance and reach, before simply extending my arm in a riposte punch, which takes only 1 Time. 3 Times vs 1.
Now assume I step backward as you come toward me. Even allowing for 1 Time to think, I'm now traveling away from you, which means you will take longer to reach me. So every movement away gives me more time to react and takes you longer to hit. It doesn't matter how fast you are, because I become 'faster' by making you slower and unless you can break the laws of physics, no amount of muscle will help you.

This is one of those principles and can be applied by men and women just as easily.

Agression usually makes a person much more dangerous in a fight.

Be as aggressive as you like. If your position and actions are not in your favour and you opponent does not make that same mistake, you will lose.

Don't believe the movies where a calm protagonist takes down 10 agressive guys.

Depends on the movie.
Again, most of that depends on positioning and action, rather than just outright aggression. Aggression can help, but only if properly applied.

But if we are talking an enraged man versus a 'less enraged' woman who has had a couple of self-defence lessons, the man wins, 9 times out of 10.

Enraged is even worse!
If you're enraged, you've lost your temper and are just going for it. Anyone with enough training and sufficient focus to keep from losing their head will just drop you, since an enraged opponent only makes it easier!

That doesn't really constitute as an argument.

I didn't think it needed further explanation, but I'll indulge you briefly...
It's like bragging about how you're the fastest draw in the West, with a .50cal pistol and a really short fuse... But if you shoot like a Stormtrooper, what good is it?
Throw that hit as hard and fast and soon as you like. If your target (again, male or female) is nimbler that your arm, your He-Man Power Punch ain't worth *beep*

That's a weird and invalid comparison.

No, by the rood, not so...

Two more things: 1:precision is hard in a real fight, because of movement and adrenaline.

Firstly, that is the exact point I was making - Emergency situation (pretty much any kind), adrenaline makes people panic and they make big movements. Nature of the human body.
Secondly, training is designed to condition the mind and reduce the chances of that happening, allowing you to be more precise.

2: I was talking about arm movement. And moving your arm exactly one centimeter instead of two, is not very relevant in real combat.

Just the opposite and the reason why many sport fighters lose 'street' fights.
Say I throw a punch at you, on the street. You go for, say, Block Number One, the classic Wax-On forearm sweep from inside, up and out to the left... but adrenaline makes you move it WAAAAAAY too much and it looks like a windmill instead of a tight, precise movement. You miss the block and are not only twisted wide open, but my punch lands.

Another example - I misstep and you think you've got me. You surge forward and throw the punch but adrenaline makes you over-cautious and although you stop a couple of inches short, thinking that you're staying safe from a riposte, you have to reach a touch further to hit. You're now overextended, off balance, robbed of your optimum force and even if the hit does land, you're unable to recover enough to counter the riposte hit... which, as it happens, is not a hit but an arm grab and a takedown anyway.

Another example - Opponent with a sword makes a thrust at your belly. The counter is to parry down and right. However, adrenaline means you make a big movement and you carry the parry so far that your sword edge slides right along his blade and past the tip. Opponent merely twists his wrist back on target and returns to the thrust, wrenching you one in the guts.

Do I really need to explain the benefits of a bigger lung capacity in combat?

If it makes you feel better...
A fight can last five hours, or five seconds, but it is won and lost in an instant. That instant might be the moment the aggressor steps in for his opening punch and the defender clocks him one first. Happens a lot.
Obviously it can be of help in many situations, but it offers no kind of guarantee that it will be a deciding factor in a fight.

I was talking about how it's hard for a woman (a man too, but we weren't talking about that) to land a precision strike during a fight.

Depends how precise you think you need to be, though it depends more on your judgement and distance as to whether you create yourself the time to place that precision strike.

And who guarantees that the target comes straight at you?

That depends on you and how your positioning forces them to move. You should control them, not the other way around.

Did you know some people use kicks? Try to crush the throat of a guy kicking you in the side/legs/head from 1.5 meters distance.

Yep. They're fun!
Thing is, they still take time and kicks are much slower than punches, so easier to deal with. If they're that far away, they're so easy to see and easily countered, especially when the kicker ends up hopping on one foot while I close in for that throat strike.

Even if a target comes straight at you, it's still hard to hit him/her on precise points, like the throat.

Assuming you go for the targets you can reach, it takes but a modicum of timing and force, both of which even a child can manage so an adult of either gender should have no difficulty.

Unless he/she is moving real slow,

Or unless you slow them down, as previously discussed.

The guy is throwing out a punch, not walking toward you with his hands down.

If he is already in range, you have not followed the principles and can assume you've had it. If he is outside of range and closing in, you have time to block, counter, avoid or otherwise take action. Often those coming in for the attack are wide open right before and during the points where they throw the punch.

Though women are generally smaller, they aren't midgets or smurfs, so it's not THAT hard.

Believe it or not, smaller targets mean you have to lower your aim from optimum range. This shortens your reach. Try it - Stand facing a wall and put your arm out horizontal until you touch the wall. As you lower your arm, you will reach short.
So in order to reach lower targets you will have to bend forward (off balance, over-reaching, etc), step in closer (more in range, body dynamics off, etc) or bend your legs down (body mechanics off, balance below optimum and hampering movement, etc). Smaller targets are harder.

And a man doesn't need to hit the precision points, remember? So he's at an advantage there as well.

That is often one advantage, assuming big, strong hits that land, yes.
But that applies to big men fighting smaller men too.

First of all, skill. Lots and lots of it, not a couple of self defence classes as you seem to think is possible.

I myself have defeated several opponents of much greater skill from as early as a few weeks into my training, though not nearly as often as I'd have liked. It depends on how well you apply the basic principles and in those few moments I applied them better than my seniors.

Second possibility is that they may have had more muscle, you didn't specify the bigger guys had more muscle or just fat.

My best friend and former instructor is 5' 4" and weighs about 22st, most of which is beer belly. He has taken apart opponents over a foot taller and far more muscled, simply because he can apply the principles better. His weight was useful in throwing the hits, but while this big chap was dancing all around pretending to be Muhammad Ali, my friend simply positioned himself well (needing only a fraction of the other's movement) and forced his opponent into an open position, whereupon he battered the guy flat.

Thirdly, condition, since I assume you aren't talking about street fights; the smaller men may have had a greater endurance and worn the other guy out.

Actually I was, because condition rarely matters so much outside of the ring.

And fourthly, luck: you are right, smaller, lighter men and women have beaten bigger, heavier men and women.

Luck is more of a factor in fights between (at least one) untrained combatant(s). Luck, or rather circumstances, often lead to the right action at the right time.

Unfortunately for your argument, bigger and heavier people have won much, much, much more fights against smaller and lighter people. So sure, it's possible for smaller and lighter people to beat heavier and bigger people, I never denied that. The chances are just much lower.

On average, yes, but that was never the argument.
My point was countering with how women can (and, more often than people appreciate, do) beat men in fights, both in the rings and outside of them.
In particular, the women portrayed in fiction who either have a natural understanding of fight dynamics and/or who have been trained in them.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Okay, I'm not gonna respond to all your 'arguments' point by point, because it's a lot of work and more importantly, there are some issues with your responses in general that I want to correct, if we want to have a fruitful discussion.

But first, some point by point arguments

Actually I was [talking about streetfights], because condition rarely matters so much outside of the ring.

So, how many streetfights have you seen? 10? 20? That still wouldn't be enough evidence to conclude that smaller and lighter people beat bigger people reasonable often. It's called anecdotal evidence and it does not help your cause.

Luck is more of a factor in fights between (at least one) untrained combatant(s)

Sure, it's less of a factor, but still a big factor in a real fight. Sometimes a guy gets hit and goes down, another time he gets hit the exact same way, but he doesn't go down. No matter how good you are, there will always be an aspect of luck.

No, she's an agent/operative with a lot of training.

The sentence before the sentence where I say she's 'an average woman', I explain that I was talking about phsyical appearance and strength. I've noticed that this is a common thing you do in your arguments: you ignore what I've said in other sentences and only comment on what one sentence says in the literal sense. In other words, taking things out of context.

Example:

Ring combat is different from actual life-or-death combat.

Yup... and it is exactly outside the ring, where there are no rules against certain strikes, where women can (with some training) start to level the field.

You are not responding to the point I was trying to make. You just took one sentence out of context and turned it into another argument all together. How about you first counter my argument, before coming with your own? Otherwise, it's gonna be this kind of discussion: Me: "I think this" You: "But I think that" Me: "Well, I still think this"
It's supposed to be "I think this" and than you respond "'This' isn't correct, because..." and then I respond etc. Otherwise we'll be getting nowhere.

The strike does not have to be that precise, which is why physicality is not as much of an issue as people think.

You are making an incorrect conclusion: "the strike does not have to be that precise" is sort of true, but you can't conclude "which is why physicality is not as much of an issue as people think" from that statement. Physicality is very useful in a fight for all the reasons I've explained in the past. Just because a precision strike doesn't use as much physicality, doesn't mean physicality is 'not as much of an issue'.

I myself have defeated several opponents of much greater skill from as early as a few weeks into my training,

On the street, in a real fight? If not, this is irrelevant to our discussion.

Anyway, I'm gonna talk about the big issues with your reply: 1: You take some things out of context, like I already said and gave examples of.

2: You are not thinking of the real world, where there are many factors. You are not being practical, you reason on the basis of theory and unlikely theory at that. You use very complicated 'martial artsy' reason to explain why a weaker person would win "If he does this, than you can do that, followed by a this attack etc. (see the first example)" In reality, that almost never works completely, if it does at all. Kind of like you are explaining how Batman would win against Superman (with no prep time). "Well, superman fires his lasers, but Batman dodges them, cause he's quicker! See, Batman only needs to land a precision strike..." True, but very unlikely to happen.

Examples:

You step in to range, twist your body round and launch a punch from the shoulder... That's 3 separate movements, all of which take units of time. Call that 3 Times.
From the moment you start moving, I am watching and picking my moment. I have 3 Times in which to gauge distance and reach, before simply extending my arm in a riposte punch, which takes only 1 Time. 3 Times vs 1.
Now assume I step backward as you come toward me. Even allowing for 1 Time to think, I'm now traveling away from you, which means you will take longer to reach me. So every movement away gives me more time to react and takes you longer to hit. It doesn't matter how fast you are, because I become 'faster' by making you slower and unless you can break the laws of physics, no amount of muscle will help you.

Full on compensation, yes, but against a majority of opponents, it really does take just a bit of training... because it is the principles behind that training that teach you the advantages.

Anyone with enough training and sufficient focus to keep from losing their head will just drop you, since an enraged opponent only makes it easier!

Theoretically this is true. Theoretically, it is also true that I can use my pinky to kill a person. Theoretically, I can move an opponents body with nothing but my pinky. But in reality, I will break that pinky, 99 times out of 100. Knowing the principles that allow me to kill the person with my pinky don't always work out for me. I could miss slightly and hit bone. He could move slightly and I will hit bone. He could have a defense up. I could try to dissolve his defense by pulling his arm away (lap sau in Wing Chun), but he could switch to attack right that moment and land a hit. I could stumble on some pavement and perhaps fall to the ground, where his weight usually gives him the upper hand. We could get in a clinch and since the other guy is stronger, he puts me in a chokehold. I could try to get out, but I'm filled with adrenaline and fear and he had already landed a punch that dazed me. This can go on and on and on.
I know all about combat principles, but you need some years to apply them in a real fight. A lot of people forget going to the groin, even though that's the easiest way to take an opponent down. Everyone knows that. Look at some fight on YouTube. There is always some reason why the guy doesn't do it. He's in an impossible clinch, or he's running backwards and struggling with balance because of the uneven footing etc. Telling a woman "Hey, go for the groin in a fight!" and giving her a couple of weeks to train, doesn't make her on par with a man in combat. If you can't understand how reality is so much different from theory we probably shouldn't continue this.

3: You keep using a lot of "That depends on" or "Only if" as a response to my arguments. I already explained why those aren't valid (at least not in the way you are using them). You even did it unironically with the plane example, which proves my point. "Well the plane is not necessarily faster" No, but when it is used for transportation it is. That's the aspect that I compare with the car. Not it's startup speed: it's general speed. Just like with the man/woman comparison: I compare the strength and speed of the man with the strenght and speed of the woman, during combat.

Example: I say:

I was talking about how it's hard for a woman (a man too, but we weren't talking about that) to land a precision strike during a fight.

Then you say:

Depends how precise you think you need to be, though it depends more on your judgement and distance as to whether you create yourself the time to place that precision strike.

It depends on how precise you think you need to be? The statement is technically true, but in what fight does the woman go "Gee, I could be REAL precise and hit him perfectly in the throat, or I could be a little less precise"? Nobody that's who. You need to be as precise as possible, if you are a woman of average physique. You just try to hit that target. If you are well trained (which means more than a couple of weeks where you memorized the principles that automatically make you a superior fighter to taller people with twice as much muscle), you will have a better chance of hitting that target correctly. It's still hard though. Much harder than just hitting the other person in whatever place you like (and still doing a lot of damage), like what an untrained man will do. So your "Well, that depends on.." is not really a valid counter to this argument.
You haven't really disproven my point, you've only nuanced it a little, which is what you've done with many of my arguments. They still stand, but you think you have rejected them, because you've talked about some relatively rare cases or possibilities where my arguments don't hold up. "If they are in a small room, then the smaller person has the advantage. If he's really tall, his legs might give out easier. If he is tall, he probably has long fingers and limbs, which are easier to break." I can make up some "Ifs" or "It depends on" too, but we're talking about who will win in general. And in general, the advantage is with the muscled man, not with the average woman with some technique.

So the arguments from my previous comment still stand, which means that my point of view has not been rejected yet. Which means that is highly unlikely that a trained woman with an average female physique (the 'kickass female' stereotype) can beat up big muscle bound guys. Technique is great if you do it perfectly, but it never works out that way. And if a musclebound guy lands a hit or gets a hold of you, which he might, you are still going down. A master goes down as quickly as a beginner when hit by a strong man. And if you haven't trained enough, you will go down.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Okay, I'm not gonna respond to all your 'arguments' point by point, because it's a lot of work

The devil is in the details.
If you're just going to generalise a subject that hinges on very specific factors, then this really won't work toward any kind of consensus.

So, how many streetfights have you seen? 10? 20?

Actual fights, including those that were in some way organised (anything from unlicenced and unregulated, to simply people meeting at an arranged time for a punch up), along with impromptu kick offs outside a pub... somewhere between 300 and 500, by the absolute roughest approximation. Not the sort of thing I've really counted, especially when I was living in the city as it happened that often.

That still wouldn't be enough evidence to conclude that smaller and lighter people beat bigger people reasonable often.

The argument is not about how often it happens, but about how plausible.
My assertation that it happens more frequently than people might think is just conversational, perhaps skewed because I see it happen more often than the average person.

Sure, it's less of a factor, but still a big factor in a real fight. Sometimes a guy gets hit and goes down, another time he gets hit the exact same way, but he doesn't go down.

There will always be a reason for that, though and once you understand why something happened you can work around it in the future. Learning from these instances, either from your own experiences or from someone else's, are what makes the difference between a proper fighter and someone who merely gets in occasional fights.

No matter how good you are, there will always be an aspect of luck.

If you're calling it luck, then you simply don't understand why it happened.

The sentence before the sentence where I say she's 'an average woman', I explain that I was talking about phsyical appearance and strength.

I addressed this, debating the strength aspect as the actress herself has clearly been working out and the character too should be above average for the job she has.

I've noticed that this is a common thing you do in your arguments: you ignore what I've said in other sentences and only comment on what one sentence says in the literal sense.

Quite often your point hinges on those specific sentences, which are flawed/erroneous/wrong or whatever and so an unsound basis upon which to substantiate the point.

You are not responding to the point I was trying to make.

Then either be more succinct or give a fuller explanation.

You just took one sentence out of context and turned it into another argument all together. How about you first counter my argument, before coming with your own?

Then to address your point within the context of the whole paragraph - My exact same point still stands - Outside the ring the rules that would prevent the average woman from using certain advantages are no longer enforced, thereby allowing that average woman a step or two toward doing better. Her awareness of these advantages, her confidence in taking them or willingness to go that far are other factors, but those particular advantages are still there.

I will endeavour to respond to your entire paragraphs in future, if that makes you happy...

You are making an incorrect conclusion: "the strike does not have to be that precise" is sort of true, but you can't conclude "which is why physicality is not as much of an issue as people think" from that statement. Physicality is very useful in a fight for all the reasons I've explained in the past. Just because a precision strike doesn't use as much physicality, doesn't mean physicality is 'not as much of an issue'.

Actually, it pretty much does mean that.
Note that I'm *not* saying physicality is not a factor AT ALL... Just that by reason of the minimum force required and minimum precision required, it is not usually necessary to have pinpoint precision.
There is a minimum threshold on most prime targets, for both angle and pressure. Exceed both and, assuming the target is in working medical condition*, basic biology means you will get the required response. The threshold is so low on these targets that most humans can muster sufficient precision and force to deliver the necessary strike, which is why physicality is not that important an issue and exactly why these targets are chosen over others.
Greater physicality will add to the effect, of course, and I'm not denying that but it is nowhere near being a governing factor... In the same way a .50cal contact-shot round through the eye will be devastating, but a .22 round in the same target will kill you just as much.


*Working medical condition, meaning that their nerves are receptive, their heart is beating, lungs are breathing, etc.

On the street, in a real fight? If not, this is irrelevant to our discussion.

In a few, yes. Five, if I recall correctly, though that point was a fair time ago now. It helped that the training was full contact (both with and without weapons), with th egreater emphasis on not getting hit in the first place. The best way to effect this is to fight with intent, particularly as certain techniques require realistic speed and force in order to work in the first place.

Anyway, I'm gonna talk about the big issues with your reply: 1: You take some things out of context, like I already said and gave examples of.

As mentioned, this sort of thing hinges on details.
The tiniest factor can make all the difference in a fight, so I hone in on things. If you want to just generalise and ignore the actual science behind all this, then either just take my word that it is perfectly plausible for a smaller, weaker, slower fighter to win against a bigger, stronger, healthier, faster one or accept a difference of opinion.
I'm interested in discussing the exact 'why' behind my assertation and the supporting science, not bandying about with basic opinion.

2: You are not thinking of the real world, where there are many factors. You are not being practical, you reason on the basis of theory and unlikely theory at that. You use very complicated 'martial artsy' reason to explain why a weaker person would win "If he does this, than you can do that, followed by a this attack etc. (see the first example)" In reality, that almost never works completely, if it does at all. Kind of like you are explaining how Batman would win against Superman (with no prep time). "Well, superman fires his lasers, but Batman dodges them, cause he's quicker! See, Batman only needs to land a precision strike..." True, but very unlikely to happen.[quote]
Yes there are many factors and if you want to go into comprehensive details with with me, come along to the club where you can test these things out.
I cannot (will not) summarise a quarter-century of learning, study and teaching, especially when such lessons are already available.

This 'martial-artsy' stuff is called science. Basic physics, geometry, biology - The sort of stuff you'd learn in school, applied to fight dynamics. If you think this is just "unlikely theory", then you're ignoring hundreds of years worth of proven fight dynamics, ALL from the 'real world'. You don't get more practical than that!!
It does work, it worked hundreds of years ago when people were writing fight manuals specifically explaining how and why it worked over contemporary techniques and, unless the laws of science change, it will always work.

It always always always comes down to the science. People who don't know why they won or lost a fight simply don't understand the science behind what they're doing... because the beauty is that the science works in hindsight as well.

Think of it like Chess - The rules and laws governing that are set. What makes the difference is how each person works within those against their opponent. Even when you lose a game, you can still look back and see why you lost... and yet, it is still quite feasible for someone to win a game if they apply the rules correctly.

But if this sciencey martial artsy stuff is too complicated for you, then we might as well leave this here, because understanding that is the key behind the points raised. Heck, I'm even trying to explain it for you, which is why you're getting these massive walls of text.

I'm sorry it's not quite simple enough to sum up in one or two sentences like "Biggest fighter always win", but it's certainly not as complicated as brain surgery and that's again part of the point.

[quote]Theoretically this is true.

It's guaranteed - If you're moving away, you WILL slow the other person down.
How you move away is down to you, but it is perfectly plausible, has been used very often in fights and is one of the many factors contributing to the original assertation. Go watch Muhammad Ali fight - He's a good example of this exact principle. He's often stepping away and bringing the opponent toward him, putting that opponent right where Ali can place a hit.

I could miss slightly [snip] landed a punch that dazed me. This can go on and on and on.

Sorry - Clipped to avoid hitting character limits in the post.
Yes, there are many other things that might happen.
The average person will probably have a great deal of difficulty with them... but a trained fighter will have trained in order to be aware of, take account of and minimise that difficulty.

I know all about combat principles, but you need some years to apply them in a real fight. A lot of people forget going to the groin, even though that's the easiest way to take an opponent down. Everyone knows that. Look at some fight on YouTube. There is always some reason why the guy doesn't do it. He's in an impossible clinch, or he's running backwards and struggling with balance because of the uneven footing etc. Telling a woman "Hey, go for the groin in a fight!" and giving her a couple of weeks to train, doesn't make her on par with a man in combat. If you can't understand how reality is so much different from theory we probably shouldn't continue this.

Those are specific factors, not the overall governing principles.
I'm talking about distances, measures and the like.
I recommend reading some George Silver, firstly because it's in English and so loses far less in both translation and cultural differences, secondly because he very nicely codifies and prioritises the principles for a Western reader, and thirdly because he simplifies the science to a basic yet highly workable level.

The rider is that if you follow those principles as laid out then you WILL win the fight. It is scientifically impossible not to. This is the part that takes a mere 8 minutes (on average) to understand and the beauty is that it's nothing you don't already know, yet most fighters have never considered things from this perspective.
The part that takes training is practice in thinking this way in your approach to a fight and training out the natural responses (as well as learned ones, thanks to things like Hollywood) that hinder your fight.

I liken a lot of fight mechanics to driving because much of the science applies to both and people's way of thinking is often the same.

3: You keep using a lot of "That depends on" or "Only if" as a response to my arguments. I already explained why those aren't valid (at least not in the way you are using them).

Your own are not really valid because you are taking one part of a complete factor and ignoring the fundamental science behind it. If the analogies are not to your liking then I will keep to outright basic fight dynamics.

You even did it unironically with the plane example, which proves my point. "Well the plane is not necessarily faster" No, but when it is used for transportation it is. That's the aspect that I compare with the car. Not it's startup speed: it's general speed. Just like with the man/woman comparison: I compare the strength and speed of the man with the strenght and speed of the woman, during combat.

Jesus, are we really at that level?
OK, in order to throw a punch, your arm has to start moving, yes?
A massive hunk of muscle is heavy and in order to get moving it requires a lot of power. When it reaches full power, yes it will be insanely fast, but the initial grunt required to get it there WILL be much higher than that needed by a skinny person to move theirs. Basic physics.
If this is not true by your reckoning, prove it to me by throwing a cannon ball as far as you can throw a golf ball.

It depends on how precise you think you need to be? The statement is technically true, but in what fight does the woman go "Gee, I could be REAL precise and hit him perfectly in the throat, or I could be a little less precise"? Nobody that's who. You need to be as precise as possible, if you are a woman of average physique. You just try to hit that target. If you are well trained (which means more than a couple of weeks where you memorized the principles that automatically make you a superior fighter to taller people with twice as much muscle), you will have a better chance of hitting that target correctly. It's still hard though. Much harder than just hitting the other person in whatever place you like (and still doing a lot of damage), like what an untrained man will do. So your "Well, that depends on.." is not really a valid counter to this argument.

"Hit him on the side of the head, anywhere between temple and jaw".
That's a nice example - You have about 7" of target area along that line and it will have the desired effect. Too many arts teach ultra precision, where any hit in that general area will work just as well. In this instance you don't need to hit precisely in the exact half-inch centred on the temple and knowing this is all it takes.
Certainly no-one is going to debate over it during a fight unless they are an idiot and all this should have been hashed out in training beforehand.

You haven't really disproven my point

You may think that. But how can you honestly say so when you haven't even understood mine... Apparently it's too 'complicated martial artsy' for you!

They still stand, but you think you have rejected them, because you've talked about some relatively rare cases or possibilities where my arguments don't hold up.

They fall apart because I have supplied you with some of the proven science that has supported every winning fighter for many centuries and because you do not (or refuse to) apply an understanding of that science.

I can make up some "Ifs" or "It depends on" too

But can you support those assertations with provable science?

but we're talking about who will win in general.

Yet again, NO WE ARE NOT.
You might be... but as I have explained several times now, I am talking about trained fighters who know all this and how they can be/are outside the average, particularly in relation to female characters portrayed as such.
This is precisely about the non-average and how they would be able to achieve what they do.

So the arguments from my previous comment still stand, which means that my point of view has not been rejected yet.

You can have whatever point of view you like - There are some people that think meditating atop a mountain for a decade makes you a better fighter.
The only one who can 'reject' your argument is you, which will depend on whether or not you understand the basic science of how these things actually work.
It's not a matter of opinion. It is just how it works and like it or not, that is what governs a fight.

Technique is great if you do it perfectly, but it never works out that way.

Really?
Why?
Give me an exact scientific explanation of why it does not work out that way.

And if a musclebound guy lands a hit or gets a hold of you, which he might, you are still going down. A master goes down as quickly as a beginner when hit by a strong man. And if you haven't trained enough, you will go down.

If.
If, if, if, if, if.
You base your fight on luck, chance and circumstance. You are the losing bet.

Learn instead why and how a fight works.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I said: Okay, I'm not gonna respond to all your 'arguments' point by point, because it's a lot of work

You said: The devil is in the details.
If you're just going to generalise a subject that hinges on very specific factors, then this really won't work toward any kind of consensus.

Ironically, this is a really good example of you taking things out of context and subsequently jumping to an unfair conclusion: I provided another valid reason for why I wasn't going to respond to all of your points in the next part of the sentence. I said that there are fundemental flaws present in your form of argumentation and that I would address those flaws. Though you keep that out of your reply and say that I am 'generalising a subject that hinges on very specific factors'. I didn't generalise the subject, I had a few general remarks on your argumentation methods. Not the subject of gender difference in actual combat.

That is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about you taking stuff out of context. I'm not criticising that you do a point-by-point form of argumentation, hell, I do that most of the time. I'm criticising you for taking half my argument or less and forming a response against that.

Actual fights, including [...] somewhere between 300 and 500, by the absolute roughest approximation. [...] happened that often.

I will just repeat my response from my previous comment. The fact that you have seen a lot of street fights doesn not really take away my point: It still isn't enough evidence to conclude that smaller and lighter people beat bigger people reasonable often. It's called anecdotal evidence and it does not help your cause. Unless of course you followed the scientific method to the letter with those fights?

The argument is not about how often it happens, but about how plausible.

True, but those are often the same thing. And it definitely has a strong correlation here. An analogy, exaggerated for effect: Is it plausible that Muhammed Ali could lose to a five-year-old? I think we can test that by seeing how often Ali would lose against a five-year-old. So yeah, how often it happens has a strong correlation with how plausible it is, in this situation.

I said: Sure, it's less of a factor, but still a big factor in a real fight. Sometimes a guy gets hit and goes down, another time he gets hit the exact same way, but he doesn't go down.

You said: There will always be a reason for that, though and once you understand why something happened you can work around it in the future. Learning from these instances, either from your own experiences or from someone else's, are what makes the difference between a proper fighter and someone who merely gets in occasional fights.

So if someone gets knocked out because his head was 3 degrees tilted too far in a certain angle, which caused his brain to hit his skull, JUST too hard (which made him pass out), he can fix that? In the adrenaline filled, stressful fight, where you are usually constantly moving, he can control that detail? Or that his brain shifted in his skull slightly in a certain direction by a previous movement, which caused him to go knockout as the next hit landed? He can learn to control his brain movement? His hormonal levels? His arousal level at a certain point? His brainwaves, that sometimes and sometimes don't pick up on a percept (like miscalculating the distance a fist is from his face by a very small but important margin)? You can't micromanage these things. You can only macromanage, by teaching yourself to step in or out faster, to punch faster, or whatever you can so you can defeat the other guy before he can lay a hit on you or hope that the same thing doesn't happen again. It might. It might not. That's what I call 'luck' or 'coincidence'. And it's definitely a factor in a fight.

I said: No matter how good you are, there will always be an aspect of luck.

You said: If you're calling it luck, then you simply don't understand why it happened.

I already explained why thinking this is rather silly. You can try to minimize the influence of luck/coincidence, but it is always a big part in a fight (and most things in life for that matter).

I said: The sentence before the sentence where I say she's 'an average woman', I explain that I was talking about phsyical appearance and strength.

You said: I addressed this, debating the strength aspect as the actress herself has clearly been working out and the character too should be above average for the job she has.

In the original comments, I said "She's an average woman [when it comes to muscles and build]". You responded with "No, she's an agent/operative with a lot of training." It seems to me that you did misunderstand my statement, since I wasn't talking about training/technique, which is what I meant to demonstrate. Either way, this is not really relevant to "can an average woman kick a musclebound guy's ass in a streetfight, if she knows a couple techniques".

Outside the ring the rules that would prevent the average woman from using certain advantages are no longer enforced, thereby allowing that average woman a step or two toward doing better. Her awareness of these advantages, her confidence in taking them or willingness to go that far are other factors, but those particular advantages are still there.

I agree, but having options 'open' is no guarantee for victory. Like I said, often people don't kick the nuts for whatever reason (didn't think of it, hard to do in a certain situation, frozen by fear, not honorable), even though that would pretty much get them instant victory. And a man has more and/or more significant advantages on his side (muscle, weigth, length, agression etc.). Yes, those advantages have some downsides, but usually, they are big advantages in a fight. Which is why I believe what I believe: that an average woman will lose to an average man 9/10, even if she has had some training.

There is a minimum threshold [...]you just as much.

I don't disagree with most of this: some parts of the body require not a lot of power to damage and some of those parts can incapacitate a person. However, you seem to think that hitting those parts in life-or-death combat against a bigger, stronger opponent is a piece of cake. I disagree. It's possible, but requires a lot of training, not just to learn precision, but also how to learn to stop a strong hook, a jab, how to avoid a kick, to get over your natural fear of getting too close to a hostile human, and/or to get over your self-imposed reluctance to commit violent acts (that's why I'm talking about male agression, they are more inclined to throw out a punch. Women usually wait much longer to attack if at all, and it's usually too late by then). And on and on. This isn't learned in a couple of self-defence classes. As for a woman, you need years to get this right, to get to a level where you have a greater chance of winning (because remember, luck always plays a role).

This 'martial-artsy' stuff is called science. Basic physics, geometry, biology - The sort of stuff you'd learn in school, applied to fight dynamics. If you think [...] that the science works in hindsight as well.

What I was talking about was the fact that you think a fight may go like this:

From the moment you start moving, I am watching and picking my moment. I have 3 Times in which to gauge distance and reach, before simply extending my arm in a riposte punch, which takes only 1 Time. 3 Times vs 1.
Now assume I step backward as you come toward me. Even allowing for 1 Time to think, I'm now traveling away from you, which means you will take longer to reach me. So every movement away gives me more time to react and takes you longer to hit. It doesn't matter how fast you are, because I become 'faster' by making you slower and unless you can break the laws of physics, no amount of muscle will help you.

You think you can predict all the factors. You can't. "If he does this, I do this!" "If he punches, I block and retaliate with a tiger claw!". In your example, the guy might have long/short legs, so he may follow you faster than you will move back. If he's a Wing Chun practitioner or anything similar, he definitely won't stand there while you throw your jab, he will have attacked you the moment you came into kicking-radius and followed you till you hit the wall behind you, or the ground under. Anywho, I can go on and on about several factors that will make your 'strategy' unfit. I know a thing or two about science. I also know a thing or two about combat. You can use principles in a fight. Like "keep your elbows sunken" or "dominate the center" or whatnot. You can try your best to apply those. You can't however, predict the opponent in such detail as you think you can. You can tell yourself what you are going to do, but you don't know what the opponent can and/or will do.

And chess may be like warfare, but definitely not like a street fight. You have to make split-second life-or-death 'decisions' which is pretty much all motor memory: the stuff you've practiced over and over again. Not the stuff someone told you to use and you spent 2 days a week practicing for a couple of months. At least, you most likely won't do it correctly then.

The average person will probably have a great deal of difficulty with them... but a trained fighter will have trained in order to be aware of, take account of and minimise that difficulty.

I feel that we mostly disagree with the timeframe. You think fighting a big guy in a life-or-death fight is easy to learn, I think it's hard and takes some time.

It is scientifically impossible not to [win, if you follow these steps]

. Are you being ironical? I so hope you are being ironical. If not, I feel that I should tell you some things about life: there is no such thing as a scientifically proven way to always win a fight. Science NEVER deals in absolutes. Like I explained, there are always factors you can't or can't fully account for, which may lead to you losing a fight. Also, the Easter bunny isn't real. In case you thought that was true as well.
Oh and in the paragraph I am refering to now, you didn't reply to the fact that people need time to apply learned techniques in a real fight. They do. It's more than a few months.

Your own are not really valid because you are taking one part of a complete factor and ignoring the fundamental science behind it.

Not really. I don't know what else I can say to this. I don't ignore the fundamental science. I call it 'criticizing how you think life-or-death fights play out'. I explained all that somewhere above here.

If this is not true by your reckoning, prove it to me by throwing a cannon ball as far as you can throw a golf ball.

Hold on, hold on, let me respond to this as you respond to my arguments: It depends. If I can only throw the golfball 10 cm in front of me, I'll do the same with the canonball, so it will be just as fast.

See how easy that is? See how it doesn't further the discussion, by focusing so much on a technicality? Good.

Though for a slightly more serious response: "A massive hunk of muscle is heavy and in order to get moving it requires a lot of power." You know that muscle is what moves the arm in the first place right? It provides the power for itself. If your statement is true, that means that more muscle, causes a slower punch, which would mean that you are better off with smaller muscles. That's like saying more gunpowder makes the bullet travel more slowly. True, if you have bodybuilder-level muscles, you will be slower, but that's taking it to the extreme, where the 'punching' muscles have to carry with them other huge muscles that aren't contributing to that specific movement (and that is venturing into the dreaded "that depends" area, where you select rare cases and present them like they are the mode). There is an optimum amount of muscle and muscle density for fast but powerful punches. Just look at Bruce Lee or Muhammed Ali. Do those look like the arms of an average woman? They look closer to the arms of an average man. So no, the average woman does not deliver punches faster.
In conlusion, the 'canonball and golfball' analogy doesn't really hold up.

But how can you honestly say so when you haven't even understood [my points]

I think I understand most of your points. They are just mostly silly and based on a skewed/biased view of scientific facts and actual combat.

But can you support those assertations with provable science?

Can you? I haven't seen any provable science from your end, that was in direct conflict with a statement I have typed.

The only one who can 'reject' your argument is you, which will depend on whether or not you understand the basic science of how these things actually work.

Really, you wanna talk about understanding science? The person that denies significant differences between male and female physique? The person that says that 1000s if not billions of years of sexual dimorphism traits can be compensated by a year (or less) of casual training?(make sure you know what 'significant' means, before you respond "I'm not saying that at all!").

I said: Technique is great if you do it perfectly, but it never works out that way.
You said: Really?
Why?
Give me an exact scientific explanation of why it does not work out that way.

Well, I could give you a short answer: chance. But there are many factors involved why it is very unlikely you can fight a fight purely on technique and expect to win. I've given these factors already. e.g. adrenaline. You will not think clearly in a fight, unless you've had years and years of training (and even then you might not). You will not be able to pull off the right technique for every move the other person makes. So in some instances, you will use force to get a hand off you, or push the other person back etc. "But I won't!" I don't care that you won't, I'm talking about a woman that has had a year or less of self defense classes. She is (probably mostly mentally) not capable of beating a man. Yes, you can kick a man in the nuts, but I've explained why she usually won't do that. As a matter of fact, I already explained this entire bit, why 1 year of training technique is not enough and why life-or-death combat never goes cleanly. Multiple times, over several comments. CTRL+F and type 'having options' (without the apostrofe's).

Do you seriously believe life-or-death fights can be finished using a combination of perfectly excecuted techniques, by a relative beginner to martial arts? I mean, beyond the exceptions. Do you really think that's a plausible thing to happen, by a woman trained for a relatively short time? To kick the ass of musclebound men, or even average men?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'm criticising you for taking half my argument or less and forming a response against that.

Your argument sometimes comprises several very different points that alter the context within the paragraph, along with either the incorrect components upon which your argument is misfounded, which I highlight, or just irrelevant padding (kinda like "anecdotal evidence") which I do ignore.

I will just repeat my response from my previous comment. The fact that you have seen a lot of street fights doesn not really take away my point: It still isn't enough evidence to conclude that smaller and lighter people beat bigger people reasonable often.

I never said it did offer decisive proof. I merely answered *your question* in response to my own example.
If you want further proof, I can put you in touch with all the female students at our classes, along with those I recall winning such fights and you may then request exact details of the dates, times, circumstances and every single action of every fight... Exactly what kind of statistical ratio are you seeking here, anyway?

Unless of course you followed the scientific method to the letter with those fights?

Those I won, yes.
Those I did not I at least learned from.

True, but those are often [snip] So yeah, how often it happens has a strong correlation with how plausible it is, in this situation.

They are NOTHING alike.
How often do the actions of Germany result in a world war? Once or twice in over a hundred years? Pah, that's not very often is it?
But is it plausible? Too *beep* right it is!!

So if someone gets knocked out because his head was 3 degrees tilted too far in a certain angle, which caused his brain to hit his skull, JUST too hard (which made him pass out), he can fix that? [remainder of driveling witter edited for post length]

Yes, very easily.
The cause of him getting knocked out was simple - He got hit.
He then should examine why he got hit in the first place and take appropriate action.
I skipped the witter because it was like arguing the exact ballistics of the path a bullet takes through a soldier's body, when the simple reason he died is because he got shot in the chest... with the simple answer being body armour.
The devil is in the details, but the science is simple. No need to overcomplicate things. 

You can only macromanage, by teaching yourself to step in or out faster, to punch faster, or whatever you can so you can defeat the other guy before he can lay a hit on you or hope that the same thing doesn't happen again. It might. It might not. That's what I call 'luck' or 'coincidence'. And it's definitely a factor in a fight.

Again, read George Silver.
I could explain to you the fundamental flaws in the fight you just described, but since he's already done so and is one of my primary sources on the matter, you'd be better off reading that.
Suffice to say, I'll see your luck, faster step in, fast punch and whatever... but then raise you a step off-line and a hook to your floating ribs that body mechanics and simple geometry will prevent you from doing anything about.
You trust to your hope and luck. I'll beat it with science. Every time.

I already explained why thinking this is rather silly. You can try to minimize the influence of luck/coincidence, but it is always a big part in a fight (and most things in life for that matter).

You're refuting proven science and claiming superstition instead, but calling my line of reasoning silly??!!
Next you'll be telling me it happened because God willed it, rather than the other guy understanding the fight better than you...!

It seems to me that you did misunderstand my statement, since I wasn't talking about training/technique, which is what I meant to demonstrate.

I also explained that neither the actress (due to her working out for the role) nor the character (due to the nature of her work) are of average build, citing both trainings as the main reason.

Either way, this is not really relevant to "can an average woman kick a musclebound guy's ass in a streetfight, if she knows a couple techniques".

Which yet again is not the point of debate.

I agree, but having options 'open' is no guarantee for victory.

Did I say that?
Did I not say there were other factors?

Which is why I believe what I believe: that an average woman will lose to an average man 9/10, even if she has had some training.

Which is why I'm wondering why the *beep* you keep arguing that point, when it is precisely the trained and thus NOT-average that is the focus, here...

However, you seem to think that hitting those parts in life-or-death combat against a bigger, stronger opponent is a piece of cake.

It's easier than people seem to think, yes.
I never said it was unthinkably easy.
YOU seem to think I'm suggesting a one-hour course makes you Bruce Lee... which I certainly am not.

It's possible, but requires a lot of training

SOME training.
Bear in mind some martial arts take less than three years to reach full-on Black Belt status.
By comparison, in the system I currently practice it takes about 12 years. Stepping up from basic level takes between 6 months and two years, depending on the student, who studies both hand-to-hand and at least two weapons at the same time.
But there will be a marked improvement even after just a few lessons, because those principles apply to everything.

This isn't learned in a couple of self-defence classes.

FYI - Self-defence is more about avoiding, diffusing and escaping situations where you might be attacked, with the actual combat being a last-resort approach to further facilitating this in the event that an attack occurs.
It is NOT fight training of any kind.

As for a woman, you need years to get this right, to get to a level where you have a greater chance of winning (because remember, luck always plays a role).

Luck play no role whatsoever.
If it takes you years to learn how to hit well, either your chosen system is flawed, you're not paying attention to the instruction, or your instructor is ripping you off!

What I was talking about was the fact that you think a fight may go like this:

A lot of them HAVE gone like this!
Even between untrained fighters, that has happened whether they realise it or not. Those who understand what happened and thus know why it happened are those who understand the science behind it and on their way to becoming better fighters.

You think you can predict all the factors. You can't.

In that example, yes you can and that is how this all works.
You can't just throw something out and hope you 'get lucky'. Why do you think Boxing is called the Sweet Science? Why do they spend so long on their ringcraft? Because because you're the one controlling it and the people against you, so you CAN predict what's happening - You're the one making it happen!

In several of our exercises, a student faces multiple opponents and learns to control them all in his/her favour so they CAN defeat each one and walk away unscathed. The number increases as you improve your ability to control.
Go read 'Three To One' by Richard Peeke for a historical account of such, bearing in mind this was a twice-wounded, low-rank soldier with the normal level of training for his position who defeated multiple opponents on two occasions (one after the other, in fact). He left them only one opening through which to attack, against which he was ready to defend and riposte at the right moment, thus controlling.

I know a thing or two about science. I also know a thing or two about combat.

And yet you are able to marry the two...

You can use principles in a fight. Like "keep your elbows sunken" or "dominate the center" or whatnot.

That's not really a principle, as already demonstrated by your use of terms like "If he does this...".
Principles would be, "When he does this" because they apply to every situation.

You can't however, predict the opponent in such detail as you think you can. You can tell yourself what you are going to do, but you don't know what the opponent can and/or will do.

You don't need that level of detail.
I know exactly what the opponent is going to do - He's going to try and hit me. I guarantee you that!

And chess may be like warfare, but definitely not like a street fight.

Sigh... I can see analogies are wasted on you!

You have to make split-second life-or-death 'decisions' which is pretty much all motor memory: the stuff you've practiced over and over again.

You never seen Speed Chess then? 
The 'stuff you practiced' is like different opening routines in Chess, but however much you practice them, it is only how you choose to apply them that wins or loses the fight.

I feel that we mostly disagree with the timeframe. You think fighting a big guy in a life-or-death fight is easy to learn, I think it's hard and takes some time.

I feel you think I'm suggesting it takes far less time than I'm actually stating. It IS easy to learn, but takes a degree of time to learn well. I maintain that it does not take years and years, rather than several months at least, but even a few weeks will see you fighting MUCH better than before.

Are you being ironical? I so hope you are being ironical.

When I am, I tend to be ironic rather than ironical.
But no, I am not.
So long as you keep to the science, you WILL win as surely as jumping up in the air will be followed by you falling back to the ground. Your ability to keep to the science is down to your own correct judgement and application of your training, but therein lies the skill and the reason for the training in the first place.

If not, I feel that I should tell you some things about life: there is no such thing as a scientifically proven way to always win a fight.

Tell that to the many hundreds of thousands of such practitioners who did exactly that using these principles, then, along with those who died because they did not follow them.
You have hundreds of years of evidence against you on that one.

Science NEVER deals in absolutes.

No, that's Jedi, mate! 

Oh and in the paragraph I am refering to now, you didn't reply to the fact that people need time to apply learned techniques in a real fight. They do. It's more than a few months.

You might need that long...
The average human requires around 21 days of 10-minute daily practice before a completely new physical activity becomes 'muscle-memory'. Those studying related movements, such as drummers learning a new rhythm or a martial artist learning an advanced technique, take a lot less as they are familiar with the foundation. Overwriting that muscle memory with something new takes an average of 26 days at the same frequency of practice.
This can often be done in much less time with a high degree of pressure, but that's more of a military approach and not really the sort of thing paying students appreciate.

Not really. I don't know what else I can say to this. I don't ignore the fundamental science. I call it 'criticizing how you think life-or-death fights play out'. I explained all that somewhere above here.

And I've yet to hear anything regarding experience, evidence (anecdotal or otherwise), or actual science to either prove you know how I think, that you do actually understand the science, or that you have anything more than opinion to offer...

I call it 'criticizing how you think life-or-death fights play out'. I explained all that somewhere above here.

Then I reject your criticism, firstly for mistaking actual knowledge for mere opinion, secondly for believing you know how I think... and thirdly because I have seen how several life or death fights do play out, have been in a few myself and have learned from the experiences of others how a great many did play out, with the best accounts literally being blow by blow, allowing for a detailed analysis.

Hold on, hold on, let me respond to this as you respond to my arguments: It depends. If I can only throw the golfball 10 cm in front of me, I'll do the same with the canonball, so it will be just as fast.

If that is genuinely as far as you can throw a gold ball, you won't even lift the cannonball.
If you're going to get pissy and pedantic about technicalities, you have to focus on the actual technicality to make it work! 

If your statement is true [snip] analogy doesn't really hold up.

Yes, big muscle does slow the punch down, because the opposing muscle is usually equally developed and thus not contributing to anything but drag.
Optimum muscle? And what is that, given how widely different each person is?
Depends? Clearly it does, as your own arguments illustrate. Suddenly we're not even talking the average person, but one built optimally for their stature? Make your mind up, or everything will depend on what aspect you're raising at a particular moment, which is why I take those select cases and highlight them in response to yours.
Average man built like Ali or Lee? Where the *beep* do YOU live, then?
And as explained in the first line of this paragraph, the analogy does indeed hold up.

I think I understand most of your points. They are just mostly silly and based on a skewed/biased view of scientific facts and actual combat.

If you think that, then you do not understand my points...!

Can you? I haven't seen any provable science from your end, that was in direct conflict with a statement I have typed.

Can I make up stuff and support it with provable science? Not really, else I'd be a sci-fi author. I can, however, support those assertions I make because they are already proven by science, by me and by countless others (some of whose writings I have already used in my own responses).
Daniel Mendoza
Zachary Wylde
George Silver
Thomas Page
James Miller
William Hope
Donald McBane
Thomas Fewtrell

So don't just take my word for it - Those are just some of the resources available (most online) to you, wherein you may read the accounts and teachings of men who faced and won life or death fights as often as you've encountered disagreements on politics or statutory rights.
Just a shame James Figg never wrote anything.

Really, you wanna talk about understanding science? The person that denies significant differences between male and female physique? The person that says that 1000s if not billions of years of sexual dimorphism traits can be compensated by a year (or less) of casual training?(make sure you know what 'significant' means, before you respond "I'm not saying that at all!").

I know quite well what 'significant' means, though I'd question whether you do.
But in lieu of that answer, I shall merely ask you to explain the high volume of renowned female warriors throughout history, bearing in mind that these have gained renown through being 'significant' (as defined), as in greater than the average... particularly of note given how entire nations were known for having women fighting alongside men in battle, duelling, defending their homelands, prize-fighting and even laying siege.

If men and women are THAT different, why were they still able to successfully fight like men, with men and against men back then... and why should they no longer be able to do so today?

Well, I could give you a short answer: chance. But there are many factors involved why it is very unlikely you can fight a fight purely on technique and expect to win.

Chance, now?
Luck, chance, hope... Have you ever been in a single fight?
If your technique is scientifically sound and you apply it perfectly (as in within the principles of how it should be used) then it will work. If it does not work, you did something wrong. I promise you that.

I've given these factors already.

So lets' re-examine, then...

e.g. adrenaline. You will not think clearly in a fight, unless you've had years and years of training (and even then you might not).

Adrenaline does the opposite. It makes you think clearer and faster, which is why people who were in dangerous situations often talk about how 'everything slowed down'.
If your thoughts are not clear, that's something else - Fear, rage, pain, alcohol... Not adrenaline.

You will not be able to pull off the right technique for every move the other person makes.

The situation governs the technique, not the moves of the other person and the principles govern the situation.

I'm talking about a woman that has had a year or less of self defense classes. She is (probably mostly mentally) not capable of beating a man.

Self Defence, fighting, science, women... just making a list of things you clearly do not understand. 

Yes, you can kick a man in the nuts, but I've explained why she usually won't do that.

Usually??!!
Have you met *any* women?
That's usually the very first thing they will do because so many men think their aggression, attitude, muscle or whatever will be enough and they forget about this easy target with delightful frequency... almost as often as they think another guy won't do it for some imagined reasons of honour, which is why I use it so often myself.

As a matter of fact, I already explained this entire bit, why 1 year of training technique is not enough and why life-or-death combat never goes cleanly.

You explained why you *think* this, yes... I've countered that right above and elsewhere.

Multiple times, over several comments. CTRL+F and type 'having options' (without the apostrofe's).

Precisely one count of that phrase over two pages...

Do you seriously believe life-or-death fights can be finished using a combination of perfectly excecuted techniques, by a relative beginner to martial arts? I mean, beyond the exceptions. Do you really think that's a plausible thing to happen, by a woman trained for a relatively short time? To kick the ass of musclebound men, or even average men?

Given my slight build and minimal training at the times when I managed it - Yes.
Given the similar experiences of many others similarly disadvantaged, both men and women - Yes.
And based on how many times it has turned out thus, I'm getting absolutely nothing from you to even suggest that this is neither plausible (because it has clearly happened) nor uncommon (because it has happened relatively often).

In truth, as happened with many of these instances, the fighters' techniques (combination or execution) and the application of science has not even needed to be perfect... merely sufficient to secure them a victory.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Your argument sometimes comprises several very different points that alter the context within the paragraph, along with either the incorrect components upon which your argument is misfounded, which I highlight

This sounds nice, but simply isn't true. I gave examples why, but you don't respond to those. Maybe try to explain why those examples are not examples of taking something out of context?

or just irrelevant padding (kinda like "anecdotal evidence") which I do ignore.

Hahaha, I'm talking about science here, but apparently you don't want me to. Make up your mind. If you want to proof something with those street fights, you have to follow the scientific method for them to be valid facts. Otherwise, it's anecdotal evidence and incapable of proving something. That's not padding. That's very important. And I thought you were such a big friend of science, the way you kept slinging the word? So if you keep labeling everything you can't argue against or don't like (or for whatever reason you do it), as 'padding', then yeah, this is not gonna provide a consensus.

I never said it did offer decisive proof. I merely answered *your question* in response to my own example.
If you want further proof,

First of all, a slight strawman: I didn't complain about your point because it had to be 'decisive proof'. I complained because you considered it proof. And you still do, based on the following sentence "If you want further proof". That means you think that the former sentence is also proof. It's not. That's all I said (and proved).

I can put [...] seeking here, anyway?

First of all, we are still talking about street fights right? Secondly, self-report of those fight situations is unreliable, making it inadmissable in a study. In other words, you can't use these fights to proof anything. But keep trying, maybe one day you'll actually understand science and not just throw around the word because you think it gives you solid footing.

Those I won, yes.
Those I did not I at least learned from.

Haha, wow, you really don't have any idea what the scientific method means. Simply put, it means objectivity in your research and being ethical in your research, by adhering to certain rules. This way, you can construct valid conclusions at the end of your research by minimizing bias as much as you can. It has nothing to do with you performing your techniques in a fight.

For example, in your case, you are obviously biased by seeing some women fight in the ring. You probably have seen a couple of them fight in a street fight, considering the amount of street fights you have (supposedly) observed. Otherwise you have heard of them. The relevant factors in these street fights weren't 'controlled': the woman may have had some sort of a weapon (key) or actually be muscular, or have trained a very long time, or simply luck (which is why a big sample size is needed, to rule out 'chance'. That means many participants in the study) These invalid, biased truths make you have a certain opinion that is not true and you don't want to let go when someone else provides valid reasons, for why it is implausible. Because you've heard of a couple of smaller women win. Or you saw it yourself. Either way, it's anecdotal evidence and invalid proof.
I know you have another argument ("people in fights can execute all techniques perfectly with less than a year training").

I said: True, but those are often [snip] So yeah, how often it happens has a strong correlation with how plausible it is, in this situation.

You said: They are NOTHING alike.
How often do the actions of Germany result in a world war? Once or twice in over a hundred years? Pah, that's not very often is it?
But is it plausible? Too *beep* right it is!!

Anoher strawman. I explained in my statement (with an example) why 'plausibility' correlates with 'how often it happens' IN THIS SITUATION. You take those words and COMPARE IT TO ANOTHER SITUATION (Germany and world politics in this case). So either read my arguments better, or stop being intellectually dishonest.

I said: So if someone [...] he can fix that? [remainder of driveling witter edited for post length]

You said: Yes, very easily.
The cause [...] need to overcomplicate things.

Your response here says exactly the same as my statement in my 'driveling witter'. Maybe you should read that next time. I concluded that you can't 'micromanage' a fight, as you implied in a previous comment, but only that you can 'macromanage' and avoid getting hit.
Again, we were talkig about something else: luck. I said it had a place in a fight, you said it didn't. I used this example to explain why luck or coincidence has a role in a fight: slight, uncontrollable factors can have a significant outcome on who is the victor. Sure, you can try getting not hit, but like I explained in my 'driveling witter', sometimes you can't help it (e.g. the brainwaves, the fact that the brain has randomness etc.). Not to mention that there are a lot more uncontrollable factors that have nothing to do with your opponent hitting you.
So, again, coincidence plays a part and can be minimised, but will always play a big role in a fight. If you want to know why, you should read my 'driveling witter' again.

Again, read George Silver.
I could [...] beat it with science. Every time.

Again, a strawman. And a 'moving the goalpost'. And an ubsubstantiated 'claim to authority'. Your argumentation skills really need some brushing up, it's littered with fallacies. I didn't say I trust hope and luck, you pretend that I do, that's the strawman. I just pointed out that coincidence is a factor in a fight, which is what we were talking about the entire time. However, in this latest reply, you shift the argument to "okay, but science is better!" (not explicitly, of course). Which not only doesn't make sense (because both play a part, it's not like I can choose one), but is also the moving of the goalpost: I only had to proof that coincidence played a part in a fight, not that it's more significant a factor than your misunderstood version of science.

And finally, the unsubstantiated claim to authority: George Silver is the perfect fighter and has a simple way to never lose a battle! Based on what proof? That you or someone else 'haven't lost all that much with his method'? How many battles? Were they controlled for confounding factors? Were they street fights? I'm gonna assume there hasn't been a study of George Silver's method, and it's more of a "I feel he's right" than "I know he's right" kind of situation. So he isn't a justified authority figure in our specific discussion.

You're refuting proven [...] better than you...!

Yes, because 'the other guy understanding the fight better than you' is what causes sudden cramps. Or black outs. Or make you stumble on a miniscule piece of outsticking pavement behind you, that you normally would have missed (though I'm sure you will say something along the lines of "Well, you should have had complete, total situational awareness! You can train this!"). Do you understand what 'coincidence' means? Do you understand the words that are typed on your screen? But sure, if you think 'coincidence' is a synonym for 'superstition' go right ahead...

I also explained that neither the actress (due to her working out for the role) nor the character (due to the nature of her work) are of average build, citing both trainings as the main reason.

Except that is not what you said. I said: "She's an average woman [when it comes to muscles and build]" (which she is, she isn't exactly buff. Though knowing your knack for nitpicking, I'll concede that maybe she was a bit toned and not EXACTLY the average women. But still close enough, so my point stands). You said "No, she's an agent/operative with a lot of training." See? You said "No" When I said that she has an average build and explained it by "she's had a lot of [technical] training". That's not a (valid) response to "she has an average build". Sure, you added as an afterthought that she was also more buff than I thought, but that was not the initial and main argument you provided for disagreeing with me. So you probably misunderstood what I said in the original comment. There is no shame in admitting that.

I said: Either way, this is not really relevant to "can an average woman kick a musclebound guy's ass in a streetfight, if she knows a couple techniques".

You said: Which yet again is not the point of debate.

Umm, yes, it is. We're not talking about a muscle girl vs a muscle guy. We are talking about whether the stereotyp/cliché that the woman of average/slim built in movies can easily defeat one or more muscular men, because she has had some technical training is plausible. Check back yourself if you want, that was what the point that filmtvwatcher was trying to discuss. I picked up where he left off.

I said: I agree, but having options 'open' is no guarantee for victory.

You said: Did I say that?
Did I not say there were other factors?

Specifically, you said "Her awareness of these advantages, her confidence in taking them or willingness to go that far are other factors, but those particular advantages are still there" I argued that having 'advantages' open, in other words, having possibilities is not an advantage if you aren't making use of them. You said that a woman does 'a step or two better' if she can kick a guy in the nuts, among other things. I'm here to tell you that you doesn't do any better, if she doesn't use those things. That's all.

I said: Which is why I believe what I believe: that an average woman will lose to an average man 9/10, even if she has had some training.

You said: Which is why I'm wondering why the *beep* you keep arguing that point, when it is precisely the trained and thus NOT-average that is the focus, here...

Not sure what you get all riled up about. When I'm talking about average, I'm talking about physique, I thought we established that. I think that a woman needs to be very well trained, i.e. several years of training, to be on par with a man in a real fight (not to mention a musclar man), because of reasons I have had to regurgitate several times now.

If it takes [...]is ripping you off!

I already explained that there is more to the fight than just pulling off the precision strike (getting over fear, adrenaline messing up your techniques, unless you've trained them a lot).

Bear in mind some martial arts take less than three years to reach full-on Black Belt status.

Some martial arts are crap, for street fights at least.

In that example, yes you can and that is how this all works.

So by stepping back, there is never a chance that you might stumble on something on the ground that you didn't know was there, or wasn't there before? Maybe you're fightin in a bar or alley. He might have a friend of his behind you, you don't know, because contrary to your beliefs, you don't know every factor. Oh, I'm sorry, stumbling has to do with coincidence, and coincidence is voodoo magic to you. So the other guy having friends or you stumbling are just superstitious ideas. They are no match for your 'science', since you know every factor, at every moment of a fight. You have eyes in the back of your head as well, right?
In a controlled environment, like a ring, you can know almost all factors, but even there coincidence plays a role. Sorry to break the news that reality is chaotic and immensely complicated and you can't account for everything.

I said: You can use principles in a fight. Like "keep your elbows sunken" or "dominate the center" or whatnot.

You said: That's not really a principle,

First of all, I suggest you google what the definition of principle is. Secondly, that is one of the 5 universal principles of Wing Chun, a martial art that is focused on the weaker guy/girl beating the bigger guy/girl. They just don't believe it can be done in a couple of months. And I'm pretty sure they know what a principle is.

Principles would be, "When he does this" because they apply to every situation.

You are contradicting yourself. A principle containing "When he does this" can not be universal. It can't apply to every situation. "When he does this" only works on "this". It applies only on that situation. A universal principle would be more like: "Doesn't matter what he does, always aim for the centre" paraphrased from a Wing Chun principle. That is when something applies to every situation.

You don't need [...] hit me. I guarantee you that!

I mostly agree, but you didn't say that at first. You assumed that you knew that level of detail. You assumed the fighter would follow you, AFTER you gave a jab. What if he came before? The strategy you devised wasn't universal, it required the other guy to do the exact thing you wanted him to do. You keep changing your stance. Very martial artsy, but not good for a discussion.

Sigh... I can see analogies are wasted on you!

Bad analogies, sure.

how you choose to apply them that wins or loses the fight.

So in less than a couple of milliseconds, you CHOOSE what to do? Now that is a scientific impossibility, if there ever was one. You can't consciously choose a move or strategy in that time. In the ring maybe, but not in a streetfight. Like I said, it's all motor memory and reflexes, things you have trained an insane amount of time.

Tell that to the many hundreds of thousands of such practitioners who did exactly that using these principles, then, along with those who died because they did not follow them.
You have hundreds of years of evidence against you on that one.

Okay, I'll explain how science works, and how you can create/find evidence of a certain phenomenon. You claim that if you follow certain 'rules', it is scientifically impossible for a person to lose. So following the rules, means that that person always wins, right? So, what you need to do to prove this, is get a big and random sample of the population to participate in your experiment (let's say, 1000 people). You teach half those rules, you teach the other half something else (maybe all those rules except one, but let's not get too complicated) for the same duration etc. (controlling for confounding variables). Then you let them all fight in a fight to the death. Doesn't really matter how you do that fight, since they are aware of all possible factors and should be able to defeat 50 men at once, according to your hypothesis. According to your hypothesis, none of the people in the group that were taught the rules will have died and some if not all in those other group will. Do you have a study that has done this? No? Then you don't have evidence. In any case, can you send me the data of all these hundreds of thousands of practitioners that followed these principles? And they all followed the exact same rules right? Because physics don't change per person. Or is 100.000 just a number you like to throw around?

You are so far out man. I can't believe you think that it is impossible to lose with certain rules. I don't think you know how the real world works.

The average human [...] same frequency of practice.

Ah good old pseudo-science. Did you know that you don't eat 7 spiders a year? In any case, can you link me the articles of these facts?

And I've yet to hear anything regarding experience, evidence (anecdotal or otherwise), or actual science to either prove you know how I think, that you do actually understand the science, or that you have anything more than opinion to offer...

Interesting. How would you call this:

Men have bigger muscles. This makes them stronger and movements of certain bodyparts faster. Men have a higher [...] or picked up and thrown around.

This is all from my first comment. So, what are these? What are you gonna call them this time? "Padding"? "Opinions"? "Driveling witter"? "Superstition"? Instead of calling it that, could you come up with a complete, scientific counter, or just some slight nuances loaded with subjectivity and bias? Are the things I've stated facts, or not? Are they significant, according to scientific research, not your personal opinion? And am I missing any significant facts, that might support your side? (read significant again before you say anything) The answers are respectively, yes, yes, and no. (you've mentioned some facts later on and I've taken them into account) But you can confirm this yourself, if you want, that's the beauty of REAL science.
The only conclusion can be: it is implausible for a woman of average or slim built to defeat one or more muscular men in a street fight, with a year of training.

Then I reject your criticism, firstly for mistaking actual knowledge for mere opinion

Well, you say that your opinions are facts, so it must be true right? That's how facts work, don't they?

thirdly because I [...] a detailed analysis.

If only there was a song about anecdotal evidence, I could just link you to it everytime you ignored the rule of argumentation and science that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ISN'T VALID.

If that is genuinely as far as you can throw a gold ball, you won't even lift the cannonball.

My back and legs may be strong, it's just my arms that can't throw the ball very far. So I can lift it, just not throw it.

If you're going to get pissy and pedantic about technicalities, you have to focus on the actual technicality to make it work!

Back at ya.

Average man built like Ali or Lee? Where the *beep* do YOU live, then?

I said "CLOSER to an average man" not the same or alike. Learn to read.

Optimum muscle? And what is that, given how widely different each person is?

Don't know exactly and don't need to. It's the amount and type of muscle that is at the perfect trade-off point of speed and power. Bruce Lee might be a good example, since he was known for that. Yes, it might be different for different people, it might be the same. Again, isn't relevant.

Can I make [...] a sci-fi author.

Don't get this statement. I only asked if you can directly confront my arguments with scientific findings, instead of just listing supposed authority figures or repeating your pseudo-science based on those false authority figures. Oh, I see you've ignored that completely.

I can, however, [...] politics or statutory rights.

I've had cancer. I've written a book about it. Now I'm an authority figure on cancer and it's biological mechanisms. I've been in a car accident and written a book about it. Now I'm an authority figure on car accidents and the physics associated with them. Though to be honest, I'll keep the diagnosing of cancer and the lessons in physics and car safety to the doctors and professors.

Get the point I'm trying to make? Or should I specify more? Listing those names doesn't automatically create 'science' and a strong footing for your arguments. That's not how it works. Sure, those people can say a thing or two about how you might experience a street fight, I'm not saying they are completely useless. But they are, for the most part, irrelevant in our discussion. If I listed some names of authors that think the opposite of your authors, does that make me more right? But only one of us can be right, no? So apparently, determining the truth (in other words, science), isn't done by listing ubsubstantiated authority figures (I already explained what makes them unsubstantiated).

reply share

add reply

formatting help

But in lieu of [..] warriors throughout history,

Maybe I should make my own song about anecdotal evidence. Maybe then, you will get it.
So I hope you understand why I'm not taking this point seriously, right? Another thing, I don't know what 'high volume' of female warriors you are talking about. I believe they were a very small percentage of the total number of combatants throughout the ages. The huge majority was male.

bearing in [...] and even laying siege.

Greater than the female average, sure. There were also some greater than the 'male' average, but that percentage is even smaller.

If men and [...] do so today?

I never said the differences couldn't be compensated, I said that it takes more than a year of training. Again, read my comments before stating some more anecdotal evidence. This is again, a strawman.

Adrenaline does the [...] how 'everything slowed down'.

Anecdotal, anecdotal, [drum solo], anecdotal evidence! In other, actual science related news, adrenaline doesn't do what you say. If anything, you get tunnel-vision, not more awareness. It's not like Sherlock Holmes (the robert downey jr. movie) where you have this time to consciously think about your moves. "I'll throw a handkerchief, block his blind attack, shatter his jaw" etc. Nope, none of that. But I'm sure you have some more authority figures that have been in fights and experienced something else. If you just make your comments anecdotal evidence all the way through, my replies will be much shorter.

Usually??!!
Have you met *any* women?
[...] why I use it so often myself.

Anecdotal!!! *epic guitar riff* I've explained with reasons why women and other people often don't do it. You can counter those if you want, explain why they don't apply, but you don't. You just say "Well, the women I've met do it, so you are wrong, that women/people in general don't". That's like me saying "Well, the black people I've met steal, so black people in general/the majority also steal!". That will be the last time I explain what anecdotal evidence is.

Precisely one count of that phrase over two pages...

Read it. With your eyes and brain this time.

Given my slight build and minimal training at the times when I managed it - Yes.
Given the similar experiences of many others similarly disadvantaged, both men and women - Yes.

A to the N to the E to the C... Ah well, you get it. Jut to clarify, anecdotal evidence is not valid, not even a little, as you seem to think.

I'm getting absolutely nothing from you to even suggest that this is neither plausible (because it has clearly happened)

You seem to confuse 'plausible' with 'possible'.

nor uncommon (because it has happened relatively often).

Oh, so you based this on a study that used a big sample size and objective measures and... Just kidding, I know it's based on your personal experiences, which aren't valid. I can't wait for your next batch of anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated authority figures! I really wonder what your learning curve is. Maybe too many hits to the head.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Quotes omitted to reduce post length.

This sounds nice, but simply isn't true. I gave examples why, but you don't respond to those.

Anything in particular you want addressed?

You are not talking science, you are simply stating your opinion as fact. Nowhere do you explain the dynamics, biology, geometry or physics behind your blanket statements.

I did not claim it was proof or even suggest it. You threw the question out there with the leading assertion that the answer proves nothing, aside from the fact that you wanted proof. You created that strawman to begin with.

Yes, we are talking about street fights. And while an individual's self-reports may be considered unreliable, numerous individuals' are perfectly valid when viewed in comparison.

Scientific method, adhering to certain rules... Strangely, my lack of adherrence to those rules are what enables me to see why I lost those fights and to subsequently learn from them. It is because those rules exist and I understand them, that I can look back in hindsight and see exactly where, when and why I went wrong.

Don't really get what you're trying to say with your next bit... I am biassed because I've seen women fight in and out of the ring, but you aren't biassed because you haven't seen any? What kind of reasoning is that?
Relevant factors? You don't even know what is relevant, since you endorse things like luck and chance. Because you do not understand what is and is not an actual factor in a fight, you fail to see beyond your flawed reasoning and assertions of bias and untruth when confronted with what does actually happen.
That is not valid reasoning on your part.

So either read my arguments better, or stop being intellectually dishonest.

You *really* cannot cope with analogies, can you?
Fine - ALL it takes is for one woman to beat one man once for such a thing to be plausible. It is guaranteed 100% plausible because it actually HAS happened and can therefore happen again. FACT.
It may be highly unlikely to happen again, extremely unlikely to happen frequently, but it still remains perfectly plausible.

Your response here says exactly the same as my statement in my 'driveling witter'.

You mean I agree?
Wow... no wonder I used the word 'yes', then... Fancy that, eh!

And no, luck has no place in a fight because you can control all these things. Whether you do or not depends as much on the individual's understanding of what is happening and their experience of working around the limitations they bring with them. An experienced fighter will be less petrified, panicking and hesitant than someone who's never had a fight, with varying degrees between those levels.
Luck is merely not understanding why you did not apply yourself correctly to a situation and seeking to blame something other than your own behaviour.
THAT is intellectually dishonest, because you are lying to yourself.

Not to mention that there are a lot more uncontrollable factors that have nothing to do with your opponent hitting you.

Any you want to raise as particularly significant?

I didn't say I trust hope and luck, you pretend that I do, that's the strawman.

So when you said, "hope that the same thing doesn't happen again" and then "That's what I call 'luck' or 'coincidence'. And it's definitely a factor in a fight", you weren't actually bringing those in at all, but merely mentioning them as governing factors because you... what... thought it sounded good?

However, in this latest reply, you shift the argument to "okay, but science is better!" (not explicitly, of course).

Nope. That's just how you are reading it... which kinda sums up a lot of your responses - Your opinion, rather than any actual reasoning.

I only had to proof that coincidence played a part in a fight, not that it's more significant a factor than your misunderstood version of science.

It's not only insignificant, it's non-existent. My argument is that you only believe in co-incidence, luck and all that because you do not understand the actual reasons for the situations playing out as they do.

George Silver is the perfect fighter and has a simple way to never lose a battle! Based on what proof?

The author's works originate from first hand experience and his teachings have been cited as authoritative for over a hundred years by numerous different sources, from fellow practitioners (contemporary and modern) to historians (contemporary and modern) and even to the military, yet you claim he is unsubstantiated?

You asked for proof - Hundreds of years of people physically trying to disprove what he wrote and failing, for one. People did actually follow this to see if it worked and what he explained has been confirmed many times, which is why so many subsequent fight authors also advocate his methods in their own writings even centuries after his death.

'haven't lost all that much with his method'?

Dunno where you're reading that part...

How many battles? Were they controlled for confounding factors?

So many that any possible 'confounding factors' would have no impact on either the overall or the detailed statistic.

Were they street fights?

Street, duel, battlefield, ring, prize, court, school. Pretty much any where the outcome is defined by the loser receiving a disabling injury or is killed.

I'm gonna assume there hasn't been a study of George Silver's method, and it's more of a "I feel he's right" than "I know he's right" kind of situation.

Assume away...

Stephen Hand
Paul Wagner
Terry Brown
Greg Mele
Milo Thurston
Martin Austwick
Rob Lovett

These are just some of those who have conducted such studies and whose works are published and available to this day. All are experienced martial artists and instructors with backgrounds in various different arts and a couple are still running further ongoing studies.
Furthermore, there have been many other studies by other unrelated martial arts, which also concur that Silver's methods work because, despite never having previously had anything to do with each other, their arts do the exact same things as his methods explains.

Coincidence, in this context - Happening seemingly by chance.
So you're again going on about chance, luck, fortune, superstition.
You're gambling on fluke to keep you safe and ignoring the far more sound science that actually does govern what happens.

So you probably misunderstood what I said in the original comment. There is no shame in admitting that.

There was no misunderstanding.
Just a lack of actually spelling it out for you, because I assumed you would have the sense to see the pretty obvious reasoning behind the pretty simple statement.

We are talking about whether the stereotyp/cliché that the woman of average/slim built in movies can easily defeat one or more muscular men, because she has had some technical training is plausible.

If she's had training that will include physical conditioning, so immediately she is above average to start with.
How many different ways do you need to hear the same thing??!!

I argued that having 'advantages' open, in other words, having possibilities is not an advantage if you aren't making use of them.

So you have an advantage, but don't use it so it's not an advantage...?
Are you tired, drunk, high or stoned?
You can *have* the advantage without using it and still have that advantage. It is an opportunity, whether you use it or not.
Having the opportunity and actually taking it are different and will affect the outcome, but so long as circumstances do not subsequently close off the opportunity, you will still have it.

Again with the averages - Those with training, as typically featured in these films and the actual point of focus in this thread, are able to do what they do precisely because they are NOT average. Therefore I again ask what relevance your average arguments have when they have nothing to do with it?

I already explained that there is more to the fight than just pulling off the precision strike (getting over fear, adrenaline messing up your techniques, unless you've trained them a lot).

And yet the point here was *specifically* about the required precision of hits.

Some martial arts are crap, for street fights at least.

So don't study those.
Many of us swap around until we find either an art or the style of instruction that suits us best.

[snip]Sorry to break the news that reality is chaotic and immensely complicated and you can't account for everything.

This is why I suggested you read George Silver and understand in particular his chapters on Judgement and Measure, because the full explanation (which is likely the only thing that will satisfy this point for you) is chapters long and there's no reason to post it here when the full texts are already available online for you.
But in summary, that is all accounted for by Judgement and Measure, which allow you to govern the fight rather than be governed into some kind of 'bad luck' or 'chance'.
Remember that these methods were developed from the experiences of and used by people in heavy armour and visually restrictive helmets on rainy, muddy, slippery battlefields during all manner of life-or-death combats. The fact that they consistently survived unharmed and advocate methods with which their peers concur clearly substantiates the effectiveness of these methods.

First of all, I suggest you google what the definition of principle is.

"Principle - A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning".
That which you stated is subject to change (depending on many variables like technique, situation and activity), so not exactly a fighting principle.

Secondly, that is one of the 5 universal principles of Wing Chun

That is grossly extrapolated in the first instance and slightly inaccurate on the second. Having studied Wing Chun for a time, these are the Five Principles as laid out in our texts:

1/. Keep calm and relaxed
2/. Do not communicate your intent
3/. Be efficient in your movement
4/. Occupy the center
5/. Remove the obstruction

And no, doing it that way takes a lot longer than a few months, especially to just understand... but part of that is why I questioned their principles in the first place and had long debates with my instructors - Many of the methods taught for 5 actually conflict with 2 and often disobey 4 as well. I found myself exploiting this against my opponents who tried to follow the principles exactly and winning where I should not.
I never did get a satisfactory resolution from the instructors over that conflict and so I later moved on to different arts.

"When he does this" only works on "this". It applies only on that situation.

You missed the point and are arguing the wrong technicality.
I said WHEN as opposed to IF.
When, because you are controlling the fight and so whatever 'this' might be, it will always be 'this' because you are making him do it... and you're making him do it because it will open the target up and allow you to get the critical hit in, so winning the fight.

A universal principle would be more like: "Doesn't matter what he does, always aim for the centre" paraphrased from a Wing Chun principle.

Which is basically the same as what I am maintaining, but coming at it in the reverse order - "Always do that, because it will always mean he has no choice but to do 'this' and will result in the critical hit that wins you the fight".

You assumed that you knew that level of detail. You assumed the fighter would follow you, AFTER you gave a jab. What if he came before?

Firstly, I assume no such thing.
YOU assumed several things, the most flawed of which is that this one technique is a nutshell catch-all, rather than a single example of a single technique that demonstrates exactly how the science behind the whole principle governing it actually works.
Secondly, I don't have to assume he will follow me - He already has started the first step in order to close to range. At that point my first step away will be faster (another technique which I'll no doubt have to explain, but basically involves me working with gravity while he has to work against it) and I will then be in position and throwing a strike before his own is on the way and often even before his foot has touched the ground.
When the strike lands, his brain will be rocked (if only momentarily) and he will be disordered, which opens his targets up for the critical hit(s) that are habitually right behind the opening strike.

The strategy you devised wasn't universal, it required the other guy to do the exact thing you wanted him to do.

The strategy controls the situation and forces the other guy to do exactly what I want. His only other option is to leave off and not attack me, which works just fine but then the fight is no longer a fight if only one party is in it.

So in less than a couple of milliseconds, you CHOOSE what to do? Now that is a scientific impossibility, if there ever was one. You can't consciously choose a move or strategy in that time. In the ring maybe, but not in a streetfight. Like I said, it's all motor memory and reflexes, things you have trained an insane amount of time.

And yet even average people do it all the time when driving - Car in front brakes suddenly, you choose to go left around it, go right around it, brake heavily, handbrake, dump it, slide it, go off-road...
If you do not think you have a choice in your moves, you are not controlling the fight.

should be able to defeat 50 men at once, according to your hypothesis.

Interesting to know the scientific method by which you decided 50 was a set number, then, as I certainly never mentioned it...

Do you have a study that has done this? No? Then you don't have evidence.

Do you have a similar study that proves having your head cut right off results in death? No? Then how come everyone who has ever been fully decapitated has died? Is that just circumstance? Fate? Chance? Luck? Anecdotal happenstance?

In any case, can you send me the data of all these hundreds of thousands of practitioners that followed these principles? And they all followed the exact same rules right?

You already have some of the main historical sources and the names of some notable modern exponents. Most of those works are just a Google away and, since you keep suggesting I go Googling words you don't understand yourself, you can do your own searching on this one.

Also, while we're at it - You can send me the same degree and level of study data that you think substantiates your thus-far mere generalised opinion and let's have a look at that.

Ah good old pseudo-science.

The professional practitioners of neurology, cognitive science, behavioural science, and the like might take issue with your opinion, there...

In any case, can you link me the articles of these facts?

My own sources are on the third shelf up, in the spare bedroom. Feel free to go take a look.
Failing that, if you want online sources, start with the Journal Of Neuroscience website. Plenty of studies there on short and long-term motor-memory learning, particularly on numbers of repetitions, separation time between practice sessions, numbers of practice sessions, different types of motor activity, degredations, cross-study and inter-study comparisons, correlations and so on.
Another good resource is university pages dealing with Sports Psychology. This features a lot of the same sciences, albeit on a more simplified level but with the same degree of study and emphasis, especially in bodybuilding and boxing.

Interesting. How would you call this:

I call it a random statement with no supporting documentation, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and commonplaces.
Yes, I could get all sciencey behind it and offer a structured, subjective debate using flawless logical reasoning to disprove every inch of it... but since you're so big on scientific study and running investigations to examine what has already been proven to the point where it is regarded as universal truth, it will take a LOT of time, effort and funding just to post a massive document here.
I'm willing to do that if you, the one asking for it, will fund it.

Until then, you're stuck with a whole bunch of sources that you can read yourself rather than expecting me to type up and post them all, in counter to your own statements that have none of what you're wanting from me behind them.

The only conclusion can be: it is implausible for a woman of average or slim built to defeat one or more muscular men in a street fight, with a year of training.

And yet again, not only is this not about averages, but even then since that has actually happened it once again is perfectly plausible.

Well, you say that your opinions are facts

Nope. I do actually differentiate between my own opinions and the facts. Quite clearly, in fact.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ISN'T VALID.

Then everything humanity has learned through evolution and experience and holds true to this day is invalid is it?
No caveman ever did a scientific study on how to make fire, did they? They just *beep* around until they could consistently reproduce the exact same result.
Pretty much how kids learn a lot of their starting skills and how most of humanity figured out most of what we hold true to this day during the thousands of years before we even had structured scientific study formats...
But I suppose all that is anecdotal too, yeh?

So I can lift it, just not throw it.

So the original assertion that you cannot throw it as far as you can a golf ball still holds true, then... Nice.

I said "CLOSER to an average man" not the same or alike. Learn to read.

I didn't say 'the same' or 'alike' either. Learn to read properly.

Don't know exactly and don't need to. [snip] Again, isn't relevant.

No, no... you brought it up, so it must be relevant and we ought to examine this.
Please provide links to several scientific studies conducted by recognised authoritative professional and academic bodies in which the algorithm for ascertaining an individual's optimum muscle mass is conclusively investigated, interrogated, explored, collated, cross-referenced and defined...

Don't get this statement.

Oh well...

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Oh, I see you've ignored that completely.

Because that's not what you asked, because those are some of the recognised authorities on which so much of modern pratice is derived, because you clearly have no interest in examining the sources for yourself (which I freely advocate rather than just failing to understand my simplified synopsis (because I will NOT type up entire books for you) of them), because your arguments are not based on anything even close to what you're demanding of me and because I do not believe you even want to engage in anything more than your opinionated statements.

I've had cancer [snip] Get the point I'm trying to make?

Yes I do. Do you get why it is flawed?
These authors are not people who have merely had a couple of fights. They are people who lived by the methods they are describing, who fought for a living and who taught many hundreds of others as they trained to do the same. These are professional soldiers and duellists.
These are not one-time cancer patients as you suggest in your own analogy, but the equivalent of the senior consultant/Attending oncologists who are dealing with the matter.

If I listed some names of authors that think the opposite of your authors, does that make me more right?

Let's have a look at them and see what they say, shall we?

I already explained what makes them unsubstantiated

You described why you think people you know nothing about are not authorities, which is flawed opinion and unsubstantiated in itself.

Maybe I should make my own song about anecdotal evidence. Maybe then, you will get it.

Oh, I get it.
Anything that clearly can happen because it has already happened is dismissed by you as anecdotal evidence, no? Dismissed before being rejected in favour of unfounded opinion unsupported by anything beyond your own blind insistence...
Sing away.

So I hope you understand why I'm not taking this point seriously, right?

Because you have no serious explanation beyond the blatantly obvious one to which you don't want to admit?

I don't know what 'high volume' of female warriors you are talking about.

From entire cultures of warrior women such as the Kunoichi, Amazons, Onna-bugeisha, the Soldaderas and Shield Maidens, through armies and nations that feature them significantly; Egyptians, Sikhs, some Native American tribes, some Muslim nations, Russians and Israelis, to a massive long list of notable individuals from as early as 1700BC to present day.

Greater than the female average, sure. There were also some greater than the 'male' average, but that percentage is even smaller.

But the point remains that it was significant and perfectly plausible back then, so no reason it is not plausible today... especially as it still is happening today.

I never said the differences couldn't be compensated, I said that it takes more than a year of training.

Many of those women will have had far less than a year of dedicated training, because their lifestyles did not allow for it, yet they still managed for the most part as evidenced by the accounts (first and third person) of their achievements.

In other, actual science related news, adrenaline doesn't do what you say.

Proof?

If anything, you get tunnel-vision, not more awareness.

Proof?

I've explained with reasons why women and other people often don't do it.

No, you have explained why YOU like to *think* they don't, which isn't even anecdotal. Just more blind statements.
Where is your proof, your studies, your statistics, your references, your sources, or indeed anything to back it up beyond your blanket 'because I said so' assertion?

Read it. With your eyes and brain this time.

I followed your exact instructions and that is what resulted.

A to the N to the E to the C... Ah well, you get it. Jut to clarify, anecdotal evidence is not valid, not even a little, as you seem to think.

It's far more valid and substantiated than anything you've posted up here and far more than your arguments are worth.

You seem to confuse 'plausible' with 'possible'.

credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, [b]possible[/quote], conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable... Pretty clear on that count.

You got anything actually worth reading or is this next response going to be just more of your 'say-so'?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I'm going to quit after this, because I have said pretty much all I can say and you won't change your mind and it takes half a day to answer these things: I have stated the facts and their significance and I have rejected almost every argument you made, on the basis of rules of argumentation (which is why anecdotal evidence isn't valid in the search for objective truths, no matter how hard you struggle to convince me it does), or simply facts (adrenaline doesn't make you calm and controlled, read a biology book. Don't worry, I'll send you the link to the research that found this, but you probably can't access the article anyway).

Nowhere do you explain the dynamics, biology, geometry or physics behind your blanket statements.

All my statements are either counters on the basis of reason of your opinionated, biased, unfounded statements, or they are the providers of facts. Like the fact that men are stronger, taller etc. I don't need to explain the geometric and biological reasons WHY men are taller. I just have to state that they are proven to be taller. And that being taller is a huge advantage in a fight, unless a highly trained individual knows how to deal with it.

ALL it takes is for one woman to beat one man once for such a thing to be plausible. It is guaranteed 100% plausible because it actually HAS happened and can therefore happen again. FACT.

You are again confusing possible and plausible. Plausible is about statistical chance. If a small woman and a big, strong men are going to fight, it's possible the woman will beat the man. It's just not plausible. It's possible for you to win the lottery, which is, let's say, 1 in 300 billion chance. It's just not plausible. Plausible is 'seeming reasonable, or probable'.

I am biassed because I've seen women fight in and out of the ring, but you aren't biassed because you haven't seen any?

Yes, though I have seen women fight. I am not biased by personal, uncontrolled observation, but base my stance on facts, probability and reason. You base it on authority figures and anecdotal evidence. (please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence The point is, your observations are non-representative). Let me explain why authority figures and their assertions, aren't valid to use as evidence or argument, in this case. According to the lists of authors you provided me, there are about 20 people you have shown me that were never defeated in their lives when using certain universal combat rules.
The reason you can't use this as evidence is as follows: How many battles were they in, since they started using those rules? Probably not enough to have enough statistical power (because it might have been chance that they won). Even so, which is highly unlikely (or implausible, if you will), those 20 people are in itself also not enough to get enough statistical power to confirm your hypothesis, that nobody (that means none of the 7 billion people on earth) can be defeated if they used those techniques. Not to mention all the possible confounding variables: they might have been left-handed, which might have given them the benefit of surprise/can make it harder for the opponent to handle them, some or all of them might have been tall and/or strong compared to those they fought etc. And I know you said that 'hundreds of thousands' used those rules and haven't lost once, but you haven't provided any form of proof for them.

So that's why naming the names of 20 some or even a thousand people that didn't die in combat, supposedly because they used a set of rules, doesn't count as evidence. Well, in your mind, maybe, but not in the real world.

Any you want to raise as particularly significant?

Like I said, stumbling. That little thing could cost you the battle and possibly your life. Or can you also control the ground? Sure, you could train to be aware of your footing, but like I said, something might be placed there later, like a fallen bar stool. And a fight may start out of nowhere. So unless you are aware of everything around you at all times, you might lose a battle, no matter how good you are (I'm talking about an infinite number of battles. Just because George Silver didn't lose once, doesn't prove that his method makes it impossible to lose ever).

My argument is that you only believe in co-incidence, luck and all that because you do not understand the actual reasons for the situations playing out as they do.

And I explained that you can't win every fight, because you can't be aware of all things, no matter how good you are trained. You can increase the number of fights you win, or the chance of winning them, but there is no set of rules, or a method that can 'make it scientifically impossible to lose'.

So many that any possible 'confounding factors' would have no impact on either the overall or the detailed statistic.

That's not how confounding factors work, they don't 'filter out' as long as you have a large enough sample size. Odd, you keep claiming you put all your trust in science, but you don't even know how it works. One would almost be inclined to think you have no idea what you are talking about... Crazy thought, eh?

If she's had training that will include physical conditioning, so immediately she is above average to start with.
How many different ways do you need to hear the same thing??!!

Except in movies, the woman almost never has had any physical conditioning. She doesn't have Ronda Rousey's physique, or anything close. Usually, the opposite, she is even slimmer than the average woman. She fights purely on technique. That's what we are talking about, get with it.

Having the opportunity and actually taking it are different and will affect the outcome, but so long as circumstances do not subsequently close off the opportunity, you will still have it.

Having the possibility to kick a guy in the nuts, but not doing it out of fear (for example) means you don't have the advantage in the fight. The guy has the advantage of having more muslce=being stronger, because he doesn't hold back. If he held his strenght back, or couldn't use all his strength for some reason, his superior muscle mass/density wouldn't be an advantage either. Using a gun in a street fight gives you a huge advantage. Having a gun in a fight but being unable to use it for whatever reason, doesn't give you any advantage whatsoever, besides perhaps intimidation, in this specific example.

That is grossly extrapolated in the first instance and slightly inaccurate on the second. Having studied Wing Chun for a time, these are the Five Principles as laid out in our texts:

1/. Keep calm and relaxed
2/. Do not communicate your intent
3/. Be efficient in your movement
4/. Occupy the center
5/. Remove the obstruction

I see those are horribly bastardized. These are the ones in original chinese (yes, I know chinese is a collection of dialects/languages):
Nr.1 : Loi lau heui sung
Nr.2 : Teut sau tjik chung
Nr.3 : Dim dim chiu ng
Nr.4 : Bou bou cheui ying
Nr.5 : Cham tsiang sau chong

Loosely translated, that is:
1: Stop what comes, follow what goes
2: By loss or lack of contact, go forward (which means attack)
3: All attacks to the center (probably your nr 4)
4: All attacks are direct (probably your nr 3)
5: Elbows low, cut through center

Talk about a McDojo... Anyway, my point stands. My statement was definitely a principle.

When, because you are controlling the fight

First of all, you can only control a fight to a certain extent, especially if we're talking about a woman with an average physique and only a bit of technical training, which you seem to keep forgetting. There is always chance/coincidence, as I've explained, factors you can't keep track of completely and can't eliminate completely as well.
And by saying 'when', you confirm what I said: that you think you KNOW that somebody is going to, for example, throw a hook in a certain situation you forced him/her into. There are many martial arts, not to mention individual differences. He/she might do something else, even though you are very convinced a person only has one option in a certain situation. It may be so that a person OFTEN throws a hook in that specific situation, but not always. And when he doesn't, that is when you might get hit. In other words, this confirms again that you can't control or eliminate every factor, only minimize their respective roles.

Firstly, I assume no such thing.

Except you literally said, and repeated in the rest of your answer (example: "The strategy controls the situation and forces the other guy to do exactly what I want."), that you KNOW (which really should be 'assume') that he will step towards you, when you do a certain technique/move. And like I said, with all the different martial arts and individual differences, I doubt you can actually know it. You base it on probability, which isn't a bad thing to do, but it won't guarantee "a scientifically impossible way to lose".

Car in front brakes suddenly, you choose to go left around it, go right around it, brake heavily, handbrake, dump it, slide it, go off-road...

All examples of reflexive behaviour, and/or motor memory. The person in the car doesn't have a moment where he goes: "I could choose to go off the road, but that would have several negative consequences. I could crash, but that would have these and these and these consequences. The optimal choice must be driving off the road." No, he just tries to avoid the car, there is no logical reasoning and applying of a complicated strategy, just like there isn't in most life-or-death fights. He can't make a complete logical deduction of the situation. True, it's still a form of cognition, but it's not what you are talking about.

"Always do that, because it will always mean he has no choice but to do 'this' and will result in the critical hit that wins you the fight".

Except that's not what I'm saying. My principle is not depended on the opponent, because you can almost never know for certain that an opponent is going to do what you want him to do. I always go for his center. I don't care what he does afterwards. He might throw a hook. He might try a low kick. If I'm trained enough, my techniques will make sure I stop or avoid those attacks, most of the time (chance, remember? I might just stumble in that moment, by something on the ground). But he is a human being. He will always have a choice. It is never 100% predictable, as you are saying. (though I'm sure you can twist that in the next comment: "I never said that, I was only..." I'll never read it though.)

Interesting to know the scientific method by which you decided 50 was a set number, then, as I certainly never mentioned it...

It is an arbitrary number. It doesn't matter how large or small the number is, according to you, since George Silver's rules are universal and will make sure you never lose, as long as you apply them correctly. Nobody will ever get a 'lucky' hit in, because human attention is infallible and limb movement will never be too slow to block an attack or avoid it. Those last two things are not true. And that is why a 'lucky' hit is possible. Perfection exists only in theory, because theory is always, to a greater or lesser extent, a simplification of reality. Disagree with that all you like. Maybe one day, you'll learn all about science and understand.

Do you have a similar study that proves having your head cut right off results in death? No? Then how come everyone who has ever been fully decapitated has died?

Ah, a false equivalence. Though technically, you are right. One day, we might learn of a person that survives a complete decapitation. But based on human anantomy, that is incredibly implausible. You see, you assert that perfection is a possibility. You assert that humans are capable of omniscience in a life-or-death fight: full awareness. You assert that in an infinte number of life-or-death fights, with infinitely different circumstances (because the rules are universal), a person that adheres to certain universal rules, will never die or lose. Than what will happen if three people that adhere to these rules fight two-to-one? Condition and strenght aren't an issue, because the rules are perfect, so you said. You see, it's a paradox. Nobody can win, because you said it's scientifically impossible to lose, but we know that 2 is better than 1. (after years of fighting eachother). So there must be other factors at play. I believe those factors might be number of opponents, coincidence, or strength, or motivation etc. You don't believe those play a role, as long as the fighter follows those rules perfectly. That is a true contradiction, a scientific impossibility if you will.
So you are comparing a scientific impossible thing, with a scientifically possible, even plausible thing, based on the number of times of all beheadings that the person has died (100%).
Now you'll say: "See, every fighter that has adhered to the rules also won, so it's the same as the beheadings! (100%)" Except that the beheadings are a simple situation, with no possible confounding factors (metal poisoning? Takes to long. A splinter of wood from the woodblock? Not all beheadings were on woodblocks.) That's the thing: beheadings have been done in millions of situations, by millions of means and the only thing that was the same, was the complete severing of the head, from the upper body. In the case of your perfect rules, there are about 20 guys you have shown that have not been defeated and claim it was because of their rules.
TL;DR:
1: The sample size difference is huge.
2: Many different factors were 'tested' with beheadings, many are untested with the 'undefeatable rules' (women reacted the same to beheading, big or small, midgets, men, strong, weak, fat, slim in a lot of different situations).
3: There is a lot of objective, valid research on human anatomy that explains why beheadings work: blood loss to the brain, or shock kills the brain and therefore the person. They actually don't know for sure which in any specific case.
There is not a lot of objective, valid research on simple rules that can be applied in combat and that are undefeatable. None of the people you named, if they asserted what you said they did, were actual scientists, in the sense that they didn't follow the scientific method. If an actual scientist actually came up with a simple 'scientifically impossible way to lose', it would be everywhere and everyone would be using it, unless it was patented or secret, but it's clear that George Silver's method and the method of the other fellows you named are not. Because it hasn't been SCIENTIFICALLY proven beyond doubt that it's possible. And logically speaking, based on human abilities, anatomy and unpredictable reality and circumstances (like I've explained several times now), it is impossible to have a method or set of rules that make you undefeatable in every situation, against every opponent. It breaks all rules of rationality to think that such a thing is possible.

You can send me the same degree and level of study data that you think substantiates your thus-far mere generalised opinion

Opinion on what? You gotta be specific if you want references. Like I explained, my opinion is part fact, part logical reason, at least in my opinion. It is possible to disagree with the latter and then you can explain why my reasoning is flawed. So far, you haven't been succesful. And you can ask for references for my facts (upon which I base my reasoning). Just be specific.

The professional practitioners of neurology, cognitive science, behavioural science, and the like might take issue with your opinion, there...

I am one of those and no, I don't take issue with my opinion, which is based on the research out of all these fields.

start with the Journal Of Neuroscience website.

That's a pretty big website. And I don't have to do your searching for you. You have to substantiate your claims if I ask for it, that's how argumentation works. So if you could refer me to the exact studies, from high-level journals that conclude exactly what you claim, that'd be great. If not, I'm going to have to assume that your statement is baseless.

I call it a random statement with no supporting documentation, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and commonplaces.

So, men having bigger muscles is unsubstantiated? Men being taller on average (and definitely in the movies where the kick-ass female kicks their asses) is based on no supporting documentation? There is intelectual dishonesty and then there's this...
For proof:(Laubach, 1976; Levine et al., 1984; Heyward et al., 1986)

And yet again, not only is this not about averages, but even then since that has actually happened it once again is perfectly plausible.

You don't understand what 'average' means. Can't say I'm surprised. When I say "a woman of average physique" I'm referring to the physique of a normal woman, which is also the 'kick-ass woman' stereotype: she is usually slim and small. And we are talking about that. I could also use the term 'normal' physique, if that makes it easier for you to understand such complicated jargon.
Also, plausible=/=possible.

Nope. I do actually differentiate between my own opinions and the facts.

Except your idea of a 'fact' is based on what 20 men have 'proven' based on their first-hand experiences, in other words, anecdotal evidence: "I haven't lost once using these rules, therefore, these rules make it impossible to be defeated in any situation, against anyone and anything." In other news, I and about 100 other people have coated ourselves in the smells of a lion and weren't attacked by a lion when we stepped in a lion cage, this proves that a lion will NEVER attack anyone that smell like a lion. God, I hope you see how those conclusions aren't valid, I'm tired of explaining things at a 2nd grade level. Hint: the conclusion is too strong to make (saying 'always' or 'never' almost always is, in science), based on such a relatively small sample size and uncontrolled study.

Then everything humanity has learned through evolution and experience and holds true to this day is invalid is it?

That's not what I said. Well, in that specific instance it was, but that is called 'taking it out of context'. What I had often said before that and of course meant to say with this was that anecdotal evidence is invalid to use as evidence to determine objective truths about reality. That doesn't mean that anecdotal evidence doesn't often fall in line with scientific research: before it was proven that men had innately more musclemass than women and were generally taller, people had already realised that a man could easily defeat a woman. Though sometimes he didn't. Anecdotal evidence might lead to the truth: you might have observed many men beating many women and concluded that men are innately, physically stronger than women. It might also lead to a false conclusion: because of chance and uncontrolled factors, you might observe an woman beating a man. It's possible, but the chances are much lower. If you often saw a woman beating a man, you would come to the conclusion that women in general must be innately physcially stronger than men in general. Which we now know, through modern science, is a false assertion.
That's my point, anecdotal evidence is unreliable. That doesn't automatically make it false (and therefore I didn't say that).

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I said "CLOSER to an average man" not the same or alike. Learn to read.

I didn't say 'the same' or 'alike' either.

Maybe you should read your reply again: "Average man built LIKE Ali or Lee? Where the *beep* do YOU live, then?" Or are you really gonna nitpick this on the letter A being missing, from 'alike'? You obviously misread my comment to read something akin to "alike" or "like". You did say it. Just apologise for your mistake, no biggy.

No, no... you brought it up, so it must be relevant and we ought to examine this.
Please provide links [...] cross-referenced and defined...

Again, you misunderstand. I meant (and said) that the specific details about the optimal muscle mass for speed and power is irrelevant. If I told you it should weigh 5 kg, do we further the discussion with that in any way? No. It's only about the fact that there IS an optimal muscle mass/density for speed and power and that it probably looks like what someone like Bruce Lee or Muhammed Ali would have, since they are known for their fast but powerful punches. It definitely is not akin to an average female muscle. Sorry, 'normal' female muscle. Almost confused you there.

These are not one-time cancer patients as you suggest in your own analogy, but the equivalent of the senior consultant/Attending oncologists who are dealing with the matter.

True, if the oncologists were self-taught from relatively little experience: "Well, I've had 200 patients and I used radiation therapy on their stomachs and heads. For all of them, the cancer was cured. This means that radiation therapy to the stomach and head will cure cancer for every person, in every case, every time. It is scientifically impossible for a person to die from cancer if they've had radiation therapy on their stomach and head." Like the conclusions George Silver and friends make, this conclusion is unreliable.
He makes too strong a assertion for the found 'evidence'.
-By chance, they could have all had stomach or brain cancer, what caused it to work. It probably wouldn't work for people with lung or any other type of cancer.
-There could have been too small of a sample size: with 10.000 people, some may have still had cancer or died, which the oncologist claims is 'scientifically impossible'. Unfortunately, the evidence is not good enough, objective and controlled enough, to back up that it's 'scientifically impossible'. Because he doesn't base it on science, he bases it on anecdotal evidence. Just because he thinks it's super-scientific and true, doesn't make it so.
-There could be confounding variables, like the placebo effect: thinking of being cured made them cured etc.
Yes, I know that last one is unlikely to happen so often in the case of cancer but it could have been a combination of all the factors and variables that weren't controlled for. I'm gonna ask you to please try to refrain from nitpicking on the details of this particular analogy. Yes, with 200 cancer patients it's unlikely none will die, but I'm trying to explain the factors that could have influenced the oncologists 'study' and the 'study' of your beloved George Silver and friends.

I said:

If I listed some names of authors that think the opposite of your authors, does that make me more right?

You said:

Let's have a look at them and see what they say, shall we?

It's a thought experiment, I don't really need actual authors to prove you wrong, I've got facts and reason for that. We can just do a thought experiment.

Let's say my sources are Timmy, Manchester, Carl, Hank etc. They all say that they won fights by using only one leg. That way, they claim, they learn to keep their balance better and gives their opponent a smaller target, which gives them a huge advantage in a fight. And they've never lost. They are soldiers and duelists, they must know what they're talking about. I know it sounds unbelievable, but hey, they know their science. You must simply not understand it, if you don't believe it. Yup, it's all based on science. What articles you ask? First of all, their books ARE science. Secondly, I'll just refer you to the Journal of Sport Physiology. It's all there. Just look it up. Oh and your articles about two legs actually giving better support and allowing for more and faster body movement in combat are padding and witless drivel. And your reasoning that 2 legs might free one leg up for kicking is silly: balancing on one leg is where it's at, just ask the experienced duelists and soldiers, Hank, Carl and the rest! All the scientists disagree with your opinion.

See my point? I'm sure you'll disagree that this doesn't represent your way of argumentation, but hey, cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

You described why you think people you know nothing about are not authorities, which is flawed opinion and unsubstantiated in itself.

Unless they have used the scientific method to determine what you claim they have, they are not valid authority figures on this matter. I don't need to substantiate my previous sentence with a reference to an author or article: it is logic. Scientific reasoning. It isn't 'based' on a finding somewhere, it is valid in and of itself. Unless you can explain to me why scientific research following the scientific method isn't needed to determine the truth in this case, my statement holds true.
As a matter of fact, authority figures are almost never valid: only the facts matter.

Oh, I get it.
Anything that clearly can happen because it has already happened is dismissed by you as anecdotal evidence, no?

Strawman! There's a place you can go, I said strawman! When you're short on your dough, you can stay there! And I'm sure you will find
Many. ways. to. have. a. good. time. It's fun to stay at the, Y.M.C.A.!
Not my own song, but it works.
You are saying that I'm dismissing things that can happen by calling them anecdotal evidence. I never did, of course. I never denied that women can beat men. I am simply talking about the plausibility of it. And the plausibility of something doesn't increase if you tell anecdotal stories about it. If I won the lottery 3 times, does that mean it's likely for me or anyone else to win the lottery? If I have 2 royal straight flushes in a row or in a game, but can't get a single flush, does that mean the chance to get a royal straight flush is higher than the chance to get a flush? No. These are anecdotal stories. They are not representative of the real chances. The real plausibility of an event. So they are invalid to use in an objective determination of the truth.

From entire cultures of warrior women such as the Kunoichi, Amazons, Onna-bugeisha, the Soldaderas and Shield Maidens, through armies and nations that feature them significantly; Egyptians, Sikhs, some Native American tribes, some Muslim nations, Russians and Israelis, to a massive long list of notable individuals from as early as 1700BC to present day.

Yup, and all in all, they are a very small percentage of the total number of combatants. So no, there is not a high volume of female warriors when we're talking about the total number of combatants that have ever existed. Which we are. Not to mention that simply because they were combatants, doesn't mean they were good or better than men (though I'm sure some were).

But the point remains that it was significant and perfectly plausible back then, so no reason it is not plausible today... especially as it still is happening today.

All you have done is 'proven' (I haven't seen a source from you, but I'll believe it) that it is not unlikely that women can be combatants. Not only did this argument fail to prove that women nowadays or in th past are/were likely to beat muscular men with a relatively short period of training (which were often also combatants), this also doesn't prove that women are often combatants. They aren't. They made up and still make up a small percentage of total combatants. But sure, I'd say that it is plausible that a woman choses to become a combatant in this day and age. Though if we are talking statistics, I would still call it unlikely, considering the small percentage. And you still haven't proven that it is plausible that women with a 'normal' physique can beat larger, more muscular men with little training.
In the end, how you decide what is 'plausible' or not comes down to individual differences. I find winning the lottery implausible, someone else doesn't. I find other life in the universe implausible, someone else doesn't.

Many of those women will have had far less than a year of dedicated training, because their lifestyles did not allow for it, yet they still managed for the most part as evidenced by the accounts (first and third person) of their achievements.

Anecdotal. Unless you have some objective study comparing the number of achievements between female fighters and male fighters. Male fighters have had significant more achievements (Alexander the great, Charlemagne, the winning of the world wars, fought by men etc.). History is littered with the achievements of male combatants and only a couple of achievements of female combatants.
Besides, unless those achievements are 'winning from men that are more muscular and taller' they aren't relevant, since that is what we are discussing, remember?

In other, actual science related news, adrenaline doesn't do what you say.

Proof?

If anything, you get tunnel-vision, not more awareness.

Proof?

Link: http://goo.gl/59AQ9A
Also, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response
I know, I know, but it links to several articles and more specifically a book at some point. It's a trustworthy page. Science pages usually are, though they may simplify some things.
At one point, it lists the effects of adrenaline, and among them, tunnel vision. And to be fair, you are the one that should provide proof for saying that adrenaline worked a certain way, since you are the one that first asserted it. I basically said: "Nope", while I should have said: "show me the proof".

So in case you will say "Wikipedia isn't reliable", where is the proof that adrenaline makes you so calm that you can reason out a strategy, like you implied? In case you deny you did so, you said "Adrenaline does the opposite. It makes you think clearer and faster,". No. It doesn't. You don't think faster, you may act faster (awareness is at a peak, muscles tense etc.). And you definitely don't think clearly. You are just focused on one thing, object, animal or person.

Technically, what the person feels he experiences could very well be heavily subjected to individual differences. Except what happens according to you, goes against what science says it's supposed to. And since what you said was anecdotal and based on nothing but a small sample size of self-reports, I'm going out on a limb to say that it's probably not how adrenaline actually works, generally speaking.

No, you have explained why YOU like to *think* they don't, which isn't even anecdotal. Just more blind statements.

You're right that it isn't anecdotal. It's reasoning. I base it on facts, like the fact that people can freeze up during a fight and don't think clearly, which can cause them to forget thinking about kicking a guy in the nuts. I also base it on the fact that women experience fear more than men. As a matter of fact, I already explained what I based it on. You just skip over those parts. Now, you can refute my reasoning by explaining that the facts and my conclusions don't connect, that's a valid response. As long as you don't use anecdotal evidence as a counter, like you did last time:

Have you met *any* women?
That's usually the very first thing they will do

You obviously based your conclusion on the fact that you have met women and apparently, they do kick in the nuts in a fight-or-flight situation. After that, you try to prove that anecdote with rather flimsy reasons, "men don't think of it, because they have muscles", but obviously, the anecdotal evidence steers your opinion, instead of reason.

It's far more valid and substantiated than anything you've posted up here and far more than your arguments are worth.

Just read the the wikipedia article about anecdotal evidence. Maybe then you'll understand why it's not even 'a little valid' as you keep thinking. It has no place in a discussion where we try to determine general truths. The fact "Grass is green" has more reason to be in this discussion than any anecdote you throw out there, even though grass isn't always green. It would be a step up for you to start throwing out false facts, because that would at least mean you understand that rational discussion is founded on facts and reason, and anecdotal evidence has absolutely no place here.

I said:

You seem to confuse 'plausible' with 'possible'.

You said:

credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable... Pretty clear on that count.

Yup and I just found 9 other sources that say otherwise. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plausible
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/plausible
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/plausible
http://www.yourdictionary.com/plausible
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/27720/plausible-vs-possible
http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic65301.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070822004002AAmofoq

Not very reliable sources, but I doubt your synonyms were from a very reliable source as well.

The two words almost never mean exactly the same. Plausible is what is likely to be the case. Possible does not necessarily have that same meaning, it can mean 'in the realm of possibilities', as opposed to impossible. Whereas implausible does not mean impossible. It's not a synonym. Just google a little broader than "plausible possible synonym" and you'll see people discussing why it means something different all over the internet.
As a matter of fact, I discovered that maybe we should've used the term probable instead of plausible during our discussion. But definitely not 'possible'.

Anyhow, I'm quiting this argument. It has taken me more than 2 hours to write all this and that's more than I want to spend every day, in increasing duration as our replies get longer. I just want to end with the following.

You probably think you are right in most of our disagreements, if not all. I just want to ask you to maybe keep more of an open mind in future arguments with other people. You might say that I should do that as well, but to be honest, I have had an open mind. You haven't raised any point that made me think that maybe women do have a significant chance against a bigger, taller man if they train techniques for less than a year. The advantages men have are simply too significant to be negated by someone with relatively little knowledge of techniques, and little preparation for actual, mortal kombat (resisting fear, ingraining the movements you need to perform the techniques etc.). The only valid arguments I have seen from you are that women being smaller makes them harder to hit and that they may not seem threatening to a man. And they can kick a man's balls (though some nuance has been brought in against those points). These are plausible arguments, based on good reasoning and facts (though these advantages are insignificant compared to men's advantages).
I want you to be at least honest with yourself, look back at the arguments and think if you really did a good job bringing forth enough valid arguments to support your views and refute mine in a rational and/or factual manner. Instead of responding to "Can I see the facts?" with a list of non-scientist authors (for the most part). That's not providing facts. That is "look for it yourself, in these piles of anecdotal evidence".

Most importantly, learn the rules of argumentation. Your responses are riddled with fallacies.
It seems to me that you want to cling onto your opinion, rather than determine the (probable) truth, which means there is no point in continuing this argument. Well, this turned to quite the lecture. Um, bye.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Well, credit to you for *finally* posting a couple of sources that support your assertions.
For the most part, you did not practice what you preached and I suspect this was more of an opportunity for you to excercise your argumentation theory rather than consider the actual matters at hand, which I'm sure you can tell by some of my more sarcastic responses (though you seemed to miss a couple - on purpose?), that's not something I have much time for or particular interest in.

Fair enough, you can 'argue by rules' much better than me.
I remain unconvinced by the vast majority of your assertions, on the basis that you seem to think I should accept them as fact because you say they are... and because your Chinese sucks! 

I at least have offered sources that explain things far better than I can, that are likely more to your own liking, that contain some of the statistics you'll enjoy so much and that save me the trouble of having to post a whole 26 years of fighting, training, learning and experiencing, along with typing out half my library... so I hope you read at least some of them.

Enjoy your numbers.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

After reading the majority of this debate (sorry, after a while my eyes started to cross, I'm on my phone) here's what I took away:

?The average everyday woman, untrained in any real form of fighting, will most likely lose should she try to fight an average man.
?A highly skilled & trained woman is completely capable of defeating a man, even if he too is trained

It seemed to me y'all were arguing along parallel lines. That said it made for an informative entertaining exchange. One of the best I've read on IMDB.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You throw a big, heavy, strong guy at me, that's often the very things I will use against him.

Can they break the laws of physics?
If not, then it's no advantage.

Ah I see. Strength is no advantage in fights, and the laws of physics back that up. Scientific breakthrough alert!

😄

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Ah I see. Strength is no advantage in fights, and the laws of physics back that up. Scientific breakthrough alert!

Sorry, Mr. Scientology Spokesman, I didn't quite catch that... Can you look UP at us when you speak, or at least stand on a box, please?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Please be quiet.

I'm 43 years-old, and I have boxed and frequented boxing gyms since I was 8 years-old. I now coach boxing. In all of that time I've seen, probably, 14 or 15 boxing matches in which one opponent was male the other a female. Every one of those fights ended in exactly the same way - The female lost, and quickly. This isn't because of the "patriarchy" or "misogyny". It's because of biology. Men are naturally stronger, faster and more aggressive than women in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. Your mental gymnastics and nuanced theories aren't going to change that. This is why ALL legal fighting competitions are separated into male and female categories. It's also why most sporting events are gendered too. Men have more physical advantages then women.

No matter how much you watch Xena: Warrior Princess or Buffy: The Vampire Slayer it won't make your agenda real. Nor will typing out full essays of absolute guff fantasy.

You state that you weigh 9 stone. I'm guessing that you've taken a few beatings from women in your life, and because of that you're desperate to prove that that's the norm.
Sorry. It isn't. Ever.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Please be quiet.

How original...

and I have boxed and frequented boxing gyms since I was 8 years-old. I now coach boxing.

So in the name of 'sport', you impose rules and restrictions prohibiting most of the very targets and techniques a woman would use to her advantage, before having the boxers depends on physicality to tough it out in a pale imitation of how the contest was originally intended, thus using a pretty male-biassed arena to try and prove something?
Why not just have a cock-waving contest!

It's because of biology.

Which you are clearly ignoring, by turning a proper fight into a game. There are physical differences in the genders, but each has their advantages. Ignoring one set to judge based on only the other is a real fallacy.

Men are naturally stronger, faster and more aggressive than women in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases.

So you're 43... Not the best, but still quite fast and strong...
How do you fancy being utterly thrashed by a 67 year old?
You're faster, you're stronger... but he will run rings around you and have you ragging like you'd done a 40 mile run in concrete shoes.
He's not overly fast, he's not especially strong, but my own instructor will use simple science to slow you down and take away any advantages you think you have.
He's also been fighting longer and teaching almost longer than you've been alive.

Your mental gymnastics and nuanced theories aren't going to change that.

History and science aren't theory and there's over a thousand years of proof behind it.

This is why ALL legal fighting competitions are separated into male and female categories.

You mean restricted fighting, yeh?

It's also why most sporting events are gendered too. Men have more physical advantages then women.

Uh-huh...

No matter how much you watch Xena: Warrior Princess or Buffy: The Vampire Slayer it won't make your agenda real.

Lucky I'm not a particular fan of them then, innit...!

Nor will typing out full essays of absolute guff fantasy.

I'm not going to type out entire books' worth of works that you likely can't be bothered to read in case it upsets your own ideas of masculinity.
Prove me wrong - Read the thread, find the sources and go read them yourself. Many are published freely and in their entirety, anyway.

You state that you weigh 9 stone. I'm guessing that you've taken a few beatings from women in your life

A couple. My own fault for thinking the same way you did, though and nothing to do with weight or gender. Given a few beatings back as well, but again through skill and understanding the science of a fight, not through speed or strength.
I understand the advantages of each gender. Add weapons into the mix and the differences lessen considerably.

and because of that you're desperate to prove that that's the norm.

Not in the slightest. I just learned not to underestimate women or believe what you're now preaching.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Haha! Enjoy your agenda.
Typical feminist.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sorry. I didn't read all of your essay before my first response. I've just seen your *beep* on "restricted fighting".

I neglected to mention that I worked as a doorman for 12 years. I saw literally 1000s of fights and scuffles in that time. Most of them between the same gender, but there were often times when a woman would start hitting the *beep* out of a man. This always ended 1 of 3 ways. Mostly, the man would walk away because of the social norms on hitting women. However, on the occasions when the man started to fight back, either the woman would be knocked unconscious within seconds, or she'd start playing the "How can you hit a woman?" card. Never once did I see a woman take out a man. And that included instances when there was more than one female fighting against the male. 99.9% of women simply don't have the upper body strength to match their male counterparts.

Guffaw! I love the way you mention a cock waving contest and then proceed to boast about your instructor running rings around me! Ha! You couldn't make this *beep* up. I also noted that your instructor is male.
I'm still in pretty good shape. I still run and workout most days, but that doesn't mean that a 67 year-old man couldn't run rings around me. And I'd be the first person to shake his hand if he did. I'd also be the first to shake any female's hand if they did the same. Unlike you, I have no agenda here. I'm just giving you an opinion based upon a vast experience of the subject at hand.

You can go back to your gender studies class now.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Please be quiet.

I'm 43 years-old, and I have boxed and frequented boxing gyms since I was 8 years-old. I now coach boxing. In all of that time I've seen, probably, 14 or 15 boxing matches in which one opponent was male the other a female. Every one of those fights ended in exactly the same way - The female lost, and quickly. This isn't because of the "patriarchy" or "misogyny". It's because of biology. Men are naturally stronger, faster and more aggressive than women in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. Your mental gymnastics and nuanced theories aren't going to change that. This is why ALL legal fighting competitions are separated into male and female categories. It's also why most sporting events are gendered too. Men have more physical advantages then women.

No matter how much you watch Xena: Warrior Princess or Buffy: The Vampire Slayer it won't make your agenda real. Nor will typing out full essays of absolute guff fantasy.

You state that you weigh 9 stone. I'm guessing that you've taken a few beatings from women in your life, and because of that you're desperate to prove that that's the norm.
Sorry. It isn't. Ever.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Haha! Enjoy your agenda.
Typical feminist.

I have no "agenda"... I'm merely pointing out that I have learned first hand the truth that opposes the Internet Warrior opinion prevalent in such threads as this.
If knowing that women aren't quite as incapable as people quite mistakenly believe makes me some kind of Radical Feminist in your eyes... well... Ya should'a gone to Specsavers then, eh! 

I do like women, as my wife will confirm, but that doesn't make me a Feminist and I'm not here to argue equal rights or any of that bollocks. I leave that to the politicians and university students.

Sorry. I didn't read all of your essay before my first response. I've just seen your *beep* on "restricted fighting".

I do at least appreciate your articulate and sensible response. It's a pleasure to discuss things like this.

As far as the restricted fighting goes - Does boxing not ban certain target areas? Does it require padding or protection? Do the techniques advocate standing in range and relying on being able to take a hit?
Straight away, by doing that, you're stacking the deck against certain types of fighter.

For example - As you know, I'm not particularly heavy or solid. I rely on my reach and ability to hit vulnerable targets. Most of what has kept me walking, both 'in the ring' and elsewhere, has been hits to the opponent's throat, knee, groin, kidneys and so on. I'd be müllered in a regulation boxing match, because all the techniques that work best for my build are illegal. Even if I could do one of those fancy airborne kicks, that's not allowed.

That's what I mean about sports being restricted.

I neglected to mention that I worked as a doorman for 12 years. I saw literally 1000s of fights and scuffles in that time.

Bit convenient, all of a sudden, but fair enough...
I studied various martial arts for 15 years, before taking up WMA. I've been to many different countries, seen many different (and many different kinds of) Saturday Night brawls, observed or actually fought in numerous tournaments of both single and multiple fight styles, as well as trained alongside several different service arms and units from my own and other nations. In all that, I've seen plenty of women 'win' fights, including more than a few knockouts. As is, there is nothing more hilarious than seeing a big 18st soldier getting dropped by a single smack from his half-pint wife...
Admitedly, most of the women who won were from the MA classes, but even outside of that you can see the difference in body mechanics and the sorts of fight that better suit women. Those who have been taught to fight to their advantages are generally quite lethal.

99.9% of women simply don't have the upper body strength to match their male counterparts.

It's not about 'matching', per se. As above, womens' bodies are different, so the styles of fight that work for them are different.
It doesn't take 300lbs of muscle to generate the kinds of force needed to break a nose, pop a knee or crush a windpipe. 10lbs of force is all you'd need, generally and most 12-year-old kids can manage that. Also, as a boxer, you'll know it's usually not the big, powerful hits that drop a man. It's the hit they don't see coming, because the brain cannot prepare itself.
That's the biology that governs a fight.

Guffaw! I love the way you mention a cock waving contest and then proceed to boast about your instructor running rings around me! Ha! You couldn't make this *beep* up.

You missed the point of the analogy, then... that being how you cannot design a competition around male ability and then reasonably expect to judge a woman by those same standards.

I also noted that your instructor is male.

So?
All (bar one of) my instructors have been male. The only one that wasn't was the Judo instructor. But strangely enough, all these different instructors from various different combat systems, styles, countries and cultures universally taught ways women can measure up to men in fights... You'd think that they couldn't all be wrong, but just in case, most of them were more than happy to prove it and put you against a woman.

I'm still in pretty good shape. I still run and workout most days, but that doesn't mean that a 67 year-old man couldn't run rings around me. And I'd be the first person to shake his hand if he did. I'd also be the first to shake any female's hand if they did the same.

You seemed to suggest your age was an important factor.
But regardless, there are such hands of both genders you'd be shaking - I've shaken them myself. The important thing to understand, though is not that they beat you, but how and why they were able to.
It always comes down to understanding the dynamics of a fight - Distance, ranges of movement, reach, body mechanics and timing.

Unlike you, I have no agenda here. I'm just giving you an opinion based upon a vast experience of the subject at hand.

I have no agenda here, either.
What you call my "gender studies class" is my own experience of not only seeing women win fights and in some cases losing to them, but then spending time understanding how and why they were able to do so, mainly so I stand a better chance of winning next time.

As far as the thread itself goes - My argument has always been that, while I have found ample proof that women can win fights against men, the portrayal of how they do it in movies is woefully inaccurate and fantastical, based around what looks good on screen rather than what actually works... and thus is indeed a fallacious stereotype, as the topic title suggests.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's like talking to somebody who has their fingers in their ears and is SHOUTING "LALALALALALALALALA".

Your double standards, mental gymnastics, refusal to accept obvious facts, and total lack of self-awareness make this conversation absolutely pointless. Besides, unlike you - seemingly, I have a life. I don't have the time to type out essay after essay on a subject that I patently know a hell of a lot more about than you.
Good luck with your agenda.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's like talking to somebody who has their fingers in their ears and is SHOUTING "LALALALALALALALALA".

Funny, I was gonna say the same about you.

Your double standards, mental gymnastics, refusal to accept obvious facts, and total lack of self-awareness make this conversation absolutely pointless.

Different standards... and not my problem.
Mental gymnastics - Precise words matter. You can't just say "punch" if you mean hook, dig, shovel or jab. Same here. If it's too much for you to follow, perhaps you are best going back to your ignorant little arena.
Accept obvious facts? Not at all. But then you clearly didn't actually read what I wrote, so... Refusal to accept your mere opinion as fact, more likely. Could it be that you're so angry about?

As for lack of self-awareness - You're the one not even willing to entertain the idea of things being different, let alone learn about it. I assume you still think the world is flat and the sun rotates around it?

Besides, unlike you - seemingly, I have a life.

You're clearly wasting it, but whatever makes you happy...

I don't have the time to type out essay after essay on a subject that I patently know a hell of a lot more about than you.

Jeez, ya string a few sentences together and suddenly it's an essay, now?
You're trying to argue and summarise decades of research and experience with single short sentences

Good luck with your agenda.

Good luck with your sausage fest.

reply share

add reply

formatting help