| From: | Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: the uac dilemma |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:32:43 -0400 |
Sailer[SMTP:Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT] wrote:
> > Have you ever been in a real fight (one where either or both sides
> > now how to fight)? It is over that quickly.
>
> Well, I never had to fight for my life, but yes, I have been in a
> couple of fights up to now...
> And I disagree totally. Sure, A fight COULD be over that soon, I one
> of the two scores a lucky hit, or gets to hold his opponent in a
> position where he can't escape, but chances are, especially if both
> use rather strike and kick techniques than grabs and chokes, that the
> fight will last about half a minute at last. Just wach boxing...
> They fight for several minutes... even in Judo, the fight lasts
> longer than just a few seconds.
Boxing is a bad example. I dunno about judo. But I fence, and a touch, even
in foil or saber, where a touch is considered to be a lethal or
debilitating strike, the first touch will often occur within a few seconds.
(The touch might be disallowed because of right-of-way, which is the judges
way of saying you're *both* dead, but I digress.) Or Japanese-style sword
dueling. Basically, the opponents stare at each other until they think they
see an opening, and strike. Since striking creates an opening, the other
strikes as well. The faster hits, the slower *dies.*
In any martial contest where killing/crippling blows are not disallowed,
fights are over with the first or second successful strike.
--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
