From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: the uac dilemma
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:23:47 +0100

In message <01BC9764.854BEA80@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
>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.*

Knife fighting. The version I was taught (by a psycho RGJ sergeant
major) was that you waited for your enemy to attack, or feinted to
provoke a counter: when he tried to attack you, you retreated and cut
across the back of his knife hand.

Repeat as necessary. When he staggers (because a good cut across the
back of the hand will cause a man exerting himself to pass out in a
frighteningly short time) close and cripple or kill him.

Ten, fifteen seconds tops: less if the enemy clutches his wound and
cries out in pain, rather than fighting (if he does that kill him right
away).

If you're down to hacking at the enemy with a knife, you're probably
outnumbered, and time favours him rather than you (his reinforcements
will get there first, and they might still have ammunition). You win
fast, or not at all.

>In any martial contest where killing/crippling blows are not disallowed,
>fights are over with the first or second successful strike.

Yep. Any time you involve blades, close-up fights get very fast and
decisive.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk