By the same token, it’s gonna take quite a bit of proof to show that anyone can defeat a highly skilled opponent while “laying back” and using less than their utmost/highest level of output.
Sure. Here’s your proof. Go check out fights from
MMA
Kickboxing
Boxing
Muay Thai
To name a few. Then go ask a trainer or expert from any of these how important aerobic endurance is to their fighters.
Other than that you now have two (2) definitions for what I assume is “a fight”;
“the real thing” vs “a real fight”?
This is getting ridiculous. You’re avoiding the facts by side-stepping my points. Even if I was defining it as such, it’d still be irrelevant. My definition of a fight has nothing to do with proof of any all-anaerobic fighting styles being effective.
Find me proof of it. I’ll throw ya one more definition too, testimony from a friend of a dude who did it, or a couple of low quality videos of people fighting no-name jerks, doesn’t count.
And now you’re adding two (2) conditions that should produce “a foregone conclusion”
as “odds” (“chance”/probability):
(a) in the form of a size/strength advantage
vs
(b) an opponent who doesn’t know what they’re doing.
Again, you’re either avoiding my points intentionally or you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. That was an example of the uncertainty of a street fight. There are no checks and balances to make sure it is as fair as possible. You can take a video of an SPM guy destroying another guy but unlike MMA/Boxing, we have no idea what the other guy was capable of in the first place. Thus it is irrelevant. Even if they were both amazing, it provides no proof whatsoever as we have no idea who these people are and we’ve never seen them fight before.
In such a controlled situation, survival itself is seldom at risk and the risk of debilitating injury is minimized as much as is practical.
In a “natural”/“uncontrolled” situation, the risks are of a much higher order.
Some folks will be bound to think that this type of situation has a hell of a lot more meaning for them.
Depends entirely on the person and the situation. Many boxers/MMA fighters throughout the years have talked about their feelings before a fight. It’s usually very intense. I’m not a psychologist but it seems a little ridiculous to me to think that there is a dramatic difference in the experience.
OK.
That said, how is it that you can put apparently equal weight on two distinctly different qualities/abilities, when only one of them seems at all likely to win for you by itself?
I put equal weight between them based on documented evidence of use. Compubox stats alone will prove this. We have no documented evidence of street fights to include in this.
You’re entitled to use whatever expectations you like.
I prefer a “more definitive” “outlook”.
So you prefer to predict an unpredictable future? Beautiful. I’m sure you know everyone whom you’ll ever have to fight. Ever.
Clairvoyance now, hmm? Meditate some lottery numbers for me, please.
That statement doesn’t do much for defining “counter fighting”… not even “loosely”.
I wasn’t going to define it except to establish the line between counter-fighting being a seperate concept than “self-defense”.
