Trait's of a fighter

[JeffGentry]

Hello all

this list of nine "personality" trait's appear's in Deobringer and similar list appear in other fight book's, of these nine which do you feel are most important to a fighter?

1.knowing
2.daring
3.caution
4.cunning
5.wisdom
6.secrecy
7.reason
8.intuition
9.readiness

Me personaly I would say wisdom, reason and daring, because wisdom you know what to do and when, reason because you can correct mistake's and daring because you will strike quickly and unexpectedly.

Any thought's on these?

Jeff

[Brian Hunt]

I would say readiness. This trait is more than just being ready to attack or defend oneself, it also involves prior preparation. If you are prepared or ready, then you will have already trained/studied and established the other 8 traits in your training.

just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Anthony Boyd]

I'd say that we are going to be able to find cause for all nine to be important one way or another. If I could get away with picking just one, I'd lean toward intuition. When lacking physical superiority over the enemy, I think the only way to begin is with an understanding of our own strengths and weaknesses coupled with ready understanding of the opponent.

[philippewillaume]

hello
I would say the will to inflict damage to your oppoenent whatever he does.

philippe

[s_taillebois]

Cunning, wisdom and readiness. Cunning, links to effective use of aggression, Wisdom, the ability to know when to strike and when to retreat, and readiness, implies that the training and tactics are there.
A few historical examples of those who possessed these attributes, and a few who missed.
Saladin; At Hattin he drew the crusaders towards a water source then assured they couldn't reach it (cunning), he was fairly careful to not alienate local Christians, when attacking the Franks...meant he kept local support, to the level that some of the local Christians continued to supply logistics to his armies, or even fight for them. (wisdom), and usually Saladin tried to ensure he outnumbered his enemies before an attack (readiness).
Henry of England...The provocation of the French knights at Agincourt prompting them to attack on unfavorable ground (cunning). After the several successful battles after Agincourt, he came to realize that continued incursions into France were unsustainable (wisdom), and fielded a fairly well integrated mixed arms combination, and kept logistically viable even when under strain (readiness)
Elanor of Aquitaine, managed to marry and be imprisoned by two kings, kept control over Aquitaine, and outlived both her husbands and arranged for her sons to assume the throne (demonstrating that a fight, need not be always at the point of steel to succede), Cunning, wisdom and readiness...the woman knew who to manipulate, when to do it, and how.
Joan D. Arc, certainly possessed the daring, intuition, and other attributes. But lacked readiness (no real training in armed conflict), and some lack of wisdom;unable to see that both the Bishop of Beauvais, or Charles 7th, would use and betray her cause. (assumed because some were French, they were on her side, wrong obviously...one attribute of wisdom is to see enemies within)
Raynald De Chantillon, certainly (by the standards of his time) daring and prepared. But lacked the judgment to know when and who to attack. His misplaced breaking of truces with the Moslim's and the attacks on the Byzantines...played a major role in the destruction of the Outremer states.

[Jonathan Scott]

nice post s_taillebois!
Backin up your say with historical cases I like it!
-Jonathan

[s_taillebois]

Thanks.
Could also view it from a specifically fencing view, I guess.
The 'fools guard' would mirror cunning, as it opens up for an opponent to do something stupid, assuming weakness. Cunning, a type of wisdom of the moment.
'Wisdom' the British hanging guard, allows for defense and offense from the same position. And as opposed to say ox/plow can be more deceptive in moving from defensive to offensive. Doesn't telegraph intentions as much as some other guards.
Readiness, gods so much to learn. This matter of sport could take years, and there'd always be someone with a new interpretation who can win. And for many, sparring is limited, for some who spar, they might not see the value of solo florishing. Sparring is actualities, flourish's mayhaps are conjectural nee' possibilities. Both seem to have some value.
That said, even the best of contemporary fencers know so little compared to the antecedents. A blessing of sorts.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Steve

Well that was kind of the point of the post, to get people thinking about some thing's we should know, and are usualy on the back burner, I think it is good to pull them to the front once in awhile to warm them up.

I do agree with most of what you said also.

Jeff

[s_taillebois]

Well, quite profound and diplomatic to end your first posting with an open question. Lead others to respond in a varied manner, rather than defending or supporting a given position.
The vex to all these traits, is that attaining them is somewhat like chasing a wraith...none remain fixed references.
For example, the British hanging guard, it took my hapless means almost two years to fully realize it's value. Now, am having to integrate that into the more 'projection' based style of the German's. (ie Liechtenauer and co). And that, right now, alas isn't quite there....

[Jake_Norwood]

Frankly, it all--and I mean it all--comes down to a willingness to fight. A fighter needs that trait alone to really be a "fighter." Few people, including many soldiers and--I would wager--most of us here, really posess that willingness. Or even an eagerness, perhaps.

A fighter is someone that doesn't recoil from confrontation, especially of the physical sort.

For example, the best fighter pilots turn out to be those that fought the most with their fists in school. It's an attitude and will thing.

Jake

[s_taillebois]

True, and it will be fortunate if most can keep away from that particular will.
The problem is that, the 'will to fight', can get people into a fight or battle...doesn't mean they'll survive it or win. That's often more a matter of thinking, training and placement.
The samurai ethic, a good example, the pilots of the late ww-2 Japanese Naval Service, certainly possessed the will. And cannot fault their courage. But tactically it was misplaced, and most lacked tactics/training, so either suicide attacks (which didn't stop the US/Brits fleet) or cannon fodder for pilots who did want to live to see home. The best pilots of that war, could be argued to have been the German's/US. They did value individual initiative, but emphasized group stratagies...sort of a 'composite' will to fight, which negated it's lesser links.
The same could be said of the french knights at agincourt...the courage and combative attitude were there, but under misplaced conditions.
So your right about the combative attitudes, but mayhaps it needs to be moderated by other virtues (Cunning, Wisdom, and such) to be effective. Good historical examples would be the Byzantines. They held out agaisnt a very inspired enemy (the Saracens/Turks/etc), for a very long time. Largely by combining combative 'will' with the moderating aspects of strategies intended to co-opt the others 'inspiration' or to 'make them die for their faith'....to try to ensure the Byzantines didn't.
The Crusader states, often had problems with people who were too happy for combat, and constantly provoked battles at the wrong time or place. (Raynald De Chantillon., being a prime example, and the Knights/Doge who attacked Constantanople). Outremer might have lasted longer if it had taken the Byzantine approach, fight when necessary, but use other methods to achieve the same end when possible.
The English LongBows, a fearsome weapon...but only of value if individual combative spontaneity, was subordinated to a group coordination (which in part was premised on staying together, so they could get home...). The longbow died as a effective weapons system, when the English monarchy used them too aggressively, and too many died. Why practice at the butts on Sunday, when you have no expectation of surviving it all? And so despite royal decree, they didn't practice.
Could hold that in fencing a similar approach could be applicable...let the active agent expend himself in misplaced attacks, ward it all, and when the moment comes...dispasionately nail them. Nothing new, Mushashi sometimes advocated that approach, and the Brits/Italians seemed to have a similar inclination to balance defense with attack. The German style, more overtly offensive...but wonder if that has preconditioned our training/thinking, as many of the dominant extant manuals are German/Tuetonic.

[JeffGentry]

Hey gent's

Jake:

oh yes the will to to fight is a big part of it, if the other trait's aren't present how do you know when and how to defend yourself.

What I see in these trait's is a certain level of inteligence(common sense) and some of them can be learned/taught other's are more natural in certain individual's.

Other master's have similar list in there book's what are some other trait's that i didn't list that other master's do?


Jeff

[s_taillebois]

Jake& Jeff, quite true on the willingness aspect. Does need to be controlled by other attributes and virtues. Hence all the somewhat tedious babble in my last posting.
That said, like any other martial art, usually the ones with control over their impulses are the good ones. For example...some (especially early on) with the "Zornhau" will tend to do so too aggressively, and either go off balance or strike air. And hence, very vulnerable to other (especially oblique strikes), as they pass.
Irony is, in fight or fencing...a love of 'the fight' often needs to be disguised by some deciet. But, in all, this is a sport...and so the 'love of the fight', does need to be moderated...easier on peoples teeth, fingers and lawyers.

[Gene Tausk]

I would say that the best definition is still what I heard from SSgt. Larsen at our International Gathering:

A warrior is someone who closes with the enemy


I still think that is the best overall definition I have ever heard and it is the one that makes the most sense. I am not certain if this answers the original question (what are the traits of a fighter) but certainly I would think that the willingness to engage the enemy is of primary importance.

I am not certain, however, if being a fighter pilot and being able to engage in fisticuffs requires the same set of skills. Certainly being able to engage the enemy, as stated previously, is important. However, fighter pilots, from what I know about them, are also people who have great reflexes, the ability to withstand the enormous g-forces that modern jets traveling at high speeds will give, and certainly the ability to make split-second decisions regarding manuevers, weapon types, etc. They also need, of course, the ability to understand both on a rational and internal level the physics of flight. I don't think these are qualities per se necessary for HTH combat.


------------------>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - ARMA Houston Southside

[Zach Palfreyman]

If it was in your mind to be defensive until I got tired, and I came at you fast as I could, you would get killed before I got tired no matter how good you were. Even a master would die trying to do that, not a good way to fight. The only way you could go that defensive and be safe is if you completely stayed out of striking range the whole time. Which means he would not get tired any faster than you, unless he is going to do a flourish while you stand there and watch.