Trait's of a fighter

[Stacy Clifford]

I think I would have to agree, I don't see the Rope-A-Dope trick working with sharp instruments. Even against a completely unskilled buffalo the opportunities for your defense to fail by sheer chance mount up fast, and against a skilled fighter who can assess your defenses you're liable to get faked out. As long as we're making boxing analogies, you have to be an effective counterpuncher if you're going to fight defensively. Good sword defense is about seizing opportunities or creating them, not holding out against a siege.

[s_taillebois]

True, but it works well when dealing with those who don't quite realize that the defensive has utilities. The less than proficient types will tend to ignore the defensive, as it's not as dramatic. Accordingly, often what they have is selection of strikes, but nowhere to go if those don't succede. With someone skilled, obviously very different, but still a matter of waiting for an opening or mistake...
That's why the British guard seems so useful, it's an easy one to move from the defense to offensive, in an deceptive manner. Plus a few seconds on the defensive, can be useful to size up an opponent. Anyway, as long as there's room, nothing amiss with backing away for a few moments to gain time, or encourage mistakes. If someone wishes to flourish away, or be compelled to rush back in-simply because the offensive is their only trick, usually to their disadvantage. If no no other reason that is all it might be an expended effort with little more effect than a attempt at intimidation.
So, mayhaps misphrased, wasn't entirely advocating the defensive entirely, but was advocating it's use until a useable mistake occurs on the part of the other agent. And that obviously is contingent on the people involved.
As for getting 'killed' mayhaps, but since most of us may never meet to spar, a moot point, or a contention which cannot be assessed in any meaningful manner. A thousand variables there, of which little can be said.

[Jake_Norwood]

Again, y'all.

I think we have to be careful about what we "think" we know about people that really fight for real, and compare that to what we really know about people that fight for real.

Likewise, are we talking about the traits of a "good" fighter or just a "fighter." A fighter, I am convinced, will beat a non-fighter regardless of skill or traits the non-fighter has (again, focusing on "will to fight" or, quoting Gene Quoting SFC Larsen, "willingness to close with the enemy").

Patience, cool-headedness, and lots of training does absolutely no good against the most uncoordinated buffalo if he wants to kill you and you don't have the will to return the favor.


Think, at the lowest level, about high-school brawls, and take it all the way up to full-on shock warfare. You'll see what I mean. The "cool, collected" fighter is a thing of movies, mostly. At least in the way I think we're thinking of him.

Jake

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Yes, I agree with Jake on this, I have seen highly trained people fail, most often at the worst possible moment, not because of thier training but because of the will.

You have to be able to bring the fight to the enemy-(to be trained or some ability)
Then you have to have the desire to bring the fight to the enemy-(the will to fight no matter the sit)

If you lack any one of these the rest of the traits mean squat-- Aaron

[Zach Palfreyman]

I am going to vote for courage being the most important trait. Usually going so defensive is not an actual strategy, but an act of fear. Even in my short time so far, I have noticed that once fear takes hold, the fight is over soon. Watching Stewart and Eli fight new guys, they will sometimes get in and start raining down blows. Soon as they do, the other person gets defensive and starts backpedaling, they get overwhelmed and within a few strokes they've been hit. I've even saw it with the more experienced people, it just doesn't happen as often. But even then, they will face a much less experienced person, and just wait there in a guard for awhile until the other jumps in and connects a hit, and so the less skilled person won just by virtue of attacking first.

A man who enters combat in courage and dies, his peers will say he died a warrior. A man who flinches from combat and stayed alive by virtue of never being attacked will find no honor for it with his peers, even though he is the one who managed to live. Even an aggressive man can be taken by fear, and his aggression does him no good without courage. His fear will drown it out and he will die like any other common man.

[s_taillebois]

Jake quite true that the will needs to be there, so do tactics.
As for initial defense or initial offense being the best approach, old dispute. And in a real sense, does illustrate a conceptual dichotomy between the German tradition and some of British and Italian interpretations. For example, the Brits would commonly dismount before a confrontation, didn't mean they had lost the elan, but did mean they were concerned about balancing defensive/offensive capabilities.
Concerning cowardice or valour, not quite sure if that's really an appropriate label to use herein...insofar as we're discussing a sport, and not as has been noted, real acts which lead to permanent consequences. More a matter of somewhat lesser context, attached to very strong words. Unfortunately, when real violence is involved...too often either the trained and strategic, and the primally aggressively oriented...both end up dead. So many variables become involved, as do intentions and random events. For example in a modern context the violence and expected response of LEO is very different from that of a soldier, although both can be crippled or killed...from what are the same basic forces.
As for raining down blows, it can work. But perhaps our antecedents, may have been more cautious in their general approach. For them, with the weapons involved and the medical standards of the time, nominal wounds by a modern standard, would have crippled or eventually killed. In that regard, probably why they hated the longbow, arbalest, and early guns so...those weapons made the virtues we're so vehemently discussing, somewhat less defensible. King Richard (usually considered a paragon of knightly valor), died as a result of a random crossbow quarrel.
With that, methinks it's time to step out of this discussion, as it develops it's moving further and further away from it's initial intent...and the only ones who can really answer the issue, are the dead.
And channeling the dead from Bosworth Fields, or Agincourt (or the thousands of other killing grounds, large or small), is beyond the parameters of this board.
Cheers to all...

[Jeremy Martin]

I'd say daring, wisdom, and readiness. That's all you need to have a good chance to win most fights. The readiness, having the body and mindset needed to do what needs to be done. Daring, having the courage to take the risks that are always necessary to do what needs to be done. And wisdom, not only knowing what to do, but when to do it. Also knowing what not to do (and when to get the hell out of Dodge).

The others are great to have, though. Best to have them all I'd say.

[leam hall]

We have had a female cat for many years. Her willingness to get into a fight and close with the enemy is more a sign of being old and crochety than a warrior. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think the list is limited, and the discussion is even more limited. Too limited, if your're assuming "fighter" means "warrior". Many of the responses seem to focus on the immediate needs of physical conflict. Does a person backed into a corner suddenly become a warrior because they realize there is no way out?

Is the quick conflict the only defining moment? And if so, what about those who never have those circumstances happen to them?

As you might guess, I disagree with much of what has been written. Not that it is wrong but that is is too limited to be right. A fighter, warrior, is someone who is willing to struggle for the right reasons. A bully can fight and even be eager to close. But it takes a warrior to enter the conflict even when the odds are against them.

One of my favorite phrases is "Words without action are useless, action without thought is a danger. A martial art combines the two, it is a philosophy in motion."

Think about the people that struggle every day to do what is right, even in bad circumstances and against overwhelming odds. The new kid in school that doesn't have any friends and the teacher who goes without because we don't care enough to pay them. The grey haired person learning to read and the parent who gets out of a lonely bed to comfort a child.

Swinging a blade no more qualifies us to be warriors than taking aspirin makes us doctors. It is the willingness to step up and do what needs to be done, no matter the odds or payback. that lets us leave the ordinary behind.

Being quick on your feet doesn't hurt, though...

[JeffGentry]

Hey Guy's

Well I don't think this is limited to a time period, these are trait's that are in my opinion timeless and universal, Even in the modern military alot of these trait's are necessary.

A fighter, warrior, is someone who is willing to struggle for the right reasons

There is no right or wrong in any form of combat, because the Nazi's thought they were right, the crusader's thought they were right, and we all know they were defeated, I'd bet some of them displayed some of the listed trait's and they were what i would say were fighter's/warrior's.(disclaimer i am not advocating what the Nazi's did i am using it as an example)

Jake the mission of the Marine rifle squad "To locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire and manuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat".

So far most have sited wisdom as one of the more necessary trait's.


Jeff

[Jeremy Martin]

"a man engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict"

I've never thought of a warrior as someone who fights for the 'right' reasons, just someone who...well, see above.

People can disagree on what's 'right', anyway. Just because a large amount of people believe certain things to be right and just today, these same things may be laughable to the people of tomorrow.

So I hope this doesn't become a discussion of morals.

And yes, most people have mentioned wisdom. Who can argue with wisdom? All you need is wisdom and your kung-fu will be strong, Grasshopper. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Zach Palfreyman]

To mention a few other things Doebringer says, do not fight in anger or vanity. He says charging in against five men is stupid, not brave. There is a moderation to everything. Attacking only in a blind flurry is obviously bad. But moderation to everything would include defense.

I don't feel talking about warriors and the risk of life that comes with mortal combat is misplaced here. Yes there is a strong sporting element to what ARMA members are doing, but most of us would be playing football or basketball if all we wanted was pure sport. ARMA is a lot about learning of the true martial aspects of these arts, not just for use in sport. I think that is really the heart of the organization, not to be a pure sport. I believe one of John Clement's philosophies on truly learning swordfighting as it was intended for martial intent, is anything is only theory until it has been proven in earnest. I believe that is what Jake means when he says seperating what we think we know from what we really know. Thus I feel talking about "real" combat is always applicable around here.

Wisdom is important, but don't forget Intuition. This is less for general fighters and more for swordplay, but IMO intuition implies speed. You look at a math problem and just blurt out the answer without actually doing the work to reach it. In a swordfight, that kind of speed of thought will be important. Rather than thinking about what you need to do, you just jump in and do it. But I mostly say that with the implication that wisdom is more something learned through experience and intuition the ability to solve problems on the fly with seemingly no thought.

[Jeremy Martin]

When I think of wisdom I think more of the 'ability to discern inner qualities and relationships'(which can be sort of akin to intuition, actually) and good sense aspects of it, I suppose.

Though it can refer to accumulated knowledge as well. It can also refer to a generally accepted belief.

I see intuition to be sort of a luck thing. Since it's difficult to rely on all of a sudden gaining of immediate apprehension or cognition of what your opponent is going to do next. Though I suppose if you train at swordplay enough(or what have you) that subconciously you can recgonize what your opponent is doing without thought and it'll seem like you just sort of miraciously 'know'. That can be kind-of linked to readiness though, couldn't it?

I think many of these, depending on the definition you use, can overlap into other traits.

[Pierre Planas]

Assuming that it is essential to a fighter to do what works in order to win, i'd say that: knowing, wisdom and readiness are the most important. The use of the other traits depends on the situation, while these three are necessary to correctly assess a situation and adapt to it fast enough, and then figure out what other qualities are needed to win the fight.

Then, everybody has its preferences. I'm a big fan of daring and secrecy, because i never have to risk my own life. The joys of backgarden swordfighting.

[Zach Palfreyman]

Yeah there is definatily some overlap, and I think that is okay. I don't feel we need to decide which is most important, if all of them weren't important then he wouldn't have listed all of them in the first place. If you go read it, then you will notice all sorts of words recurring over and over. I think the way to really benefit from it is just over the course of studying the book, you will slowly get an image of what to build yourself toward. Another word you will see come up a lot is honesty. I bought John Clement's book last week, and I believe it was somewhere in there that he also talked about honesty. That you need to practice in honesty or something like that, most of these old masters say basically the same thing too. So as you start to put all these together, I think you eventally will start to get a mental image of the ideal swordsman, and then you work toward that.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

I'd say Daring.

Just imagine the Gioco Stretto grips of Fiore and the german Meisterhauws in full-speed. One needs all the daring one can collect, for if you do those with hesitation, you will be killed. That's my opinion anyway. I guess, that's why they are called mastercuts in the first place - one needs to be a master to dare and use a scheitelhau while the enemy *could* cut you in half in the meantime with a tondo (zwerchau) in the waist. You need speed, agility, cunning, but if you dare not to use most of what you learn - you stay in Gioco Largo and fence with a few technics only - you will not fence like the old masters.
Well my question was always, how long would we last against an experienced lichtenauer fighter from the middle ages? What would we do if he would throw 3-4 meisterhauwen at us with full speed, without hesitation? Would we stay in Alber and try to protect ourselves or would we dare and use what hanko told us - that the best defence is attacking? With Masterhauwen?
That's why I say it's daring, we lack most and what we need to improve.


Szabolcs