Skip to main content

Combat Reality Mythbusting: Duel vs. Deficit Training by Mark Hatmaker

 


Put on your goggles as we will commence mud-flinging at THE  most common form of training that claims to be reality-based or reality focused---

Duel Based Training

To get us going let us define terms.

Duel: A contest between two people with deadly weapons to settle a point of honor.

No-brainer there, huh?

That definition is standard and holds, while there may be a variety of weapons at play, and some differences in how the two Honor-Wounded approach the game, but, overall, we have two at play in a contest.

[See Barbara Holland’s delightful Gentlemen’s Blood: A History of Dueling from Swords at Dawn to Pistols at Dusk for the staggering same-ness of it all. Wounded pride, mano y mano, tragic outcomes, etc.]

No one doubts that the stakes of the duel are high. Life or death, or perhaps till first blood wounding, which was still a fearsome prospect in the days before antibiotics.

Hence many duels being conducted stripped to the waist—even female duelists—cloth fibers steel-pierced into a wound compounds the chances of infection.

Again, no one doubts a duel is a deadly, or potentially deadly affair.

But…a duel is still a contest.

It is still single combat.

It is still two competitors.

It is, in essence, a sport with raised stakes.

Civilizing Peltzman Effects

We must not forget that “duels” between “gentlemen” pre-existed formalized rules.

Skill with blade, cudgel, quarterstaff, any weapon at hand, preceded the formal punctilio of “This is how it is done, and that simply isn’t cricket, Old Chap.”

The duel is the civilizing or taming of savagery.

It is the semi-civilized “game” that “Better Classes” imposed upon weaponed conduct to allow easier entry of the gentry into the ranks of “honor” or “manhood.”

No less an authority on duels and fencing itself in all its forms from the middle ages to the eighteenth century, Egerton Castle, stipulates that no matter how elegant or skilled a fencing master may have been, there was likely something of a different and “earthier quality” to be found in the “gutters, kennels, and muddy byways” than in the “Schools of Defense.”

Castle remarked that it was often more instructive to learn from “villains” [unschooled ruffians.]

“…a fight between two villains armed only with clubs, or with sword and buckler, necessarily admitted of a far greater display of skill.” [Emphasis in original.]

Castle asserts again and again that the true “skill,” the true fearsome work with duel weapons came from the lower to middle classes, and became “refined” [restrained and restricted by code] in the upper classes and that it is these “refinements as imitators” that was the height of the art.

J. Christoph Amberger in his The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures in Ancient Martial arts also asserts the point again and again.

The refinements of the duel, deadly and elegant as they may be, did not hold a candle to the rough n tumble of the arts’ forebears.

Which leads us to…

Boxing & Wrestling

At the same time that young gentlemen were turning to Masters of Defense [shortened via slang to Fencing Masters] fisticuffs and a bit of wrestling was being offered alongside.

But again, these versions of unarmed combat were the gentlemanly cleaned up versions of what was being practiced by the “lower classes.”

Even the more brutal than today boxing and wrestling that permitted more blows, more holds, more tactics than we would ever allow today, well, these were borne and codified in these “Dens for Gentlemanly Expression.”

The rules may have been fewer than today, but…there were still rules to observe.

And…as a hard-fast steady Rule #1: A Duel, a Boxing Match, a Wrestling Contest was between two competitors. No more.

Seconds must stay out of the game.

This was not the case where the origins of these “games” were born.

Combat Was War Based

Sword, stick, cudgel, halberd, the entire armory was used on a reeling, milling, chaotic battlefield.

Assailants were numerous and often fore and aft and to either side of the weapon-wielder with no finesse of one-on-one “honor game” to be played.

Tactics and strategy differed from the comparatively sober sterile and self-contained arena of mano y mano.

Village Games Echoed the Battlefield

The word “field,” in proper use, refers not to a meadow, or to a pasture as some use it interchangeably but, only to a battlefield or a playing field.

Fields were places of battle or contest.

Often “village games” took the form of taking one item [a ball, a pig, a prized trophy, etc.] from one village and taking it to another.

The rules of the game?

Anyone could play—entire villages often did.

The playing field? Everywhere in either village and all points between.

The Rules? “Don’t let them take our coveted thing.”

Period.



We Cross the Atlantic

We find this huge rough n tumble scrum echoed in the Early Americas.

Account after account is told of “Indian Games” that involve a ball, an inflated antelope bladder, a feathered spear etc. being maneuvered from one point to another.

The confines of the game? Seemingly none.

Accounts tell of play length taking days and often overnight.

Play crossing miles of terrain.

At times, hundreds battling for supremacy—men, women, and children.

Tactics? Evidently—It was all-in as the listed injuries are copious and some are horrific.

Play did not stop for injuries.

The wounded were tended out of the path of chaos.

Games Echoed Combat/Combat Echoed Games

The story has been told numerous times of how the smaller less well-armed indigenous Warriors played hell versus larger better equipped “better trained” forces.

This early “better training” often took the form of the large-scale version of rank-and-file dueling writ large.

Indigenous warriors and Anglo early-adopters recognized that power comes from no rules and did not suffer from what we take as a given—That Combat Must Be a Duel.

Indigenous warriors, by training in all-in chaotic games and engaging in battle “games” where one-on-one was almost never the norm, found it completely alien to stand stock-still, or to face off, toe to toe, “come to scratch,” or to be blind to the environment and ALL within it.

These games often took the form of being at a Deficit.

That is, you face more than one aggressor, or even in weapon play the “trainee” always faced with a weapon deficit, that is, no weapon at all, or a weapon considered subpar to the one being faced.

Forged in a fire of chaotic realities the young warrior was steeped in an atmosphere more redolent of reality than any duel-based game.

Well, thanks for the history lesson, Mark, but what has this to do with the big training mistake you claim many are making?”

Boxing is a sport. A duel. [A sport and duel I love.]

Grappling is a sport. A duel. [Another duel I love.]

Tae kown do, Hapkido, Issin-ryu. All are sports. All are duels.

All have rules, guidelines, tenets.

Their value is in their adherence to body hardening, that is an aspect of combat.

Their deficit lies in not living in the deficit.

That is, the duel-based method has us matching weight classes, skill levels, same blade vs same blade, same stick vs same stick.

We drill endlessly for the duel.

Not for the scrum.



The Paradox

I wager the above strikes agreement in the hearts of the street aficionado.

Many reject MMA because it is a sport. It is an agreement.

And then they will blithely commence a zumbrada with mock knives, or fake tomahawks that follows some duel-based pattern that is like vs. like.

Combat was and is born by an aggressor that perceives that it possesses attributes the prey does not possess—be that strength, numbers, speed, firepower, etc.

Real-world aggressors do not aggress without presumed advantage.

Yet, we persist in our gentlemanly ways and elect to prepare to fight off possible life-threatening harms using a mindset designed to keep young gentleman safe from the bumps and bruises of the hoi polloi.

We might need to look to the Masters of Small Engagement and adopt some of their ways.

In the words of one Gentleman regarding the encountered “Savages” [his words, not mine]

These Savages have taught my crack troops a thing or two; too bad it is a lesson my dead men cannot learn.”

Why merely read about it, when you can live it? Consider joining The Black Box Brotherhood

 

The Black Box Combat & Conditioning Training Warehouse

The Rough ‘n’ Tumble Raconteur Podcast



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Apache Running by Mark Hatmaker

Of the many Native American tribes of the southwest United States and Mexico the various bands of Apache carry a reputation for fierceness, resourcefulness, and an almost superhuman stamina. The name “Apache” is perhaps a misnomer as it refers to several different tribes that are loosely and collectively referred to as Apache, which is actually a variant of a Zuni word Apachu that this pueblo tribe applied to the collective bands. Apachu in Zuni translates roughly to “enemy” which is a telling detail that shines a light on the warrior nature of these collective tribes.             Among the various Apache tribes you will find the Kiowa, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Chiricahua (or “Cherry-Cows” as early Texas settlers called them), and the Lipan. These bands sustained themselves by conducting raids on the various settled pueblo tribes, Mexican villages, and the encroaching American settlers. These American settlers were often immigrants of all nationalities with a strong contingent of

Resistance is Never Futile by Mark Hatmaker

Should you always fight back? Yes. “ But what if …”           Over the course of many years teaching survival-based strategies and tactics the above-exchange has taken place more than a few times. The “ but what if …” question is usually posed by well-meaning individuals who haven’t quite grasped the seriousness of physical violence. These are people whose own humanity, whose sense of civility is so strong that they are caught vacillating between fight or flight decisions. It is a shame that these good qualities can sometimes stand in the way of grasping the essential facts of just how dire the threat can be.           The “ but what if …” is usually followed by any number of justifications or pie-in-the-sky hopeful mitigations. These “ but what if …” objections are based on unfounded trust and an incorrect grasp of probability. The first objection, unfounded trust, is usually based on the following scenario. Predator : Do what I say and I won’t hurt you. Or

Awareness Drill: The Top-Down Scan by Mark Hatmaker

American Indians, scouts, and indigenous trackers the world over have been observed to survey terrain/territory in the following manner. A scan of the sky overhead, then towards the horizon, and then finally moving slowly towards the ground. The reason being that outdoors, what is overhead-the clouds, flying birds, monkeys in trees, the perched jaguar—these overhead conditions change more rapidly than what is at ground level. It has been observed by sociologists that Western man whether on a hike outdoors or in an urban environment seldom looks up from the ground or above eye-level. [I would wager that today, he seldom looks up from his phone.] For the next week I suggest, whether indoors or out, we adopt this native tracker habit. As you step into each new environment [or familiar ones for that matter] scan from the top down. I find that this grounds me in the awareness mindset. For example, I step into my local Wal-Mart [or an unfamiliar box store while travelli