Don, the terms are the argument. You cannot phrase an argument without them, they are the bread and butter of the conversation. How you phrase your statements presuppose a one-on-one unarmed fight, and then you say these are all fights, so these "stages" are evident in all fights. I'm just saying that's incorrect. Take the below example:
Quote:
|
A takedown is just a takedown, it could be a throw, a trip, a punch, a mistake, a poorly placed chair, a bouncer. Very rarely is a takedown a throw outside of MMA, nobody wants to go to the ground, it just kinda happens. A submission is simply that, forcing another person to quit. A knockout is another alternative. You can do 4 things when you are on the ground and only 4 things.
1) get back up
2) submit the person
3) knock the person out
4) Kill the person
Nothing else is possible, you could immobilize the person, but if they do not submit, you still have to choose one of the other 3 choices.
|
The only 4 options you have suggested here, presuppose that there are only two combatants. If there is a third person then, you could get knocked off the person which would give you a number 5, unless you would count that as "getting back up"
. So, something else is possible, unless we go back to the one-on-one scenario.
You're not going to find a counter argument to folks should train at various ranges. The thread from the start wasn't about that, it was about the vernacular that was applied universally to all fights, that inherently presuppose the fights are unarmed and one-on-one.