Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2018 February 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13

1980s action film

The Swedish TV-series Goltuppen originally aired in early 1991. In one episode a character called Milan is watching some English-language film on TV. The scene he's watching includes a man tied spreadeagle while being tortured by another man. The torturer ask "Maybe, you'd like to talk?" Another voice calls out "Colonel Spacey!" (or perhaps "Stacy"?). The torturer asks "Is it important?", to which the man replies "It's Ferguson, sir!"

The scene in question (episode 4 of Goltuppen, about 20:30 minutes in) is avaliable here, but only if your computer is geolocated inside Sweden. Does anybody know the name of the film Milan is watching? Gabbe (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the film title can be found in the closing credits of the episode? 212.178.135.35 (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've checked, it's unfortunately not mentioned in the credits. Gabbe (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Why don't Martial Arts work?

Dear All

I was always under the impression, that martial arts are a good way to learn self-defense. I am friendly with many martial artists and often have a night out with some of them. I had some experiences that baffled me very much and changed my view of martial arts massively: every time my friends got involved into a bar brawl or some other scuffle, they got beaten up really badly. My friend Tobias, who is a longtime martial arts practitioner (Karate, Judo, Aikido, Kobudo and Kenjutsu) and even has the famous black belt in Karate, got smashed by a drunkard who apparently only did some Western boxing when he was younger. This phenomenon, that professional martial artists get almost always defeated when confronted with real violence in bar brawls and street encounters is something I have seen a lot lately. I simply cannot understand this phenomenon and I cannot reconcile my experiences in this regard with my understanding of martial arts and its portrayal in our culture. It is as if these systems collapse when confronted with real, ongoing violence. I have gotten used to seeing martial artists getting beaten into pieces, yet I cannot understand it. Are these combat systems not supposed to give the user an advantage over a potential opponent? If this is true, how is it, that these systems are seemingly absolutely useless when people who trained them are confronted with real violence? Is this phenomenon known and has anybody ever dealt with it? Is there information around that explains this phenomenon?

Thank you for your answers

I wish you all the very best

With kind regards--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:5C0B:8CFA:B2EF:A137 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a variety of issues here:

I don't have enough information to comment either way on the prevalence of McDojos in your area. A certain level of martial arts training, McDojo or real, can bring the Dunning-Kruger effect into play.

A black belt is like, level 1. Really. It's not a doctorate, it's like finishing high school. See Dan (rank).

Safe practice (including even sparring) doesn't really prepare one for an actual fight, especially if the martial art being taught reflects self-defense situations on pre-modern Asian countryside (and not in a modern western bar). Heck, the legendary Shaolin kung-fu was really developed to give the monks exercise, not for them to fight. There was a guy I knew in university who was on the way to becoming his Tae Kwon Do teacher's #1 student (and so the school's #2 teacher). He was good, but still had to go to the hospital after getting mugged. Tae Kwon Do is certainly great if you can see the guy coming toward you and have a chance to kick their skull in. However, it and most other martial arts are useless if someone has already snuck up behind you and pistol whipped you hard enough to need staples along 8 cm of your scalp, and then has time to aim at you while you're still figuring out why you're on the ground. When I signed up for Karate at university a couple of years later, the class was combined with a women's self-defense class, changing the curriculum radically. It became less about forms (which is how one's excellence in a martial art is measured), and more about situational awareness and getting away from an attacker.

There's also the issue of who these martial artist friends of yours are getting into fights with. Some psycho or criminal who is fighting to injure or kill the other person, or is using injury or death as a tool to acquire something else (e.g. money, sex) is always going to have the advantage over someone who is just fighting to correct an insult or to just make the fight stop.

This article and this article both more issues in more detail. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and for the links! I can definitely confirm that my friends were not trained in any McDojos, some of them even went to Japan to get professional training. Your explanation, that martial arts don't prepare you for real violence seems to correlate directly with what I have seen with my own eyes.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:85A9:736F:A717:8E89 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this criticism as Martial-Arts-As-Performance instead of Martial-Arts-As-Asskicking-Technique is well noted for a long time, see for example Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do, which was at least one attempt to resolve the problems where prescribed forms of martial arts got in the way of the utility of those arts; i.e. returning the "martial" portion as distinct from the "arts" portion; also the modern sport of mixed martial arts does the same. --Jayron32 16:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It does, but even MMA fighters find themselves at a disadvantage in a real fight, despite their training and physical fitness. They get it hammered into them not to fight "dirty" - groin kicks, eye pokes, weapons, all that kind of stuff that makes for visually boring, but successful, fights. Even vale tudo doesn't let you stab the guy with a screw-driver or sneak-attack him while he's getting into his car. Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Marquis of Fantailler got into many fights in his youth, most of them as a result of being known as the Marquis of Fantailler, and wrote a set of rules for which he termed “the noble art of fisticuffs” which mostly consisted of a list of places where people weren’t allowed to hit him. Many people were impressed with his work and later stood with noble chest outthrust and fists balled in a spirit of manly aggression against people who hadn’t read the Marquis’s book but did know how to knock people senseless with a chair. The last words of a surprisingly large number of people were “Stuff the bloody Marquis of Fantailler—”

— Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

Regards SoWhy 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Valid. These things are on a continuum, and are not binary absolutes, it should be said, though. --Jayron32 17:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost valid. All UFC fighters know you get at least one warning, and the smart ones burn it when they need it. Li Jingliang was almost done this past weekend in Perth, before digging his fingers into Jake Matthews' eye. Lost later on points, but saved himself from unconsciousness. "Dodger" Montano once freely kicked a man in the balls and poked him in the eye, but that was (apparently) under Texas Death Match rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Matt Deres is right! I have seen biting, groin kicking and repeated beatings to the eye area in bar brawls. So are there no precautions when it comes to real violence?--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:822:ADF0:1676:3153 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty:

Pay attention to your surroundings. Be able to identify anyone in the room and describe what kind of threat they pose. Be able to identify the nearest object you can throw at someone and the nearest object you can swing at someone.

Don't be the easiest target available and don't be a worthwhile target. Think seriously about how easy or hard it would be to rob, rape, or murder yourself at any given moment. When I go into rougher neighborhoods, I dress enough like a bum so I don't look like I'd be worth robbing, but still stay just clean enough to signal that the police might actually care if I file a report.

Avoid places or situations where you can't avoid violence. By extension, don't hang around people who think it's necessary to "win" fights.

Avoid confrontation and de-escalate confrontation through any means necessary (even if it's not "manly" or "honorable"). If a "friend" has a problem with this, tell them to go fuck themselves.

Study local laws. In many places, a cop seeing you get punched is better than winning a fight. If you can get the police involved, don't hurt your opponent, but do play up injuries, keep track of witnesses (especially security cameras), and press charges. Do your best to send the bastard to prison.

Only get into a fight with the goal of running away (not to "win" or even make them stop). Don't hang around with people who aren't gonna run away with you.

Fight dirty. Get your friends to gang up on them (unless the other guy has even more friends), throw things and play keep-away until they get tired, use whatever you can as a weapon, get any hits you can on their eyes, throat, solar plexus, or groin. Biting would be a great idea if it wasn't for blood-borne diseases.

If you're not a psychotic criminal, hit your opponent with the intention of putting him in the hospital. If you're a sane and decent person, you're naturally going to pull punches. If your goal is just "hit them enough to make them think twice about this," you're really only going to hit them enough to anger them. If your goal is "hospitalize them," you're going to hit them hard enough to slow them down. If you are a psychotic criminal, be careful not to kill people.

I'm saying all this as a 185 cm, 100+ kg male who can crack bone under his boot. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That is Interesting Ian.thomson, thank you for the information. Granted, I am not a professional martial artist myself, but I have never even heard of any martial art that deals with this kind of violence or prepares you for it. Thinking about it, I once heard about old military combatives which were supposed to get you ready for real violence, although I have no idea what modern combatives look like and whether they are actually practical or not.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:168:FA12:C0E9:C738 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Check out Krav Maga and other disciplines mentioned in the last paragraph in the "20th century (1914 to 1989)" subsection of Martial arts#Modern history. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.253 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Many years ago, I trained with someone who was a keen martial artist, and also had formerly taught close quarters fighting to the military. His advice was that martial arts were great at teaching you to fight someone using the same martial art in a sporting context, but if you wanted it to be even half decent for self defense you should look in the rules for the moves which are banned due to being too dangerous to your opponent, and use those. MChesterMC (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The martial arts used by the world's militaries would certainly teach one how to fight for real -- but they also get away with training techniques that civilians wouldn't pay money for. And they also can bring the Dunning-Kruger effect into play. A friend of mine who taught English (and earned a blackbelt in Hapkido) in Gyeonggi had some fans among the American military police because he seemed to attract drunk assholes who just finished basic training. This isn't an endorsement in Hapkido so much as it is pointing out that even the USMC's close-quarters combat system isn't an easy solution either. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Although my Polish is rusty, apparently the Polish and German armies have both tested traditional martial arts and came to the conclusion that almost all of them are totally useless when it comes to real violence (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahkampf) (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_56).

Quote: "Many of these disciplines have a positive impact on practitioners' motor skills (agility, skill, body control, perseverance), technical skills (precision), and personal skills development in defeating and learning fairness and respect. However, none of them prepare soldiers for real, ongoing violence and most forms of physical conflicts. Worse yet, many of these systems can lead to bad habits and cause more damages than advantages of any kind.". What do they mean with "bad habits"?--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:380F:C591:A032:5AFA (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This comes to mind. Fighting fair is also a bad habit if you're engaged in real violence, as is the restraint you'd have drilled in to you if you're ever gonna spar. Even people who say "martial arts will totally save your life in any fight" debate on how useful high kicks are, in a way that suggest that kicking might actually be a bad idea in most scenarios. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. High kicks lose most of their momentum before they hit the target and I don't see how one could kick another person in a very narrow street or room. I once read that the Elite German stormtroopers of the third Reich were trained to "flip out" when it came to physical violence. They were drilled to disregard all moral behaviour when it came to physical fights and use every opportunity to kill the opponent. They learned only gross motor movements (a mix between boxing and wrestling) and very simple tactics. I am not sure if we would call this type of fighting system "martial art", given how primitive it was. Given what I have read here and given all available information and my own personal experiences, it does seem to no martial art, not even the combative systems used in military actually prepare you for real violence. I know people who drilled themselves memorized movements for many years, yet got sucker punched by the next best guy in a bar brawl. So much for "muscle memory". It's interesting how few people from the martial arts community actually care whether their stuff is going to work in dangerous situations.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:ED57:AAC5:3314:8904 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A front kick can sneak in anywhere an uppercut can (and somewhere it can't). You're still a bit likely to fall, especially if you're new or drunk, but you won't fall with your back exposed like you will with a sweeping kick, or bang your shin on something that wasn't supposed to be there. It's way more natural, like regular stepping, and packs a relative wallop. You'll never see a real cop kick down a door the way Van Damme kicks down a palm tree, nor would you likely try it yourself. A stranger in a bar is just a door you haven't knocked on, opened up and marched straight through yet. Always remember that, Kevin (or whoever you are). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about dangerous strangers, to be clear. Most people are just friends you haven't met. Don't go around kicking people till you're sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Hick's law and the reactionary gap are ignored by most martial arts, despite their physical and anatomical prevalence.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:FC0E:BEE9:5D1B:BBB7 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The question remains how one does get a good preparation for real physical violence. Despite their shortcomings my money would be on the military combatives, they might be the best available method to prepare for real violence (they clearly surpass any traditional martial art I have ever seen when it comes to realistic training, sparring and awareness training). Whether their use is applicable by law is a whole different question.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:94B5:B89C:E54C:FD16 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The truth is that no martial art (or any combatives for that matter) can really transform someone into a good fighter. Take a look at the old fencing and fighting books of the medieval period: these books show clearly that the men who won most fights were the ones who were aggressively willing to kill their opponents, men who were willing to disregard all "fairness". Mindset is extremely important, like Matt Deres and Ian.thomson said. It is way more important than any "super special killing technique". Most "martial arts" actually hinder you in doing violence to your opponent and they are (to quote Miyamoto Musashi) "mind cages". It is no wonder that many modern combative practitioners such as Kelly McCann and Tony Blauer try to get rid of "holding back" in their systems.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:196A:F6D8:51B6:DA23 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW: has anyone ever studied this book (https://www.amazon.com/Combatives-Street-Survival-Kelly-McCann/dp/0897501764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518968546&sr=8-1&keywords=combatives+street+survival)? I have read it some years ago and it does seem to hit the nail on the head. Gross motor movements, awareness training, taking both Hick's law and the reactionary gap into account, and extensive mental preparation techniques. Isn't that exactly what the OP is looking for?--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:196A:F6D8:51B6:DA23 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Take a look at the old fencing and fighting books of the medieval period: these books show clearly that the men who won most fights were the ones who were aggressively willing to kill their opponents, men who were willing to disregard all "fairness". Mindset is extremely important, like Matt Deres and Ian.thomson said."

This happens to be a rather common fiction trope, what TV Tropes calls the Combat Pragmatist. Quoting their definition:

• "Some fights have rules. Most don't. However, a lot of people will still fight as though there are rules. Heh... suckers."
• "The Combat Pragmatist is a character who is defined by his or her willingness to do anything in a fight to win. This typically applies to "real" fights where there's actually something at stake that's more important than a cash prize, a trophy, or a title belt, and usually not professional fights in a controlled environment where safeguards are in place to prevent one side from suffering too much damage and where one can be disqualified for not abiding by the rules. In such settings, the Combat Pragmatist is an unsympathetic character (usually the main antagonist) who shows through his ruthlessness that he honors nothing — not his opponents, not the sport and its customs, not the tournament's sacred history — but winning."
• "These characters are characterized by an extensive knowledge of tactics others may consider "dirty" fighting or just by a willingness to use those tactics to achieve their goal, often against more "honorable" opponents (i.e. Genre Blind ones). They are likely to think of any adherence to rules or sporting combat as Honor Before Reason. They do not suffer from a Complexity Addiction, are never afraid to use a Mundane Solution (nor do they need it to be pointed out to them), never assume that the other person will fight "honorably", have no interest in a Self-Imposed Challenge, don't care if their opponent is a worthy one, and will not hesitate to Kick Them While They Are Down. They almost always have their weapon of choice either on them or near them at all times, and possibly a spare or two. If not, they're willing to use absolutely anything as a weapon and only resort to Good Old Fisticuffs if there's no weapon nearby."
• "They won't hesitate to use a Dangerous Forbidden Technique. They have no compunctions about hurting a child. Or about attacking someone from behind. Or throwing sand in their eyes. Or pulling down their pants (or flipping up their skirts if dealing with women or a kilt-wearing man). Or the "Hey, You!" Haymaker. Or biting them. Or using Weighted Gloves. Or a Groin Attack. Or pretending to surrender. Or... well, you get the idea. However, there can be different levels of this. Even those who don't believe in fighting fair may still have lines they won't cross, such as refusing to kill or not hurting anyone who's not already part of the fight."
• "Often overlaps with the No-Nonsense Nemesis, Anti Heroes, and especially Ninja. They almost never allow honor or sentiment to cloud their judgement, will usually take measures to avoid setbacks, or betrayal.. Sometimes Weak, but Skilled or Too Clever by Half, though the truly pragmatic former will constantly seek to increase his power level and hence advantage over his enemies. It can look like Confusion Fu in practice — but it almost always isn't. If The Unfettered fights, then he'll be one of these."
• "This can be an Establishing Character Moment. It can also be divisive, both among the audience and In-Universe, due to Moral Myopia — the hero is a resourceful badass, while the villain is just a dirty cheater. This can lead to instances of Black and Gray Morality, showing that the hero and the villain are Not So Different, and the difference between someone being a terrorist or a freedom fighter. For heroes, it's possible for these tactics, if extreme enough, to lead to What the Hell, Hero? moments or claims of If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him, sometimes resulting in responses of I Did What I Had to Do, and in extreme cases, can be a metaphor for Slowly Slipping Into Evil that represents the start or conclusion of a Face–Heel Turn."
• "Villains can also be pragmatic, though it usually takes on a different form. Villains being normal Combat Pragmatists is usually averted, or at least not played out completely straight, as it can possibly even lead to them being victorious. If they are, it means they avert Bond Villain Stupidity and actually kill the hero instead of having dinner with him. Depending on the context, using these tactics can be their Kick the Dog moment or even their crossing of the Moral Event Horizon."
• "Characters are often deliberately not put into this trope due to Rule of Cool. If everyone took this approach to combat who could, key characters would be dead or defeated too soon and the story would be over a little too quickly. Plus, it's often just way cooler to show off more complicated tactics than simple ones. Additionally, Moral Guardians and Media Watchdogs sometimes make having this type of character difficult by ensuring that they can't do certain actions. On the other hand, when drawn-out straight fights are impractical, excitement can be created by Genre Shift away from pure action to espionage, planning, intrigue and the thrill of the hunt, with clever heroes and villains alike who avoid the Idiot Ball and unnecessary flash, and any open violence being quick and decisive, however, this character can come as a Family-Unfriendly Aesop that is right, "Cheating in a fight with no rules is not cheating" and "If you want to defeat the bad guys, you don't have to fight fair with them". The Obligatory War-Crime Scene is a related trope." Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference! I wasn`t aware that this was a trope in fiction. Interestingly enough, this seems to be based on some real facts instead of the usual clichés our beloved Hollywood writers insert in their movies.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:3C16:88A4:B556:AEC8 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the film. "One of the most famous examples in all of film; Indiana Jones, in Raiders of the Lost Ark, after going through a lengthy fight and chase sequence, is approached by a villainous swordsman who proceeds to show off a few fancy sword moves with his BFS [Big Fuckin Sword]. Indy opts to simply pull out his gun and shoot the swordsman."

There are also several quotes from fictional characters explaining their mentality. Some examples:

• "There is no such thing as a fair fight. There's only the fight and who's left standing." Said by Batman.
• "There is no fairness, no grace, no nobility in the Wolfriders' method of combat. They obey but one rule: survive by any means, no matter how cruel or bloody." A quote from ElfQuest.
• "When you're on your own, behind enemy lines, no artillery, no air strikes, no hope of an evac, you don't fight dirty. You do things that make dirty look good." Said by Punisher.
• "Fighting isn't about glory. Fighting isn't about pride. This is the mistake that crazy scum like you always make. Fighting's about winning." Said by Captain America.
• "if on this mission you are forced into close quarters combat, understand you are most likely completely outmatched. Fight dirty. Gouge eyes. Destroy...crotches. Use ze explosives you like so much." Said by Batroc the Leaper.
• "The point of warfare is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his!" Said by the film version of General George Patton.
• Will Turner: "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."
  • Captain Jack Sparrow: "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?"
• "Foolish boy, do you not understand what is at stake when you cross blades with another? You may win a hundred fights, a thousand, ten thousand, but you can only lose once!" Said by Zaknafein Do'Urden, while trying to warn a student that any loss in battle may cost him his life.
• "It was just him and me. He fought with honor. If it weren't for his honor, he and the others would have beaten me together. They might have killed me, then. His sense of honor saved my life. I didn't fight with honor... I fought to win." A quote from Ender's Game.
• "Here's the thing: We don't give a shit about fairness here. We're soldiers. Soldiers do not give the other guy a sporting chance. Soldiers shoot in the back, lay traps and ambushes, lie to the enemy, and outnumber the other bastard every chance they get." A quote from Ender's Shadow.
• "Few indeed are the maiming tricks of foul combat unknown to even the rank and file of the highly efficient Secret Service of the Triplanetary League; and Costigan, a Sector Chief of that unknown organization, knew them all. Not for pleasure, sportsmanship, nor million-dollar purses do these secret agents use Nature's weapons. They come to grips only when it cannot possibly be avoided, but when they are forced to fight in that fashion, they go into it with but one grim purpose — to kill, and to kill in the shortest possible space of time." A quote from Triplanetary.
• "This isn't dueling pistols at dawn, this is war. You never wanna fight fair. You wanna sneak up behind your enemy, and club 'em over the head. You see, Scar understands that. And so do I. So, that's why I'm gonna kill him." Said by Starbuck, from Battlestar Galactica.
• Jamie Lannister: "Brave man you are, attacking a man when his guard is down."
  • Bronn: "Best time to attack a man." Said in Game of Thrones.
• "A beautiful loss is still a loss, and an ugly win is still a win!" Said by Grimsley, from Pokémon Black 2 and White 2.
• "You want to try again; I didn't give you enough warning; you'd be fine if you were ready. Excuses like that have no value. Unfairness and deceit are superior. The difference between life and death." Said by Ky Kiske, from Guilty Gear.
• Scrooge McDuck: "Still a cheater, eh, Glomgold?"
  • Flintheart Glomgold: "I look at it this way: Why not?! Hehe-ahahaha!" Said in DuckTales (1987).
• "Seek victory, not fairness." Said by Master Splinter, from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012).
• "In any conflict, the winner is the one ready to do what the loser is not. " Said by Shredder, from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012).

Also some quotes from witty writers:

• Mark Twain: "I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgiving by the hand, lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
• Oscar Wilde: "I don't know what Queensberry Rules are, but the Oscar Wilde Rule is to shoot on sight." Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting quotes, thank you! It is interesting how many people who spoke and wrote such statements actually had real physical encounters in their life. Many historical personalities like Willhelm von Bismarck, Cyrano de Bergerac and General George Patton have experienced real life violence and duels and often spoke of these bloody bouts in their books and speeches.--2A02:120B:2C02:5DD0:D546:A47:29B7:B11A (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)