Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4645112" data-attributes="member: 54707">You've got a good point about armored knights. Although armor rarely worked like it seems in films. And it depended a lot upon the era and what kind of weapon the armor was facing and how good a killer the guy trying to penetrate the armor was. Technology matters in killing efficiency. For instance no armor stood up to a good longbowman, but an armored knight against a militia man with a hoe had a real good chance of killing if he could keep his feet and could actually catch or corner the other guy. (And that's what makes battle different than combat too. In battle you run at the other guy, like in boxing, with the intention of hitting and killing him before he drops you. In combat you may or may not go at the other guy. If you can help it you don't. Instead your killing effectiveness goes at the other guy, not you.)But as for boxing, I used to box too. Yeah, you're right, you have no intention of getting hit but then again you have to get close enough to get hit. Intentionally.By that I mean you don't want to expose vulnerable areas purposely but you also know that to take the fight to your enemy you must expose yourself intentionally. If your opponent throws wide his chest is exposed, in order to exploit that you have to throw a blow of your own, meaning you have to expose yourself. You can't win without walking up, or dancing up, toe to toe with the other guy. You have to get close enough to touch him and land blows. He has to do the same because in boxing your limited to the mechanical advantage you have with your own physique.So you have to be willing to risk getting hit to hit back, or to hit first.In the best combat situations, on the other hand, you put your opponent at "opportunity disadvantage." You don't come in arm length to arm length (if you can possibly help it - you don't slug it out with weapons that cut off body parts or pierce vital organs) where a few miliilimeters or inches determine the variation in reach. Your opponent carries a knife, you carry a sword. Your opponent carries a sword, you carry a spear. Your opponent wants to fight hand to hand, you shoot him with a longbow. He wants a dogfight with cannons, you shoot a missile at him from a distance over the horizon line. Real killing is about killing advantage, not toughness endurance. Or ideally even exposure to risk, though, to tell you the truth few things are as inherently risky as killing. There are just too many variables to make the job "safe." And it shouldn't be safe. It is hard and terrible and depending on the situation, horrible and immoral. It can also be necessary to save the lives of innocents, women, and children. But ideally that is what killing is all about, being able to kill while staying safe, not killing while exposing yourself.I think in this context you probably may mean one of these things: I used to box and fight, I have some tactical experience, I have experience in criminal affairs (violent crime mostly) and I've done some weapons designing.Anyways PP, real good discussion, all the way around.</blockquote>

Verification