carlyle wrote:Cisco wrote:...I used that as a made up name as I don't know anyone named that. Any similarity is entirely coincidental.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? Can you honestly put a real name to this? I don't disagree that some fighters are thicker than others (and in at least one case, off the scale), and many fighters sometimes go through "thick" phases; but in over three decades, I've personally not run into anyone who was the kind of consistent, unrepentent d!ck characterized by this and other posts.
Aidan MacKay wrote:that is really Cisco's alter ego just in case anyone was wondering...
Then it must be the alter ego who keeps running into the mythical construct being bandied about
. This is easy to flog and rail against, because being the strawman that it is, there is no one out there to defend the counter position. In the absence of real offence, though, it's an empty exercise -- you might feel better after venting, but at the end of the day, nothing has been solved and no one's behavior will have changed.
Respectfully,
Alfred of Carlyle
well now. It's my experience that there are people who have a very difficult time recognizing what constitutes a good blow. I described my experience with one fellow, whom I am inclined to believe really was genetically numb. I hit him with a shot that could have got me in trouble had it been on someone with a pain threshhold, and got told it was light. He did drop out not very long after that incident.
I know of another fellow who isn't too bad in practice about acknowledging blows, but in tournaments to get a leg blow acknowledged you pretty much need to take the leg out from under him. I don't think he intentionally ignores the blows, I believe he's incapable of recognizing what is happening to him when he's very focused on trying to hit you.
I've known a number of people who have advocated refusing to take a blow from someone they don't think is accepting theirs. In all cases, these have been people who did not throw with anything like consistent authority, but were willing to start cheating as soon as they decided their opponent was. Even though the problem was more likely to be them not throwing good shots than an opponent not taking good shots.
I can still recall, with embarrassment, a situation in which I got blasted by a newbie in a tournament situation and I let the voice tell me that he couldn't have done that... I blew that call more badly than I blew the block that led to it.
So, reality lies somewhere between the mythical land in which no one cheats and the equally mythical land in which "cheaters" are really, intentionally cheating, all of the time and in all instances.
Some times the apparent cheat absolutely is cheating. Other times, it may be an armour problem, or genetic, or a matter of focus. And probably most of the time, it's a problem with blow delivery, from bad mechanics to bad rattan to bad footing - whatever.
The real thing to remember in this whole area of consideration is that we are *all* on our honor to do the right thing in the lists. Including the people we're suspecting of not doing so. So start by presuming that your opponent is an honorable one and work from there. What did I do wrong on that shot, is my sword sound, am I more tired than I realized, did I miss, did he block it or dodge it, etc.
The conclusion "he blew that shot off" can be reached eventually - but really, it should be the last option at the end of a long checklist.
