Why All Violence Is The SAME (Feat.

Рет қаралды 13,258

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 88

@KatoCoyoteCombatWorkshop 10 ай бұрын

That smoke alarm in the background is experiencing attrition as it's battery is being slowly beat down. One of you should maneuver over to the grocery store and decisively purchase a replacement battery

@TheFightDialogue 10 ай бұрын

The smoke alarm took the high ground and ambushed us during the podcast. A combination of ear buds muffling the sound in real time, and general desensitization to the repeated noise allowed the smoke alarm to achieve victory in this battle.

@RobertN734 10 ай бұрын

12:23 Chess is actually really driven by technology. Once computers became stronger players than humans in 1997, we started learning exponentially faster from their analysis. Chess computers now are like eldritch monsters whose moves make little sense, but are so deeply right that they are unbeatable; humans memorize some of their sequences to get an advantage. When people talk about the greatest chess players of all time, they have to caveat 'before/after computers.' The internet changes things again: never before could child prodigies play unlimited grand-master level games online. They're going to be even stronger still.

@nicolaslaquier 10 ай бұрын

Great point

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

This is honestly a good point about how technology can indirectly influence violence. You could make similar arguments for martial arts. How much did we learn about martial arts moves because of HD cameras and the internet? It allows us to watch, share, and breakdown moves on a level that was completely impossible 30 years ago. And martial arts have grown leaps and bounds since that development! Even for warfare, think of how social media algorithms, new kinds of psyops, and the ability to see the HD realities of war in real time have changed the willingness of countries to engage in certain conflicts, or even how people view the role of the military. The US involvement in Vietnam was famously undermined because new technology allowed the media to show the American people the reality of what was going on. Technology can have huge affects on warfare, even when neither military is purposely employing it!

@LastStar007 10 ай бұрын

Minor correction: human players don't memorize computer sequences, but they have been drawing inspiration from moves that the computers like to make. In Armchair Violence's terms, we've outlawed technology from both chess and boxing at the tactical level, but at the strategic level there's no stopping it. These days if you want to learn how your next opponent fights, you can watch PPVs of every professional bout they've ever had. That wasn't always the case.

@RobertN734 10 ай бұрын

@@LastStar007 Top players definitely do directly memorize computer lines: it's called computer prep. They use engine evaluations to sift through variations of openings, trying to find an uncommon, complex sequence that only a computer would know the correct move. If they can get the game to that particular line, then they will know the correct computer move and the opponent won't (they'll have to "find it at the board"). Granted, they might not get one particular sequence, so they memorize a lot of adjacent sequences. If you think "that would take a lot of memorization, isn't that impractical?" You have no idea how much Grandmasters have memorized. It's insane.

@igorwolkowsky6314 10 ай бұрын

There is duel, brawl, and war. Duels are limited in time and space, they have clean rules observed real time, and participants kinda equalized. Brawls have unclear rules, and anything can happen (e.g. mates joining in, drawing of a knife, using a chair), BUT participants may be held accountable for their actions by the law later. In war anything goes, no judgement will come later - in fact quite the opposite: shooting 5 enemy guys from behind can get you a medal. No matter your fighting style or system, or whatever: you are dueling. No matter the trust in the other group, or your friend or whoever, in the parking lot or in the club it is always a brawl. And no matter your finesse in dueling or brawling you can die in the first 5 seconds of a war.

@iwantagoodnameplease 7 ай бұрын

"no judgement will come later" assuming you win. If you lose you can end up being accountable for your war crimes.

@theperfectfighter9193 6 ай бұрын

Beautifully broken down

@igorwolkowsky6314 6 ай бұрын

@@iwantagoodnamepleaseTrue. And there are exceptions, of course.

@na-ky8ou 5 ай бұрын

Yeah, but every guy who tried to brawl with someone who duels regularly generally ends up regretting it

@igorwolkowsky6314 4 ай бұрын

@@na-ky8ou Generally, yes. But if it is about your life, "generally" is not really adequate. :) But please don't get me wrong: I have no intention to even suggest that regular "dueling", or working out is worthless. It isn't; I think everyone should do it.

@TheFightDialogue 10 ай бұрын

Had a lot of fun recording this! Always down for another convo with you!

@spottiestbeef7791 10 ай бұрын

Buy a new battery for your smoke alarm

@KoKuKr 10 ай бұрын

How is it possible that this incredibly smart and helpful sports / science / history (etc.) channel is still so underrated? Guys, the topics on Armchair Violence are well chosen, the hosts views (even while being rather unpopular sometimes) often offered new insights in almost every single video the pumped out. They are so worth a way bigger audience for sure. 💪

@Sawer 10 ай бұрын

You know you are doing it right when you get a lot of comments correcting/arguing with you whilst keeping great like to dislike ratio's. Your channel is unique and you are why. As a new subscriber.. Exited for your future!

@30035XD 10 ай бұрын

Look at my case, I trained Kendo from the age of 15 to my early thirties. A style you would think would never help with other styles right? Turns out when I joined boxing, BJJ and later MMA, I always did WAY better than my beginning peers and even gave a lot of heat to the more experienced fighters. Mentality, timing, distance, positioning, footwork, understanding of angles, reaction time, discipline, fitness, etc, it all carry over. It is like being a polyglot, the more languages you know, the easier it is to learn others. Violence is indeed violence.

@hamstermk4 10 ай бұрын

I look forward to the branching out your content into other forms of violence and how it relates to your study of humanity.

@DamKaKaDaNi 10 ай бұрын

There is definitely technology in combat sports. There is both the current meta of the actual fighting and then there is all the changes in training equipment that has come.

@erudit0rum198 10 ай бұрын

I've only been training for a month and a half and I've already thought on multiple occasions about the similarities between a boxers jab and skirmishers / probing attacks in warfare, in both cases you're basically searching for favorable conditions to start an engagement.

@Multi1 7 ай бұрын

So "violence is violence" isn't meaning violence is inherently bad in every situation ever. Its saying that the same general characteristics apply for all types of violence.

@jujiwastaken 10 ай бұрын

Jake, you a super cool guy, your channel is unique to every other martial arts channel on KZbin, you really treat hand-to-hand fighting like science.

@stevenscott2136 10 ай бұрын

In other words, Fallout was right. "War never changes"

@SenseiofChicago 10 ай бұрын

THANK YOU for this conversation!

@davidegaruti2582 7 ай бұрын

Ok on manouver and attrition : This reminds me of the concept between ambush predation and pursuit predation , Ambush hunting exploits a behavioral lack of the prey , like the antelope not being careful when drinking at the pond will get taken by the crocodile , While pursuit predation exploits a phisical lack of the prey , The antelope wants to be faster than the neighbour when the hyenas are chasing them , And this thing can be taken really whidely : Ambush/manouvering , requires mostly always specific terrains or situations to work , you can see this in war , pickpockets , crocodiles or cats picking a whatering hole , trappers ecc. Ecc. Attrition/pursuit works best against specific individuals who are weaker or more prone to falling in disarray , This can be seen in how guerrillia works better against heavily mechanized large armies who need a lot of resources and men , and so can be worn down with repeated sucker punches , Or how pursuit predators will follow their preys in their migrations , I guess it's sort of the survivability onion , If you can swiftly go for the throat it's awsome , But otherwise nibbling the legs until they don't stand up also works , This also only includes strictly predators that kill their animal prey : Parasites are exploiting much more metaphorical gaps in their hosts , And scavangers are essentially feasting on the loosers of the race of life , wich includes being basically the best pound for pound fighters in their enviroments since they can just intimidate, disgust or straight up maim most other animals in their enviroment , as well as being the most energy efficient ones ... Yes i have been a good asperger over this for a while ...

@davidegaruti2582 7 ай бұрын

On the topic of technology : It gets even more complicated really ... I tend to not like the term "better technology" because it mostly refers to things in a vacuum rather than considering the whole context behind it : A gun is better than a bow at killing pepole , sure ... But a gun requires a lot more energy , materials , workhours and knowledge to make compared to a bow ... This 100 times more for a nuclear weapon , And they kinda fall back in the "attrition vs manouver" debate somewhat : If you have access to the petrol necessary to power the fighter jet , it can take out a castle a lot better than any trebuchet , If you don't have it , then you may be better off with the trebuchet , it is doing the job at least ... So it kinda has us observing the thing differently : The fighter jet is a lot like brian shaw , The trebuchet is kinda like david goggins , If brian gets a hold of david the game is up , If david does hit and runs and waits for brian to gass out then the game looks different ... And yeah naturally the high petrol demanding jets will require their holder to get all the petrol possible , And if the contest is over those then yes size power and doing as much damage as possible the fastest becomes mandatory to claim the objective ... The same applies to all big energy sources : from rivers to uranium ... The energy source will provide you with the weapons to defend it , but it will also enslave you to require more energy

@Tsmowl 10 ай бұрын

This might sound incredibly corny, but I found this to be very intellectually stimulating.

@fanca5926 9 ай бұрын

As a Smash Ultimate player I want to add that the "center" thing also translates well to that game. For most match-ups you want to be the closest to the center of the stage while being close enough to hit your opponent. That's called an "advantage" position for you and "disadvantage" for your opponent.

@umgeburstet8161 10 ай бұрын

very interesting convo, i never thought of the fighter as the army instead of the war, you're spot on with that. the chess analogy is kinda bad though contoling space isn't nessecarily achievbed by scattering your pieces, in fact "keeping everyting together and defended" is crucial in positions with a lot of tension. (edit) now that i think about it, go is a great example, you cant win agains a level opponent by trying to capture stuff, you have to contol space.

@justin8865 10 ай бұрын

Already 5 min it that is a gross misinterpretation of maneuver warfare. Maneuver warfare is a concept that prioritizes speed flowing around hard targets. It is not about a decisive defeat. (That can be a goal but that's not what the concept talks about) If you wanted to apply to Mano y mano combat this be like cutting an angle or trying to take the back. Maneuver warfare recognizes that attrition is always there and is part, just clames that it should be avoided if you can. Instead of hitting a hardend target going around and hitting supply lines and then come back for the hard target after it is weakened . I highly suggest reading the Marine corps theory on warfighting mcdp - 1 which you can find online. I dunno where your getting your info from man but there's far better information out there.

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

I simplified the concept to just look at "winning and losing." But that definition does not at all disagree with my overall point. You just have to replace "finish the fight" with "gain an advantage." And gaining an advantage IS winning a fight! Just at a much smaller level. Just because the conversation didn't touch on the tactical level doesn't mean the concept was misrepresented. I just used an example that was more clear-cut to try to make it easier for people to grasp. If you can speed flow to someone's back, then you have some sort of massive advantage that you are exploiting lol Obviously maneuver and attrition are both going to be a part of any operational or tactical engagement, to some extent. But maneuver is typically contrasted with attrition as a way to achieve objectives, and they are generally considered opposing strategies.

@tobiasaarns8920 10 ай бұрын

One thought from a historian's perspective - how would you clarify ritualistic warfare, for example, in tribal contexts between Papua groups, ancient Chinese chariot aristocrats, or most formalised as far as I can overview the topic, high medival battles, that where more a competition among the knightly class withe goal of capturing and ransoming the opposition with killing them or being killed more as a risk factor than a clear goal of the use of violence? Would this be a true transition from a sports-like training approach of warfare all the way to a true combat sport with socially informed rules and expectations, passing by "real" military violence?

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

My instinct is to classify it by purpose. Is the purpose to practice violence in a more controlled manner? Limiting the gains and limiting the risk in order to gain experience and recognition in a less deadly way? Yeah, that's combat sports. Are these skirmishes in order to settle some petty slight in a way that shows one leader's 'dominance' without risking mass death? That would be more comparable to dueling or people starting fights because of their ego. Each one of those is going to have different outcomes, expectations, and potential for escalation.

@tobiasaarns8920 10 ай бұрын

@ArmchairViolence Thank you for your interpretations! I have the feeling that such differences are hard to grasp for both the public and scholars of history because, I suggest, there is a focus on the outcome of the strike, the killing blow, not of the outcome of the combat as a holistic event. That's an angle of view that I would greatly appreciate, seeing explored deeper.

@FridgemaxxedHybridoreanLifta 10 ай бұрын

Manuever warfare is not a matter of overmatching. Manuever warfare was done by the Germans to opponents much more powerful than them, who even had much better technology, and so on. Manuever warfare is very dependent on which context you are using it in, but, for example, in the German context of ''the short war'' or ''morsels and anvils'', or ''pockets and hammers'', manuever warfare is the belief that the only way to prevent a long war is to be super aggressive. It is to defend by COUNTERATTACK. Instead of statically defending, instead of holding lines, do not defend, attack THEIR attack, and if they attack yours, attack THEIRS. It means the war is decided uber quickly, whether to your advantage or theirs. Manuever warfare was practiced in WW1. Flanking operations, cavalry flanks, cavalry raids on trenches, stormtrooper assaults, and that is on the Western Front! If you go to the East, the entire front is liquid, and it was entirely mobile! Warfare was in gneral much less effective in the West, because it was one of the most fortified areas of the entire planet, and it was a short distance, between two very prepared pacts of major powers. There were no gaps to be taken advantage of, no distributions of force that created an unequal front, no specific fort that was more or less defended, not literally, but practically true. The idea of manuever warfare is to take advantage of local force, however. So what the Germans would often do is massively lopside their offensive elements into one area, and try to annihilate a small piece of the frontline, then wrap around, and repeat, if necessary. In World War One, both sides did this, and it was to no avail, you got to one fort, and maybe, just maybe, you knocked it out, and there were four more to go, and another one being built. Tens and tens of trenches. Borderline impossible to pierce. It was not that they did not try, it was not that it was based on power imbalance, it was just based on the environment and the context. In the East, manuever worked well, because it was way, way, way less fortified, and had way, way, way larger of a front. Same with World War Two, the Germans were actually completely stumped on most of the French defenses, it was only a few areas, especially ones not able to be reinforced before the Germans got through them, that let the French down. If teh French had been fully prepared, as in, their government was not cucking their reservists and things, it is very likely Germany would ahve lost to France, and that the war would have been an eternal statemate, of even worse nature than the first. I could explain a bit more but I think you get the idea. The modern American doctrine is more so a result of lack of consequences for poor choices and behaviours, politicisation of the ranks, and what not. They had already adopted manuever warfare in WW2, as had basically everyone and their dog. Furthermore, manuever warfare goes way back. It is actually just a *part*, of warfare. Manuever was essential in the Napoleonic Era, same with in Ancient Rome, and in many Medieval Conflicts. Search up Defeat in Detail, look at the Roman Roads System, and look up battles such as Alessia and the Huns and so on. Outmanuevering your opponent has always been important. Whether or not it works is dependent on a lot of things. To compare this to fighting, cardio, ''dodging'', aggressiveness and defensiveness, it is all doctrinal stuff.

@FridgemaxxedHybridoreanLifta 10 ай бұрын

KZbin seems to be stopping me from replying? I am not sure what is going on. If it dupes stuff, I apologise. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Phalange_oblique.gif pm1.aminoapps.com/7297/83e6984e85a4e78c234ca94d508bc6df3b9fefc9r1-300-225v2_00.jpg www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/151.gif?v=1485680514 qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f8c60510cf910378c150accf26cb03fc-lq content.randomhouse.com/assets/9780345526991/images/Battle%20of%20Breitenfeld%201631 Logistical manuevering is important too, which is what I meant by Alessia, such as strategic manuevering (Gauls reinforcing the Gauls in Alessia). America was masterful, just immaculate, really, at strategic manuevering in World War 2. It was truly tremendous what they achieved. You see the American ability for strategic manuevering in rare modern events such as Desert Storm, which was far less about power imbalance, and more so about absolutely marvellous planning. Simultaneous assaults all across, multi-branch coordination to the extreme, very effective pincering, pinning and so on, it was a thing of beauty. The intelligence war there was just insane. They were not fighting someone trying to be static or not be manuever warfare based, that somebody basically had no chance against the overwhelming force, just in general, which is part of what allowed the Americans to have so few casualties and what not. Look at flank attacks by cavalry, and even by infantry. Look at Oblique Orders, look at Wheel Orders in Napoleonic Era. Look at Gustavus Adolphus.

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

Maneuver warfare is typically characterized as pitting your strength against an opponent's weakness. For that comparative advantage to exist, there has to be an overmatch in at least 1 area. I think the disagreement is over the definition of "power." Yes, maneuver warfare has been used on larger armies with better technology, but the only way the Germans could use maneuver is because of their advantage in operational discipline. Just like a smaller, weaker fighter can get a knockout through skill. Both the maneuver army and the maneuver fighter are using their skill to outsmart their opponent's raw strength. However, this only works when there is a complete mismatch in skill. If the Germans try to outmaneuver an army that is just as operationally adept as them, then it won't go so well. When assessing "power," I am very much including softer factors like discipline, training, organization, and even morale. In fact, maneuver strategies are most likely to be employed by whichever side has the least raw firepower, because they know they are less likely to win via attrition. However, this only works when you have enough of an advantage in a certain aspect to truly take advantage of the situation. And, as you pointed out, your opponent also has to be unprepared. If I want to encircle my enemy, but there are miles of trenches and fortifications, then I'm screwed. If I want to knock my enemy out, but they are carefully keeping distance and keeping a tight guard, I'm screwed. For the WWII example, I think you're considering maneuver on a tactical and operational level, but I would look at it on a strategic level. Strategically, WWII was based on attrition. The allies won because they managed to economically produce and transport soldiers, supplies, equipment, and fuel on a scale that Germany simply failed to match. Partially because Germany's economic output was hopelessly outmatched, and partly because the German high command were strategically inept. All of Germany's operational maneuvering still lost them the war. Because, once they failed to get the "knockout blow" they were stuck in an attritional war that no amount of maneuvering could get them out of. And that's exactly my point. If you don't have huge advantages in key areas, then a strategy based on maneuver simply won't work. When you're up against an army that is strategically and operationally unprepared (France), maneuver works. When you're up against someone who can take your hardest punch and not go down (USSR, USA, UK), then you are IN an attritional war, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's not to say that all maneuver stops happening in an attritional war. Tactically and operationally, there is always the potential for maneuver. Mainly because there might be very local advantages that you could exploit. However, against a similarly prepared opponent, your odds of winning a WAR with a maneuver strategy is pretty close to 0.

@FridgemaxxedHybridoreanLifta 10 ай бұрын

@@ArmchairViolence I understand your point of view a lot better now, it seems I mostly misunderstood what you meant, I pretty much agree, there is only really nitpicks on my end, but those are irrelevant to the video. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to respond, have a good one mate, and thanks for the interesting videos :)

@mihainita5325 10 ай бұрын

About surprise in a fight: take it out from the organized case to street fight. Then you have the guy asking for directions, and sucker punch you. (sure, there is still a surprise technique during the fight, but that's a different kind of surprise)

@Rocinante0489 10 ай бұрын

Why do you wear Batman logo shirts all the time?

@MorrowindDirections 10 ай бұрын

Hmmmm, what could the answer to this question be? Really a mystery.

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

I am a pretty big Batman fan, and I look better in darker colors lol

@na-ky8ou 9 ай бұрын

"Always be yourself. Unless you can be Batman. Then, be Batman". -Some dude on a website, I can't remember which.

@Rocinante0489 9 ай бұрын

@@na-ky8ou idk i wouldn't really want to be batman.

@na-ky8ou 9 ай бұрын

@@Rocinante0489 Getting the succ from Catwoman. That's my core argument.

@TheDOS 6 ай бұрын

To win, you wanna find and exploit where the fight is unfair in your favor.

@jomess7879 10 ай бұрын

Regarding the ambush conversation, there is a direct connection between a soldier getting ambushed and some average joe getting ambushed. The bad guy "for simplicity sake" in both scenarios gets to pick where the fight is going to happen, how fast it's going to happen, and the level of violence that will be used. They get to decide the goal, the time, and so on. The good guy only really has a few options, fight back with overwhelming violence, try to escape, or lose. The techniques and tactics for the soldier vs the average Joe might be different, but the strategies are generally the same.

@TheKryptokat 10 ай бұрын

Got this one from a Rifle Tactics video that is perfectly applicable to fist fighting. Fire without movement is a waste of ammo and movement without fire is a waste of life.

@JadenDaJedi 10 ай бұрын

13:00 I would argue there are more rules in MMA, because the rules of warfare still apply to fighters as well as the rule of law - a fighter can’t break the Geneva convention even though it’s not technically covered by MMA rules. Taking an inverse view, you could say that since the domain of things you are allowed to do in MMA is smaller than the domain of things you are allowed to do in war (I would say it is strictly a subset), then there are ‘more rules’ causing the restriction of that domain. Edit: Aaaaaand I continued to watch and you basically said that verbatim.

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

Actually, things like the Geneva conventions only apply to warfare. Outside of war, those rules don't apply. As an example, pepper spray and hollow point bullets would both be considered war crimes on the battlefield. But they're also common civilian self-defense implements.

@JadenDaJedi 10 ай бұрын

@@ArmchairViolence That’s actually really interesting to know! I never would have thought it would be that way

@Banished-rx4ol 3 ай бұрын

Checking out the backlog of videos I have to come out and say clinch fighting and inside fighting in boxing requires a lot of grappling. Look at jack johnson fights or in the modern era beterbiev on how to use grappling in boxing offensively(johnson) and defensively(beterbiev). Underhooks, overhooks, head position, angles, frames, etc still exist in boxing its not all outside fighting.

@2caiden4u 10 ай бұрын

Technology is your technique. Your wooden spear is a jab, your nuke is your spinning back kick.

@lio88jian 10 ай бұрын

My thoughts regarding the difference between the rules in combat sports vs the rules of warfare: All competition exists on a two dimensional spectrum with the x-axis being the stakes and the y-axis being the rules. Low stakes, low rules = games you make up with your friends on roadtrips. Low stakes, high rules = chess. High stakes, low rules = covert operations. High stakes, high rules = conventional warfare.

@christophervelez1561 10 ай бұрын

I love this video.

@kingqw3rty-_-982 Ай бұрын

I disagree on maneuver warfare being the result of an overmatch. I do not know all that much about warfare right now, but from what I do know I think maneuver warfare is the result of a war where the battle space is not very transparent and it is harder to immediately bring reserves to reinforce in case of a breakthrough, additionally it should also be easy to stage large concentrations of forces in preperation for large maneuvers. War in terrain that favor the defenders more so than usual also leads to positional fighting.

@falsefight 10 ай бұрын

I love the idea of India and China fighting with sticks and stones. Please address further the topic of warfare devolution into less violent encounters, like champion duels and violent sports (lacrosse being the prime example of a sport historically directly substituted for war)

@eakwing1 10 ай бұрын

typo in the desc; "Part I of **out** conversation!" (love the video though :))

@ArmchairViolence 10 ай бұрын

Fixed it! Thank you.

@snowflake7980 10 ай бұрын

Hey just subbed and a new vid.great☺️

@rnswm.3084 5 ай бұрын

haha fix your fire alarm

@christiankennedy9417 10 ай бұрын

Would love to see you on Jocko Willinks podcast.

@mafionek3593 10 ай бұрын

I am no expert on the topic but one could argue that technogy impacts combat sports in some capacity. The training equipement like heavy bags instead of pig carcasses, gloves to inflict more head trauma onto your opponent, espionage in form of recorded fights of your opponent, i could even argue that the widespread gyms are possible thanks to technological improvement resolting in less harmfull way of learning the sport. I am just curious to see your opinions, i am not saying that im right.

@netherstarbuild 10 ай бұрын

Ең жақсы KZbin

Why All Violence Is The SAME (Feat.

Пікірлер: 88