Ungentlemanly like behavior

[MatsuShinshii]

I was speaking with a employee today about some work related issues and he asked me if he could leave early on Friday stating that his kid had another self defense class.

He stated that he was getting ready to pull him our of class because of what he considered "ungentlemanly like behavior". I asked what this meant and he answered by stating that his teacher was teaching the class to target area's of the body that he didn't find sportsman like. These area's include the eyes, groin, joints, ears, etc. He said he even showed students how to fish hook in the last self defense class. He even condoned biting.

Obviously, if you know me, I disagree with his assessment. But kept my opinions to myself. Yes that's right I did not interject my opinionated opinion.

My questions; are there or is there any parts of an opponents body that you would think was not honorable to strike,kick,punch? Is there a specific technique that you feel is not allowed under any circumstances?

To me all is fair in love and war. If needed I'd bite someones ear right off, gouge an eyeball out of their head and monkey stomp the groin without ever wondering if it was "gentlemanly" or proper if it means that I get to live another day. Especially against a larger opponent or someone that attacks without warning. In this case I would assume that their intent is to maim, cripple or kill. What do you think?

[LLLEARNER]

It depends on the situation. If it is sport, follow the rules.

If it is a self-defense situation, follow the law. Use reasonable force to defend yourself. If a monkey stomp or eye squish is necessary and reasonable, then by all means do so.

[sensei8]

In the means of survival, there's no such thing as "ungentlemanly like behavior", and as you've already mentioned, all's fair in love and war. My life or his life...I choose my life.

As Bruce Lee put in on a Longstreet Episode..."Aren't we animal?!?" Not only will I bite, I'll do everything and anything that's "ungentlemanly like behavior" to the Nth degree without reservation to defend myself. I'll not feel bad about it when all is said and done.

"No first strike!!" It's a model, and one I value. However, yes, however, I'll not only strike first, but I'll do everything and anything, and I do mean everything and anything to my opponent. Nonetheless, I'll only do what I feel is necessary and nothing more.

Mike Tyson has faced the music for biting Holyfield, but I must say that while what he did wasn't gentlemanly like behavior at all. However, I believe that he did what he did because at that very instant, he went in survival mode the best he knew.

[Lupin1]

I agree that it depends on the context. For sparring of course you wouldn't learn those things. For self-defense, they're things you have to learn. I'm guessing these things were taught to be used in a self-defense situation.

I would also think the age of the child matters. If the kid is 14, it's perfectly reasonable to be learning these sorts of things. I believe teaching eye gouging to children under 13 is a little much, though. Yes, a young child needs to know how to get away. But a young child also doesn't know what "reasonable force" is and may very well try out that new technique they learned on their friend on the playground. You need to be more careful with what you teach young kids.

[bushido_man96]

Considerations of being a gentleman only come into play in a sportive competition, not in self-defense. I'm not sure the gentleman you are dealing with is seeing the difference. But, different strokes for different folks. Who knows, maybe after several years of experience, he'll come around to seeing your way of thinking.

[Spartacus Maximus]

What is all this about so-called “ungentlemanly behaviour”. What ought to be made clear with the person concerned in the OP is, as others have said, sportsmanship,rules and fairness belongs in sport. Following that statement, any worthwhile instructor should ask “what do you want, sport or defense?”

Lastly it is not how one uses force or where it is applied that makes a “gentleman”. It is that a gentleman ought to know that he must never draw his sword unless it is in defense of himself, those dear to him or his land. No good ever came from confusing sport for war or war for sport.

[TJ-Jitsu]

They're desperation techniques used (not surprisingly) by desperate people.

Its not the technique your throwing so much as the position you're attempting to throw it from. Take a punch for example: Throw it from on top of someone it does damage. Throw it from the bottom and its laughably ineffective. The same goes for all these eye gouges and bites, throat rips, and what have you else. If you're not in a good position you don't have good leverage- therefore your attack is going to be quite weak.

Most of the people teaching them haven't even done them. What this is an attempt to do is make a claim unfalsifiable. For example, let me get out of a choke by biting or eye gouging- I promise you it wont work- I've lost count of people trying to do that to me when I choke them- the biggest concern is losing control because I'm laughing so hard. So when you ask these people to prove what they're showing they back track and say "oh this is for real stuff, not sport." This leaves them the perfect scenario where they can make a grand claim ("defend yourself from X!) and never have to back it up- and people still believe them....

So in short I'd pull people I cared about out of that class, and my response when asked would be "You don't seem to be educated enough to teach this stuff...."

[Nidan Melbourne]

Its Self-Defence; any body part is fair game to strike when you’re defending yourself.

If your ear is close to my mouth (when i cant use arms), then i’ll bite it.

If someone is attacking me, they lose that right for me to be a gentleman or sportsmanlike to them. It is a matter of life and death.

[DWx]

As has been said already, context is important. Sport vs self-defence being the main consideration.

I would also think the age of the child matters. If the kid is 14, it's perfectly reasonable to be learning these sorts of things. I believe teaching eye gouging to children under 13 is a little much, though. Yes, a young child needs to know how to get away. But a young child also doesn't know what "reasonable force" is and may very well try out that new technique they learned on their friend on the playground. You need to be more careful with what you teach young kids.

That is a good point.

Personally I hope the instructor is contextualizing these techniques for younger students and setting boundaries for when these types of tactics can be used. Most playground scuffles don't warrant the use of eye gouges or fish hooks.

[singularity6]

Fighting in general is ungentlemanly. The idea of rules for duels and what not was always preposterous to me; they always seemed to be rigged to the favor of the wealthy (poor folks never had time to train with swords or pistols.)

Don't like ungentlemanly behavior? Don't fight.

And for what it's worth, I don't count sport fighting as fighting - it's entirely voluntarily on both parties; typically subject to rules, etc.