Copyright © 2022 by Jeth Randolph
All Rights Reserved.
Odysee video link: https://odysee.com/@OneInOne:e/New-video:b9
Part one:
Helmuth Von Moltke’s 1871 essay - Militärische Werke: II. Die Thätigkeit als Chef des Generalstabes der Armee im Frieden. (Military Works: II. Activity as Chief of the Army General Staff in Peacetime) contains the following, often quoted passage:
“Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit über das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus. Nur der Laie glaubt in dem Verlauf eines Feldzuges die konsequente Durchführung eines im voraus gefaßten in allen Einzelheiten überlegten und bis ans Ende festgehaltenen, ursprünglichen Gedankens zu erblicken.”
Translated:
“No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces. Only the layman believes that in the course of a campaign he sees the consistent implementation of an original thought that has been considered in advance in every detail and retained to the end.”
Did Von Moltke, write these lines perhaps sensing this future clash of the two titans seen in the video? We can only speculate.
It’s good to have a plan. It’s even better to base that plan on some sort of definite knowledge or experience.
Perhaps the extent of the armed female’s planning was to select a weapon and arrive (in her mind) looking like this?
Sadly for her, that’s as long as the plan lasted as the bat was deployed from this same shouldered position only to be immediately lost on first contact with the other woman as the torque of the swing and initial impact ripped it from her right hand.
A baseball bat needs to be held with two hands, unless you are enormous, and while neither of these women are exactly Twiggy, it’s a case of having no idea what you’re doing but rather thinking that the mere presence of a weapon will win the fight for you.
In my book Blunt Weapon Tactics, there is an entire chapter on planning for the short comings of improvised weapons when trying to use them to defend yourself against a greater threat from either larger, armed and/ or multiple attackers, along with video and analysis of a local event fitting this exact situation.
Consider this recent sensational news headline:
“Boy, 17, is stabbed to death and 18-year-old man is left fighting for his life after 'machete brawl involving up to 100 people' at party in east London”
Upon reading the full article, you soon see that not all of the 100 were likely to be male OR armed. Some, an undisclosed number, had machetes. But logic tells us that as the casualties stated could easily be caused by one armed person not one hundred. Therefore other weapons were likely there but never used. As machetes are fashionable now in certain circles, they were there for posturing and intimidation or the carrier just bottled it.
Just because there are weapons present does not mean that the individuals know how to use them or intend to use them. In the case of not meaning to use it, that notion also is prone to failing “on first contact” and can lead to tragedy.
Now, people die everyday somewhere on this planet at the hands of completely untrained people using an object of some kind as a weapon, a situation as old as humankind.
But it is also true that just because there is a weapon there, it doesn’t mean that the attacker cannot be beaten or disarmed if you counter them or that they really meant to use it in full understanding of the consequences.
Part two:
The video also shows, the very common situation of, being thrown down and beaten on the floor.
I’m guessing that female#2 has some sort of sport training, probably MMA as opposed to BJJ as she is focused completely on striking after the takedown. Although her initial closing of distance and clinching to a takedown is a classic sport wrestling tactic rather striking art.
Female #1 is clueless about fighting as we have touched on in part one. Perhaps the other woman was known to be capable and hence the bringing of the bat? Who knows or cares.
#1’s defence on the ground is the classic mistake of turning to face the ground which leaves her effectively defenceless against the onslaught of punches. Usually this is talked about in the context of being open to rear strangles in sports contexts but here you see the more likely outcome.
There is also hair pulling which is also highly likely in real fights which immobilises and controls the head making defence very difficult.
There is a respect context as the beating continues until the audience of a dog and a male (it’s hard to be sure of the hierarchy here, though definitely female #2 is at the top) hear #1 admit that she is “whupped”.
The counter to the bat is:
Close in to clinch
Take down
Half guard
Full mount
Kneel over
On the subject of the kneel over, again this is very common in real fights but not in sports grappling as the potential for leg attack counters is so high in this position. Female #2 seems to prefer this position to strike from.
In real fights the kneel over has many advantages to the mount with regard to non sporting factors.
The demand for #1 to show her face is another component of the respect/ public humiliation matrix as the face must be beaten to show others what the result of disrespecting #2 is to secure her dominant reputation.
And here is an interesting point to consider, this incident doesn’t conform to a UK claim of self defence (see Blunt weapon tactics for more details) but outside of the law, it does, as the challenge to position/ dominance is put down for all to see.
Copyright © 2022 by Jeth Randolph
All Rights Reserved.
332: (VIDEO)"No plan survives first contact..."