Hacker News Reader

Comment by ErrantX | Hacker News Reader

No.

I've never indicated making that assumption though. Ive discussed your response to a robber who you judge to be unskilled.

As I mentioned in the first post I indicated this is usually obvious (if they are skilled/unskilled) and if you are trained you will recognize this.

The easiest pointer is how they hold the knife - if they havge it out in front of them (pointed at you) they are probably unskilled. Skilled handlers will hold the knife at their side a few inches from their body pointed away from you at a 30 degree angle.

Unskilled handlers will also glance at the knife a lot (you can use this - time your attack to their glancing).

If the robber is skilled then, clearly, you need to make a different assessment

(and I guess then it comes down to "is he planning to attack me")

View on HN

You're repeatedly making the claim that you can differentiate, with near 100.00% accuracy, between street fighters who can and can not fight effectively (or get lucky in this one fight).

That strikes me as bad math.

(and I guess then it comes down to "is he planning to attack me")

On this we agree. If there is clearly going to be an attack, then figuring out an optimal fight strategy is wise. But if there is an option not to have an attack, that seems even better.... even if you're confident that you have a 100.00% accurate ability to differentiate between superior/lucky and inferior/unlucky opponents.

> You're repeatedly making the claim that you can differentiate, with near 100.00% accuracy,

Im not sure how I give that impression.. I've deliberately tried not too.

The point I am making is.

If your well trained and you are happy that your assailant is unskilled then it makes sense to take action :)

(well that was the original point anyway r.e. the Israeli we were originally discussing)

Im not sure how I give that impression.. I've deliberately tried not too.

You gave it by saying things like:

If your well trained and you are happy that your assailant is unskilled then it makes sense to take action :)

Anyway, I think the biggest difference in our standpoints is that I've been robbed at knifepoint.

In the moment, all I could really think was that I wanted to be around for my wife and kids far more than I gave a shit about anything else, so I decided, in the moment, that I'd engage only if it seemed like a physical attack was inevitable. I tossed the wallet, and avoided the attack.

I was, and still am, happy with the result. And I will continue to disagree with those (such as yourself) who advocate fighting simply when you think you'll win, drawing the line instead at fighting when there are no other viable options.

> You gave it by saying things like:

I specifically say things like:

you are happy

Which isn't trying to imply 100% accuracy of prediction. It's saying if your happy that your assessment is that he's unskilled is accurate then do it. If your not, then I guess it depends on the person what you want to do.

I see you mentioned elsewhere you were learning boxing and karate when you were mugged. Im not aware that any of those disciplines give you suitable training in disarming a knife wielder. So you made the right choice IMO.

Waiting till your forced to fight is, IMO, the worst move. If your able to disarm the guy all your doing is sacrificing a part of your advantage. (if your not able to disarm him then, yeh, clearly co-operation then trying your best if attacked is the best policy).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com