Basically, I'd like to get people's feedback on this. Personally I would say that streetfighting by it's very nature contains an element of self defense but would a self defense situation neccessarily constitute a streetfight? I ask this question because many schools actually have different techniques for what they consider to be 'self defense' and teach different techniques for 'fighting and or sparring'. A fight in many cases has the participants face to face utilizing strategy , skill, footwork, etc., like a chessgame if you will. and the confrontation can last from several seconds to several minutes. Whereas in a self defense situation you are usually caught by surprise and it usually lasts only a few seconds. Keeping within the context of the current topic of discussion, (deadly techniques) I believe that it is within the parameters of a self defense situation that these "deadly techniques" would be most applicable and easier to use. Why I say this is because the attacker will usually leave himself open and will not be expecting a fight. They are usually too intent on the actual act of mugging or rape. This is where the strike to the eyes , groin, solar plexus , ears, throat , etc. can be most effective. Look at the techniques that are usually taught in the 'self defense' segments of most classes. The techniques are usually aimed at these very areas. Even if they don't incapacitate the attacker they can at least be stunned enough to allow you to get away. This I think is especially appliccable to women. I still think that you should be able to learn how to use those same techniques in a 'fight' but it is a lot harder to pull off, that is a given. Does anybody feel that a 'fight' is the same or different from a 'self defense' confrontation?

Peace