Every Approach to Conflict Must Be Built on the Same Solid Foundation

"I need to work more on managing conflicts verbally than physically." That was the first reason a student gave me when he quit the weekend courses.

He had gone through the training for yellow belt and a third of the training for orange belt. He had already learned how to neutralize an attacker. But he had only just begun learning how to respond to an attack. And, during the summer break, he decided he would rather drop the predominantly physical approach from my courses and look elsewhere for a purely verbal one.

Why the choice seems logical

I understand why the idea makes sense at first glance. A verbal conflict seems less dangerous than a physical one — and in many ways, it is. If someone raises their voice at you, you have time to think, to respond, to step back. If you get a reply wrong, the worst consequence is a tense conversation. The chances of de-escalating are high, and if things do escalate further, they usually stay verbal.

A physical conflict does not give you that luxury. The danger is immediate, and any hesitation or wrong reaction can have real, bodily consequences. Once it's set in motion, the only option left is to neutralize the aggressor.

So it's tempting to conclude that the two are separate things — that you can choose to train for one without the other, depending on how much risk you feel is present in your life. Assertive communication on one side, physical self-defense on the other. Two different drawers, and you pick what you need. And yes, the verbal drawer gets opened far more often than the physical one.

Except that's not how it actually works.

What actually happens before any reaction

I repeat something often that most people find hard to accept:

Managing aggression isn't a list of techniques. It's a capacity of one's personality.

It comes down to how we interpret a provocation, how we control our emotions in that moment, and how we ultimately choose to act. All of this happens inside us, often subconsciously, in a fraction of a second — whether someone is raising their voice at us or throwing a punch.

The difference between the two situations isn't in the inner process. It's in the final action each one demands. Danger is still danger; only its outward form changes.

That's why someone who trains exclusively for verbal conflicts is, in effect, training for lower-stakes situations — ones that can absorb errors in judgment or action without serious consequences. That's real, useful training. But that same person remains completely vulnerable to a verbal conflict which degenerates or to a physical assault, where mistakes are punished immediately, through pain.

Someone who trains for physical conflicts takes a more demanding path, one that requires more radical decisions and carries higher stakes. But at the end of it, they're left with more than physical reflexes. They're left with principles and strategies for handling any kind of aggression — including verbal ones.

If we think of personality as the center of an onion, managing verbal conflicts is one of its layers. Other kinds of aggression correspond to other layers. Managing physical aggression is the outer layer — the most demanding one, but also the one that, once mastered, lets you master the whole onion.

You don't choose a form of conflict. You shape your personality

This, I think, is the real misunderstanding. In my courses, I don't teach separate techniques for verbal conflict and separate techniques for physical conflict. Everything I teach shapes personalities — it builds self-confidence, self-control, and determination. These are the foundation on which any approach to any kind of aggression is later built.

For me, Krav-Maga isn't a collection of defensive moves. It's training that inner capacity which decides, in every second of a conflict, how we interpret, how we feel, and how we act — whether we're in the middle of a tense conversation or facing physical aggression.

That's why my courses put the emphasis on surviving physical aggression, while constantly addressing how to de-escalate a conflict before it gets there. And that de-escalation stage is, of course, assertive communication. It isn't a matter of choosing between the two forms of training — it's about finding the structure that offers both, integrated: you communicate for as long as you still have room to de-escalate, and you act physically when communication is no longer enough.

I don't promise you that life will become easier. I promise you that you will become more prepared for it. — László Pethő

The student I mentioned at the start wasn't wrong to feel the need to work more on the verbal side. His mistake was only in assuming he had to give up the other half in order to gain this one. Someone who chooses the seemingly easier path — assertive communication alone — builds a single skill, still carrying the fear of physical aggression. Someone who chooses the integrated path reshapes, from the root, how they relate to every form of conflict in their life.

Where this training begins

The yellow belt group starts in January 2027 and covers exactly this foundation: recognizing and avoiding conflict, along with the first forms of neutralization, through basic strikes. It's where every student starts — including the one who feels, maybe like you, that they want to work on the verbal side first. Because that's where you actually learn both, at the same time, on the same foundation.

Subscribe to the email newsletter to hear about the courses I'm planning and to receive more articles like this one. Or, if you already know you want to be part of the group starting its journey in January, sign up now — spots are limited.

Stay aware, and stay safe!

László Pethő
Instructor, therapist, and mentor
Romania's first Krav-Maga instructor