How useful is striking?

Posted by: ThomsonsPier

How useful is striking? - 10/09/06 07:54 AM

This thought was prompted by a comment in the 'defence against rape' thread below.

Assuming that you are in a situation where you need to defend yourself, how useful are striking attacks as opposed to throws or locks of the type used to maneuver your attacker(s) into a position which opens an escape route? Which is the better (please fell free to provide your own definitions of 'better') set of techniques to apply? Most people who don't practise striking probably won't be able to generate enough power to have a great effect, but locks and throws often require a greater level of confidence to apply (generalisations abound).

My question is mainly focused on the viewpoint of those who do not wish to study martial arts or learn a 'complete' fighting system, for in those circumstances the attackee will presumably have favoured techniques of their own.
Posted by: Joss

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/09/06 08:08 AM

"...how useful are striking attacks as opposed to throws or locks of the type used to maneuver your attacker(s) into a position which opens an escape route? Which is... better... "

I suppose the answer would be the one you are better at.

But this is sort of like asking which is better... meat or vegetables or fruit. You can't really stay healthy on a strict diet of just one. They work together.

In the same way, it is very difficult to simply throw someone cold, or put a lock on them, without a distracting strike of some kind. This is especially true for a smaller, weaker person. It is absolutely true without a huge amount of skill.
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/09/06 10:09 AM

Both striking and grappling are equally important to defending yourself. If you lack one, you can be completely overwhelmed by your opponent. This usually turns out to be strikers being overwhelmed by grapplers but that's because most grapplers have some grasp of striking techniques, whereas most strikers have no grappling knowledge what so ever.

The problem with learning only striking is that when you are on the ground, you can not generate momentum for your strikes to take effect. Do not assume you won't go to the ground, it's a possibility which happens more often than people would believe. Also, striking has limited value in extreme close range. Elbow strikes and knee strikes still have value in the clinch but throws and grappling are at their prime at this range.

The problem with grappling is that it ties you up when you use it. If you are in a self defense situation, striking should be your first line of defense because it keeps you mobile and out of range of potential weapons. If the need arises, grappling knowledge should be applied when closer ranges are encountered. By no means should you take things to the ground in self defense, unless circumstances dictate that there is no other option.

I stand by my viewpoint because I train both striking and grappling. Place a pure striker or a pure grappler of similar skill level against me and I'll have the advantage because I can fight anywhere and under almost any normal conditions.

The reason why I suggested a grappling martial art to Aurora is to help her overcome her own personal fears. I would normally have suggested a striking art for self defense as a base to learn from but in her case, she specifically brought up how she was scared of being on the ground. By taking away the fear of groundfighting, she is empowered to defend herself in any situation and does not have to live in fear of being helpless. Not all self defense is about fighting, sometimes it's about courage, the desire to survive and the "commonsense" to avoid danger.
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/09/06 10:01 PM

I agree with most of that especially the part at the end about courage and what not.

The one thing that struck me as inaccurate is that you cannot generate power from the ground in striking. Since you are not on your feet then you will not be able to generate as much speed, but you can still get adequate torque. Also there are other options such as hammerfists and elbows. And if you are on top in grappling then of course you can do good damage striking.
Posted by: Hash

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/09/06 10:02 PM

Striking is the core of any self-defense system, and the only fast, reliable way of ending a fight. I've never gone to the ground in a real fight. Not that it doesn't happen, but in every fight I've been in, the winner was the one who hit the other guy in the head first. Groundfighting is also suicide against multiple attackers. I've seen people booted in the head, it's not pretty. Always try to stay on your feet. And don't think that many wrestling matches happen out there on the street, if it does go to the ground it's all about fists, knees and elbows. If you learn to strike properly, you can still knock somebody out from the ground.

If your interested in self-defense, learn how to hit, where to hit, and then train to hit first. (and keep hitting)
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/10/06 12:01 AM

If oyu cant strike or deal with srtriking, you will be in for trouble, but if oyu dont know how to grapple to some degree at least, you wil lbe i nfor otruble. Learn both, but emphasize strikes as they end fights quicker.
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/10/06 07:07 AM

Quote:

And if you are on top in grappling then of course you can do good damage striking.




Forgive my generalisation. From the top position, you can strike effectively. Hence, GnP.

Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/10/06 10:39 AM

lol. No problem. I forget things all the time.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/10/06 02:40 PM

28+ years in the Arts I see them compilmenting each other rather then a comparison. You have to get from point "A" to point "B" in a fight they are not going to let you.

So it comes back to the appropiate tool at the appropiate range. I recommend striking as you enter even if grappling is your strong suit in contrast I recommend grappling once in too close to strike effectively.

From my limited experince if you strike well you have less resistance to your grappling, sweeps, throws or locks. Combining them really enhance this effect, like forearm shuto like move (to the neck, face, collar bone as you osoto-gari or slapping the grion before you grab and twist them, while you grab his throat seems to lift him for some reason????

Anyway never plan on 1 without the other. I will add that, of the two I've dropped people without noother neccesary followup striking then Grappling or Groundfighting. Unless you are just totally ruthless, U Groundfight if he is still a threat. RIGHT???

My 2 cent.
Posted by: ThomsonsPier

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/11/06 07:21 AM

Thanks for thine replies, fellow humans.

I understand that all ranges and techniques are important when considering self defense, but I'm trying to think of the question in terms of a non-martial artist's view. I imagine most people are unwilling to spend sufficient time on striking to make it a truly useful tool (I can't say how much time that is).

I'm not putting myself across very well here. My own view is very much in line with the opinions put forward here, which is to say use whatever you have in your arsenal to achieve whatever goal you have in mind (much as in life). But what about those with a minimal arsenal? With what would you recommend they fill it?
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/11/06 12:02 PM

With striking. Boxing to be exact.
Posted by: szorn

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/11/06 12:09 PM

Quote:

Thanks for thine replies, fellow humans.

I understand that all ranges and techniques are important when considering self defense, but I'm trying to think of the question in terms of a non-martial artist's view. I imagine most people are unwilling to spend sufficient time on striking to make it a truly useful tool (I can't say how much time that is).

I'm not putting myself across very well here. My own view is very much in line with the opinions put forward here, which is to say use whatever you have in your arsenal to achieve whatever goal you have in mind (much as in life). But what about those with a minimal arsenal? With what would you recommend they fill it?




Actually, this is what I do for a living, help non-martial artists (most non-athletic) learn how to successfully protect themselves in a short period of time.

To answer your question, allow me to ask some questions. Which do you believe is more natural and instinctive, strikes or locks? Which likely requires less time to learn and master, strikes or locks? Which tactic dominates the majority of martial arts?

The answer to those questions is obvious, strikes are more natural, require less time to learn, and they dominate the majority of martial arts. Yes, there are a lot of martial arts which are based on grappling but there are a lot more which aren't. Is one BETTER than the other? This would actually depend on the "totality of circumstances". Locks would be better for controlling someone, while strikes would be better for knocking them out. In other words, what is the objective. However, since we are talking about non-martial artists who out of necessity require simple and natural self-defense tactics I would personally avoid locks. When the emphasis is realistic self-defense we need to consider Hick's Law, OODA Loop, and Survival Stress Reaction. All of which dictate that locks may not be the option of choice under the chaotic and stressful nature of an assault.

On a different note- people often forget about the simple gouging/grabbing type of techniques that are even simpler than strikes (which I mentioned in the rape thread). Consider placing the open hand in the attacker's face and attempting to dig the fingers into the eye sockets. Regardless of what the attacker does, keep the hand glued to the face. This has many advantages over striking or grappling to include phychological effects (disrupting the OODA Loop) and it creates a defensive mind-set (he flinches to protect the eyes and uses his hands to remove your hand). This type of technique can also be used on the throat and groin as well. In fact I have seen and heard of many cases where a simple but committed groin grab has ended some altercations. Although, i wouldn't rely just on one move in any case. This is ultra simple, natural, and requires little to no training. The main hurdle it getting the student mentally prepared to get in close to the attacker and to be committed to executing the tactic. Although, this is assuming that the intended victim has exhausted all other options such as escape and de-escalation before resorting to physical defense.

Hope this helps,

Steve Zorn, ICPS
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/11/06 06:09 PM

Quote:

Yes, there are a lot of martial arts which are based on grappling but there are a lot more which aren't. Is one BETTER than the other? This would actually depend on the "totality of circumstances". Locks would be better for controlling someone, while strikes would be better for knocking them out.




While I don't disagree with your post in general, I'd like to point out that chokes in grappling have a higher percentage success at knocking someone out than strikes do.

Quote:

On a different note- people often forget about the simple gouging/grabbing type of techniques that are even simpler than strikes (which I mentioned in the rape thread).




It's not that we forget them, but rather that we realise that we can't train them realistically in a Dojo. You can pretend to gouge your opponent's eyes out in training as much as you want, but it's not going to have the same effect as using the technique in real life. As such, most of us prefer to focus on techniques which we can train under pressure against an aggressive opponent on a regular basis. Also, grapplers are equally well equipped to use eye gouges based on the principle that gouges are "ultra simple, natural, and requires little to no training".

I do agree that these technique should be made available to people who are untrained, but I believe that simple striking skills which can be trained regularly without maiming your training partners is more fundamentally useful.
Posted by: ThomsonsPier

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/12/06 07:47 AM

szorn:

Quote:

Actually, this is what I do for a living, help non-martial artists (most non-athletic) learn how to successfully protect themselves in a short period of time.




That sounds interesting.

Quote:

To answer your question, allow me to ask some questions. Which do you believe is more natural and instinctive, strikes or locks? Which likely requires less time to learn and master, strikes or locks? Which tactic dominates the majority of martial arts?

The answer to those questions is obvious, strikes are more natural, require less time to learn, and they dominate the majority of martial arts. Yes, there are a lot of martial arts which are based on grappling but there are a lot more which aren't. Is one BETTER than the other? This would actually depend on the "totality of circumstances". Locks would be better for controlling someone, while strikes would be better for knocking them out. In other words, what is the objective. However, since we are talking about non-martial artists who out of necessity require simple and natural self-defense tactics I would personally avoid locks. When the emphasis is realistic self-defense we need to consider Hick's Law, OODA Loop, and Survival Stress Reaction. All of which dictate that locks may not be the option of choice under the chaotic and stressful nature of an assault.




<Quickly Googles OODA, Hick's Law and SSR/>
You illustrate here the reason that I was reluctant to use the word 'better.' Thanks for the information there. I acknowledge that locks require more precise control under pressure. To continue my line of thought: when considering that the best (in my opinion) outcome is to escape unscathed, the condition of the attacker irrelevant, does striking with the power possible without proper training and practised body mechanics provide the necessary impact to produce an escape route? I see any series of movements requiring a strike followed by a lock (deprecated) followed by movement and so forth, as being very time intensive to train and subject to change within any given situation (those blasted attackers never behave like you imagine in the forms, do they?), which, in turn leads us back to training for all situations and then back to martial arts.

With regard to Hick's Law (thank you, Wikipedia), does the simplicity and almost instinctive nature of striking facilitate the decision making process? I know I've taken to striking in the arts with greater ease than locks or throws. I do so enjoy those strikes on the chap while he's going down, though...

Quote:

On a different note- people often forget about the simple gouging/grabbing type of techniques that are even simpler than strikes (which I mentioned in the rape thread). Consider placing the open hand in the attacker's face and attempting to dig the fingers into the eye sockets. Regardless of what the attacker does, keep the hand glued to the face. This has many advantages over striking or grappling to include phychological effects (disrupting the OODA Loop) and it creates a defensive mind-set (he flinches to protect the eyes and uses his hands to remove your hand). This type of technique can also be used on the throat and groin as well. In fact I have seen and heard of many cases where a simple but committed groin grab has ended some altercations. Although, i wouldn't rely just on one move in any case. This is ultra simple, natural, and requires little to no training. The main hurdle it getting the student mentally prepared to get in close to the attacker and to be committed to executing the tactic.




Thanks for that; it's most helpful. You're right, I wasn't considering gouges and the like. We do train to be aware of the possibility, but (for obvious reasons) it's hard to train effectively.

Regarding the concept of placing the hand in your attacker's face, I can see how it would be effective. A while ago, we had a little experiment in class where a simulated attacker just held a hand about six inches in front of their victim's face, replacing it with the other when knocked away. It's surprisingly disconcerting and I can imagine it being a lot worse with added pain.

Quote:

Although, this is assuming that the intended victim has exhausted all other options such as escape and de-escalation before resorting to physical defense.




Goes without saying as far as I'm concerned.

Leo_E_49 (May I call you Leo?):

Quote:

While I don't disagree with your post in general, I'd like to point out that chokes in grappling have a higher percentage success at knocking someone out than strikes do.




Does this hold true for a scenario in which the attacker is highly aggressive and the defender is relatively untrained, and possibly weaker? Are they easy to learn? I haven't studied any grappling arts (through lack of time and a school; if anyone knows of a grappling class in or near Reading, UK, please let me know) but they do seem effective. As with a lot of things, I suppose, it relies a great deal on knowing when to apply the skillset.

Quote:

It's not that we forget them, but rather that we realise that we can't train them realistically in a Dojo. You can pretend to gouge your opponent's eyes out in training as much as you want, but it's not going to have the same effect as using the technique in real life. As such, most of us prefer to focus on techniques which we can train under pressure against an aggressive opponent on a regular basis. Also, grapplers are equally well equipped to use eye gouges based on the principle that gouges are "ultra simple, natural, and requires little to no training".




Does the gouge become more natural when distancing is not so much an issue? That is to say, when the distance for striking is already closed due to being in a grappling position?

Quote:

I do agree that these technique should be made available to people who are untrained, but I believe that simple striking skills which can be trained regularly without maiming your training partners is more fundamentally useful.




I can see that's true for those who train regularly, but is it possible to demonstrate or practise the techniques at full force somehow? I don't think a training partner would be very happy. Maybe I'll try on a melon or something. This has the added advantage of providing a tasty post-practice snack. I imagine even ten-pin bowling has a beneficial effect.

Thanks for the input, and sorry for the long post and bombardment of questions (and excessive use of parentheses).
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/12/06 08:21 AM

Quote:

Leo_E_49 (May I call you Leo?):




Leo's fine.

Quote:

Quote:

While I don't disagree with your post in general, I'd like to point out that chokes in grappling have a higher percentage success at knocking someone out than strikes do.




Does this hold true for a scenario in which the attacker is highly aggressive and the defender is relatively untrained, and possibly weaker? Are they easy to learn?




If the defender is relatively untrained, chokes are not a good option because it is easy to apply a choke incorrectly if you have little training, thus having little effect. However, they can work very effectively against aggressive attackers and are relatively easy to learn. After 4-5 hours of training, applying a choke which could render someone unconscious is straightforward. However, chokes must be used within the context of other grappling training because you must be able to get into the correct position to apply the choke and when used against an aggressive attacker, this involves the use of many other grappling techniques.

Quote:

I haven't studied any grappling arts (through lack of time and a school; if anyone knows of a grappling class in or near Reading, UK, please let me know) but they do seem effective. As with a lot of things, I suppose, it relies a great deal on knowing when to apply the skillset.




The best thing I can find for Reading is the Bujinkan Ninjitsu Reading Dojo at Duffield Rd, Woodley, Reading, Berkshire RG5 4RW. However, you always have to be cautious when joining a Ninjutsu class because there are a lot of fakes out there. The University of Reading has a Judo club which you could ask about.

I've also found another possible Judo club:
Reading Judo Club
Location: Reading
Training Times: Men & Women Monday 20:00 - 21:30
Friday 20:45 - 21:45
Boys & Girls Friday 19:45 - 20:45
Telephone: 01344 867764
Email: kim.tilley@tesco.net
Contact: K Tilley
Although there is no website, which makes confirming its existence difficult.

I would try to get into one of the Judo clubs if I were you.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not that we forget them, but rather that we realise that we can't train them realistically in a Dojo. You can pretend to gouge your opponent's eyes out in training as much as you want, but it's not going to have the same effect as using the technique in real life. As such, most of us prefer to focus on techniques which we can train under pressure against an aggressive opponent on a regular basis. Also, grapplers are equally well equipped to use eye gouges based on the principle that gouges are "ultra simple, natural, and requires little to no training".




Does the gouge become more natural when distancing is not so much an issue? That is to say, when the distance for striking is already closed due to being in a grappling position?




Eye gouge can obviously only be applied effectively at grappling range, you have to be in contact with your opponent's face for a period of time to apply it. Hence, having grappling training will ensure you are able to apply it effectively without your opponent pushing you away or grabbing your hand away from their face. However, if you are well trained in grappling, there shouldn't be any need to do this when you can do things such as choke them unconscious just as easily, without the likely resulting civil or possibly even criminal legal repercussions of maiming your attacker.

Quote:

I can see that's true for those who train regularly, but is it possible to demonstrate or practise the techniques at full force somehow? I don't think a training partner would be very happy. Maybe I'll try on a melon or something. This has the added advantage of providing a tasty post-practice snack. I imagine even ten-pin bowling has a beneficial effect.




The problem with doing this on a melon, for example, is that it wouldn't make you any more effective at doing the technique. Melons don't have eyelids, melons don't struggle to try and prevent you from gouging their eyes. It's almost as academic an approach to self defense as just sitting down and thinking about it. This is why I prefer to train techniques which I know I can use effectively against someone who is struggling to resist me, even in training.

Quote:

Thanks for the input, and sorry for the long post and bombardment of questions (and excessive use of parentheses).




No problem.
Posted by: Joss

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/12/06 10:00 AM

I think the conversation is becoming circular as it seems to keep wishing for a magic bullet that will let people that have no skills, or intention of getting them, be immune to violence.

If you want to be able to defend yourself and you don't have skills - then you have to get skills.

If you are smaller or weaker and don't have skills this is even more imperative.

If your environment is truely dangerous, and you are smaller and weaker without skills, your choices are:
1. Get skills.
2. Change your environment.
3. Carry a weapon that will provide you the edge you need. But this means a) it has to be an effective weapon, b) you have to be able to use it effectively and c) you have to be WILLING to use it effectively. Just carrying a weapon you don't know how to use, or won't, is usually futile.
4. Get some big, dangerous friends and make sure everyone knows about it.
5. Adopt pacifism as a philosophy, trust to luck and pray.

There is no answer to the question of what are the minimum skills necessary. Martial arts is a lifetime pursuit, not a purchase with a warranty.

Basicaly, the smaller you are, the more dangerous you have to be to survive. Compare Israel to Kuwait.
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/12/06 10:57 AM

Quote:

If your environment is truely dangerous, and you are smaller and weaker without skills, your choices are:
1. Get skills.
2. Change your environment.
3. Carry a weapon that will provide you the edge you need. But this means a) it has to be an effective weapon, b) you have to be able to use it effectively and c) you have to be WILLING to use it effectively. Just carrying a weapon you don't know how to use, or won't, is usually futile.
4. Get some big, dangerous friends and make sure everyone knows about it.
5. Adopt pacifism as a philosophy, trust to luck and pray.




Nor, even do any of these guarantee safety. There's always an element of risk, no matter what. Training merely reduces this risk by providing us with a way to stack the odds a little more in our favour.
Posted by: szorn

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/14/06 02:15 AM

Quote:



While I don't disagree with your post in general, I'd like to point out that chokes in grappling have a higher percentage success at knocking someone out than strikes do.




I am not sure if I would agree with this. While I don't know the exact statistics of choke-outs compared to knock-outs, I have seen a high number of knockouts in the numerous variations of televised MMA fights. While I am sure you know this, choke-outs are caused by lack of oxygen to the brain while most knockouts are caused by concussive trauma to the head and brain. I was referring to the latter. Also, in relation to ease of learning, strikes are easier than chokes, especially for untrained students interested in self-defense. Lastly, self-defense is about efficient tactics that aid in escape, assuming there will be multiple attackers or that weapons will be involved. While chokes might be effective they require more skill, take longer to apply, and commit the "defender" to only one assailant for a certain period of time.


Quote:

It's not that we forget them, but rather that we realise that we can't train them realistically in a Dojo. You can pretend to gouge your opponent's eyes out in training as much as you want, but it's not going to have the same effect as using the technique in real life. As such, most of us prefer to focus on techniques which we can train under pressure against an aggressive opponent on a regular basis.




With proper protective gear and training partners who can respond in a fairly realistic manner, this is easily accomplished. That's similar to saying we can't train forde-on-force gun tactics because it's not real. While it is true that we can't actually gouge out eyes in the training environment, we can still train as realistically as possible while avoiding injuries. The key is understanding human reactions to these techniques so there is no underacting or overacting. This is actually no different than taking submissions to the tap-out in grappling practice.

Quote:

Also, grapplers are equally well equipped to use eye gouges based on the principle that gouges are "ultra simple, natural, and requires little to no training".




I actually hear this quite often. In fact it's been discussed on several forums lately. The truth is that people tend to fight how they train and train how they fight. If a technique or tactic is not thought about or trained on a regular basis it won't likely be thought of during a highly stressful life-or-death altercation, regardless of what we think we will do and regardless of how simple a skill is. I have seen this many times during adrenal response drills. It has also been proven on the street, sometimes with fatal results.

Steve Zorn, ICPS
Posted by: szorn

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/14/06 02:37 AM

Quote:

Eye gouge can obviously only be applied effectively at grappling range, you have to be in contact with your opponent's face for a period of time to apply it. Hence, having grappling training will ensure you are able to apply it effectively without your opponent pushing you away or grabbing your hand away from their face. However, if you are well trained in grappling, there shouldn't be any need to do this when you can do things such as choke them unconscious just as easily, without the likely resulting civil or possibly even criminal legal repercussions of maiming your attacker.





I agree with the above with the exception of the comment regarding legal repercussions. Chokes have been known to cause damage to the neck, trachea, and even the brain. On occasion chokes have lead to the deaths of the recipients. It's for these reasons that chokes, sleeper holds, and neck restraints have been eliminated from the majority of law enforcement DT programs (too much liability). However, while an eye attack can lead to possible blindness and possibly a law suit, I am not aware of any cases of a death caused by this technique (with the exception of those cases where weapons were used to target the eye).


Steve Zorn, ICPS
Posted by: szorn

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/14/06 03:25 AM

Quote:

To continue my line of thought: when considering that the best (in my opinion) outcome is to escape unscathed, the condition of the attacker irrelevant, does striking with the power possible without proper training and practised body mechanics provide the necessary impact to produce an escape route?





We do know that training of proper techniques and body mechanics will definitely provide a physical advantage compared to not training. However, we also know that the majority of people don't practice as much or as often as they should. This is especially true for non-martial artists who work long hours, have busy family lives, and rarely have time to think about exercise or training, let alone actually exercise or train. While this isn't the ideal situtation, it's often the norm. Also, in most reported cases, the average victim is one of the people I just mentioned above. Trained martial artists statistically aren't targeted much, not because of their physical abilities but generally because they have more confidence that reflects in their body language and attitude. While it's true that not all victims "fight back" and not all victims survive, but we can be fairly sure that those who did "fight back" and survive most likely didn't possess the striking power and body mnechanics of highly trained martial artists. In fact, often you will hear that these people rarely had any previous self-defense knowledge or athletic experience.

To answer your question- yes, it's possible to use strikes (and grabbing/gouging) to facilitate an escape, even if the strikes lack in power. The key to using strikes, especially if they lack power is to target those areas that 1) can't be toughened up 2) are easily accessible and 3) have the highest probability of slowing or stopping the threat

Quote:

I see any series of movements requiring a strike followed by a lock (deprecated) followed by movement and so forth, as being very time intensive to train and subject to change within any given situation (those blasted attackers never behave like you imagine in the forms, do they?), which, in turn leads us back to training for all situations and then back to martial arts.




This is true. Which is why it makes sense (in regards to self-defense) to emphasize natural & instinctive movements and then put those movements together into simple universal skill-sets that can be used in a variety of situations and against a variety of attacks, rather than trying to learn different responses for every situation and every attack.

Quote:

With regard to Hick's Law (thank you, Wikipedia), does the simplicity and almost instinctive nature of striking facilitate the decision making process? I know I've taken to striking in the arts with greater ease than locks or throws. I do so enjoy those strikes on the chap while he's going down, though...




Yes, emphasizing natural movements and keeping those movements to a minimum does facilitate the decision-making process (aka the OODA Loop). Natural movements are generally already hardwired into the neural-pathways which means that the self-defense variations don't require high repetition practice like unnatural skills do. This means less conscious effort during the response. Less movements also means less conscious effort. Regular practice of these skills in various scenario simulations can actually reduce response time and increase the practitioners OODA Loop.


Quote:

Thanks for that; it's most helpful. You're right, I wasn't considering gouges and the like. We do train to be aware of the possibility, but (for obvious reasons) it's hard to train effectively.

Regarding the concept of placing the hand in your attacker's face, I can see how it would be effective. A while ago, we had a little experiment in class where a simulated attacker just held a hand about six inches in front of their victim's face, replacing it with the other when knocked away. It's surprisingly disconcerting and I can imagine it being a lot worse with added pain.




Some Silat systems are fond of practicing putting hands into the face. During their drills and scnearios they place the hand into their partners face (making contact). This does two things- 1) it gets the practitioner comfortable with doing this and making is a positive habit 2) it desensitizes the partner to the hand in the face, of course you never get use to having a hand in your face but you learn not to panic if it happens during a real situation.


Steve Zorn, ICPS
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/14/06 05:21 AM

Quote:

I agree with the above with the exception of the comment regarding legal repercussions. Chokes have been known to cause damage to the neck, trachea, and even the brain. On occasion chokes have lead to the deaths of the recipients. It's for these reasons that chokes, sleeper holds, and neck restraints have been eliminated from the majority of law enforcement DT programs (too much liability). However, while an eye attack can lead to possible blindness and possibly a law suit, I am not aware of any cases of a death caused by this technique (with the exception of those cases where weapons were used to target the eye).




To my knowledge no police department actually trains these chokes. Nor do I believe they ever did. So, the people who were applying the chokes were not trained to do so. Hence, they were not able to apply them correctly and injured their opponents.

This is why I said that chokes are not good for beginners because it takes a while to learn how to use chokes properly without permanently injuring your training partners if they are struggling. Many martial artists train chokes weekly against people who are struggling without any such injuries. Therefore, I would say that it's not the chokes that caused the injuries but the untrained police officers who used them incorrectly.

Physical restraint training in most police departments does not come close to the extent and frequency of training of most Judo or BJJ schools, for example. Police have more on their hands and do not have time to train as much as that on the job.

Chokes, if applied correctly by trained practitioners have a very low rate of injury, otherwise they would not be allowed for regular training in an Olympic sport (Judo) or many other martial arts worldwide. Where as by contrast, eye gouges can not be applied correctly without mutilating the attacker.
Posted by: szorn

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/14/06 01:19 PM

Quote:


To my knowledge no police department actually trains these chokes. Nor do I believe they ever did. So, the people who were applying the chokes were not trained to do so. Hence, they were not able to apply them correctly and injured their opponents.




Actually in the past many law enforcement departments did in fact train in sleeper holds and neck restraints. In fact, PPCT which is one the most well known DT training organizations taught what they called a Vascular Neck Restraint, essentially a standing triangle choke. This was included in the curriculum from at least 1989 up through 2004. To be honest I don't know if the technique is still included in the curriculum but even back then I know that many departments had policies against it's use.

It is possible that the technique could have been improperly applied in many of those cases where death resulted but that doesn't automatically mean the technique was improperly trained. It could easily be explained by the chaotic, stress-inducing, and unpredictable nature of attempting to restrain a violently resisting assailant during a real life-or-death altercation.

Also, it should be emphasized that in many cases where death resulted from these techniques, it wasn't necessarily due to improper application but to other unknown factors such as heart conditions, blood clots, etc. While it's true that martial artists and athletes are generally in good overall health, this isn't always the case with the average assailants that law enforcement and civilians may be forced to face on the street.

Here are some comments regarding "restraint asphyxia" written by a Paramedic and expert on the subject ( Charley Miller)-

Thankfully, "CHOKE HOLDS" (aka: "Sleeper Holds" ...
"Tactical Neck Holds" ... "Lateral Vascular Neck Restraints" ... and the like) have rightly been BANNED from use by many emergency services.

CHOKE HOLDS can cause death in two different ways:
1. Death due to Airway Obstruction OR
2. Death due to "CAROTID ARTERY COMPRESSION."

No one argues about the fact that choking can cause death due to Airway Obstruction.

But, anyone who promotes the idea that even a "carefully" applied form of choke hold can "SAFELY" be employed (by avoiding obstruction of the Victim's AIRWAY) is obviously entirely uneducated about the OTHER, equally-lethal, choke hold effects caused by Carotid Artery Compression. Carotid Artery Compression can cause stroke or death due to obstruction of blood-flow to the brain – or by dislodging a plaque embolus (a clump of the "crud" that builds up along the lining of some people's arteries), and sending it to obstruct an artery in the brain). OR Carotid Artery Compression can cause death due to "CAROTID-SINUS STIMULATION". Stimulation from pressure placed on one or both carotid arteries triggers a lethally SLOW heart-rate – in fact, it can actually STOP the heart from beating.

In other words: No matter how "carefully" any form of "CHOKE HOLD" is employed, any Victim subjected to a choke hold can rapidly DIE!




Steve Zorn, ICPS
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/14/06 06:32 PM

Good points. I agree that death can result because of heart conditions and stress of the moment resulting in incorrect applications. However, death in self defense is legally quite different from mutilation. Furthermore, it's not 100% sure that chokes if done correctly will result in death whereas it's 100% sure that eye gouging if done correctly will result in mutilation. The intent of the technique is different and that's my point.

I think you'd have a hard time justifying a technique applied with the intent of mutilating someone infront of a jury whereas a technique applied with the intent of restraining them and possibly rendering them unconscious. I know that chokes are treated as lethal techniques by police departments in most countries, but I think you're standing on better ground in terms of justifying your actions than with eye gouges.

Plus in terms of techniques from a practical point of view, if your survival is priority, wouldn't you prefer to use a technique which will almost certainly render an opponent unconscious? Mutilating an attacker doesn't necessarily stop them (in fact, it may make them fight harder), knocking them out does.
Posted by: szorn

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/15/06 01:14 PM

Quote:

Furthermore, it's not 100% sure that chokes if done correctly will result in death whereas it's 100% sure that eye gouging if done correctly will result in mutilation. The intent of the technique is different and that's my point.




Actually that's an incorrect assumption. I have personally been stabbed in the eye with a training knife during practice. Although it was quite effective and I assumed I would have a damaged eye once I removed my hand, that wasn't the case. No damage other than pain, redness, and the inability to see for a few minutes. I had a friend that accidently stabbed himself in the eye with a pencil while throwing it around. The pencil actually pierced the eye. While it wasn't a pretty sight, the eye actually healed normally with no visible signs of damage. A flick, jab, and even a steady gouge can be utilizied without causing any permanent damage to the eye. Most people forget that the head moves and that the eye is soft and also moves around inside the socket. When a strike or pressure is applied the assailant has a tendency to flinch the head and face away from the cause of the pain. This not only decrease the potential for permanent damage but also increases the potential for the intended victim to escape.

Quote:

I think you'd have a hard time justifying a technique applied with the intent of mutilating someone infront of a jury whereas a technique applied with the intent of restraining them and possibly rendering them unconscious. I know that chokes are treated as lethal techniques by police departments in most countries, but I think you're standing on better ground in terms of justifying your actions than with eye gouges.




In self-defense the intent of an eye strike, or any strike for that matter is to slow or stop an assailant from continuing his/her assault. It's not to knock them unconscious, choke them out, mutilate them, or kill them. This is the same concept as taught in defensive handgunning.
The actual intent is what matters in court not the end result. Also, as long as the intended victim can prove that they exhausted all other options and had no other choice but to physically protect themselves, they won't likley face criminal charges. Even civil suits won't likely hold up.

This is why it's so important for self-defense instructors to teach more than just physical self-defense. The physical skills should be thought of as last-ditch options when everything else has failed. The students should understand the self-defense laws in their state and jurisdiction, they should be taught awareness/avoidance, escape, and de-escalation. They should have a solid understanding of AOJ so that they know when physical self-defense is appropriate and necessary. As long as they can prove they understood all of the above and they resorted to self-defense as a last-ditch option they will likely be OK, regardless of whether their response resulted in mutilation or even death.

Quote:

Plus in terms of techniques from a practical point of view, if your survival is priority, wouldn't you prefer to use a technique which will almost certainly render an opponent unconscious? Mutilating an attacker doesn't necessarily stop them (in fact, it may make them fight harder), knocking them out does.




Personally, I prefer techniques and tactics that have the highest probability of success for the intended victim regardless of the their age, sex, conditioning, skill, etc. Also, the techniques taught are based on the assumption that the intended victim will be facing multiple assailants and most definitely weapon threats. The majority of my students are average non-athletic men & women who do not have the time, energy, or desire to invest in long-term martial arts. They require skills that are easy to learn, easy to retain, and easy to use under the stress of a real assault. While chokes might be effective skills they don't actually fit that criteria.


Steve Zorn, ICPS
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/15/06 04:08 PM

Quote:

Actually that's an incorrect assumption. I have personally been stabbed in the eye with a training knife during practice. Although it was quite effective and I assumed I would have a damaged eye once I removed my hand, that wasn't the case. No damage other than pain, redness, and the inability to see for a few minutes.




This is probably because he had his eyelid closed. Eyelids are stronger than most people imagine.

If you are not removing at least part of their eyes from their eyesockets it is not called an eye "gouge". The definition of gouge is to scoop something out. It is highly likely to result in permanent eye damage if done correctly. If you are not removing their eyes from their sockets it is called an eye "poke" or an eye "stab", not an eye gouge.

Quote:

I had a friend that accidently stabbed himself in the eye with a pencil while throwing it around. The pencil actually pierced the eye. While it wasn't a pretty sight, the eye actually healed normally with no visible signs of damage. A flick, jab, and even a steady gouge can be utilizied without causing any permanent damage to the eye. Most people forget that the head moves and that the eye is soft and also moves around inside the socket. When a strike or pressure is applied the assailant has a tendency to flinch the head and face away from the cause of the pain. This not only decrease the potential for permanent damage but also increases the potential for the intended victim to escape.




I agree that such a technique is viable and useful if you have the opportunity, however I disagree that they are particularly effective unless you are in a good position to use them. It's difficult to apply a good steady gouge with a struggling person, especially someone who is stronger than you. They will pull your arm off their face as quickly as possible. Eye stabs can be effective to set up a more devastating technique but they are far from fight stoppers on their own. Eye gouges can be fight stoppers but are considerably more permanently damaging and also are not trainable against resisting opponents.

Quote:

In self-defense the intent of an eye strike, or any strike for that matter is to slow or stop an assailant from continuing his/her assault. It's not to knock them unconscious, choke them out, mutilate them, or kill them. This is the same concept as taught in defensive handgunning.
The actual intent is what matters in court not the end result. Also, as long as the intended victim can prove that they exhausted all other options and had no other choice but to physically protect themselves, they won't likley face criminal charges. Even civil suits won't likely hold up.




Agreed, however, in practice, in most countries you've got a jury to convince and a technique involving removing someone's eyes or possibly damaging their eyesight probably wouldn't go down well with your average citizen.

Quote:

This is why it's so important for self-defense instructors to teach more than just physical self-defense. The physical skills should be thought of as last-ditch options when everything else has failed. The students should understand the self-defense laws in their state and jurisdiction, they should be taught awareness/avoidance, escape, and de-escalation. They should have a solid understanding of AOJ so that they know when physical self-defense is appropriate and necessary. As long as they can prove they understood all of the above and they resorted to self-defense as a last-ditch option they will likely be OK, regardless of whether their response resulted in mutilation or even death.




Yes, there's nothing legally incorrect in many countries with killing or maiming an attacker in self defense. However, you've got to convince a jury in most cases and also, it's got to be proven as self defense, rather than a mutually aggravated brawl. If techniques are not directed at stopping and escaping a fight, it can be argued that both participants consented to the fight by continuing it. Hence, fight stopping techniques are, I believe, more likley to be given the OK by a jury than techniques which prolong a fight.

Quote:

Personally, I prefer techniques and tactics that have the highest probability of success for the intended victim regardless of the their age, sex, conditioning, skill, etc. Also, the techniques taught are based on the assumption that the intended victim will be facing multiple assailants and most definitely weapon threats. The majority of my students are average non-athletic men & women who do not have the time, energy, or desire to invest in long-term martial arts. They require skills that are easy to learn, easy to retain, and easy to use under the stress of a real assault. While chokes might be effective skills they don't actually fit that criteria.




I never said that chokes were good for beginners. This discussion arose as a result of your saying that striking was more effective than grappling for knocking someone out and that grappling was more effective for controlling someone. I was pointing out that grappling can be effective for knocking someone out too.

I personally think that self defensive courses should teach basic striking techniques as the basis, but that's just my unqualified opinion.
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/15/06 08:04 PM

Ive tried to read all that like four times and I just cant do it. You guys gotta have carpel tunnel. Does anyone have a shorter point?

I think that all ranges of fighting are important. Id say a slight edge goes to striking, simply because of mobility which is critical to escape. Train to strike and escape first, grapple, break, and escape second.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/15/06 08:10 PM

Chen --

I'm seeing people talking about eye gouging/strikes, etc, among other things.

I too haven't read much of the thread. I didn't get into it early on and now there's no WAY to go back and get caught up, lol!

Two things though;

1. Eye strikes are notoriously unrealiable for self defense. People can continue to fight blind. They are NOT fight enders in the least.

2. Striking the HEAD will get your hands broken in all likelyhood -- regardless of what "hand form" you think will magically save you. You can even hurt your hand hitting with a palm heel.

Striking should perhaps be done with elbows, knees or by headbutting, in my opinion.

That said, continue on with your scientic discourse folks. Knock yourselves out.



John Kogas, TCG
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/15/06 08:17 PM

I agree with you about eye gouging. Its the same for neck chopping and nerve shots too. However, I just cant help to put my fist upide someones head. One of those instincts that are just too ingrained I guess. I have what some people call a heavy hand, but rarely to I punch my hardest unless its to the body. I use a lot of the tools you mentioned though Im not one for headbutting too often. Ill use it if I have to, but it isnt something I actively look for. Most likely I would do it wrong and it would mess us both up.
Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/16/06 04:15 AM

Quote:

1. Eye strikes are notoriously unrealiable for self defense. People can continue to fight blind. They are NOT fight enders in the least.

2. Striking the HEAD will get your hands broken in all likelyhood -- regardless of what "hand form" you think will magically save you. You can even hurt your hand hitting with a palm heel.

Striking should perhaps be done with elbows, knees or by headbutting, in my opinion.

That said, continue on with your scientic discourse folks. Knock yourselves out.

John Kogas, TCG




Thank you! Someone finally backs up my point.

Basic striking is far more effective than eye strikes and should be the basis of any self defense course. You just can't train eye strikes effectively in an SD course so why spend precious time on them when other techniques with higher chance of success exist?
Posted by: Hash

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/17/06 11:26 AM

Quote:

1. Eye strikes are notoriously unrealiable for self defense. People can continue to fight blind. They are NOT fight enders in the least.





Eye strikes and neck strikes are both instant fight enders if done properly. (big difference between strikes and gouges, which are ineffective in self-defense)

Quote:


2. Striking the HEAD will get your hands broken in all likelyhood -- regardless of what "hand form" you think will magically save you. You can even hurt your hand hitting with a palm heel.




I've never broken my hand on anybodies head. And if it's a serious situation, who cares? If you manage to knock an attacker cold, and only break your hand, you still survived, which is always the ideal outcome.

The head and neck are really the only targets that can be struck effectively with minimal training.


To directly answer the original question (with what would you fill a minimal defensive arsenal), the first thing anybody needs to learn is, of course, how to punch! That single skill will get you by, as long as you have timing. (i.e., hit him as soon as he raises his fists in anger, or displays violence (yelling etc) within your bubble).

With more time to train, the same body mechanics of a punch can be applied to other strikes, more targets can be learned, etc. But the basic, natural strike is the punch, and the basic targets are the temple, nose, and chin.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/17/06 01:45 PM

Eye strikes not being fight enders??? They can be by themselves but if you get a guy to blink/close his eyes or turn his head to avoid the eye strike, what stops you from (using your descriptive terminology) knocking him the f$#%$ out, especially if you inticipate this natural responce to defend the eyes.

If you touch with finger tips sharply or strike the eyes with tip of your knuckles successfully, I don't care what all the books, percentages or DVDs tell you he is temporally blind, some will fail like a blind man others will drop to one knee holding their eyes, others will crumple to the ground, almost all will scream, curse or grunt. Even one eye will blurr and water the other, he is 60-90% stopped and nearly at your mercy. This is no books or movies this is from 1st hand experinces no ring or cage fight. Believe what you will, seeing is believing and practice makes it happen.

As for breaking my hand on someones head as long as you don't strike tip of the forehead, I pity the fool that think he take a bear fist strike to the face/head from a guy/person that can punch. Even in your most trouthed MMA ring I've seen giants Ko'd by Smaller men from punches to the face, and lord, if a bigger man hit them square. The chins is part of the head you know (being funny). On the street hitting someone in the face or (this will trip you out for-real if you fear hitting the head) even BACK of the HEAD if you know where to hit. Will cause major damage!! No books, 1st hand stuff.

As for throat strikes ending fights, I'd take a solid deep strike to the throat over a RNC anyday!!! Less messing around. For you weak at hearts, I wouldn't do it if my life didn't depend on it. I'd run if I could. Others experinces maybe different, but I like what I've seen from eye and throat hits. Maybe this is old fashsion Martial art, not popular anymore bc you can't do it in the ring.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/25/06 09:47 PM

Neko456 wrote
Quote:

Eye strikes not being fight enders??? They can be by themselves but if you get a guy to blink/close his eyes or turn his head to avoid the eye strike, what stops you from (using your descriptive terminology) knocking him the f$#%$ out, especially if you inticipate this natural responce to defend the eyes.





Would the eye jab actually be the fight ender or would the next shot that KTFO’s him?

I know that’s being nit-picky, but I said what I did about eye jabs not being fight enders – especially in and of themselves. I never said that they weren’t a worthwhile tool. But as a tactic by themselves, lets just say that you’d better have some skill behind that sort of tactic.

I’ve been caught in the eye before and while my eye watered, it did NOTHING to deter me from dismantling my opponent.


Quote:


If you touch with finger tips sharply or strike the eyes with tip of your knuckles successfully, I don't care what all the books, percentages or DVDs tell you he is temporally blind, some will fail like a blind man others will drop to one knee holding their eyes, others will crumple to the ground, almost all will scream, curse or grunt. Even one eye will blurr and water the other, he is 60-90% stopped and nearly at your mercy.





That may be the case, but it in NO WAY means that a fight is over. Maybe that happens to YOU or something. Maybe you wilt when your eye is jabbed. I don’t though. I’ll continue to fight blind.

I’m telling you man, if it doesn’t knock me out or break something, I’m not going to stop fighting – thus is my whole point to begin with.


Quote:


As for breaking my hand on someones head as long as you don't strike tip of the forehead, I pity the fool that think he take a bear fist strike to the face/head from a guy/person that can punch.





Unless he’s twice your size. But I was primarily talking about closed fist strikes. Should have clarified that but I didn’t. Even if you keep your hand open, you can still get get injured. I know a fight is a fight, but there are better ways of finishing one IMO than by strikes to the head with one’s hands. Elbows and knees are two good examples. Of course that isn’t to say that I wouldn’t punch someone in the face either.


Quote:


Even in your most trouthed MMA ring I've seen giants Ko'd by Smaller men from punches to the face, and lord, if a bigger man hit them square. The chins is part of the head you know (being funny). On the street hitting someone in the face or (this will trip you out for-real if you fear hitting the head) even BACK of the HEAD if you know where to hit. Will cause major damage!!





Just making a minor point about the inherent possibility of injuring the hand striking a much denser target. You can get as irregular about that statement as you’d like. Doesn’t change that fact one bit. I simply believe that other tactics are superior and say as much. Meanwhile you can do whatever it is that you enjoy doing – all the while risking injury if that’s your deal. Doesn’t matter to me in the least.


Quote:


As for throat strikes ending fights, I'd take a solid deep strike to the throat over a RNC anyday!!!





I disagree completely. I’ve seen and heard too much to the contrary. But again, you’re entitled to your opinion – even if it is wrong.


Quote:


Less messing around. For you weak at hearts, I wouldn't do it if my life didn't depend on it. I'd run if I could. Others experinces maybe different, but I like what I've seen from eye and throat hits. Maybe this is old fashsion Martial art, not popular anymore bc you can't do it in the ring.





Nothing to do with a ring. Where in the f*cking world was a RING ever mentioned by me in this thread? Do your homework next time before assuming something. I do NOT appreciate the subtle implication.



-John
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/26/06 12:11 AM

I pretty much agree with john. A good tool to have but not a fight ender. neither would I say are throat shots. Unless you hit the vegas nerve but thats going to take alot of precision under a lot of pressure. I would just punch him in the face. I would use knees and elbows and even kicks as well. However, since punching the face was what I did naturally from the begininng then its what is most comfortable to me, hence most effective. I dont care if I break my bone off in your face. Take a peice of me with you. Im not going to stop if you scratch my eye. Im going to grab you. I really dont have to see you from there. i know where you are.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/27/06 11:46 AM

Obviously we have different views on the effectivness of these techniques. I think we differ more on what is considered a fight stopper. Is it a KO or Choke out or a disabled person rolling on the ground or holding his eyes reaching for blank air or holding his throat coughing and wheezing.

I have to admitt Combat readiness is a mental and emotional state resolved before the pain comes that it not gonna stop me. Not everybody is not as mentally combat chiseled as you two guys Chen & Jkogas.

I have experince these techniques from both sides. Before the use of gloves in Karate I was stimulating knife and stick assault in one of our advanced class (they used me because I had a convincing assault) my Instructor by accident struck/tapped my eyes. I fell to the ground after screaming the tapped knife, went whereever my hands went to my eyes. It took minuets for me to recover. I slowed my assaults since but it still convincing.

I've been hit in the eye full contact sparring with gloves and I'd rather see red dots, then darkness (what the fingers or knuckle (I assume) does) and intense unnatural pain.

As for the throat attack I was struck in the throat while sparring (bare fisted 1st kyu) I dropped to one knee coughing and holding my neck (this was a glancing blow). Man I was mad at that after I recovered it was on.

Because of this I heed the keep your chin down warning and guard these areas as I do the grion, my knees and my back. Have noticed that as you bob your neck doesn't move much. Now it does when you weave.


Anyway that is sorta what I experince using these techniques for all intent and purpose (imo) the fight was over after these strikes were made.

Like you in a life and death situation I'd hope I would fight on but let me tell you against a vicious assailant my best chance after experincing these attacks is to run or try to wave him off. Trying to find some one temporialy blind or you can't breath watered eyes, gives him that fishing in a barrel advantage.

JKogas As for ring/sparring reference I was using that as a center reference point and don't really care how you feel about it. It was aimed soley at you. This is a open forum isn't???

And as I stated I'd take a Deep thorat strike over a Rear naked Choke anyday. The strike take less time in less then a split second or less he is down. The RNC takes 5-11 seconds if it sunk deep in that time he can escape.
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/27/06 05:12 PM

Combat Chiseled. i like it!
Posted by: JKogas

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/27/06 06:00 PM

Neko456 wrote
Quote:

Obviously we have different views on the effectivness of these techniques. I think we differ more on what is considered a fight stopper. Is it a KO or Choke out or a disabled person rolling on the ground or holding his eyes reaching for blank air or holding his throat coughing and wheezing.





Neko, you’re making a MIGHTY big assumption there bro and you should know that right off the bat.

You are assuming that an eye jab will blind a person to the point where they don’t want to fight. I disagree with that. Secondly, you’re assuming that you can actually land a throat shot under someone’s chin. You are also assuming that your opponents won’t keep their chin’s down when fighting. You are also making an assumption that you will be able to simply “target” your opponent and hit with pin-point accuracy when your opponent will not only have his own say in the matter, but will be firing back on you as well. Experience has shown to me and plenty others that such accuracy when the sh*t hits the fan for real isn’t really that reachable. But hey, more power to you if you can do all these things you say you can.

Quote:


I have to admitt Combat readiness is a mental and emotional state resolved before the pain comes that it not gonna stop me. Not everybody is not as mentally combat chiseled as you two guys Chen & Jkogas.





Perhaps, perhaps not. There’s no way to know in advance who’s “combat chiseled” and who’s not. That would be ANOTHER assumption. Sometimes, assumptions about fighting can be bad for your health, if you know what I mean. I would make no assumptions about anyone or anything.

As far as a ko or a choke out, the fact that a person has been rendered UNCONSCIOUS should tell you everything you need to know about them being an effective “fight stopper”, wouldn’t you say?!


Quote:


I have experince these techniques from both sides. Before the use of gloves in Karate I was stimulating knife and stick assault in one of our advanced class (they used me because I had a convincing assault) my Instructor by accident struck/tapped my eyes. I fell to the ground after screaming the tapped knife, went whereever my hands went to my eyes. It took minuets for me to recover. I slowed my assaults since but it still convincing.





All I can say is “WOW”. You really screamed and everything??? You mentioned something about being “combat chiseled”….



Quote:


I've been hit in the eye full contact sparring with gloves and I'd rather see red dots, then darkness (what the fingers or knuckle (I assume) does) and intense unnatural pain.





You know, I’ve been hit in the eyes, in the throat, the groin, etc. Sure those things are uncomfortable. But a tough opponent isn’t going to QUIT FIGHTING unless you have either broken something necessary or, you have put him to SLEEP.

You definitely DON’T have to take my word for this however. That’s your choice completely. But I would at least listen to what I have to say on this matter. It could help you some day.




Quote:


As for the throat attack I was struck in the throat while sparring (bare fisted 1st kyu) I dropped to one knee coughing and holding my neck (this was a glancing blow). Man I was mad at that after I recovered it was on.





A police officer and former SBG coach Paul Sharp mentioned walking up on a “domestic” dispute between father and son once. I’ll give you the cliff-notes version. “Dad” was sitting on the porch steps as Paul came up. “Son” comes out with a GOLF CLUB, ok? “Son” takes golf club and swings on “dad” hitting him square across the throat. What happens next?? Did dad drop?? No…read on.

“Dad” emits some “weird scream” (according to Paul), then proceeds to pull a knife and goes after son.

Perhaps someone should have told “dad” there to drop to one knee, coughing and holding his neck.

Quote:


Because of this I heed the keep your chin down warning and guard these areas as I do the grion, my knees and my back.





EVERY fighter worth his salt understands this. This is nothing new. Expect the worse when you’re facing someone, don’t always expect them to be pushovers. Why people do this is beyond me.


Quote:


Have noticed that as you bob your neck doesn't move much. Now it does when you weave.





You know what I HAVE noticed when I was bobbing and weaving?? That I wasn’t being HIT! That my opponent’s shots MISSED me. That’s what I often notice. I also have noticed that if I am weaving underneath, that my opponent is usually taller than I am. If that’s the case, my throat is BELOW his punching line of attack. Not much to worry about throat shots in that case if you ask me.

Throat shots, I’m just not concerned with, particularly in long range. That would be something I’d be more concerned with in close. But then I’m clinching. That really tends to take away must of one's offense. Even the shots that DO come throw are really minus most of their power.

Throat shots would be something that I simply don’t look for as I don’t believe in their efficacy.


Quote:


....I'd hope I would fight on but let me tell you against a vicious assailant my best chance after experincing these attacks is to run or try to wave him off. Trying to find some one temporialy blind or you can't breath watered eyes, gives him that fishing in a barrel advantage.





After reading what you've written, I’m inclined to believe *you*.


Quote:

JKogas As for ring/sparring reference I was using that as a center reference point and don't really care how you feel about it. It was aimed soley at you. This is a open forum isn't???





Fair enough.


Quote:


And as I stated I'd take a Deep throat strike over a Rear naked Choke anyway.





Buddy, whatever *you’d* take is fine by me. I don’t happen to agree with that mentality for reasons stated earlier here.


Quote:


The strike take less time in less then a split second or less he is down.





Unless you don’t nail it or, unless he doesn’t go down as you assume he will. Re-read my post now and see if your opponent isn’t swayed any.


Quote:


The RNC takes 5-11 seconds if it sunk deep in that time he can escape.





Experience has shown me that its unlikely that a person will escape if it’s sunk deep with hooks in bro. Not pulling this out of thin air either. You and everyone else however are welcome to their opinions.





-John
Posted by: Neko456

Re: How useful is striking? - 10/30/06 02:03 AM

Quote:

Jokgas - Neko, you’re making a MIGHTY big assumption there bro and you should know that right off the bat.

Neko456- Really I don't think so, what works for me is just different then what works for you. I like hitting the vital area of the body, which includes eye, grion and thorat strikes. I feel safe if I get those in.



Jokgas - You are assuming that an eye jab will blind a person to the point where they don’t want to fight. I disagree with that.



Neko456 - I'm not assuming anything. I will take whats given if I hit with the eye flick or miss it there is going to be a reation and I'll take the successful eye jab Or the blink or turning of the head. Its my fault is his head makes it back around.



Jkogas -Secondly, you’re assuming that you can actually land a throat shot under someone’s chin. You are also assuming that your opponents won’t keep their chin’s down when fighting. You are also making an assumption that you will be able to simply “target” your opponent and hit with pin-point accuracy when your opponent will not only have his own say in the matter, but will be firing back on you as well.




Neko456 - These shots are setup with chin or head turning shots, in those exchanges a palm strike to the chin or a arm strike under the arm will make him lift his chin. Open Throat shot, and if I don't hit him soild I follow up with something else.





Neko456 -I have to admitt Combat readiness is a mental and emotional state resolved before ...



Jkogas - Perhaps, perhaps not. There’s no way to know in advance who’s “combat chiseled” and who’s not. That would be ANOTHER assumption. Sometimes, assumptions about fighting can be bad for your health, if you know what I mean. I would make no assumptions about anyone or anything.



Neko456 -I disagree there several accounts were mental readiness and acceptance that I'm not going down without a fight has change events like the famous Florida FBI shootout suspect fately injured but kept fighting, this is seen in fighting also.



Neko456 -Really all you can do is assume you don't know whats gonna happen, I assume that most people don't train as hard as I do. I've had this proven wrong sometimes visiting different dojo, and had my hat brought to me. I think a combatant needs this wakeup call makes me train harder. But I've also been on the otherside where my hard training proved its metal. I assume every time I spar or fight I'm the best man, because that what I believe until proven different.
Its call confidence, and I'm assuming thats what u call it or you wouldn't fight, even when you had to. I'm assuming that.



Jkogas - As far as a ko or a choke out, the fact that a person has been rendered UNCONSCIOUS should tell you everything you need to know about them being an effective “fight stopper”, wouldn’t you say?!



Neko456 -Thats true but its doesn't happen as often as the fighting on to setup to that event.



Jkogas - All I can say is “WOW”. You really screamed and everything??? You mentioned something about being “combat chiseled”….



Neko456 - Man that sh%$ hurts unbeliveably its unmeasureable pain an dfear that your eye maybe damaged and its just an un-natural feeling. As for being combat chiseled its alright to scream or be dropped as long as you get up and take care of business. I'm assuming you know that.

Neko456 -I've been hit in the eye full contact sparring with gloves and I'd rather see red dots, then darkness (what the fingers or knuckle (I assume) does) and intense unnatural pain.







Jkogas - You know, I’ve been hit in the eyes, in the throat, the groin, etc. Sure those things are uncomfortable. But a tough opponent isn’t going to QUIT FIGHTING unless you have either broken something necessary or, you have put him to SLEEP.




Neko456 - You assume that you have to put him to sleep. You don't. You can just beat him so he want to quit, he can't strike without paying, he can't clinch with out paying, he can't take to ground or when he does he barely escape being locked up. Thats worse then being caught, knowing that you have no business fitghting this guy. He could kill me.




Jkogas - You definitely DON’T have to take my word for this however. That’s your choice completely. But I would at least listen to what I have to say on this matter. It could help you some day.




Neko456 -I'm listening and its just different then what I know works, the other things work RNC and lock ect.., but strikes are the key to opening those door if you want to go there.




Jkogas - A police officer and former SBG coach Paul Sharp mentioned walking up on a “domestic”. Son” takes golf club and swings on “dad” hitting him square across the throat. What happens next??



Neko456 - Anybody can take a strike across the neck muscles of the throat. As U know MAs strike center line even the throat, thats were all the goods are. AS you mention u don't have to believe me keep thinking that unskill people are the same as skilled. Have you ever hit anything with shaft of some golf club it bends easily, the end of the club is where the power at.



Jkogas - EVERY fighter worth his salt understands this. This is nothing new. Expect the worse when you’re facing someone, don’t always expect them to be pushovers. Why people do this is beyond me.




Neko456 -Seting up a thorat is like waiting for a chin strike, you throw everything else to set it up, if everything other then neck shot takes him out thats all to the good. As he is going down you can hit in thorat.




Jkogas - Throat shots, I’m just not concerned with, particularly in long range. That would be something I’d be more concerned with in close. But then I’m clinching. That really tends to take away must of one's offense. Even the shots that DO come throw are really minus most of their power. In a clinch just like an upper cut is a prime way to throw and thorat shot elbow are thorat shot. I hit the heavy bag with leapord paws (fore knucle strikes) I have a lot of confidence in it. Where ever it hits. You don't need a lot power if U hit the soft thorat.




Jkogas - Throat shots would be something that I simply don’t look for as I don’t believe in their efficacy.




Neko456 - Not saying you are and I'm assuming (I know it is) its against the rule, as a boxer. I can but I don't box when I fight or combat spar.





Neko456 - And as I stated I'd take a Deep throat strike over a Rear naked Choke any day.




Jokgas - Buddy, whatever *you’d* take is fine by me. I don’t happen to agree with that mentality for reasons stated earlier here.

Neko456 -The strike take less time in less then a split second or less he is down.




Jokgas - Unless you don’t nail it or, unless he doesn’t go down as you assume he will. Re-read my post now and see if your opponent isn’t swayed any.






Neko456 - But you always sink the choke;-)!!!



Jokgas - Experience has shown me that its unlikely that a person will escape if it’s sunk deep with hooks in bro.

Neko456 - I use to think that too but training partners are escaping chokes that look sunk all the time now.


Jokgas - Not pulling this out of thin air either. You and everyone else however are welcome to their opinions.

NEKO456- I agree totally, nice debate.