eye damaging

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 07:41 PM

I think Matt summarized this pretty well, crystallizing my own thoughts while doing so.

But I said I would reply to Drew’s post so here goes.

Quote:

John Like i said I'm not going to get in with this with you.

Drew, I apologize if I’m offended you in any way in the past during our discussions. Here’s the way I work though; if you’re cool with me, I’ll be cool with you.

Quote:

I do, however, apologize to you if my post came across disrespectful or flaming, I was intending it to be a little tongue in cheek in a manner to emphasis the absurdity that someone can ignore an attack, as if it did not happen.
I was not aiming the post at you (other then the first bit) and I definately did not intend to accuse you of being Mayor of Ego Land.

That’s ok. Again, no apology is necessary. But if I DO happen to become the mayor, I’ll give you a key to the city,

Quote:

I would like you to clarify one a couple of things though.

you said
Quote:

Two things here you may want to understand. No you didn't ask me to clarify, because you're too busy being a pinhead as usual. But here goes anyway..

1. Before the adrenaline dump occurs, eye attacks may have some positive effect.

2. After the adrenaline dump, don't waste your time.

There...that's my entire point of view summed up in two more, easy to digest, sentences.

could you explain this for me.

Briefly,

1. Before the adrenal dump as part of a pre-emptive strike, a quick eye jab can definitely have it’s effect. Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s certainly going to have more “umph” than it will during the adrenaline rush. People just fight through crap that would amaze you when the adrenaline is pumping.

However I do believe that an eye jab or even a gouge can have positive effects. I just believe that one should not bet his dental work on it. In other words, there better be something else to back stuff like that up, such as skill in delivery systems. There is no single tactic that will substitute for skill in delivery systems.

2. AFTER the adrenaline dump, it’s my opinion that such tactics have less efficacy. The fight is on and during that stage against a worthy opponent, an eye jab or gouge isn’t going to stop him. This is especially true if

A. He has more skill in delivery systems
B. Has something to fight for (has a “will” to fight)

Quote:

see the eyes are not subject to the anesthetic effect of the fight or flight response to the same degree as the rest of the body. It is also not effected by adrenaline it is other hormones and chemicals that trigger the Fight and flight changes of the visual system. this is primarily focusing of images that fall closer to the centre of the eye, where the cones are concentrated (cones are responsible for acuity and colour vision, rods are primarily responsible for movement and monochromatic vision). The reason for this is so that as an organism we can see the danger more accurately and are less prone to distraction (this is tunnel vision)

And you know what? With all due respect, none of that matters to me. Neither does it matter to Yuki Nakai apparently (but you’d have to ask him). That’s because none of that accounts for the two things I mentioned in my last paragraph; will and skill. That’s been my whole point.

You’ve done a fine job of talking about the human “machine”, but what’s not being accounted for so far on this thread is the GHOST in the machine. Human spirit, will, whatever you want to call it. We’re talking about people and not just automatons with “stop buttons”.

Here’s the rule I personally follow: If an opponent doesn’t knock me unconscious or disable my “structure” (break a leg or something), I’m not going to quit fighting for any reason. I could have an eye hanging halfway out of my skull and I’m not going to quit. My will is too great for that. I may be the inferior fighter and still get knocked out, etc., but that’s what it’s going to take to make me quit. Not being hit in the eye or the groin. Those things, while painful, aren’t going to make me quit fighting or be affected. I can gut stuff like that out because of a high tolerance for pain.

It’s like Cus D’Amato used to say, that to beat a man, you have to break his will, his “spirit”, etc. But if his skill is greater than yours, you’ll never test his will. If your skill is greater than his, it’s easy. If it’s about the same, who “wants it more” (who’s will is greater) will win a fight.

Thus, having skill is more important than having “tactics” or techniques. It just seems like so many people focus on techniques like these things (eye jab/groin kick, etc) without actually building skill through athletic training and delivery systems. That’s where I differ. And that may not be YOU Drew…you may have all the skill in the world. But I’m just speaking generally here, not about you specifically.

Quote:

the cortisols and noradranine are the main hormones that produce the numbing anesthetic effect of Fight or flight (there are 100s of chemicals released during FoF). They also do not operate on the same area of the brain and CNA that the visual system does. there would be a slight deadening of the pain associated with an eye trauma, but it is not the same degree as the muscles and skin.

Again, I understand what you’re saying in reference to the physical “machine”. And that’s great. But there’s a lot more to that machine than meets the eye (no pun intended….or maybe it was now that I think about it).

I’ve been hit in the eye. And it hurt! My eye watered like crazy too and I couldn’t see out of it very easily either. Then I proceeded to beat the [censored] out of the guy for having done it. How’d THAT happen? Or better yet, why? It happened because my skill was greater than his. I knew it and HE knew it. I broke his will to fight. I hope what I’m saying here is somewhat clear.

Quote:

also the fight and flight response does not effect the defence mechanisms of the eye system, they operate on different systems. it is not the pain response that causes the reaction it is the protective response that is activated. this is why the eyes are one of the few areas that are not reduced to painlessness in states of extreme drug use etc.

I once fell on a guy and my finger essentially landed in his eye, with my weight behind it (we were doing grappling training). I looked at him like, “Oh my God, I’m sorry” and we kinda both waited for the pain to come, you know? And it never did. He said, “So much for the JKD leading finger jab”… We laughed it off and never gave it another thought.

The bottom line is that, textbooks are great things. They just don’t take a lot of things into account. People are not just stats and facts in a physiology book. They have a heart and soul as well. And with that, a tremendous will to survive.

Pain? Who cares about a little pain? I never said that these tactics couldn’t HURT. That never came from me. But I don’t care about pain. Pain doesn’t frighten me or rob me of my will. And I know I’m not alone in that either, and that’s what I’m driving at when I said: I think it's not as big a deal as many would imagine. That’s why.

Here’s another point to consider that many don’t; striking or gouging someone in the eye can make some individuals fight with more energy and gusto. That would seem to be something that we may not always want.

Quote:

These are scientific facts, as referenced in many physiological and psychological texts. So I was just wondering. How exactly do those two sentences sum up your argument.

Once again, texts are great, right? Texts just don’t take into account, "Joe from down the block" who doesn’t care if his eye is hanging out of his orbital socket. Joe is just one of those guys that’s safer to take out through “cross hairs”. “Joe” here is a living example of “wouldda, shouldda, couldda”, if you know what I mean. Such as, “that eye jab wouldda worked, or shouldda worked and even couldda worked”….but didn’t work.

So what happens when "wouldda shouldda couldda", becomes "didn’t"? Well...that's the point I'm trying to make. There’s no substitute for skill in delivery systems.

Quote:

i mentioned before I did not intend to flame you, and I apologise again for the misunderstanding based on how I posted .

No worries!

Quote:

May I ask you what your experience in eye attacks actually is.

Other than being hit in the eye so many times I’ve lost count (during sparring and in a fight)? My experience is merely, that; what I have experienced and observed personally, what others have relayed to me from their experiences and observations, and plain street sense.

I can’t quote from textbooks or the like, so you’ll get nothing from me there. But life doesn’t happen in textbooks. It happens “out there”. It’s that “out there” that has been my experience.

Quote:

I could accuse you of inferring that I don't have any experience of my own, and my post is based on some sort of internet warrior attitude.

No, I’m not discounting your experience whatsoever. Just merely speaking in generalities. You may have experienced things that I haven’t. But that doesn’t take away from the experiences that I have…..experienced, lol.

My point of view again is this; Eye jabs hurt and can end a fight in the way that any sort of “pain compliance” can end a fight. But ending a fight due to pain compliance is based on a decision by the person that is under the effect of such pain compliance.

Let me say that again; ending a fight by way of pain compliance (what eye attacks essentially are) comes down to a decision that the person suffering from such pain compliance makes. The key word there is, “decision”. He may decide NOT to quit. And that’s my point. Pain compliance to me is not what I want to bet my brain cells, motor function, or teeth over.

Quote:

I can assure you my posts and opinion on the eye are very much based on reality and experience. I can have a doctors certificate highlighting the extend of eye trauma I had previously received. I have a damaged pupuliary sphincter muscle, iris and retina cells, among others. These are permanently damaged and can not be faked, they are a result of a impact trauma of the eye. so I do have REAL actual experience of what it's like to suffer from an eye trauma and I remember it very clearly.

I would never discount such injuries. Yuki Nakai is permanently blind and yet still won his fight and two others, losing only to one Rickson Gracie (all in the same evening, while blinded in one eye I might add). Why did he continue on when textbooks probably suggest that he should have quit? Human spirit and will bro.

Quote:

I am in My final year of a Psychology degree which covers, among many other things, the physiological and psychological effects/affects of emotional responses including the fear response know as acute stress response or Fight or flight. it also includes the perception processes of the sensory system including the structure and functioning of the eye the visual pathways and the occipital lobe.

this is only My formal studies and does not include the 20 odd years of casual research into the physical and psychological aspects of violence and all things related. in fact this interest is why i went back to university in my 30's to under take my degree.

I do not want to imply or suggest that my experience and research is superior to that of anyone else. indeed our combines experience and learning will always produce a superior quantity of knowledge beyond any single one of us.

Again, Drew, it sounds as if you have quite an impressive resume. I’m not discounting your opinions or experiences in any way. I’m merely providing my own here.

Quote:

John, I would like to hear you responses to:
-"May I ask you what your experience in eye attacks actually is".
&
-"How exactly do those two sentences sum up your argument."

Well, hopefully I’ve touched on those two things. I would be more than willing to further clarify if need be however.

Quote:

I will leave it for you to have the last word My friend, I am not interested in internet squabbles I am far more interested in offering my advice and learning from the advise of others, but I am open minded so look forward to you proving me wrong.

Dude, I’m so tired of squabbles that I can’t see straight (not from an eye jab though,). I never come on here and post with ANY intention of attacking someone personally. Usually though, it doesn’t take very long before someone gets offended by my “opinion”. It appears that people are easily offended and feel the need to go on the offensive to me, which naturally makes me want to give back as I have received.

I’m trying REAL hard to change that now and take the higher road, but that isn’t always an easy road to take. You’re cool though bro, you haven’t offended me and I hope that I’ve not, you.

And to be honest, I don’t need the last word bro. Hopefully, the conversation NEVER ends.

Cheers

Posted by: drgndrew

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 11:51 PM

Matt said

Quote:

VERDICT - A strike like most others. Not to be ignored, but not to be relied on any more than anything else.

Absolutely, 100% agree, no one thing in isolation is a fight stopper.

Thats why it's important not to just attack the eye and leave it at that. no single technique should be relied on by itself.

----

John -

I don't mind discussing things with you, and I don't wish to imply I am superior in any way. my comment about "not getting into this with you", was to set the preface that I won't be arguing with you or anyone else, I do not partake in internet squabbles any more and Haven't for a while now.

I will provide my opinion and defend it but i won't allow my self to let it degenerate into a flame war or such. I'm here to share my experience and research with whom ever wishes to read it. I do not wish to try to convert anyone nor put down any opinions or believes that are different to mind.

I may imply that someones thoughts on the subject are wrong, but I will always do it with the idea that they are wrong based on what I have learned or experienced. I also welcome others to do the same for me. by having our believes challenged we can do three things:

1- ignore it and claim a superior position, regardless of the evidence (to be avoided)
2- look at the argument and see if it fills in any gaps of our own knowledge or if it proves your prior knowledge incorrect.
3- look at the argument and dismiss it on the basis that you have prior evidence to the contrary.
(Both 1 & 2 should be used in conjunction, this will lead to a more accurate belief.)

that being said when ever I claim something is BS it is because it has been proven to me as such, I am arguing that the "fact' is wrong not the person. sadly ego leads may to adopt the first option, other times naivety results in only adopting the 3rd option without the equally important 2nd.

I do not wish to make inferences about the actual person with regards to which option they choose. No option is BAD, but the first option is less compatible with growth and truth acquisition (whatever that may be ).

anyone onto the discussion at hand.

Quote:

Again, I understand what you’re saying in reference to the physical “machine”. And that’s great. But there’s a lot more to that machine than meets the eye (no pun intended….or maybe it was now that I think about it).

the description I provided was very much a physiological ly based. I am however very much not taking the approach of "the machine" aspect of violence. I am intact a noisy advocate of NOT solely taking that approach. Do a forum search on BEP and you will see I constantly push the point that violence cannot be thought of as a simple mechanical or physical act (BEP = Behavioural, Emotional and Psychological)

the reason I advocate the eye attack as being so effective is not only because of the physiological effectiveness of it (including pain and loss of sight), but the very powerful psychological effect it has. the eye is a sensory organ that is and has been very much associated with human (intact most animals) survival, in time of past we used our sense of sight to find food, recognise friend and foe, see danger and to explore new lands etc. it is perhaps our most relied upon sense and has been for many millenniums. well before we walked upright. In fact many believe that our sight was responsible for our transition to two feet as we could see further when standing (though I still think we would see even further up a tree, but hey when we had to move across plains it makes sense).

The point being is that the humans species (actually most seeing organisms) have a vested interest in protecting their eye sight, this has resulted in in build mechanisms (both physical and psychological)designed specifically to protect the eye. these are controlled by the central nervous system and it takes a considerable amount of time effort and concentration to over ride them. take the simple blink reflex. you can train yourself not to blink at movement toward the eye but ti takes a relatively long time to achieve and you must have prior intention to do it. this means that even if you train to never blink in a fight, you will still blink in different context. this is one of the easier mechanisms to over ride. those who where contact lenses can attest to it's relative ease of conditioning. but they will still blink if they have not established prior intent not to.

any way I digress (well I think I do).

the deeper protective reflexes can not be completely conditioned if at all ( I will allow for he possibility of some conditioning) either way they would require significant
effort and concentration to override them including prior preparation. this will mean that you won't have the resources to concentrate on attack.

In a combative situation you are prepared to some extend to be hit or receive pain this also works with the eye, but it can not be conditioned like the other parts of the body, and the psychological affect will still be significant.

take your (John's) eg of your training partner, when you fell on him hitting him in the eye, there was no pain BUT you both stopped because of it, you both expected there to be pain or something. this was a psychological response. if you get hit in the eye (especially) you will momentarily focus on the eye to judge the extend of injury, we cant help this. the eye is also important to us that we have to check the level of damage (if any) that has occurred, there are other parts of the body that do the same thing the groin is one though thats another discussion. these parts are important to our continued existence and we automatically check on their condition when they receive a trauma (the groin, throat, neck and head have a similar effect).

The eye is not the be all and end all of targets, but it is a very high percentage target, meaning that it has a high percent ability to incapacitate a human. No it's not a guarantee (nothing is), but it is probably one of (if not the) best chance target. it's not just because of the potential pain but the psychological response as well.

Quote:

But life doesn’t happen in textbooks. It happens “out there”. It’s that “out there” that has been my experience.

I agree My initial knowledge came about though my experience, well before I consulted text books. the text books have confirmed much of my thoughts and has also pointed out were I was wrong. My real world experience allows me to see how the text information relates and applies to the real world. I recommend both academic and real experience, for me it creates a greater understanding then either alone.

The field of Psychology works under the "Scientist-Practitioner" model on one hand it is a science that aims to understand human behaviour (thats a rather simple definition), on the other hand it wants to be able to ably that understanding to the real world. (hence Sci-Prac).
As a science it is only concerned with provable facts, something is not considered to be a fact unless it is backed up by empirical evidence, if something can't be proven then it is not considered to be a fact. Instead it is a hypothesis waiting to be researched, studied (under experimental conditions) and either supported or not supported in . This way if something appears in a Psych text (or any science text) as a fact it can be taken as been proven or supported. there is always a degree of error but science tries to reduce that degree to a minimum.

Anyway I digress again , my point was that this is my approach to self protection, scientist- practitioner.

Quote:

There’s no substitute for skill in delivery systems.

I agree mate, it should be a holistic thing, nothing in isolation. We differ in approaches here but we could call that style I guess over all we agree. I don't believe someone needs a high level of skill to defend themselves, and I prefer more of a behavioural delivery system. with the skill thing I don't disagree with skill development, I concentrate first on being able to deliver what they have and then move on to developing more skills. Multiple range skills (such as those developed in MMA)are so beneficial to self defence that they could almost be considered essential. I simply concentrate on providing an ability before skill. again looking at the bigger picture we try to attain the same if not slightly different results

Quote:

....ending a fight by way of pain compliance (what eye attacks essentially are) comes down to a decision that the person suffering from such pain compliance makes. The key word there is, “decision”. He may decide NOT to quit. And that’s my point. Pain compliance to me is not what I want to bet my brain cells, motor function, or teeth over.

Yep I agree with that , but I also don't see eye attacks as pain compliance, sure pain is involved but for me the psychological impact of an eye attack is far more advantages then the pain (of course both tend to occur together, which is nice). the thing is and eye attack will cause a reaction, this reaction can be used to more effectively apply something else etc nothing should be considered in isolation. if how ever i had to chose a technique to use in isolation it would most likely be an eye attack ( or running the other way)

Quote:

Here’s another point to consider that many don’t; striking or gouging someone in the eye can make some individuals fight with more energy and gusto. That would seem to be something that we may not always want.

true, but two points.
1- the guy will react/respond to the eye attack before coming on with more gusto
2- no matter what technique you use this type of person will come on with more gusto. an eye attack at least has a better chance of stopping him then most other tactics.

Quote:

Texts just don’t take into account, "Joe from down the block" who doesn’t care if his eye is hanging out of his orbital socket

Actually they do mate, it's called abnormal psych. but in reality Joe does not exist, not literally there are individuals that are like this, but there prevalence is so small that it is unlikely that anyone will actually come across them when they are in such a state. of course it is possible and I guess this is a good worst case scenario. Handle Joe and you can handle anyone. seriously you are more likely to min the US lottery then have to fight off Joe

I think I covered everything, And I know who ever is reading this is saying "I hope so".

Alls good John, I just wanted to make sure we didn't go down that other path knowing how we tend to have different views on eye attacks.

back to the regular program

Posted by: duanew

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 10:44 AM

Quote:

duanew

Two words: Yuki Nakai

Was the fight stopped by the referee for him to be checked and recover? If so then I have two words: not-the street!
If it wasn't then does anyone have a video they could post. I'm not saying that eye pokes are 100% -nothing is not even a 12 gauge.

Duane

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 07:47 PM

Duanew -

I don't know, but it doesn't matter.

Here's a street one for you:

A brown belt in BJJ was in Brazil. He got into a street fight with another fighter down there. He got the guy in an armlock and snapped the arm. He heard it pop, but he let go.

What happens next is, his opponent rolls up on him and starts biting him on the face. Then the guy thumbs the brown belt in his eye.

When asked what he did, he replied, "I thumbed him back".

The point? The eye jab, biting and everything else didn't stop the brown belt. When he thumbed the other guy back, it did nothing either.

This was told by Burton Richardson, a highly respected instructor of JKD and street fighting. The brown belt is a friend of his.

The point is just what I have alluded to earlier...that eye jabs and gouging don't affect everyone the same way. In fact, it has less of an effect on hyper aggressive individuals who are, by the way, the one's you are likely to be fighting.

Of course, you never know what effect an attack like this will have. But there is enough evidence to show that they are notoriously unreliable. That's been the point I've been trying to make.

Think about it this way folks; if you were out with a loved one and someone jabbed or thumbed YOU in the eye, would you quit? I know I damn sure wouldn't. In fact, I'd be fighting back with greater will and determination. I'm sure many of you would as well right?

Posted by: Ames

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 08:15 PM

Quote:

Think about it this way folks; if you were out with a loved one and someone jabbed or thumbed YOU in the eye, would you quit? I know I damn sure wouldn't. In fact, I'd be fighting back with greater will and determination. I'm sure many of you would as well right?

That's good way to put it into perspective John.

--Chris

Posted by: duanew

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 08:21 PM

Quote:

Of course, you never know what effect an attack like this will have. But there is enough evidence to show that they are notoriously unreliable. That's been the point I've been trying to make.

Think about it this way folks; if you were out with a loved one and someone jabbed or thumbed YOU in the eye, would you quit? I know I damn sure wouldn't. In fact, I'd be fighting back with greater will and determination. I'm sure many of you would as well right?

SO they are just like punches and kicks and armbars....they are not 100%?

Duane

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 08:39 PM

I don't really know what you're asking me Duane?

I personally believe that nothing is guaranteed except for a choke perhaps.

But I don't look at what's in my own repertoire as "guaranteed fight stoppers". I just keep going, chopping away. I never plan to stop until either the guy I'm fighting is down and out, I am down and out, or I'm getting the hell out of Dodge.

Just a personal view of things there.

Posted by: drgndrew

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 02:56 AM

Quote:

The point is just what I have alluded to earlier...that eye jabs and gouging don't affect everyone the same way. In fact, it has less of an effect on hyper aggressive individuals

this is true to an extend the personality of a person (among other factors) does contribute to the response and effect of an eye attack. this is also true for any other attack aswell though.

for these individuals the eye is still one of the highest percentage targets, even if the effect is less on them.

Quote:

who are, by the way, the one's you are likely to be fighting.

Yes and no. yes in the sense that it is always a good idea to prepare for the worst case scenario, and that includes preparing for a minimal or non existent effect.

no in the sense that the majority of these attackers are actually false personalities, they may very well be aggressive but it is a means to an end. like the typical bully they are aggressive as aggressiveness permits them to gain the sense of power over a weaker individual, thus boosting some lacking aspect of them selves. how ever at the core these guys are cowards there hyper aggressiveness is false, a front if you like it can easily crumble. this is where behavioural tactics come in to play. especially if the individual is a truly hyper aggressive.

that being said I refer you back to my yes reason.

Quote:

But there is enough evidence to show that they are notoriously unreliable. That's been the point I've been trying to make.

Actually the evidence shows that eye trauma from impact and pressure produce quite predictable responses. in fact an attack to the eye is probably the most reliable attack for ANYONE to deliver. a few outlying examples does not constitute evidence of its unreliability, to the contrary the fact that they are outliers and not typical supports the reliability of the attack.

simply put there is far more evidence indicating the reliability of eye attacks then there is exceptions to the rule.

Quote:

Think about it this way folks; if you were out with a loved one and someone jabbed or thumbed YOU in the eye, would you quit? I know I damn sure wouldn't. In fact, I'd be fighting back with greater will and determination. I'm sure many of you would as well right?

If they just jabbed or thumbed me then I agree, and left it at that then yes I would push on, but having experienced real eye trauma a guarantee I (and everyone else) Will react to the attack. I will reflexively protect the eye and momentarily check for damage, I can not help it it is beyond my conscious control. Any one who claims they will not react to an eye attack is simply BS'ing

let me say this though if I AM ALLOWED TO RECOVER FROM ANY ATTACK, and my loved one is involved (or not) I will fight back... not necessarily with more determination though, simple because if I have to fight in the first place It will be full on from the get go and stay full on till after the threat is removed/negated. If I'm fighting then it is because I have no choice and my life or someone else's is in danger...... there is no other reason to fight.

The fact is and this is backed up by evidence, physiology and psychology, an attack or threat to the eye will cause a reaction.

stories about an unknown friend of a friend, or occasional training instances do not prove anything other then sometimes it doesn't hurt, every time I will bet My balls on the fact that there was a reaction. and in every story I have heard that sounds even remotely true the guy who was eye attacked was allowed to cover.

take all of the training instances involving eye attacks you will find a great deal more responded in stopping the training then and there, you'll hear people claim I was hit in the eye and I continued on my training, I bet the reacted and recovered before they continued.

Any way, I think every one knows My view on this, it is based on medical and actual evidence, and I can't see anyone being able to over ride that evidence with a story about some Brazilian brown belt super fighter.

(no Offense John, but none of the evidence you have given here holds up very well under scrutiny, do you think the brown belt would relay this story with the inclusion of how distracted he was by the thumb in his eye, or do you think he will conveniently not mention it and jump straight to where he returned the favour. even witnesses can not truly "see or feel" what happens with the eye attack. to them it may seem that the guy was unaffected whilst inside the guys head it's something like " me eye me eye "...see no display of reaction or response does not mean there was none)

I'm going to leave this topic at that.

please bear in mind I think we all agree that
- eye attacks are high percentage targets (compared to others)
- an eye attack on its own is not a necessarily a fight stopper ( nor is any other tactic)
- violence can be thought of in one dimension as it is very much multidimensional (BEP, physical, social in out and spun about)
- Drew is extremely intelligent and an incredibly good looking fella

that I'll do pig

Posted by: matxtx

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 08:01 AM

I agree with the point that most people who will start a fight with you or attack you randonmly will be more aggresive than most and more than likely more seasoned to violence and so have the intensity and ability to take some pain.Iv never been a fight where even when I came out tops I did not have grazes,scratches,bloody knuckles, a bruise here and there from bone on bone clashing or some knock,so it goes with the territory.I know, now ,that there will be pain of some kind for me even I ''win''.It should be part of training,that realisation.

I wear contact lenses and sometimes I have had soap on my fingers still from washing in the morning when iv put them in or they have been droped and are dirty or fell out at work so I put it back in and it has realy stung and hurt but iv taken the oppurtunity to see if it would stop me and I dont think it would.Im now more used to it as well.Violence is messy anyway so even if you were slightly blurry you can still agressivly hit grap ,push, smash anything within touching range,which they will be if they are close enough to get the eyes.

Something which is funny too is that its actualy hard to get in a position to eye hit or bite in a fight,against a skilled fighter, so the time getting that skill could of been spend on just knocking them out or choking them out surely.Why would I want to attempt so much damage to someone when I could just knock them out?

There is a clip of a wrestler v and Kung fu where the wrestler breaks his arm as the Kung Fu guy goes for his eyes.

So if a person trains with the theory that you dont know how good an attacker will be so train at all ranges with a highly skilled opponent in mind..which is how I train .....then eye strikes are not high on the list of tactics for me.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 11:11 AM

Quote:

this is true to an extend the personality of a person (among other factors) does contribute to the response and effect of an eye attack. this is also true for any other attack aswell though.

Absolutely. That's one reason why I said that no single attack is a guaranteed “fight stopper”. But that very notion underscores what I've been continually saying; that there is no substitute for skill in functional delivery systems.

Quote:

for these individuals the eye is still one of the highest percentage targets, even if the effect is less on them.

High percentage and low percentage at the same time. Low percentage in that it can be a very difficult target to actually hit; particularly without skill in delivery systems.

Quote:

“who are, by the way, the one's you are likely to be fighting.”

Yes and no. yes in the sense that it is always a good idea to prepare for the worst case scenario, and that includes preparing for a minimal or non existent effect.

I agree. It's always the best approach to prepare for the worst case scenario, which again outlines the necessity of having skill in delivery systems. That's the same reason to practice ground fighting, clinch fighting and stand-up (boxing) fighting.

Quote:

no in the sense that the majority of these attackers are actually false personalities, they may very well be aggressive but it is a means to an end. like the typical bully they are aggressive as aggressiveness permits them to gain the sense of power over a weaker individual, thus boosting some lacking aspect of them selves. how ever at the core these guys are cowards there hyper aggressiveness is false, a front if you like it can easily crumble. this is where behavioural tactics come in to play. especially if the individual is a truly hyper aggressive.

True for a lot of people. But I've met many very aggressive, conditioned and skilled individuals who would be absolute demons to have to fight on the street and there's not a single shred of cowardice in them. It's a blanket statement to suggest otherwise. Aggressive opponents come in all varieties, I think it's safe to say.

Quote:

“But there is enough evidence to show that they are notoriously unreliable. That's been the point I've been trying to make.”

Actually the evidence shows that eye trauma from impact and pressure produce quite predictable responses.

I agree that you can produce predictable responses. The eye waters, etc., etc. I have never disagreed with that. But my point has been along slightly different lines than this. I'm not disagreeing with this at all.

Quote:

in fact an attack to the eye is probably the most reliable attack for ANYONE to deliver. a few outlying examples does not constitute evidence of its unreliability, to the contrary the fact that they are outliers and not typical supports the reliability of the attack.

In terms of theoretical, mechanical responses, sure. We can definitely say that if you poke someone in the eye, it's going to hurt, water, blink, etc. Those are theoretical, mechanical responses. Now all we have to do is develop the ability to actually hit that small, moving target under pressure of attack. Worst scenarios are that such a pressured attack includes Tank Abbott style, sledgehammer punching. I mean, it is that worst case scenario that we have to prepare for, correct?

Quote:

simply put there is far more evidence indicating the reliability of eye attacks then there is exceptions to the rule.

Evidence does indeed indicate. Theoretical evidence based on past knowledge happening to someone else, from some other time. But theory is one thing. Application is another. I don't know if I'll be able to hit such a small moving target next time around before I'm KO'd.

Look, I'd target the eyes as much as anyone maybe. But I've seen what happens to people when they throw a weak jab that lands – a person will walk right in on it. What about an eye jab that misses? I have nothing against attacks like that. It's been my point that such things simple shouldn't be relied upon.

Quote:

“Think about it this way folks; if you were out with a loved one and someone jabbed or thumbed YOU in the eye, would you quit? I know I damn sure wouldn't. In fact, I'd be fighting back with greater will and determination. I'm sure many of you would as well right?”

If they just jabbed or thumbed me then I agree, and left it at that then yes I would push on,

Of course you would. So would many others. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

but having experienced real eye trauma a guarantee I (and everyone else) Will react to the attack. I will reflexively protect the eye and momentarily check for damage, I can not help it it is beyond my conscious control. Any one who claims they will not react to an eye attack is simply BS'ing

.

I never said otherwise.

Quote:

let me say this though if I AM ALLOWED TO RECOVER FROM ANY ATTACK, and my loved one is involved (or not) I will fight back... not necessarily with more determination though, simple because if I have to fight in the first place It will be full on from the get go and stay full on till after the threat is removed/negated. If I'm fighting then it is because I have no choice and my life or someone else's is in danger...... there is no other reason to fight.

I agree with this. But you know what I was saying. My point was that some people discover a second wind when they feel they are about to lose something important to them (in this case, an eye). I think thats understandable.

Quote:

The fact is and this is backed up by evidence, physiology and psychology, an attack or threat to the eye will cause a reaction.

Of course. I never implied otherwise. All I was trying to say was that if that's all a person has, they don't have much.

Quote:

stories about an unknown friend of a friend, or occasional training instances do not prove anything other then sometimes it doesn't hurt, every time I will bet My balls on the fact that there was a reaction. and in every story I have heard that sounds even remotely true the guy who was eye attacked was allowed to cover.

Sure, there's been a reaction. The reaction in MY case was that I beat the [censored] out of the guy that attempted it.

Here's another reaction to consider (that some may not): Trying to gouge someone in the eyes who is more skilled, will simply remind him of what he can do (and do better if he's more skilled) in return.

Quote:

take all of the training instances involving eye attacks you will find a great deal more responded in stopping the training then and there, you'll hear people claim I was hit in the eye and I continued on my training, I bet the reacted and recovered before they continued.

I will say that I reacted, but recovered AS I was training. I didn't have to continue. I can say the same for everyone else that has trained with me for the past seven years that I operated a gym.

Now with that said, I've seen guys lose a contact. But they were more concerned about finding the contact than in stopping because they had to recover.

Quote:

Any way, I think every one knows My view on this, it is based on medical and actual evidence, and I can't see anyone being able to over ride that evidence with a story about some Brazilian brown belt super fighter.

The story about the Brazilian fighter is just one such story. Pages could be filled with similar ones. But I only offered that because of it's truth, not because I made it up. If anyone doubts the veracity of that story, they should feel free to contact Burton Richardson via email, or visit his site's forum. He does answer his email.

Quote:

(no Offense John, but none of the evidence you have given here holds up very well under scrutiny,

None taken Drew. I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change the way you approach things. But to not understand my point of view is to remain closed-minded of it's possible truth. After all, I have said that I understand and agree with your point of view MANY times during this (and other) discussion(s).

Quote:

do you think the brown belt would relay this story with the inclusion of how distracted he was by the thumb in his eye, or do you think he will conveniently not mention it and jump straight to where he returned the favour. even witnesses can not truly "see or feel" what happens with the eye attack.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you the answer to that. I have no idea. All I know is the end result, which is all that matters to me. Who cares if someone “reacts” to an eye attack, if they still end up beating your ass at the end of the day? Would that be some kind of “moral victory”? That would be like me saying, “Yeah, you beat my ass so bad that I ended up in hospital with my jaw wired shut and brain damage, but YOU REACTED to my eye jab”?

Yeah, he reacted alright – by beating my ass with more gusto because I didn't have any actually fighting ability to back up such an attack.

That is and has been my only point.

Quote:

to them it may seem that the guy was unaffected whilst inside the guys head it's something like " me eye me eye "...see no display of reaction or response does not mean there was none)

I would agree with that Drew. But there again, this hasn't been my point.

Quote:

please bear in mind I think we all agree that
eye attacks are high percentage targets (compared to others)

In all honesty, can't it be said that they are high percentage in one way, and low percentage in another? I think I have illustrated this point often enough.

Quote:

an eye attack on its own is not a necessarily a fight stopper ( nor is any other tactic)

I agree one hundred percent.

Quote:

violence can be thought of in one dimension as it is very much multidimensional (BEP, physical, social in out and spun about)

Certainly!

Quote:

Drew is extremely intelligent and an incredibly good looking fella

But if you go around blinding everyone with eye jabs, you could make that statement and no one would be able to argue otherwise.

Thanks for the great discussion Drew. I sincerely appreciate your point of view and to reiterate, I agree with everything you've said.

Cheers!

Posted by: Cord

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 03:36 PM

I would just like to point out an important factor in regards to attacks to the eye, irrespective of probability of success in execution etc.

Damage to the cornea and/or retina, more often than not leads to, at least, irreprable partial blindness.

Not only is this not 'instant' on point of attack (it often phases in over 48 hrs after the damage, as pain levels increase as the body processes the level of damage done, and nerves and blood vessels die), but it is also, if intentional, a thorn in the side of the legal definition of SD.

Now I know that we are only ever supposed to be defending ourselves from 'life or death' evildoers, and I can only speak from a UK standpoint, but quite frankly, the chances of the person engaging you in a fist fight actually wanting to kill you, is still relatively slim.
Far more likely is to be accosted by a drunk, or someone with anger towards you over some personal issue (justified or not), who thinks you need a good old fashioned walloping.

That is never a good situation to be in, but if the police turn up to break it up, and/or make arrests, and find you knuckle deep in a guys eye socket, then 'but he started it' is not going to work in your favour.

Intentionaly blinding someone for life in return for a left hook is not reasonable force, and you should think long and hard about where you are at emotionaly, if this is what you think is a valid intention in a fistfight.

*this is where the response comes back that 'there are no rules' and that 'if a guy wants to hurt me he will regret it' and blah blah. I know this. I am not shy of violence. I am just pointing out that the need to do irreperable, life ruining harm, is very rare, and should not be your 'go to' reaction in every situation*

Posted by: Ames

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 04:11 PM

Cord, I agree with you totally, and this is a point I've been trying to get across. There are 'rules' of the street: they are called laws, and to not train with that in mind is poor self defence in my book.

Duane said:

Quote:

SO they [eye gouges] are just like punches and kicks and armbars....they are not 100%

In many ways, yes. However the difference is, unlike eyegouges, one can train punches, kicks and armbars in a full contact setting. The same can't be said for eyegouges.

--Chris

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 10:02 PM

By the way, did I mention that eye jabs frickin' HURT, lol!

Damned if they don't bother the eye! Can hurt like hell and the eye closes automatically. Certainly a great tool to have in your arsenal.

Many times when I've been hit, it's been by the knuckle area of a boxing glove! Even a 16oz glove will get in there. I couldn't tell you how many times that's happened to me.

-John

Posted by: drgndrew

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 03:18 AM

G'day John.

To save me effort and everyone else reading time, just Pretend I quoted all your individual items from your previous post and added Agree after them.

basically I do agree with everything you have said even if from a slightly different angle.

Hey we are all trying to paint the same bowl of fruit.

Posted by: drgndrew

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 04:08 AM

Chord and Ames,

I agree with you guys wholeheartedly.

This is why there must always be continuum of force implied with self protection.

I teach womens self defence (among other things). I show them how they can physically maim a larger stronger attacker (with Richard Dimitri's permission I include the Senshido "Shredder" concept as part of the course).

One of the the things I stress in this an appropriate (reasonable) level of force. the shredder can be applied with varying levels of force, ranging from annoying to disfiguring.
I remind them that you wouldn't want to gouge out poor drunk uncle Bob's eye and rip his ear off for getting a bit frisky, and copping a feel at a wedding. where as if some one is intend on causing you life altering harm then thats where you let you lioness of the leash. (my WSD course is called "Pussycat to Lioness"

Any way I digress ( yeah thats become a habit lately, ok maybe not just lately)

My point being is that you must pre-plan you options, both in regards to the law and to your own personal morality. you have to pre-draw lines. lines not to be crossed by you and lines not to be crossed by others. it works sort of like the old "Coopers Colour Codes", a certain level of force does not come into play unless the predetermines line has been crossed. this also cuts down on the should I shouldn't I moment that can result in a momentary freeze.

check out the thread" Drawing Lines"

Posted by: drgndrew

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 05:31 AM

One thing that has come up that is 100% correct is the difficulty in "hitting " with an eye strike.

If you go back and look at my posts I only ever refer to an "Eye attack". not an eye strike.

Eye strikes such as the eye jab, are prone to the same limitations as any accuracy required strike. Under acute stress (such as an attack) your ability to deliver fine motor skills are greatly diminished this includes the fine motor skills required for accuracy.

Accuracy can be trained to resemble gross motor movement but it does take time to acquire, either way accuracy is diminished under stress. This also applies to all sniper type shots to the chin or any other target that is only 1 inch in diameter.

The eye does have one advantage though, each eye is recessed into the skull forming a cone like slope leading into to it, this helps in that miss aimed shots can still slide into the eye, but even then the structure around the eye does still help to protect it.

The main disadvantage is that, being a survival critical organ, we are more likely to flinch when something is thrown toward it. the same things that guarantee a reaction to an eye attack means that striking the eye is even more difficult then striking an equivalent size target.

This is why I recommend that eye jabs and strikes be used much like a jab as an reaction or opening maker. to be followed directly by a powerful finishing move.

this is where I agree with John (Jkogas), you need to have skill and an effective delivery system, particularly for an eye jab/strike.

I prefer to "Attack" the eyes instead of "striking" them (semantics I know). Raking, gouging, pressing, scooping, squeezing, scratching etc are much easier and have a much greater chance of working than simply striking the eye.

put your hand anywhere on your face (or someone else's) and your fingers are only ever a few centimeters or less from an eye, most often you don't even need to move your hand only your fingers to "get a finger in the eye". we are conditioned to a degree to expect a hand coming towards our head in a fight/violent encounter. We expect to be struck in the head/face however we are not conditioned to be mauled in the face, it is not typical to what a fight is, and that is where it's advantage lies.

Of course getting your hand on the face requires a delivery system, I prefer a behavioural delivery system over the traditional fight or sporting deliver system. this means you use the behavioural and psychological aspects of a confrontation to deliver your attack instead of a physical delivery of it. A simple example is to feign fear and compliance to lift their ego and drop their guard (they think " I have this woos right where I want him.... he's mine" even if only on a subconscious level) when this happens you launch your attack. Hence you use behaviour as a tool to deliver you attack.

It actually works very well, particularly in a genuine self defence situation.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 06:26 AM

Quote:

Hey we are all trying to paint the same bowl of fruit.

I completely agree.

Now for the other half of the argument (from my point of view)...

Tactics help technique. I don't think there's any question about that.

For example, maybe I'm on the ground, on the bottom with some ridiculously heavy guy on top of me.

Technically, you're taught to create posture and frame, bridge, then scoot your hips away to create space, etc.

A tactic such as a bite in this case, might help to create just enough space to allow shrimping with greater ease (if you aren't being cross-faced that is). But there is one instance where a tactic (the bite) assisted technique (the shrimp).

The tactic didn't replace the shrimp, it facilitated it. Of course if the guy was wearing a thick, leather biker's jacket, you're out of luck - which illustrates why technique in a functional delivery system is needed.

Now, the same example used in the clinch...

Lets say I'm in close and want to create a little space to execute an arm-drag. During the pummeling, I thumb the guy in the eye (the tactic). He "reacts" by pushing away from me slightly, giving me the space to hit the arm-drag.

Once again, the tactic here assisted the technique.

Now lets say that I just tried to do this with the actor, Peter Faulk, lol. Well, Peter has a glass eye and all that happens is that his "eye" squirts out and rolls across the floor. Again, it illustrates the need for a functional delivery system (a clinch game), when the situation arises that the tactic fails.

Here my tactics are backed up by skill in functional delivery systems and are not a cheap substitute instead.

Tactics can help, there's no doubt. And this is why I harp on the whole idea of the delivery system model. I suppose I've seen the other side of this far too often in the goofy world of martial arts where guys are lead by form (tactics) over function (delivery system). Anyone is architecture knows that function must always precede form. It's no different here.

I've known people who are taught things like the eye jab, biting and so on, who never learned first the fundamentals of boxing, wrestling or jiu-jitsu. It's absurd to think that a person without those three basic skills will be better at eye jabbing or biting, than the person who has those three delivery systems in place.

Even then, it can be said that to the person who has those three skills, "dirt" (in the form of eye attacks, biting, and so on) isn't even necessary (but is certainly still useful).

Quick fixes aren't a substitute for time, blood, sweat and tears. People have to have skill first which means, functional, tried and tested technique, before tactics like eye jabs, biting, hair pulling, etc are in place. I think its just common sense.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: eye damaging - 03/17/09 07:09 PM

Quote:

I have looked around and found the eye is one thing people hate to have hit and that any damage to it causes huge amounts of panic. So anyways who has seen or had to injure or take out an eye on an attacker?

456 - In several incidents I have used eye strikes successfully the reaction I've seen were turning away one or two hands over the eye, to dropping to thr ground and rolling, or wild grouping in the air with one hand over the eye but both eyes closes on near misses I seen the head jerks away and turn back toward me pi$$ed off but not for long because of the low attack and continued combinations.

These were eye slashes, jabs or flicks barely breaking the skin of the eye my purpose was never to try to Gouge into the eye socket just to momentarily impair my attackers. Most of the times these guys either had a weapon in hand or stated they where going to pull one out or multiples. So in my mind the situation was serious enough to use such a tactic. In situation such as this you want to attack the vitals sight, breathing, trama/pressure points and movement/joints.

We all know the thumb to the eye technique and the thrusting gouge unless you already have the person injuried it is my opinon the human body reacts too quickly and violently to compete such a move in an exchange not saying that it can't be done but you will catch some incoming while in the process. I guess it could be like running into or catching a power jab or thrusting hand to the eye, I never really try a power gouge.

As its been stated this is a serious responce with serious results. The time in class I caught a eye flick to the eye armed with a wooden knife, I did the screaming wild swinging grouping air thing, that sh%$ hurt, the knife went flying. Both eyes were watering I had a busted blood vessle in my eye we learned to use eye goggles in practice. Sensei said he was sorry but sorry my a$$ that sh$% hurt, that was the end of moving in full speed on him.

Posted by: Rez

Re: eye damaging - 03/17/09 09:42 PM

I know what you guys mean. When I spar with someone they all go for the eye. I feel like my face is a fist magnet. Once they get me there it take several moments for me to recover or I'll have to get water. IT HURTS LIKE HELL!

Posted by: JKogas

Re: eye damaging - 03/17/09 11:58 PM

Rez,

So you guys do eye jab sparring or ? Do you kick each other in the balls too? What about biting? Do you do that also? Just curious. I'm trying to figure out how you guys train. How many members do you have...left?

I'm semi kidding with you. Seriously, if I've ever trained the eye jab in an alive manner, it wasn't into the eyes. But oddly enough, when boxing, you'll get hit in the eye frequently if you're not careful.

For me, defense has always been a top priority. Thus my stand-up game centers around that. I've found that if I'm getting hit too much, it meant my defense sucked. So if your face is a fist magnet, you may want to tweak yours, just a little. Don't know. Just a thought.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: eye damaging - 03/18/09 11:20 AM

Quote:

I know what you guys mean. When I spar with someone they all go for the eye. I feel like my face is a fist magnet. Once they get me there it take several moments for me to recover or I'll have to get water. IT HURTS LIKE HELL!

Rez because of that one experience 20 years ago it is my goto technique when trully threaten. I am no super man but I am no whimp either and at that time with several red stripes on my Black belt I was helpess blind and delurious it is un-natural to feel blindness and that kind of pain. It took several second for me to adjust to the pain or test my vision (therefor think about countering) and minutes for things to get back to normal. I train others and myself to as Jkogas stated after the eye attack kick the groin, sweep or get to the back and contiune attacking until the threat is gone. I agree with Jkogas that the eye flick/gouge is nothing to bank on but just like a good punch to the temple or chin it can be the beginning to a end or the end. The pain is not like taking a punch to the face something that one can can get use to or shake off during. From what I remember it is immessurable a shock to even a tough guy's system. In at least one of my eye tapping not really gouging the result was it deterred a determined attack that lead to a screaming spirial toward the ground rolling with both hands over his eye (even though I only tapped one eye) attacker. No follow up was needed. This is a trully potent counter offensive move I've seen and felt it from both sides.

I've been punched in the eye with bare fist (ugly black eye) and in gloves good mouse but nothing does the trick like those narow fingers or finger!! I was taught the extended knuckle strike (I believe really potent) to the eye but fingers work for me and are more versitle you don't need much movment just a sweeping or quick tap. It is as I've stated my goto technique (trained as much as punching) when Katie bars the door.

Posted by: karl314285

Re: eye damaging - 03/19/09 12:15 AM

Hi,

been following this for a while and like to add an experiential thang and then a variation based on Xperiential thangs too...

But I have to wholeheartedly agree that if one were to have the Police arrive with the Aqueous and gooeyer Vitreous Humor of the eyes of the opponent dribbling down ones fingers, barring overwhelming evidence of imminent threat to ones life, well SD is moving to A&B w/ intent

1.) I practiced lead hand finger jabs to the double end speed bag for a while (weeks, prob month or two) and then went to 'play' w/ one of the few students, who over years I had introduced to no pad sparring(has safety rules and I chose only the most competent). all that time and my one open shot ended with two of my fingers up his nostrils, it's dam hard, BUT his reaction did leave him off balance and that could have been taken advantage of.
***So I feel while a lead finger jab may not land, if shot out fast and accurately will cause a reaction that opens a good door for follow up.

2.) Since one of the rules I made for the above type sparring was open hands to face and vital targets. Damaging the eyes can be done indirectly with much greater % hit ratio. A downward or vertical finger swipe to the nose can be as blinding as a jab, open palm with fingers slapping the temporal to orbit region is to good effect, I just made sure I spent time on the makiwara getting my fingers ready.
***Indirect eye damage with finger swipes has been mentioned, just thought I'd give a thumbs up

to the idea.

-Karl

Posted by: Ilove2Hit

Re: eye damaging - 03/29/09 09:51 PM

pre-emptive. a sure good strike. also infight good to use, especially on the streets. if i would have the chance and it is an easy and good solution, then yes: i´d go for the eye. but then i wouldnt stop. it is not a strike to end a fight, something must follow. either finishing strikes, or run away.

depending on the situation make a choice, its urs anyway.

Posted by: Ronin1966

Re: eye damaging - 04/03/09 11:33 PM

Hello Moderator Ames:

Ok, let me be sure i understand you... if you want to perminantly stop someone, not ~maybe~ injure them a bit, but actually STOP them or in reverse they are trying to stop YOU

Are you saying that you would not take a very different approach to someone who was throwing spearhands at your eyes than if they were throwing punches to your torso?

If someone is trying to maim me, cripple me to the eyes I see a different intention, I can then remove any "safeties" that might still have existed...

An deliberate eye attack is a very different intention, IMHV-fwiw....

Jeff

eye damaging

eye damaging - 03/12/09 07:55 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/12/09 10:22 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 04:47 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 06:42 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 08:01 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 08:51 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 10:47 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 12:34 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 12:56 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 03:39 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 03:40 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 07:41 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/13/09 11:51 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 10:44 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 07:47 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 08:15 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 08:21 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/14/09 08:39 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 02:56 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 08:01 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 11:11 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 03:36 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 04:11 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/15/09 10:02 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 03:18 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 04:08 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 05:31 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/16/09 06:26 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/17/09 07:09 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/17/09 09:42 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/17/09 11:58 PM

Re: eye damaging - 03/18/09 11:20 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/19/09 12:15 AM

Re: eye damaging - 03/29/09 09:51 PM

Re: eye damaging - 04/03/09 11:33 PM