By all means, rock the boat thats what what were here for.

Alright now, lets not get ahead of ourselves. "Simulating" certain attacks is ok to an extent. Again, that should not replace alive training.


-John

Exactly. Shadow boxing or hitting the bag is about as pretend as I get. I do alot of visualization or, daydreaming but that is obviously not training.

drgndrew wrote:

Quote:

---

I don't want to get too far in to this, but........

If your training to climb Everest, you don't climb Everest everyday. You simulate, imagine and extrapolate. You don't have to be hit by a car to know it will hurt.

---

But you still climb don't you? You don't PRETEND to climb. You don't stand there in the air and making climbing motions. You actually go out and climb smaller moutains.

If all you did was IMAGINE climbing, and then went out and climbed Everest, you'd not get very far. Overall, that's a pretty bad analogy.

Quote:

---

The eye is not as tough as many are giving it credit for. It is a part of the nervous system and quite easy to damage. Sure it can handle a light-ish poke and even a scratch, but there is no way someone can not instinctively react to it. But gouging will cause damage, otherwise why do it.

---

You seem to be missing the point as well. You say that eye isn't tough but I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about the OWNER of the eye bro. The "people behind the targets" can be pretty damned tough, even if these targets aren't. But if all you ever do is pretend / simulated training, you'll probably never realize this fact.

This is part of the problem that many folks involved arts which aren't always trained alive aren't aware of. Many of you only see people as "walking targets" instead of individuals with minds and wills of their own, who are tough and will fight you back (unlike your makiwara boards, wooden dummies and bob bags).

I'm guessing that you would fall to pieces if I thumbed your eye, right? You'd just fall over and roll into a fetal position?

-John

I agree with you. Dirty fighting is easy to do, it's getting into the position to send those attacks that requires the training. Also, so you sent the groin kick or eye strike, now what? Like you said if someone just gouged my eye, and then stopped, I would try to kill them. It is like I posted before, dirty fighting is a distraction, you better be able to follow it up with more violent attacks.

Exactly!

If an "eye boink" is all you have, you better have some fast feet because there are guys out there who have all of that garbage as WELL as a legit game.


BrianS wrote:

Quote:

---

...I caught a thumb to my eye that felt like it tickled the back of my skull....

...Had this been a real fight I would have continued,but with mucho rage and aggression.

---

And that is the point I was making. You have to imagine yourself being on the receiving end of these sorts of attacks. How would YOU react? I'm betting that for the most of you, your level of aggression would go up dramatically.

Now imagine that happening to your opponent. Do you really want HIS level of aggression going up that much? Think about it. There are other methods of taking the fight out of him and the eye gouge isn't one of the better ones.

I learned something interesting and quite true a long time ago from one of my instructors, about ground fighting and "dirty tactics".

If you have a position of control on your opponent and he isn't fighting hard, going into the eyes, etc, is certain to give him more energy to use against you. However, if HE is trying to go into YOUR eyes (from an inferior position), going into HIS will teach him that isn't really a smart idea, from the position of disadvantage that he's already in.

Thus, you can "train" him not to gouge YOU by gouging HIM. However, doing so otherwise can only make him fight harder. I know that *I* would!


-John

Well, people can be tough but I dotn know, my uncle got in a street fight awhile back and the guy had him face down grinding his head into the pavement so my uncle reached around, and doug his thumb deep in to the guys eye. He said it was the nastiest thing he's done and was really warm and slimy but anyway, the guy intstantly gave up and took off with a completely blood shot eye. Sounds pretty effective ot me. and this was apparently a big tough guy.
Anyway, training with light attackes and training agaisnt bags and what not even using htsoe is like indoor rock climbing and climbing small mountains. Yes it isn't the same but it does help plenty.

G'day John,

With regards to the Everest analogy the point of the analogy is that the smaller mountains are simulating everest, you don't climb Everest until you climb Everest. My point is that you can still train it without disfiguring your TP. Press on the eyebrow instead of the eye, wear goggles, use a bob or foam head. I'll concede that you can't train it full on no compliance with out taking into account some sort of safety measure, same goes with knife defence ( please don't tell me that you use live blades with full noncompliance), throat strikes, strikes to the knee or any other attack to a vulnerable area. isn't that the reason for training equipment.

Gouging, poking raking, clawing, scratching and the like are all gross motor movements, they are natural almost instinctual actions. They don't require a lot of "training as such. If you can turn a light switch on or press a button then you can poke an eye. Ask any 4 yr old and they will be able to make a claw with their hand, and no-one ever teaches a child how to scratch yet we all know how to. If you want a little more hands on practice with gouging try digging your thumb into a tomato. This is a little gross, but you can take advantage of fresh road kill, or talk to your butcher about obtaining a whole sheep head. Know before you all start thinking I'm a bigger freak then I actually am, No I don't do any of the latter, but it's an alternative and will at least give you an idea of what gouging would actually feel like, if you wanted to take it that far.

As for the opponent having more "energy" to attack you with, who cares, he can't see you dude..... disengage and watch him flail at air (better still do the bolt). The thing is any attack to the eye will cause a reaction, there is simply no way you can override 40 000 yrs of instinctual,in-built, automatic defence mechanisms. Sure if you attack the eye and then stop and wait, that extra "Motivation" that you talk about can come into play. No technique should be considered the be all and end all, no matter how successful someone has been using it. A fight finisher is only a fight finisher when it finishes the fight your in. Capitalise on the defensive reaction caused by the eye attack and finish it either by escaping or neutralising.

Eye attacks can be performed at various levels of force. From what I've seen and heard from survivors of violent attacks an eye gouge performed at maximum force will generally remove the spirit of any man, and should be considered a high percentage tactic that can be used by anyone, not just the fighting fit.

Now I'm going to give you credit, John, that is deserving of a high post count board member and moderator ( and the respect that goes with that). Although, I don't agree with the use of the term " legitimate" or the word "game" (when talking Self Defence) I Do agree with you in regards to needing a support system on which to deliver these tactics, such as those which come from combative sport systems. However Self defence must be accessible to all not just the athletic this is why we also need other delivery systems such as behavioural based which will be more useful to, for eg, the elderly or invalid.

Later

drgndrew wrote:

Quote:

---

G'day John,

With regards to the Everest analogy the point of the analogy is that the smaller mountains are simulating Everest, you don't climb Everest until you climb Everest.

---

You can stop right there. There is no need to go any further. Those smaller mountains might simulate Everest, but they DON’T simulate climbing. I think you’re off base here and are no closer to understanding the point I was making.

Quote:

---

My point is that you can still train it without disfiguring your TP. Press on the eyebrow instead of the eye, wear goggles, use a bob or foam head.

---

But you’re missing the point. The eye brow isn’t the eye, wearing goggles isn’t the eye. A FOAM HEAD!!!! You mean, something like a “BOB” Bag! Granted, that equipment is better than nothing. But please don’t use a foam head for training.

What I’m NOT talking about here is developing your ability to aim your target man. That’s not it at all. Those things aren’t making your eye jab game ANY more credible at all because, you’re still not actually going into the eyes. In short, no matter how you slice it, such tactics still aren’t PRACTICABLE.

You would fare better by simply developing your lead jab than by hitting at goggles. Because if you can connect with a jab, you can connect with fingers - providing you can actually hit that smaller moving target. See the point?

Quote:

---

I'll concede that you can't train it full on no compliance with out taking into account some sort of safety measure, same goes with knife defense ( please don't tell me that you use live blades with full noncompliance), throat strikes, strikes to the knee or any other attack to a vulnerable area. isn't that the reason for training equipment.

---

Certainly. However I don’t do a lot of knife training for these very reasons. It’s almost an exercise in futility. I would rather run away than have to deal with a an armed opponent. I just don’t believe in the utility of such training considering that I’m not in law enforcement where I get to carry guns. I’ve not had a blade held in front of me (against my neck) for over 20 years. When it was, I gave the man what he wanted and he left. I didn’t try a disarm or anything else.

Do I need to develop a kata based around handing over my wallet? Do I need to train that during my knife defense classes? How about running away? ALL of those things are more realistic and effective than knife defense.

Quote:

---

Gouging, poking raking, clawing, scratching and the like are all gross motor movements, they are natural almost instinctual actions.

---

And they are actions that you cannot train with a live opponent. There is no art behind them as anyone can do them. That means, your opponent if he has more skill than you in a legitimate game, can do them as well and perhaps even BETTER because of that skill.

Quote:

---

Will at least give you an idea of what gouging would actually feel like, if you wanted to take it that far.

---

Honestly, I don’t need to know what gouging feels life. And, tomato’s don’t hit back.

Quote:

---

As for the opponent having more "energy" to attack you with, who cares, he can't see you dude..... disengage and watch him flail at air (better still do the bolt). The thing is any attack to the eye will cause a reaction, there is simply no way you can override 40 000 yrs of instinctual, in-built, automatic defence mechanisms.

---

Sure you can. You can avoid it from happening to begin with by having superior skill than the person trying to gouge your eyes. You can dominate him positionally. You can have better stand-up, etc, etc. This is been my point.

Again for those of you who can’t read, I’m not saying that foul tactics are worthless. I’m saying they aren’t practicable and that its wise to spend your valuable training time doing work that IS.

Quote:

---

Eye attacks can be performed at various levels of force. From what I've seen and heard from survivors of violent attacks an eye gouge performed at maximum force will generally remove the spirit of any man, and should be considered a high percentage tactic that can be used by anyone, not just the fighting fit.

---

Not disagreeing with you here. Never have been. I’m just making a different point.

Quote:

---

Now I'm going to give you credit, John, that is deserving of a high post count board member and moderator ( and the respect that goes with that).

---

Don’t do that…..I could be just a complete idiot with an internet connection and a lot of free time.

Quote:

---

Although, I don't agree with the use of the term " legitimate" or the word "game" (when talking Self Defence) I Do agree with you in regards to needing a support system on which to deliver these tactics, such as those which come from combative sport systems.

---

Yes, a delivery system is needed from which to base one’s attacks. Thus the delivery system would be the legitimate “game”. Game used here is not to denote rules, but more to speak of “ability”. Such as with the game of basketball. If one can actually play (as opposed to merely “pretending or simulating the act”), it’s said that he has “game”. The same concept applies to fighting ability.

Quote:

---

However Self defence must be accessible to all not just the athletic this is why we also need other delivery systems such as behavioural based which will be more useful to, for eg, the elderly or invalid.

---

Fundamentals have nothing to do with being a gifted athlete. What’s different about a lead jab than an eye jab? The jab is fundamental. If you’re no good with a lead jab, what makes you think you’re going to be any better with an eye jab?

See the point?


-John

Semantics Dude, semantics.

OK we get it.. You can't practice them, as in not "practicable". I say big deal, so what. You don't shoot people on a pistol range either, but the only difference between training and shooting someone physically is what the bullet passes through ( were talking technique here not psychological differences)

If so many of us are " so far off " of what you mean, maybe you could tells us in a different way.

Reality Based Self Defence (RBSD)
This is not an Sport
This is not an Art
This is Survival.

Many of your arguments are more suited to Martial Arts & Fighting not Self Defence. The fact is, John, reality IS different from training, sport and art.

There are a lot of behavioural tactics that come into play in the street. It's not a simple fight where you shape up to each other, thats not self defence. In this situation everything you say is spot on.

But like I said, Semantics Dude, semantics