FightingArts Estore
Pressure Points
From a medical professional, straight facts on where and how to hit that can save your life.
Stretching
Limber or not, anyone can add height and speed to their kicks with this method.
Calligraphy
For yourself or as a gift, calligraphy is special, unique and lasting.
Karate Uniforms
Look your best. Max snap. low cost & superior crafted: “Peak Performance Gold” 16 oz uniforms.

MOTOBU
Classic book translation. Hard to find. Not in stores.
Who's Online
0 registered (), 46 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
AndyLA, danacohenn, ksusanc, kellypnik123, leyinn
22904 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Dobbersky 14
cxt 7
trevek 6
JKogas 5
futsaowingchun 4
July
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
New Topics
Applied center line theory
by futsaowingchun
07/28/14 08:55 AM
centerline concepts
by futsaowingchun
07/14/14 10:49 PM
language of syllabus
by trevek
07/11/14 03:36 PM
ITF TaeKwonDo or Shotokan Karate????
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:14 AM
10 San Sik drills-Wing Chun's foundation
by futsaowingchun
06/30/14 11:20 AM
"Ip Man" and "Ip Man 2" the movies.
by TaekwonDoFan
06/30/14 11:02 AM
Anderson Silva - Leg Break
by Dobbersky
12/30/13 08:32 AM
Where Are They Now?
by Dobbersky
05/30/13 08:08 AM
Gi or no Gi Grappling?
by Prizewriter
04/16/12 02:48 PM
MMA - A passing Fad
by Dobbersky
04/12/12 11:16 AM
Recent Posts
Gi or no Gi Grappling?
by Dobbersky
Yesterday at 05:11 AM
Applied center line theory
by futsaowingchun
07/28/14 08:55 AM
centerline concepts
by futsaowingchun
07/28/14 08:53 AM
ITF TaeKwonDo or Shotokan Karate????
by cxt
07/24/14 11:35 AM
language of syllabus
by trevek
07/14/14 04:50 PM
MMA - A passing Fad
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:35 AM
Anderson Silva - Leg Break
by Dobbersky
07/09/14 06:13 AM
Throwing
by JKogas
07/03/14 07:40 PM
10 San Sik drills-Wing Chun's foundation
by futsaowingchun
06/30/14 11:20 AM
"Ip Man" and "Ip Man 2" the movies.
by TaekwonDoFan
06/30/14 11:02 AM
Forum Stats
22904 Members
36 Forums
35564 Topics
432455 Posts

Max Online: 424 @ 09/24/13 10:38 PM
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#416985 - 03/13/09 03:40 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: duanew]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
I think it was Hughes, yes. There have been a few incidents like that.

I just think that in order to gain the needed ability to throw such accurate strikes, you are better to spend most of your time hitting targets that you can hit with full contact. If you can target the chin, there should be a skill transfer over to targetting the eye.

--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#416986 - 03/13/09 07:41 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: drgndrew]
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
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

Top
#416987 - 03/13/09 11:51 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: JKogas]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
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
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#416988 - 03/14/09 10:44 AM Re: eye damaging [Re: JKogas]
duanew Offline
Member

Registered: 06/28/08
Posts: 326
Loc: MN
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

Top
#416989 - 03/14/09 07:47 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: duanew]
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
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?

Top
#416990 - 03/14/09 08:15 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: JKogas]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
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
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#416991 - 03/14/09 08:21 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: JKogas]
duanew Offline
Member

Registered: 06/28/08
Posts: 326
Loc: MN
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

Top
#416992 - 03/14/09 08:39 PM Re: eye damaging [Re: duanew]
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
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.

Top
#416993 - 03/15/09 02:56 AM Re: eye damaging [Re: JKogas]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
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
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#416994 - 03/15/09 08:01 AM Re: eye damaging [Re: drgndrew]
matxtx Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 700
Loc: england
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.
_________________________
I point my saxaphone at the rare Booted Gorilla.

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  Cord, Dedicated1, MattJ, Reiki 




Action Ads
1.5 Million Plus Page Views
Monthly
Only $89
Details

Fight Videos
Night club fight footage and street fights captured with the world's first bouncer spy cam

How to Matrix!
Learn ten times faster with new training method. Learn entire arts for as little as $10 per disk.

Self Defense
Stun guns, pepper spray, Mace and self defense products. Alarms for personal and home use.

TASER MC26C
Stop An Urban Gorilla: Get 2 FREE TASER M26C Replacement Air Cartridges With Each New TASER M26C!

 

Unbreakable Unbrella

krav maga