# The rule sets of combat



## hoshin1600 (Jul 13, 2019)

This is a repost from my blog.  i am curious on peoples thoughts.

The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

I quite like it. Every training system assumes some rules (even those that purport not to). In some cases, the "rules" are simply universal assumptions about what is/is not likely to happen. Whether those assumptions are realistic or not in a given context plays a huge role in whether the training is relevant to that context.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 13, 2019)

I would say there are rules in street fights and its culturally based.    Pending where you live, people will jump in to stop you pending what you do.  

Boxing is still kind of hanging on with its stand up and trade punches to settle disputes which has a lot of influence in some places and what they perceive as a fight.   Definitely have seen some people with the view thats how it should be settled and no groin strikes etc.

People also generally step in to try and stop you killing someone if it goes to that extent sometimes. (be that with a bat to the back of the head or pulling you away from them)

Kind of like how you would settle a legal dispute via a duel with the prescribed requirements and conditions when dueling was allowed.  

Probably off topic but people forget cultural acceptance does determine if anyone will jump in and when and in some places the police wont ump in if you both agree to fight.


----------



## skribs (Jul 14, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> This is a repost from my blog.  i am curious on peoples thoughts.
> 
> The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community



There's a video I watched a while back by Jesse Enkamp (the "Karate Nerd" as he calls himself):





I really like the way he puts it.  Now, the analogy starts to break apart a little bit if you compare all of the different styles of fighting.  But let's take a boxer, a Taekwondoist, a BJJ fighter, a wrestler, and an MMA fighter.

*As beginners, *they're all learning the basics of their style.  The boxer is doing 4 punches over and over and over.  The Taekwondoist is starting with forms, but primarily will focus on 4 basic kicks over and over.  I don't know what a BJJ fighter would be learning as a white belt, and it's been too long since I did wrestling to remember what the first few classes cover, but I'm sure they would be learning the basic foundations of their art as well.  I'll guess as well for the MMA guy, that he's going to be learning some basic strikes and/or throws, depending on which class he shows up to.

*As intermediate fighters*, whatever it is they are stereotypical for, they will at least look like they know what they are doing.  Going down the list in order, they'll have decent punches and combinations, decent kicks and footwork, a few decent locks and chokes, a few decent throws and pins, or a little bit of everything.  They're starting to put the pieces together of what they've learned.

*As advanced fighters, *they are capable within the scope of their own competitions.  The boxer will know how to throw combinations and defend against punches.  The Taekwondoist how to read kicks and set up the headshot.  The BJJ guy will know how to outmaneuver his opponent on the ground, and the wrestler will know how to control his opponent.  The MMA guy will have figured out his strengths and weaknesses, and know where he wants the fight to take place, and have some strategies to keep it there.

Now it is at this point that most people compare the arts.  "BJJ is the best because all fights go to the ground."  "MMA is the best because it can deal with every situation."  "Taekwondo has the best kicks, but that's all they know how to do."  Well, at this stage, you are advanced in your areas of focus, but at best intermediate at the other areas you might find yourself in.

*As expert fighters*, now they are so competent in what they do, that they can make sure the fight goes that way.  The boxer and the Taekwondoist can use their footwork and timing to keep a grappler from even getting close.  The wrestler or BJJ will know how to slip through those strikes in order to take the other person down.  And the MMA guy has simply fought enough people that he'll know what to do in almost any situation.

So where The Karate Nerd has a mountain that everyone is climbing, where everyone will learn all of the techniques, I don't think that's quite the case.  However, whatever your chosen fighting style is, the better at it you are, the more you can control the fight.  If you're a boxer, and you know how to close in on a kicker, or you can react quick enough to a grappler, you're going to win.  If you're a kicker, and you know how to dance, you're going to keep people at range.  If you're a grappler, and you know how to close on a striker, it doesn't matter if you know how to strike or not.

But it takes pushing beyond the phase of simply being good enough in your arena, to being good enough at what you do to survive in any arena.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 14, 2019)

asking "what is the best karate style"  is similar to what i was saying but i think it is falling into the very trap i was proposing. there is objective and subjective reality. objective being what is the actual truth and subjective being how we as individuals perceive that reality.  we can not see reality directly. its to complex.  we can only perceive and understand small pieces of the reality that we have direct experience with. outside of our experience it becomes fuzzy and out of focus and the father away it is the lower the resolution of our understanding.   when there are missing pieces in our perception the brain will fill in the blanks.
Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?

in order to begin to separate objective from subjective in martial arts we have to first acknowledge and understand our own narrative and step outside of it.


skribs said:


> *As expert fighters*, now they are so competent in what they do, that they can make sure the fight goes that way.





skribs said:


> However, whatever your chosen fighting style is, the better at it you are, the more you can control the fight. If you're a boxer, and you know how to close in on a kicker, or you can react quick enough to a grappler, you're going to win. If you're a kicker, and you know how to dance, you're going to keep people at range. If you're a grappler, and you know how to close on a striker, it doesn't matter if you know how to strike or not.


This is a fallacy.  it only applies to a small set of realities.  In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.

try this experiment.  next time your instructor teaches you a technique, ask him how this is going to work against a mass shooter with a semi auto rifle.  yeah of course he is going to look at you like "stop being a douche, and just do the technique". some will say its a stupid question because you cant stop bullets.  but for yourself, dont let it go so easy.  the reason the question makes people uneasy is because it is a different reality.  it is worth the effort to think this though and run the scenario out in your mind on what would have to happen for some of your skill set to actually become applicable.  what parts would be applicable?  how would they have to change? what skills would you have to learn to get what you already know to work?
if you run through this process with many different realities you will start to find pieces of skill sets that work across the most scenarios.


----------



## skribs (Jul 14, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> asking "what is the best karate style" is similar to what i was saying but i think it is falling into the very trap i was proposing.



Based on this reaction, you didn't watch the video.  You just read the title.  If you did watch the video, then you missed the message.



hoshin1600 said:


> This is a fallacy. it only applies to a small set of realities. In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.



In many instances of self defense, the attacker either wants a fight or wants something from you.  The time building up to the fight, or the time in which he gives you to give your wallet, is the time in which you can fight back.

If you are aware of your surroundings and are at least on yellow alert, then you should notice the danger before it grabs or punches you.



hoshin1600 said:


> try this experiment. next time your instructor teaches you a technique, ask him how this is going to work against a mass shooter with a semi auto rifle.



It is a stupid question.  It's not a stupid question because "you can't stop bullets".  The simple answer is to carry your own gun, and meet force with force.  Also, if this is something you fear, to avoid gun-free-zones, since they prevent you from having the tools to fight back.

However, it is a stupid question, because then it takes all other practical discussion off the window.  It reminds me of a kid who was getting ready for his 1st degree black belt test, and had the opportunity to practice his stuff, but instead of asking me questions like "can you check my form to make sure I'm doing it right", he was asking questions like "when you're a 7th degree black belt, what do you do on your test."  Instead of focusing on his test, he was looking at a different question, and he ended up not doing well on his test.

The same thing applies here.  Your article, the video I linked, and the discussion I provided, is centered around the idea that just because a martial art is different, does not mean it is wrong.  So we can discuss the pros and cons of martial arts, and see how martial artists can use their strengths to their advantage and prevent their weaknesses from coming into play.

As soon as you bring a semi-auto rifle into the discussion, you've just killed the discussion.  It's like arguing over which is the best battle bot, and then saying "but Optimus Prime could destroy them all."  It's like arguing over who would win in a race between my middle-school kid and your middle-school kid, and then saying "but Usain Bolt is faster."  It's similar to the idea behind Godwin's law, in that at some point in any discussion on the Internet someone will make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, at which point the discussion ends.

It's a viable scenario to bring up, but it's not a valid question when you're weighing the pros and cons of an art and trying to figure out "if I'm a wrestler, what do I do when someone throws a punch?"


----------



## jobo (Jul 14, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> asking "what is the best karate style"  is similar to what i was saying but i think it is falling into the very trap i was proposing. there is objective and subjective reality. objective being what is the actual truth and subjective being how we as individuals perceive that reality.  we can not see reality directly. its to complex.  we can only perceive and understand small pieces of the reality that we have direct experience with. outside of our experience it becomes fuzzy and out of focus and the father away it is the lower the resolution of our understanding.   when there are missing pieces in our perception the brain will fill in the blanks.
> Can Our Brains Really Read Jumbled Words as Long as The First And Last Letters Are Correct?
> 
> in order to begin to separate objective from subjective in martial arts we have to first acknowledge and understand our own narrative and step outside of it.
> ...


you have a point, but you've taken it far to far the other way, to the point of paranoia, there are millions of increasingly unlikely scenarios for which your ma training won't  help you,at all, and even for mundane sets of circumstancsets were it is of very limited use directly , .,

but, situational awareness, works just as well for idiot drivers as it does for physical attack, fast reaction and good co irdination pay off in all sorts ofsituations, even if you only drop an egg andcatch it before it hits the floor, or even better your ice cream,physical fitness is always a plus to have when something happens, have  to climb a tree to escape a rabid pit bull perhaps and even if the worse happens being physical strong will help you resist damage and recover sooner. there are lots and lots of indirect benifits, which just may make difference


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> Your article, the video I linked, and the discussion I provided, is centered around the idea that just because a martial art is different, does not mean it is wrong. So we can discuss the pros and cons of martial arts, and see how martial artists can use their strengths to their advantage and prevent their weaknesses from coming into play.


that is not exactly what i wrote about. my post was more about the philosophical nature of reality and how that causes issues in our perceptions and in specific the martial arts.



skribs said:


> Based on this reaction, you didn't watch the video. You just read the title. If you did watch the video, then you missed the message.


 ive watched the video, seen it before too, i also dont disagree with it.  but that was not the line of thought i was having.  so i would say that you missed the point of my post, not the other way around.


skribs said:


> In many instances of self defense, the attacker either wants a fight or wants something from you. The time building up to the fight, or the time in which he gives you to give your wallet, is the time in which you can fight back.


  this is the central theme of my thoughts.  #1 that every person has a narrative of what a "fight" looks like and how it will happen. #2 that the narrative will change the way the person trains and what they train.  so i would ask how many times have you had an assailant fight you for your wallet?  once , twice?  how many times exactly?  my guess is that it has happened Zero times to you...  so how can you say what that will look like?  you imagined it,, you can see it,, play it out in your minds eye.  how did you create that image and why does it look the way it does in your mind, if you do not have any real life experience with it?  people need to be honest, did they imagine it happening in a particular way because their instructor (who also has no experience) said so?
this is the central theme of my post.



skribs said:


> As soon as you bring a semi-auto rifle into the discussion, you've just killed the discussion


why?
so your saying the military shouldnt train in martial arts, or that their training is useless?



skribs said:


> The simple answer is to carry your own gun, and meet force with force.


 so then why not just carry the gun everywhere and skip all the martial art training?



skribs said:


> It's like arguing over which is the best battle bot, and then saying "but Optimus Prime could destroy them all." It's like arguing over who would win in a race between my middle-school kid and your middle-school kid, and then saying "but Usain Bolt is faster."


 what i asked was for people to do an exercise. with a mental thought process.  its not the who would win argument, its a how you use your thought process experiement.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 14, 2019)

You essentially are using rules in the same way I use the term order of priorities.

The part I disagree with is the idea that fighting rules are not interchangeable.

So a monkey dance has a different dynamic to a predatory attack.

Or does it?
Let's look at this example.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 14, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You essentially are using rules in the same way I use the term order of priorities.
> 
> The part I disagree with is the idea that fighting rules are not interchangeable.
> 
> ...



i do not want to assume what you mean when you mention rules being interchangeable.  but i think many rules are universal and its possible some will change as the encounter changes. 

i also know that the bear was interviewed after and he said he was "just playing around"


----------



## Buka (Jul 14, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> In many instances, the assailant determines the when and how of the violence and his intent is not to fight but rather use violence in such a way that it prevents his victim from fighting back. his aim is to achieve his goal without putting himself at risk and will use intense violence to shut down his victim in order to minimize his own risk.



Very important point. Goes over the head of a lot neophytes.


----------



## skribs (Jul 14, 2019)

@hoshin1600 I would like to change my stance on your article.  At first, I agreed with it.  Mainly because I read and understood the first couple paragraphs and kind of skimmed through the rest.  Upon re-reading it more closely, especially the later paragraphs, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't make much sense.  I'm not saying you're right or wrong.  I just don't know what point you're trying to make or what conclusion you're trying to draw, or what purpose the article serves to those reading it.  It reads like you trying to sort things out in your head, in a way that makes sense to you, maybe in response to conversations you've been a part of that I haven't. 

This is why I based my initial understanding of your article on your first paragraph, and assumed you were talking about the toxic nature of martial arts and the "mine is the best, yours sucks because you don't do everything exactly like we do" mentality.  That's a mentality I see sometimes on here, but quite a bit more often on other sites like Reddit and YouTube.  It is a very real problem in the online martial arts community.

Instead, you seem to be making some passive-aggressive meta-discussion aimed at people who have made specific claims in the past.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> I just don't know what point you're trying to make or what conclusion you're trying to draw, or what purpose the article serves to those reading it. It reads like you trying to sort things out in your head,


this is feed back i can use.  thank you.  in a way your correct, i am sorting things out in my head in so much as the post is a first draft. anything close to coherent writing needs a second and third draft. and if this was anything more than a short post on the internet i would do that.  
i will admit it is a very short post trying to condense a lot of information. maybe more then can be expressed and digested in the length of a paragraph or two. perhaps i would do better with a long form rather then a blog post.


skribs said:


> I read and understood the first couple paragraphs and kind of skimmed through the rest.


yes this was a mistake because the first paragraph is only a set up or segway into the deeper thoughts that is the main concept.
if people dont understand or think it makes no sense then as the writer i need to know that.


----------



## Buka (Jul 14, 2019)

I don't know, Hoshin, I think I understand it. I'm actually still thinking about it. I've read it several times.

Same thing goes for a lot of recent posts. Hell, I'm still making notes on the liver video that was recently posted - which was pretty friken' awesome.

Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 14, 2019)

With good training...what you are training for will dictate how you train and what the emphasis of your training will be.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> There's a video I watched a while back by Jesse Enkamp (the "Karate Nerd" as he calls himself):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I enjoyed the video of Jesse!  Thanks for posting it.  I thought the various paths to the mtn. top converging at the summit was a great metaphor.  While the analogy breaks down as you say when you consider boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. keep in mind that they are not karate.  They should be considered different mountains with their own set of paths. 

I think Jesse's analogy holds true in regards to the karate mtn.  The paths do converge at the top for the reasons Jesse stated - and not just the physical elements, but the different karate styles pretty much share the same mental and spiritual elements as well.  Not surprising since most all karate styles share the same great-great-grandparents.  You can see group photos of the Okinawan masters all together.  At the summit, which is where these guys were at, they recognized the commonality of the art they shared.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 15, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> While the analogy breaks down as you say when you consider boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. keep in mind that they are not karate. They should be considered different mountains with their own set of paths.


Let me ask a question.  Why does it brake down?  If the end use is to be self defense, shouldn't they all be moving to the same goal?  One could argue that many people take martial arts for other reasons but that is the individual not the style. The style is still a MA not interpretive dance. the path should still get you to a point of self defense competency even if you have no intention of using it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 15, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> Let me ask a question.  Why does it brake down?  If the end use is to be self defense, shouldn't they all be moving to the same goal?  One could argue that many people take martial arts for other reasons but that is the individual not the style. The style is still a MA not interpretive dance. the path should still get you to a point of self defense competency even if you have no intention of using it.



They're not all moving towards the same goal. Generally speaking, training in wrestling or boxing isn't intended to do anything other than teach you to win a competitive event under a very specific rule set.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> They're not all moving towards the same goal. Generally speaking, training in wrestling or boxing isn't intended to do anything other than teach you to win a competitive event under a very specific rule set.



Sport was how people traditionally trained for self defense, for war and to build warrior ethos. (And other human qualitys.)

Boxing and wrestling are the two oldest martial arts in existence. 

Training in boxing or wrestling is intended to teach you the building blocks of fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> i do not want to assume what you mean when you mention rules being interchangeable.  but i think many rules are universal and its possible some will change as the encounter changes.
> 
> i also know that the bear was interviewed after and he said he was "just playing around"



In that instance with the bear. The guy used the rules of primate dominance to deter a predatory attack. And an actual predatory attack. 

The separations are not always along the lines people think.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Sport was how people traditionally trained for self defense, for war and to build warrior ethos. (And other human qualitys.)
> 
> Boxing and wrestling are the two oldest martial arts in existence.
> 
> Training in boxing or wrestling is intended to teach you the building blocks of fighting.



And yet, you don't see that in their advertising all that often. So apparently not.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 15, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> This is a repost from my blog.  i am curious on peoples thoughts.
> 
> The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


Very uhhh. Diplomatic.

Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.

Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 15, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> so then why not just carry the gun everywhere and skip all the martial art training?



Why did the team America theme song just come into my head there?   

i would personally advise anyone who can, to seek what ever training they deem necessary or mandated by law and carry when they can legally.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> And yet, you don't see that in their advertising all that often. So apparently not.



Double post, so apologies.

Boxing and wrestling are pretty old but not in the now as we know them ways, there are some folk styles which have died off which are damn old and i think everywhere had a folk wrestling style in some capacity.

Look far enough back you could probably find a pretty no holds barred fighting system.  Wrestling to me means grappling and i think thats the literal definition for the term outside of citing wrestling as a style.    Wrestling by far is pretty useful against a armed/armoured opponent and also is less dangerous out of the two i would say.    which can be a factor as to why its pretty popular, if you want to kill someone draw your blade and cut them, if you want martial showmanship/practice which can be applied decent to armed warfare wrestling is there.

How ever as in England boxing took off quite a bit, but in old terms that was basically no holds baring and some of the domestic wrestling styles had strikes and kicks in them.         But then unarmed fighting systems might appear where you couldn't otherwise be armed as you see now with the crackdown of weapons over history in places.    Isn't karate kind of like how it is because of a Okinawan crackdown on weapons in its history?  And actually ban of its practice.



If im not wrong the oldest European or English martial system recorded was one in the 11-12 00's.   I forget if it was European oldest or the oldest for England.    It IS English though or recorded in England.  Forget its name. (its not unarmed, it has some unarmed techniques in it though as most should)

Pretty jumbled point but i hope it made sense.  Ultimately drop bear is not fully wrong or right, but the modern arts how we look at them now are not reflective or are slightly reflective of their history.      Only so much as foil fencing is reflective of sword fighting as it has a sword representative in it.    

Obviously i am not martial arts historian so i will take correction to any of this.  I would say i am a  hobbyist in terms of martial history as its my preferred genre of history.  (military history mostly but this is under military history)     Just ask for clarification of anything if you need it and want it.


Edit:   Oh and if this was a joke reply, RIP me. 



@drop bear     Its a double reply to both of you i would say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Very uhhh. Diplomatic.
> 
> Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.
> 
> Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.


MMA tests a pretty consistent subset of techniques against a specific subset of people (trained fighters, almost exclusively, and of similar skill), and with specific variables controlled. There's a fair amount that's been made to work outside that context that either doesn't work reliably in that context, or that just doesn't apply. MMA is a great testing ground, but we can only use it to confirm something works in that context (and can pretty safely generalize that to most other fighting contexts, rules allowing). It's not a reliable source of disconfirmation. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a good source for disconfirmation, which allows for a lot of disagreement without much evidence to work with.


----------



## jobo (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Very uhhh. Diplomatic.
> 
> Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.
> 
> Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.


I'm sure we have done this before  ? mm a as it appears in most of these discussions relates to accomplished fighters with a well above average level of physical conditioning, and there seems little doubt as to the effectiveness of mma in a " ring" or in a strest brawl, when its these folk we are considering,

what's a lot less defined, is how out relates to mr less than average who does a class a week and isn't particularly turn  on to diet and metabolic training. he us going to get beat up badly if he tries his luck in an octagon against the folk above and he may quite likely lose heavily in a street brawl if he runs into someone with even basic skills and a much higher level of conditioning,  that is much the same situation that mr karate or mr wing chun finds him self in.   to me there seems no real world difference, unless or until you reach a fairly high level of skill and fitness ! which then takes a very high level of commitment to achieve if indeed it's ac hievable at all by any particular individual


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Very uhhh. Diplomatic.
> 
> Sure, every teacher of every style SAYS their stuff works live.
> 
> Luckily for us, the consumers, that there is an arena called MMA where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.



Except that MMA isn't an accurate representation of the situations you'll find yourself in.  In MMA, both people are the aggressors.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> MMA tests a pretty consistent subset of techniques against a specific subset of people (trained fighters, almost exclusively, and of similar skill), and with specific variables controlled. There's a fair amount that's been made to work outside that context that either doesn't work reliably in that context, or that just doesn't apply. MMA is a great testing ground, but we can only use it to confirm something works in that context (and can pretty safely generalize that to most other fighting contexts, rules allowing). It's not a reliable source of disconfirmation. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a good source for disconfirmation, which allows for a lot of disagreement without much evidence to work with.


Everyone is untrained at first, and some never get very good. It's not like everyone that trains is a profesional killer.

Anyway I'm not sure how 'specific' the ruleset is. Sure, you can't bite or eye gouge, but show me a system so reliant on eye gouging and biting that it would make any kind of difference, with advanced biting and eye gouging techniques that are so advanced they would give you a significant advantage against a guy that understands timing, distance and position that can also bite and eye gouge you if there is no ref.

Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.


----------



## jobo (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Everyone is untrained at first, and some never get very good. It's not like everyone that trains is a profesional killer.
> 
> Anyway I'm not sure how 'specific' the ruleset is. Sure, you can't bite or eye gouge, but show me a system so reliant on eye gouging and biting that it would make any kind of difference, with advanced biting and eye gouging techniques that are so advanced they would give you a significant advantage against a guy that understands timing, distance and position that can also bite and eye gouge you if there is no ref.
> 
> Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.


the rule set thing is pretty simple if you fight a boxer under boxing rules, he will probably beat you, if you fight a karate man under karate tournament rules he will have an advantage in much the same way, that you would possibly beat both if it was mma rules


----------



## Bruce7 (Jul 15, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> This is a repost from my blog.  i am curious on peoples thoughts.
> 
> The Rules of combat | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


Excellent article. Very true. Very well written.

My master fought in the Korean War. So hitting us hard was not uncommon, just to edge of breaking a bone.
A bloody nose was not uncommon during sparring. We could take a punch or kick and keep on fighting.
IMO this training could save your life. It is also true, you may never have need to use that training.
IMO this is the reality of the real world.

Today my grandson in a padded human body suit and is not allow to hit much harder than a touch. 
When the kids accidentally get hit with just a little force, they just stop.
This training is good to help kids develop physically and they seem happy.
IMO this is the reality is best describe of as an activity reality.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, *but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back*.



I'm pretty sure that eye gouges, groin kicks, and elbows to the spine are not used because they are so effective at damaging the human body that they would be unsafe to include in MMA.  My Dad was able to ask a professional MMA fighter why you don't see Hapkido in MMA, and her answer was that most of those techniques are banned.

If you take a technique and ban it, then of course it isn't used.  And the reason techniques are banned is quite often because of how destructive they are to the human body.  Just like how you're not allowed to punch after the KO, you're pulled off during a TKO, and once they tap you have to release the hold.  All of those techniques are "allowed", but as soon as you get to the point where it could cause damage, you release.

I am not going to argue that MMA isn't effective, because I agree that it is - for the points you mention.  However, I do not believe that "tested in the cage" is the only way to prove if a technique is effective or not.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm pretty sure that eye gouges, groin kicks, and elbows to the spine are not used because they are so effective at damaging the human body that they would be unsafe to include in MMA.  My Dad was able to ask a professional MMA fighter why you don't see Hapkido in MMA, and her answer was that most of those techniques are banned.
> 
> If you take a technique and ban it, then of course it isn't used.  And the reason techniques are banned is quite often because of how destructive they are to the human body.  Just like how you're not allowed to punch after the KO, you're pulled off during a TKO, and once they tap you have to release the hold.  All of those techniques are "allowed", but as soon as you get to the point where it could cause damage, you release.
> 
> I am not going to argue that MMA isn't effective, because I agree that it is - for the points you mention.  However, I do not believe that "tested in the cage" is the only way to prove if a technique is effective or not.


Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.

They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.
> 
> They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.


I'd also add that 'elbows to the spine' are perfectly legal in MMA, unless they are thrown at a 12-6 angle.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.
> 
> They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.



Based on how well people continue to fight after an accidental eye poke in MMA, I'd disagree.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> Based on how well people continue to fight after an accidental eye poke in MMA, I'd disagree.


The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example.



I've seen people quit because they can't see.  I've seen many others continue, and lose because they can't see.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example.








First result when I looked up "Eye Poke Quit MMA".  

This was the easiest research I have ever done.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've seen people quit because they can't see.  I've seen many others continue, and lose because they can't see.


Not to mention that it’s simply prudent.  At the moment, you don’t know how bad it is.  It could be bad enough to lose the eye.  So you quit the match and get some medical attention.  Continuing the match could be possible, even winning, but could lead to losing the eye. 

In my opinion, it wouldn’t be worth it to continue.  But that’s just me, and I don’t have any interest in MMA or most competition venues anyway.

Translating this onto the street, an eye poke might not end a fight, and the guy who got poked might still win.  After the fact, he might lose the eye.  It might be worth it, if losing the fight could have worse results.  It depends on what is really on the line.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Not to mention that it’s simply prudent.  At the moment, you don’t know how bad it is.  It could be bad enough to lose the eye.  So you quit the match and get some medical attention.  Continuing the match could be possible, even winning, but could lead to losing the eye.
> 
> In my opinion, it wouldn’t be worth it to continue.  But that’s just me, and I don’t have any interest in MMA or most competition venues anyway.
> 
> Translating this onto the street, an eye poke might not end a fight, and the guy who got poked might still win.  After the fact, he might lose the eye.  It might be worth it, if losing the fight could have worse results.  It depends on what is really on the line.



In the video I linked, you see almost everyone as soon as the poke happens they call time-out.  It's immediately disorienting, you lose your depth perception, and lose awareness on one side of your body.  Because you are probably blinking and tearing up (the natural response to an eye poke) your other eye is going to be less effective.  This is all if you can keep a cool head.  

In a real fight if you react to an eye poke by turning your head and covering your eye (like happens quite often in these clips), and there is no ref to stop the other person, they have a clean shot to just rain blows on you.

Add in the fact that people generally don't train their natural response to an eye poke.  You spar all the time to get kicked in the ribs or to take punches to the head.  These are hits the people are used to.  The reason they go down so quick on an eye poke is they aren't used to pain there, so they don't know how to respond.  And if you do train for that, you'll go blind before you use it in a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Everyone is untrained at first, and some never get very good. It's not like everyone that trains is a profesional killer.
> 
> Anyway I'm not sure how 'specific' the ruleset is. Sure, you can't bite or eye gouge, but show me a system so reliant on eye gouging and biting that it would make any kind of difference, with advanced biting and eye gouging techniques that are so advanced they would give you a significant advantage against a guy that understands timing, distance and position that can also bite and eye gouge you if there is no ref.
> 
> Sure, the amount of techniques you see in a cage is less than you'll see in a dojo, but that's not due to things being disallowed, but rather because certain things tend to work better than others when the other guy is allowed to move and hit back.


The ruleset comment was more about the fact that MMA moves work well anywhere the rules don't hamper them (so, MMA fighter won't do as well under boxing rules).

As for the other part of my comment, there are locks and takedowns LEO manage to use on a reasonable basis, but which I would be surprised if they worked reliably against someone skilled in any kind of grappling.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> In the video I linked, you see almost everyone as soon as the poke happens they call time-out.  It's immediately disorienting, you lose your depth perception, and lose awareness on one side of your body.  Because you are probably blinking and tearing up (the natural response to an eye poke) your other eye is going to be less effective.  This is all if you can keep a cool head.
> 
> In a real fight if you react to an eye poke by turning your head and covering your eye (like happens quite often in these clips), and there is no ref to stop the other person, they have a clean shot to just rain blows on you.
> 
> Add in the fact that people generally don't train their natural response to an eye poke.  You spar all the time to get kicked in the ribs or to take punches to the head.  These are hits the people are used to.  The reason they go down so quick on an eye poke is they aren't used to pain there, so they don't know how to respond.  And if you do train for that, you'll go blind before you use it in a fight.


Sure, but consider if the fellow you are defending against is a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility. 

So the eye poke could cause him to fight more desperately and he might beat your head in on the concrete, even if he loses the eye later.

Again, it depends on what is on the line.  It isn’t an automatic fight-stopper.  There are a lot of variables in the mix.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but consider if the fellow you are defending against is a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility.
> 
> So the eye poke could cause him to fight more desperately and he might beat your head in on the concrete, even if he loses the eye later.
> 
> Again, it depends on what is on the line.  It isn’t an automatic fight-stopper.  There are a lot of variables in the mix.



You could say the same about any technique.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> You could say the same about any technique.


Yes.  But at the moment we are talking about eye pokes, and there can be a tendency to believe that they are fight-stoppers.


----------



## jobo (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but consider if the fellow you are defending against is a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility.
> 
> So the eye poke could cause him to fight more desperately and he might beat your head in on the concrete, even if he loses the eye later.
> 
> Again, it depends on what is on the line.  It isn’t an automatic fight-stopper.  There are a lot of variables in the mix.


Such a person will most likely want . To leave quickly, with or with out your wallet with or with out an eye poke ,  the best thing you can do to shorten the fight is to let him , 
d


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes.  But at the moment we are talking about eye pokes, and there can be a tendency to believe that they are fight-stoppers.



If it doesn't stop the fight it gives you a clear advantage.  The other person may start swinging, but he won't see what he's swinging at.  And I think it's 90% he won't be swinging, and less than 1% he's throwing more than one reactionary swing.


----------



## Buka (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but consider if the fellow you are defending against is a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility.
> 
> So the eye poke could cause him to fight more desperately and he might beat your head in on the concrete, even if he loses the eye later.
> 
> Again, it depends on what is on the line.  It isn’t an automatic fight-stopper.  There are a lot of variables in the mix.




There is a certain situational awareness, a feeling if you will, that comes from working as a cop. 

The guy - _a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility - _might as well be wearing a sign that declares this, at least sometimes. Really, you can kind of feel him without even trying to. 

If you have a Martial background it becomes even more natural and instinctual. I'm not even sure why. I think all of us here have it to some extent. You just have to keep exercising it. 

People watching is more than just " a thing". It is a tactical preparation for what may or may not occur. And it is necessary. 

And that guy you described, the repeat offender, that F'er is a people watcher, too. But F him and the five to ten he rode in on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> If it doesn't stop the fight it gives you a clear advantage.  The other person may start swinging, but he won't see what he's swinging at.  And I think it's 90% he won't be swinging, and less than 1% he's throwing more than one reactionary swing.


Sure, maybe.  Anything is possible.  But don’t assume an eye poke will end the fight.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

Buka said:


> There is a certain situational awareness, a feeling if you will, that comes from working as a cop.
> 
> The guy - _a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility - _might as well be wearing a sign that declares this, at least sometimes. Really, you can kind of feel him without even trying to.
> 
> ...


Yup.  And he might have jumped you from behind, before you knew he was there.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Biting and eye gouging aren't illegal because they are particularly useful for ending fights(the same goes for small joint manipulation and groin strikes), in fact they are all quite ineffective at stopping people in the moment.
> 
> They are illegal because they can leave long lasting damage that would impede future fights.



Eye gouge can, but if you can knock a jab out i think you should be able to snake kung fu their eyes with somewhat reliability if you can jab well enough and accurately enough.  Just need to be reminded its a thing if you go from a sport base.  you know what i mean, the fingers pointed at them and jab it at their eyes really fast.  

Small joint manipulation is iffy and hard to do under resistance and groin strikes aren't end all be all, its a vulnerable spot for sure and hurts let alone if you put a good kick into it.   

out of the 3 the eye gouge is the best and most fight stopper of them and probably the easiest to do under pressure.    None of them dont have their place, but they are blown out of proportion barring the eye jab, you can cause serious damage to a thing you need to live a good life.  

Someone may have replied with a  similar thing but i haven't seen it if they did, so apologies for the double reply if you got one.


----------



## Buka (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yup.  And he might have jumped you from behind, before you knew he was there.



True. But everyone has to be doing something when they die.

And if he wants to be attacking me from behind then that's his choice.


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, maybe.  Anything is possible.  But don’t assume an eye poke will end the fight.



I assume it will give a clear advantage.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> I assume it will give a clear advantage.


I assume it will PROBABLY give an advantage.

But don’t use the MMA comparison to make your judgement.  An MMA competitor has the luxury of ending the fight if he thinks the eye injury is bad.  Someone else might not, and just might even fight harder.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> And yet, you don't see that in their advertising all that often. So apparently not.



You see a lot of advertising that say self defense and delivers mediocrity.

I wouldn't go off the advertising.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> Double post, so apologies.
> 
> Boxing and wrestling are pretty old but not in the now as we know them ways, there are some folk styles which have died off which are damn old and i think everywhere had a folk wrestling style in some capacity.
> 
> ...



Well in a modern context. Wrestling, BJJ, and  hybrids are used to train soldiers for the battlefield.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I assume it will PROBABLY give an advantage.
> 
> But don’t use the MMA comparison to make your judgement.  An MMA competitor has the luxury of ending the fight if he thinks the eye injury is bad.  Someone else might not, and just might even fight harder.



What advantage do you think that gives?

Just saying fight to the death doesn't create mental toughness. Doing tough things does.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Buka said:


> There is a certain situational awareness, a feeling if you will, that comes from working as a cop.
> 
> The guy - _a repeat offender and is looking at doing hard time in prison for the fifth time in his life if he gets caught after tryin to mug you, and he is not willing to accept that possibility - _might as well be wearing a sign that declares this, at least sometimes. Really, you can kind of feel him without even trying to.
> 
> ...


A year ago, I wouldn't have understood that. For the last several months, I've been volunteering with the local sheriff's office, helping provide security at the courthouse (including Superior court). Talking with the cops I get to work with - including the Sgt., who worked undercover vice for a long time - about the people we see there, I think i get it. I sometimes get an odd "feel" from some of the folks coming in for court. If the deputy I'm working with is experienced (most of them have 15+ years on the force), they'll sometimes comment about it, too. They recognize more than I do, and seem to get more information from the feeling. Of course, that's probably because they've had to tune theirs with the experiences they've had over the years.

But, yeah, they pretty much know when someone is likely to be trouble. I've had to remind them that not all of us have their experience to do that with.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Well in a modern context. Wrestling, BJJ, and  hybrids are used to train soldiers for the battlefield.



Pretty much MMA at this point.  Most people describe it as MMA and all countries use a similar set of moves. Its basically dirty MMA with the perspective to kill people or at least cause them a mischief.   Its literally a hybrid martial art anyway, they dont care about style they just want the most effective system possible at what they want it for.   

The USMC martial arts program i think is cited as having something from literally everything in it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> Eye gouge can, but if you can knock a jab out i think you should be able to snake kung fu their eyes with somewhat reliability if you can jab well enough and accurately enough.  Just need to be reminded its a thing if you go from a sport base.  you know what i mean, the fingers pointed at them and jab it at their eyes really fast.
> 
> Small joint manipulation is iffy and hard to do under resistance and groin strikes aren't end all be all, its a vulnerable spot for sure and hurts let alone if you put a good kick into it.
> 
> ...


I think landing an eye poke against a moving target (on purpose) is as hard as getting a wrist lock. It can be done, but reliability gets low. Now, if your hands are already there (struggling with someone, and hand lands on face), adding a poke or gouge should be much more reliable. I think it's as situational as a wrist lock. It can be useful, but only works when it works, and is only worth really trying for when the right opportunity makes it available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Well in a modern context. Wrestling, BJJ, and  hybrids are used to train soldiers for the battlefield.


I think this has mostly followed what is popular. There are people making these decisions, and they seem to make them more or less the same way most people do.


----------



## Buka (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> A year ago, I wouldn't have understood that. For the last several months, I've been volunteering with the local sheriff's office, helping provide security at the courthouse (including Superior court). Talking with the cops I get to work with - including the Sgt., who worked undercover vice for a long time - about the people we see there, I think i get it. I sometimes get an odd "feel" from some of the folks coming in for court. If the deputy I'm working with is experienced (most of them have 15+ years on the force), they'll sometimes comment about it, too. They recognize more than I do, and seem to get more information from the feeling. Of course, that's probably because they've had to tune theirs with the experiences they've had over the years.
> 
> But, yeah, they pretty much know when someone is likely to be trouble. I've had to remind them that not all of us have their experience to do that with.



You know who else has similar radar? People who were bullied as children. Even at eighty years old they can spot a bully a mile before anyone else can.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> What advantage do you think that gives?
> 
> Just saying fight to the death doesn't create mental toughness. Doing tough things does.


The one difference (maybe advantage, depends how you look at it) is if he thinks he HAS to keep going, then he might act with more desperation. Dive in, put his all into the next attack, since he figures he's only got once shot at it. Just a different decision point when it's (perceived as) a life/death situation, than when you can step back and flag the ref.

Gets me thinking: I want a ref with me on the street. Man, I'm just tapping out on everything if he's there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Buka said:


> You know who else has similar radar? People who were bullied as children. Even at eighty years old they can spot a bully a mile before anyone else can.


Now that, I definitely get. Bully-detector is always on, maximum gain.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think landing an eye poke against a moving target (on purpose) is as hard as getting a wrist lock. It can be done, but reliability gets low. Now, if your hands are already there (struggling with someone, and hand lands on face), adding a poke or gouge should be much more reliable. I think it's as situational as a wrist lock. It can be useful, but only works when it works, and is only worth really trying for when the right opportunity makes it available.



have you seen the "no holds barred fight with X and Y" video on youtube?    i think its between two different countries soldiers, they basically agree to have a no holds barred fight and the U.S person just jabs them in the eye and the fights over, they didnt see the eyepoke coming which i dont think most sport people would.  

Cant find it, but it at least has its place which no one denied, works better if you dont see it coming.       i think you can train it with focus pads maybe?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> Pretty much MMA at this point.  Most people describe it as MMA and all countries use a similar set of moves. Its basically dirty MMA with the perspective to kill people or at least cause them a mischief.   Its literally a hybrid martial art anyway, they dont care about style they just want the most effective system possible at what they want it for.
> 
> The USMC martial arts program i think is cited as having something from literally everything in it.



Yeah. But there is a difference between sharing similar techniques and sharing similar development.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156423470644993
			




I mean there are statistically better techniques as well.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> have you seen the "no holds barred fight with X and Y" video on youtube?    i think its between two different countries soldiers, they basically agree to have a no holds barred fight and the U.S person just jabs them in the eye and the fights over, they didnt see the eyepoke coming which i dont think most sport people would.
> 
> Cant find it, but it at least has its place which no one denied, works better if you dont see it coming.       i think you can train it with focus pads maybe?



Ok. Anytime you want I will let you come down to my gym. We will put face masks on and you can have an eye gouge off with a boxer who has no training in eye gouging and see how you go.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The one difference (maybe advantage, depends how you look at it) is if he thinks he HAS to keep going, then he might act with more desperation. Dive in, put his all into the next attack, since he figures he's only got once shot at it. Just a different decision point when it's (perceived as) a life/death situation, than when you can step back and flag the ref.
> 
> Gets me thinking: I want a ref with me on the street. Man, I'm just tapping out on everything if he's there.



That is not how toughness works. You don't just decide at the time you are tough because the stakes are high.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> have you seen the "no holds barred fight with X and Y" video on youtube?    i think its between two different countries soldiers, they basically agree to have a no holds barred fight and the U.S person just jabs them in the eye and the fights over, they didnt see the eyepoke coming which i dont think most sport people would.
> 
> Cant find it, but it at least has its place which no one denied, works better if you dont see it coming.       i think you can train it with focus pads maybe?


Think of it this way: it's like a jab, but more precise. It's subject to all the blocks, parries, slips, and head-bobs that can be used against a jab. Unlike a jab, it matters precisely where it lands, so any head movement is likely to be dramatically more effective.

Personally, I think it's more reliable to just punch them, in most cases. Where you can surprise them enough, maybe it's a reasonable tool, but if I can hit them cleanly by surprise, why not just hit them?


----------



## skribs (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> That is not how toughness works. You don't just decide at the time you are tough because the stakes are high.



In a lot of cases, you do.  If I'm in class and something feels off, I take care of it because I don't want it to get worse.  If I'm in a tournament and I get kicked and something feels off, I will continue until the tournament is over.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> That is not how toughness works. You don't just decide at the time you are tough because the stakes are high.


I'm not talking about toughness. I'm talking about desperation. MMA guys are most likely tougher, but they have the option of pausing/ending the fight via ref.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> In a lot of cases, you do.  If I'm in class and something feels off, I take care of it because I don't want it to get worse.  If I'm in a tournament and I get kicked and something feels off, I will continue until the tournament is over.



But you can just stop in a tournament.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not talking about toughness. I'm talking about desperation. MMA guys are most likely tougher, but they have the option of pausing/ending the fight via ref.



And so if you remove the option of stopping then the fight will probably go to the tougher guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And so if you remove the option of stopping then the fight will probably go to the tougher guy.


Yes.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Anytime you want I will let you come down to my gym. We will put face masks on and you can have an eye gouge off with a boxer who has no training in eye gouging and see how you go.



See my post before that where i put "if you can jab well you should be able to eye gouge jab decently" how ever if i have practiced eye jabs i would put the advantage to myself for it being instinct to go for the eyes when available where as the boxer might not, this is in addition to the rest of the fighting skills like  distance, timing, position control etc.  

I would put the advantage to anyone woth all the necessary fighting skills plus the dirty tricks being put in their cirrcumlem and being as instinctual to them as a jab is to a boxer.      Eye jabs are a pretty good distraction as well all things considered and you can move your open hand faster than a closed one.  

and obviously if you put mask on the threat is eliminated, its like wearing a cup for groin strikes and obviously no one is going to agree to a death match in this day and age or allow one. equal to wearing full steel plate and having a validity test for a 3inch blade as a weapon test, so it will change the reaction given and ultimatly not give a fully accurate representation of use.  Just as no one would fight someone in full plate with a  3 inch blade, no one is going to eye strike someone with a mask on.     I wont punch someone with a hard helmet on at all or its going to be "bye bye hand".  Completely unrelated but some people have punched people with helmets on. 



gpseymour said:


> Personally, I think it's more reliable to just punch them, in most cases. Where you can surprise them enough, maybe it's a reasonable tool, but if I can hit them cleanly by surprise, why not just hit them?



I could agree in part, i think its got more validity as a fight stopper than a groin strike though as you can actually in a best case scenario (for you) permanently remove function of that persons eye, rather than of something not relevant to a fight like the genitals.  

Its something which you should at least have built into your memory as a thing rather than going "oh we can do this i forgot", pretty good distraction as well all things considered even if you don't land or intend to.  

Just in general better to have it built into your memory you can hit the groin, hit the eyes, slap the ears, bend and break the fingers etc than not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> have you seen the "no holds barred fight with X and Y" video on youtube?    i think its between two different countries soldiers, they basically agree to have a no holds barred fight and the U.S person just jabs them in the eye and the fights over, they didnt see the eyepoke coming which i dont think most sport people would.
> 
> Cant find it, but it at least has its place which no one denied, works better if you dont see it coming.       i think you can train it with focus pads maybe?


I’ve not seen this, but I will take your word for it.

But this does not translate into a real fight.  In this competition, I assume either party can concede the loss, and the fight ends.  One guy gets a nasty eye poke, and he throws in the towel.  Everyone goes home, and he gets to see the doctor.

If you are getting mugged and you get poked in the eye, do you get to concede the loss and go home?  Maybe the guy will proceed to beat you into the dust.  Maybe you keep on fighting, inspite of the eye poke.

Once again, the effectiveness of the eye poke depends on a lot of factors.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yes.



And toughness is developed during training. 

There is this idea that if you train for no rules life or death you will be able to handle no rules life or death better.

But I think training with rules increases the pressure and intensity you can train under. Builds a better level of general toughness. Builds a better ability to handle life or death engagements. Than whatever the alternative methods are.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Rat said:


> See my post before that where i put "if you can jab well you should be able to eye gouge jab decently" how ever if i have practiced eye jabs i would put the advantage to myself for it being instinct to go for the eyes when available where as the boxer might not, this is in addition to the rest of the fighting skills like distance, timing, position control etc.



I can almost Guarantee that you are not training eye gouges efficiently and that this boxing experiment would show that.


----------



## skribs (Jul 16, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve not seen this, but I will take your word for it.
> 
> But this does not translate into a real fight.  In this competition, I assume either party can concede the loss, and the fight ends.  One guy gets a nasty eye poke, and he throws in the towel.  Everyone goes home, and he gets to see the doctor.
> 
> ...



There's a difference between the conscious decision to continue fighting for your life when you've had a few seconds to process it, and the few seconds of "what the hell just hit me?"  That few seconds is where the person who just got poked is most vulnerable.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2019)

A mate of mine got eye poked in this fight. Couldn't see out of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And toughness is developed during training.
> 
> There is this idea that if you train for no rules life or death you will be able to handle no rules life or death better.
> 
> But I think training with rules increases the pressure and intensity you can train under. Builds a better level of general toughness. Builds a better ability to handle life or death engagements. Than whatever the alternative methods are.


Some portion of toughness is developed in training. I think some portion may be inherent in a person's personality, too. But, yeah, building more toughness does give an edge in those situations.

It sounds like you're trying to argue something with me, which makes me think you've misunderstood something in my recent posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I can almost Guarantee that you are not training eye gouges efficiently and that this boxing experiment would show that.


Is there a good way to train them efficiently (the pokes, not gouges, since that seems to be the point of this test)?

And I'd argue this test isn't a good way to test the skill, because the other guy knows a poke is coming. It worked in that contest with the SEAL because he surprised the other guy.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Some portion of toughness is developed in training. I think some portion may be inherent in a person's personality, too. But, yeah, building more toughness does give an edge in those situations.
> 
> It sounds like you're trying to argue something with me, which makes me think you've misunderstood something in my recent posts.



The bit we are worried about developing is developed in training. If we are looking at a system that enhances our abilities.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Is there a good way to train them efficiently (the pokes, not gouges, since that seems to be the point of this test)?
> 
> And I'd argue this test isn't a good way to test the skill, because the other guy knows a poke is coming. It worked in that contest with the SEAL because he surprised the other guy.



Yes. Learn to hit properly rather than learn to eyegouge.

There are people out there trying to perfect the straight finger thinking they are creating an edge for themselves.





Might be wasting his time a little bit?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2019)

skribs said:


> First result when I looked up "Eye Poke Quit MMA".
> 
> This was the easiest research I have ever done.


And 0 of those guys were unable to continue, they just didn't because rules.

Look, you've missed the point entirely dude. Nobody said eye pokes or nut shots weren't annoying, they just aren't fight ending techniques. Pain compliance just doesn't work on someone full of adrenaline.

So the whole argument that MMA isn't an accurate measure of ability because it disallows things that don't stop people is downright silly. It's just something some TMA people that larp their training hold on to to preserve the dojo magic.


----------



## skribs (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> And 0 of those guys were unable to continue, they just didn't because rules.



What are you talking about?  The initial reaction of most of those guys was a complete forfeiture of their fighting structure.  Some of them dropped like they'd been KO'd, one guy called timeout when he could barely see, one guy walks away like the fight is over.

These aren't the "I've decided not to continue" or the ref calling the fight.  The initial reaction by these fighters is "I don't know what's going on but I can't see".  



> Look, you've missed the point entirely dude. Nobody said eye pokes or nut shots weren't annoying, they just aren't fight ending techniques. Pain compliance just doesn't work on someone full of adrenaline.
> 
> So the whole argument that MMA isn't an accurate measure of ability because it disallows things that don't stop people is downright silly. It's just something some TMA people that larp their training hold on to to preserve the dojo magic.



An eye poke isn't just pain compliance.  It's sensory deprivation. 

Look at the pokes again.
1:10 into the video, his vision is clearly impaired and you can tell he's just holding his arms up out of habit, there's no way he's stopping a hook with those.
3:01 basically looks like a KO
4:58 another KO
5:30 he closes his eyes in the middle of the combo, 5:37 he walks away from the exchange
6:00 he walks away and shows his back, if the ref didn't stop it he would have been attacked from behind

Yeah, a lot of these fighters come back.  But if the poker didn't have the ref stopping them, most of them would have been destroyed from behind by a punch to the back of the head or a sleeper hold.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> And 0 of those guys were unable to continue, they just didn't because rules.
> 
> Look, you've missed the point entirely dude. Nobody said eye pokes or nut shots weren't annoying, they just aren't fight ending techniques. Pain compliance just doesn't work on someone full of adrenaline.
> 
> So the whole argument that MMA isn't an accurate measure of ability because it disallows things that don't stop people is downright silly. It's just something some TMA people that larp their training hold on to to preserve the dojo magic.


yes good points but, that's not generally how fight fights happen, knock outs are uncommon, but if you can do that you have no need for any other techniques, just knock them out and get on with your day. otherwise it's accumulating of damage leading to the fact that fights tend end one side is unwilling to continue or someone breaks it up. yes some people will fight on with significant damage, but most people take the fact they are pinned to the floor have in unprotected blows reign down on them as a sign they should give it up,,  or the fact they have been kicked in the nuts and blinded in one eye as a fair indecation that to continue is folly that will likely result in then pinned to the ground having unprotected blows reign down othem in. if they do choose to continue then both of those has detracked from their fighting ability somewhat.

if the fight is broken up then the one with the least damage can consider themselves the winner, so if he has been eye poked and kicked in the nuts and you haven't, that is probably you.

I really wouldn't try and  blind someone in a pointless fight about who turn it is on the pool table, etal it is, its really not proportionate, if iuts some one trying to cut me up with a knife or a bottle I would have no hesitation in poking them in one or prefably both eyes, I doubt they can stab me if they can't see me


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2019)

skribs said:


> What are you talking about?  The initial reaction of most of those guys was a complete forfeiture of their fighting structure.  Some of them dropped like they'd been KO'd, one guy called timeout when he could barely see, one guy walks away like the fight is over.
> 
> These aren't the "I've decided not to continue" or the ref calling the fight.  The initial reaction by these fighters is "I don't know what's going on but I can't see".
> 
> ...


LOL

None of the guys in that video were unable to continue.

But even if I were to concede that eye pokes end fights(which I'm not), that still wouldn't really help your argument. If you can land an eyepoke, you can land a jab. Do you really think Joe beerbelly that can't even see his toes past his gi is going to land eyepokes with a greater proficiency than a trained fighter that knows how to land jabs on a resisting opponent? It really makes no difference.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> LOL
> 
> None of the guys in that video were unable to continue.
> 
> But even if I were to concede that eye pokes end fights(which I'm not), that still wouldn't really help your argument. If you can land an eyepoke, you can land a jab. Do you really think Joe beerbelly that can't even see his toes past his gi is going to land eyepokes with a greater proficiency than a trained fighter that knows how to land jabs on a resisting opponent? It really makes no difference.


that doesn't seem a reasonable argument, " Joe beer belly" who can neither jab nor eye poke is likely to get beat ,if the does mma or any   the other the other ma you look down on ! or no ma at all. it as you say it makes no difference at all


----------



## skribs (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> None of the guys in that video were unable to continue.



Half of them were.  The other half got a time-out or the ref stopped the fight because they were unable to defend themselves.  5:37 is the best example of this - the fighter just turns around and walks away.  In a real fight, with no ref, that's just begging to get punched in the back.  

I agree there are a few points where incidental pokes get shrugged off.  I would be willing to concede that point, but you're making the claim that it didn't end any of the fights, which is just flat out false.  I don't know whether you're lying to me or lying to yourself, but someone literally covering his eyes, dropping his guard, and slowly walking away from me with his back turned, is about the easiest target I could have in a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

drop bear said:


> The bit we are worried about developing is developed in training. If we are looking at a system that enhances our abilities.


I mostly agree with that. My sense is that training can develop what we’re talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yes. Learn to hit properly rather than learn to eyegouge.
> 
> There are people out there trying to perfect the straight finger thinking they are creating an edge for themselves.
> 
> ...


That’s rather my thought in it, too. If you can jab well, you’re much more likely to be able to land an eye poke. I don’t really think there’s much benefit in any extensive training on the poke, itself. A bit of toying with it is probably informative, even if all you gain is an understanding of the limitations of training it specifically.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> that doesn't seem a reasonable argument, " Joe beer belly" who can neither jab nor eye poke is likely to get beat ,if the does mma or any   the other the other ma you look down on ! or no ma at all. it as you say it makes no difference at all


I actually don't look down on TMA at all. All of the good stuff comes from TMA.

What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2019)

skribs said:


> Half of them were.  The other half got a time-out or the ref stopped the fight because they were unable to defend themselves.  5:37 is the best example of this - the fighter just turns around and walks away.  In a real fight, with no ref, that's just begging to get punched in the back.
> 
> I agree there are a few points where incidental pokes get shrugged off.  I would be willing to concede that point, but you're making the claim that it didn't end any of the fights, which is just flat out false.  I don't know whether you're lying to me or lying to yourself, but someone literally covering his eyes, dropping his guard, and slowly walking away from me with his back turned, is about the easiest target I could have in a fight.


Sure, the _matches_ ended.

At which point the totally conscious and physically undamaged fighter that just won by doctor stoppage walks under his own power back to the locker room with a sore eye.


----------



## skribs (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure, the _matches_ ended.
> 
> At which point the totally conscious and physically undamaged fighter that just won by doctor stoppage walks under his own power back to the locker room with a sore eye.



So you think that being blind in one eye, half-blind in the other, with no guard, with your back turned to the opponent, is _*not *_a severe disadvantage?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 16, 2019)

skribs said:


> So you think that being blind in one eye, half-blind in the other, with no guard, with your back turned to the opponent, is _*not *_a severe disadvantage?


Of course it is, but severe disadvantages are not under discussion. We are talking about ending fights. Reaching that point where one party is unable to continue fighting. Not disadvantaged. Not broken up by a ref, or deemed by a doctor unable to see well enough to safely continue. Not an unwillingness to continue in the face of a rules violation.

But stopped. Punches stop people. Kicks, knees, elbows.. SEVERE BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA stops people.

Being choked unconscious stops people.

Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry.


----------



## skribs (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> But stopped. Punches stop people. Kicks, knees, elbows.. SEVERE BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA stops people.
> 
> Being choked unconscious stops people.



And you don't think this is easier to do when your opponent has his back to you, attention off of you, eyes closed, guard down?

You don't think it's easier to punch, kick, or choke someone in this situation?

And I don't mean "easier" as in how 90 + 110 is easier than 147 + 164.  I mean easier in how memorizing that X * 0 = 0 is easier than memorizing pi to 100 digits.


----------



## Buka (Jul 16, 2019)

I think eye pokes, groin strikes and the term "self defense techniques" are the three most misunderstood things in the world of Martial Arts schools. Not in the world of Martial Arts, but in the world of Martial Art_ schools_.

And....I can no longer recite pi to one hundred digits. But I can go to fifty even drunk. Memorized that back in college attempting to bed a pretty math major. It didn't work. Her and I are still friends, though.


----------



## skribs (Jul 16, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think eye pokes, groin strikes and the term "self defense techniques" are the three most misunderstood things in the world of Martial Arts schools. Not in the world of Martial Arts, but in the world of Martial Art_ schools_.



Care to elaborate?

What do people think they mean, and why are they wrong?


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I actually don't look down on TMA at all. All of the good stuff comes from TMA.
> 
> What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.


I'm not sure that, that is where this discussion is at, but there are most certainly techniques that are outlawed from licenced fight because of the damage they can do. if your style contains one or several of these, you could make a valid point  that your style may be a lot more effective live, than it would be in a ring. that of course doesn't account for the variable of if any particular individual could actually do it live or against a trained fighter if they were allowed to do it in a contest


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that, that is where this discussion is at, but there are most certainly techniques that are outlawed from licenced fight because of the damage they can do. if your style contains one or several of these, you could make a valid point  that your style may be a lot more effective live, than it would be in a ring. that of course doesn't account for the variable of if any particular individual could actually do it live or against a trained fighter if they were allowed to do it in a contest



I think that is kind of the assumption made with the rules of combat a little bit. 

There is a lot of back of house that allows a person to land that decisive strike on another person. 

Which is under developed if you are being out struck. 

And that development is the most important set of rules.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> And you don't think this is easier to do when your opponent has his back to you, attention off of you, eyes closed, guard down?
> 
> You don't think it's easier to punch, kick, or choke someone in this situation?
> 
> And I don't mean "easier" as in how 90 + 110 is easier than 147 + 164.  I mean easier in how memorizing that X * 0 = 0 is easier than memorizing pi to 100 digits.



Ok, since you insist on continuing to argue points I've not made, I'll let you and your strawman continue without me.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that, that is where this discussion is at, but there are most certainly techniques that are outlawed from licenced fight because of the damage they can do. if your style contains one or several of these, you could make a valid point  that your style may be a lot more effective live, than it would be in a ring. that of course doesn't account for the variable of if any particular individual could actually do it live or against a trained fighter if they were allowed to do it in a contest



If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.

I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ok, since you insist on continuing to argue points I've not made, I'll let you and your strawman continue without me.



You seem to be saying that eye gouges are ineffective and if someone gets poked in the eye it won't have any bearing on the rest of the fight. Is that your opinion on eye gouges?


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.
> 
> I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'



Sometimes you get a hand on your face that isn't a strike.  You may be ready to block strikes, or prevent someone from striking, but then all of a sudden while you're trying to wrestle them you have a knee in your groin or a finger in your eye.  It doesn't take much force, especially for that finger.

However, your ignorance on the subject (how to apply an eye gouge, and how debilitating they can be, at least momentarily) reminds me of people who train for decades without ever sparring, and then get their butt handed to them by an MMA fighter as soon as one hit lands.  It's the arrogance of "I have a perfect training method" and being completely blind to techniques you won't see in the ring.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I actually don't look down on TMA at all. All of the good stuff comes from TMA.
> 
> What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.



It's called ethics.  You can't go around poking people in the eye to see if it works.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> You seem to be saying that eye gouges are ineffective and if someone gets poked in the eye it won't have any bearing on the rest of the fight. Is that your opinion on eye gouges?


Just for fun, could you quote the bit of text that gave you the impression I have said anything even remotely close to that?


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.
> 
> I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'


but you seem to be arguing against' things that haven't been claimed and using only a very narrow set of circumstances. you don't need to be particularly quick or accurate to poke people generally in the eye. poke ing a trained fighter who is in guard and maintaining range on the other hand is I imagine quite difficult

there are lots of circumstances were blinding the other guy, at least on a temporary basis is a very good move, as it will allow to win or escape a fight that you were otherwise destined to lose, the" ifwon't work on a trained fighter in a cage, it won't work " is but one philosophy of fighting, "it will likely work on the 99 % of the population that aren't trained fighters" is another


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> but you seem to be arguing against' things that haven't been claimed and using only a very narrow set of circumstances. you don't need to be particularly quick or accurate to poke people generally in the eye. poke ing a trained fighter who is in guard and maintaining range on the other hand is I imagine quite difficult
> 
> there are lots of circumstances were blinding the other guy, at least on a temporary basis is a very good move, as it will allow to win or escape a fight that you were otherwise destined to lose, the" ifwon't work on a trained fighter in a cage, it won't work " is but one philosophy of fighting, "it will likely work on the 99 % of the population that aren't trained fighters" is another


My only point here, and I've repeated it a few times, is that gouges don't stop people.

I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.

Yes it's easy to poke a guy in the eyes when he isn't expecting an attack. So is a left hook. Do you want your opponent annoyed or unconscious?


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> My only point here, and I've repeated it a few times, is that gouges don't stop people.
> 
> I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.
> 
> Yes it's easy to poke a guy in the eyes when he isn't expecting an attack. So is a left hook. Do you want your opponent annoyed or unconscious?


well that clearly depends on how effective my right hook is likely to be,( my left is rubbish,), id pick the hook against most people, as I can general knock people over with a free punch  but there are people who will just walk through my best punch, so in that case I've only annoyed them, if on the other hand I've poked them in both eyes they are not only annoyed but also with out sight, so the question then is, would I sooner fight a very annoyed strong man with or with out his eyesight, the answer seem obvious ?


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> My only point here, and I've repeated it a few times, is that gouges don't stop people.
> 
> I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.
> 
> Yes it's easy to poke a guy in the eyes when he isn't expecting an attack. So is a left hook. Do you want your opponent annoyed or unconscious?



That left hook might just annoy him as well, and I may get one free shot.  If I have a free shot at an eye gouge, then that opens up more free shots while my opponent deals with that.

Would you rather get one free left hook, or several free blows?


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Just for fun, could you quote the bit of text that gave you the impression I have said anything even remotely close to that?



I'm sorry, I don't have time to quote every post you've made in this thread.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> well that clearly depends on how effective you right hook is likely to be, id pick the hook against most people, as I can general knock people over with a free punch  but there are people who will just walk through my best punch, so in that case I've only annoyed them, if on the other hand I've poked them in both eyes they are not only annoyed but also with out sight, so the question then is, would I sooner fight a very annoyed man with or with out his eyesight, the answer seem obvious ?



Sure, things might happen that way. Never know

This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting.

And I don't know if it really helps the overarching point that entire systems of fighting are so reliant on poking eyes that they can't be tested in a fight without eyepokes.

I mean, do people really think the guy that can punch, kick and wrestle can't also poke eyes, and more effectively due to their likelyhood to hold a better position/control the distance most of the time? I just dont see it.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm sorry, I don't have time to quote every post you've made in this thread.


Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure, things might happen that way. Never know
> 
> This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting.
> 
> ...



Do you think there are martial arts where their only technique is poking the eyes?

I do think that someone who can punch, kick, wrestle, and has never trained for an eye poke, isn't likely to deliver one and is likely to be caught off-guard by one.  Let's step back and take a pure boxer and put them into MMA.  They're gonna get caught by a lot of kicks, they're going to have their punches grabbed, and really won't know what to do.  He's going to set himself up to get shot on and taken down.

The same can be said for someone who is used to eye pokes not being allowed.  Just like how grabs, takedowns, and kicks aren't allowed in boxing.  You may be in a position where I can't punch (due to my upper arm being wrapped up) but I can push on your head.  In MMA, that's just annoying, but in a real fight I would be able to jam my fingers or thumbs in your eyes.

Now, this is one of my criticism of Taekwondo, is that because of how heavily the sport limits punching, that a Taekwondoist in most schools is more vulnerable to a punch than someone who takes boxing.  We're very good at dodging kicks, but punches aren't something we train.  If someone were to take their Olympic-style training into a street fight, they're just begging to get punched in the face or wrapped up.  

Because you don't train the defense against a technique, you're not expecting it, and more likely to set your opponent up for it.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said.



You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight.  I've shown points in the videos where it has.
You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight.  I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work.  Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure, things might happen that way. Never know
> 
> This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting.
> 
> ...


you have a very narrow perspective that you apply to your training which is fine, but it doesn't apply to mine, I'm not at all worried about getting in a fight with a trained (mma )fighter, one it is really unlikely to happen and two if a very unlikely set if circumstances occurred and it did, I would lose, no matter what I trained or didn't, so its like being hit by an engine falling off a plane ,there's no point worrying about it, I'm far more concerned about my abilities against general bozos

that's mostly coz I'm old, and any fight against a 28 yo ( or so)athlete, let alone a fighting athlete willlikely end badly for me.  I'm a bit more confident of my abilities, against the rest of the male population ,  but then I may just be one if them delusional old guys that think they still have it,


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> you have a very narrow perspective that you apply to your training which is fine, but it doesn't apply to mine, I'm not at all worried about getting in a fight with a trained (mma )fighter, one it is really unlikely to happen and two if a very unlikely set if circumstances occurred and it did, I would lose, no matter what I trained or didn't, so its like being hit by an engine falling off a plane ,there's no point worrying about it, I'm far more concerned about my abilities against general bozos
> 
> that's mostly coz I'm old, and any fight against a 28 yo ( or so)athlete, let alone a fighting athlete willlikely end badly for me.  I'm a bit more confident of my abilities, against the rest of the male population ,  but then I may just be one if them delusional old guys that think they still have it,


Ya, I realize not everyone is a pro cage fighter. That applies to people that train in MMA as well, or train anything. It's a spectrum, everyone has x amount of training, from 0 to pro. Ideally, you want what you do to be as effective as possible as far up the scale as possible, as you never know how good the other guy might be.

But that's really neither here nor there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.
> 
> I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'


The only amendment I'd add to that last statment, MD, is "If it doesn't work in the cage, it doesn't work in a fight against a trained fighter." That's probably an overstatement, but it's a low-risk use of the information.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The only amendment I'd add to that last statment, MD, is "If it doesn't work in the cage, it doesn't work in a fight against a trained fighter." That's probably an overstatement, but it's a low-risk use of the information.


Ya, I'd agree that anything works against someone that has no idea what they are doing.

My last post to jobo covers my take on this.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight.  I've shown points in the videos where it has.
> You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight.  I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
> You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work.  Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.


You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ya, I'd agree that anything works against someone that has no idea what they are doing.
> 
> My last post to jobo covers my take on this.


Not necessarily just anything. There are things I can pull off quite easily on new folks that I wouldn't expect to pull off on anyone with any reasonable level of grappling. On those folks, everything needs more set-up, and they have the knowledge to just flat-out counter some moves. And they simply don't usually make the mistakes that make other things available.

All of that gets more significant the more training the opponent has. So there are going to be things that could be used at the lowest level of MMA competition (if done with enough skill), for instance, that would fail miserably at even the mid-level.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Not necessarily just anything. There are things I can pull off quite easily on new folks that I wouldn't expect to pull off on anyone with any reasonable level of grappling. On those folks, everything needs more set-up, and they have the knowledge to just flat-out counter some moves. And they simply don't usually make the mistakes that make other things available.
> 
> All of that gets more significant the more training the opponent has. So there are going to be things that could be used at the lowest level of MMA competition (if done with enough skill), for instance, that would fail miserably at even the mid-level.


Yes to all of that. You get it.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars.



*Me: *You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight. I've shown points in the videos where it has.
*You:*

"The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example." (Page 2 of the thread)
"Look, you've missed the point entirely dude. Nobody said eye pokes or nut shots weren't annoying, they just aren't fight ending techniques. Pain compliance just doesn't work on someone full of adrenaline."  (Page 5 of the thread)
Sure, the _matches_ ended. (Page 5)
Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry. (Page 5)

I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight' (Page 6)

This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting. (Page 6).  _And in my example, no he's not.  For a few seconds he is not.  The reason these fights are stopped by the ref is because the victim of the poke is NOT able to defend himself.  If it were a legal strike, then the point at which someone can no longer defend themselves is either a KO or a TKO.  The only reason the fight continues afterwards is because it was not a legal strike that stopped the fight._

*Me: *You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight. I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
*You: *

And 0 of those guys were unable to continue, they just didn't because rules. (Page 5.  I showed this to be inaccurate in my reply to it).
None of the guys in that video were unable to continue. (Page 5)

*Me: *You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work. Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.
*You: *

So the whole argument that MMA isn't an accurate measure of ability because it disallows things that don't stop people is downright silly. It's just something some TMA people that larp their training hold on to to preserve the dojo magic. (Page 5 of the thread)
But even if I were to concede that eye pokes end fights(which I'm not), that still wouldn't really help your argument. If you can land an eyepoke, you can land a jab. Do you really think Joe beerbelly that can't even see his toes past his gi is going to land eyepokes with a greater proficiency than a trained fighter that knows how to land jabs on a resisting opponent? It really makes no difference. (Page 5)
What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.

I'll also add some hypocrisy from you:

*"Ok, since you insist on continuing to argue points I've not made, I'll let you and your strawman continue without me."*  Which I am proving in this post that I am responding to points you made.  You also failed to follow through on not responding to me.
*I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.*  Please re-read all of your responses I posted in the first list above.  You've outright said they aren't useful.  "Eye pokes just blur your vision and make you angry", "it doesn't work in the cage so it doesn't work in a fight", "it only stops a fight if the ref stops it."  You are clearly saying they aren't useful.
*"Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said."*  I think I've made it clear in this thread that I have.  
*"You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars."*  I've been thinking this from you since you saw people get poked in the eye and do a standing fetal position, and thought they were still actively fighting.
You're fine to have your opinions.  I think they're wrong, but you're fine to have them.  But you have been saying everything I've been calling you out on.  To say you didn't say it is just as dishonest as saying that someone with their eyes closed, back turned, and attention completely off you is actively fighting you.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> *Me: *You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight. I've shown points in the videos where it has.
> *You:*
> 
> "The only way an eyepoke has ever stopped anyone is if the ref stops it. Eyepokes don't end fights. Find me one example." (Page 2 of the thread)
> ...


LOL

Your quite the jack Russell aren't you?

You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them. I'll try one last time, and I'll keep it simple. There are two issues here, one leading into the other

1) eyepokes do not stop you from being able to fight. Every single fighter in that video you keep going back to was able to continue fighting. None of them were unconscious or rocked or physically incapacitated.

Which leads to

2) Saying you can't test your skills in MMA because you simply can't win without eyepokes, or that eyepokes significantly change the game is ridiculous. The things that actually do end fights are all perfectly legal within unified MMA rules.

That's it.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ya, I realize not everyone is a pro cage fighter. That applies to people that train in MMA as well, or train anything. It's a spectrum, everyone has x amount of training, from 0 to pro. Ideally, you want what you do to be as effective as possible as far up the scale as possible, as you never know how good the other guy might be.
> 
> But that's really neither here nor there.


Yes. I do realise that, but very very few people fall under the class of trained fighter at all, even fewer MMA fighters, 

It's seem counter intuitive , that the only way I can stop mysekve being  beaten to a pulp, by an athletic  MMA fighter. Maybe aT worse once in a life time, us to .subject  myself to being beaten to a pulp by an athletic  MMA fighter 3 times a week, there's really no logic in that . If I was your age I may have a different perspective , .but I'm not I'm 60, I can't. Go up against young fit  men in their prime and expect a good outcome, poking them in the eye and l legging it sounds like a good strategy


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> Yes. I do realise that, but very very few people fall under the class of trained fighter at all, even fewer MMA fighters,
> 
> It's seem counter intuitive , that the only way I can stop mysekve being  beaten to a pulp, by an athletic  MMA fighter. Maybe aT worse once in a life time, us to .subject  myself to being beaten to a pulp by an athletic  MMA fighter 3 times a week, there's really no logic in that . If I was your age I may have a different perspective , .but I'm not I'm 60, I can't. Go up against young fit  men in their prime and expect a good outcome, poking them in the eye and l legging it sounds like a good strategy


Ya, I can't argue against that. I certainly don't think squaring off is the best solution in most cases, and despite what words some others in this thread might be trying to put in my mouth, I'm actually a big fan of finger jabs to the eyes. I am a WC guy after all.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> It's seem counter intuitive , that the only way I can stop mysekve being beaten to a pulp, by an athletic MMA fighter



Weapons spring to mind and is the main reason people carry them.   a pistol will kill you just the same no matter your build to theirs or atheltic makeup, same with a knife, OC spray tasers etc.  

Other than the other mentioned ambush techniques.  Obviously not everyone can carry such weapons which is why the unarmed arena exists without being weapon centric, by that i mean techniques more about getting to your weapon to use on someone aren't the focus but stand alone ones.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> LOL
> 
> Your quite the jack Russell aren't you?
> 
> ...




Almost all of them were unable to continue for a short time, and afforded a huge window of opportunity for the coup de grace.  I don't know if you are lying to me or lying to yourself when you say they were able to continue fighting.  There was definitely a recovery period for the majority of the pokes in that video, during which a finishing blow would be easy.
I am not saying you can't test your skills in MMA.  I am saying that just because some skills are not tested in MMA, does not mean they aren't effective.  You have two categories in your mind - things that work in MMA and in other fights, and things that don't work in MMA or other fights.  I'm saying there are three categories - that which you can test in MMA and works, that which you can't test in MMA but will work in other places, and techniques that don't work.  You are ignoring that middle possibility when you make MMA the arbiter of success.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them. I'll try one last time, and I'll keep it simple. There are two issues here, one leading into the other


I've thought similar of you, but refrained from doing so, because I specifically want to focus on what you say.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

Rat said:


> Weapons spring to mind and is the main reason people carry them.   a pistol will kill you just the same no matter your build to theirs or atheltic makeup, same with a knife, OC spray tasers etc.
> 
> Other than the other mentioned ambush techniques.  Obviously not everyone can carry such weapons which is why the unarmed arena exists without being weapon centric, by that i mean techniques more about getting to your weapon to use on someone aren't the focus but stand alone ones.


But we can build an imaginary world full of threats and danger, there an awful lot of inconsiderate , agresive knob heads round here , but I can generally choose if I get into a confrontation with them or just wander off, and mostly I can't be bothered. When I can be .bothered it's generally not a 28 yo, body builder with a 28' neck,  I played that game when I was 28 , I've nothing to prove, for the rest, when I transform in to an agresive knob head , they generally go off the idea


----------



## Buka (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> What do people think they mean, and why are they wrong?



Elaborate, sure.

I'm not saying the techniques aren't useful, or that they can't work. I just don't consider them fight enders, at least not in most self defense situations.

We are kind of conditioned and taught growing up that taking a shot to the groin is one of the worst things in the world. Think about that for a minute, not the "worst thing in the world" part, but the way _we are taught_ part. And don't get me wrong, I sure as heck don't want to take any more shots to the groin. But we're taught that from the beginning, and it's reinforced in Martial Training. I've been caught there far too many times to even guesstimate, and I'm not any tougher than anyone else.

As for the eye shot - these discussions usually are thought of as the old rip your eyeball out, but that's not usually the case. And, man, getting something in your eye is just awful. Heck this morning over coffee I read about a guy who had a deer tick attached to his eyeball. That gave me a feeling of eeeeewww! But eye shots rarely stop anyone who's fighting outside of a competition.

A couple years ago, a guy I used to work with called me. He was about to go through pepper spray training and wanted to know how he could wade through it. I told him "You know it's not going to kill you or permanently blind you, right?" He knew. I told him to think about that for a bit, how it's a temporary discomfort that sucks, but it's just temporary.

And I said to him "You know you're going to cough and choke your brains out and not be able to breathe for a bit, but that's only temporary too and you know that, right?" He knew. Then I told him to charge the instructor as your being sprayed, take him down as he's back peddling, rub your face onto his, then flip him over and cuff him.They hate when you do that. And then I told him to RUN to the shower right after because the after is when it really sucks, not the during.

It has been my experience that a poke in the eye doesn't stop you, just makes you flinch your head to the side. And when you poke somebody, that's the thing you should take advantage of, that little head turn flinch. But man, getting eye poked really makes you want to make the guy pay for it.

As for the self defense part, I'll get to that later. Right now I'm headed to the ball field to meet some fellas to do pushups and beat the crap out of each other. Hopefully I won't get poked in the eye.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Buka said:


> And I said to him "You know you're going to cough and choke your brains out and not be able to breathe for a bit, but that's only temporary too and you know that, right?" He knew. Then I told him to charge the instructor as your being sprayed, take him down as he's back peddling, rub your face onto his, then flip him over and cuff him.They hate when you do that. And then I told him to RUN to the shower right after because the after is when it really sucks, not the during.
> 
> It has been my experience that a poke in the eye doesn't stop you, just makes you flinch your head to the side. And when you poke somebody, that's the thing you should take advantage of, that little head turn flinch. But man, getting eye poked really makes you want to make the guy pay for it.



This flinch is what I'm talking about.  In a lot of the cases here that flinch was really bad.  When you flinch in class, people tend to back off.  When you flinch in the ring, the ref steps in.  If you flinch in a real situation, you're done.

In the case of your friend - I think there's a difference between seeing pepper spray and knowing what's coming (especially ahead of time like him), compared with suddenly having a finger in your eye in the middle of a fight.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've thought similar of you, but refrained from doing so, because *I specifically want to focus on what you say.*



That would certainly make this discussion more productive.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> Almost all of them were unable to continue for a short time, and afforded a huge window of opportunity for the coup de grace.  I don't know if you are lying to me or lying to yourself when you say they were able to continue fighting.  There was definitely a recovery period for the majority of the pokes in that video, during which a finishing blow would be easy.
> I am not saying you can't test your skills in MMA.  I am saying that just because some skills are not tested in MMA, does not mean they aren't effective.  You have two categories in your mind - things that work in MMA and in other fights, and things that don't work in MMA or other fights.  I'm saying there are three categories - that which you can test in MMA and works, that which you can't test in MMA but will work in other places, and techniques that don't work.  You are ignoring that middle possibility when you make MMA the arbiter of success.



Yeah. The point is it doesn't change the dynamic enough to discount MMA as the arbiter of success. In that you will be more likely to have experienced and worked through what what will happen in a self defense fight.

Eye gouging isn't a high percentage fight finisher in the street either.

Punching is.

This is called being a boring percentage fighter. Where you basically just perfect the most common and most effective move set without going to left field.

For self defence this is what I advise when I say fight conservatively. Because against an unknown assailant where the risk of loosing is pretty high.

So when I look at self defense I will look at at multiple things.

Is the move high percentage?

Can I do the move at speed with good timing?

Will that move place me in an advantageous position?. Will the move risk me being put in a disadvantaged position?


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> That would certainly make this discussion more productive.



...I assume this is a passive-aggressive rehash of the claim that I'm putting words in your mouth?

Let's come back to this:  *"You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them"*

I've read your words, as they are written.  I've understood your words, based on what they mean if I read them.  If you meant something other than what you wrote, you can't blame me for putting words into your mouth.  I am responding based on the words that you wrote.

If you don't mean what you wrote, then you need to clarify what you are talking about.  You need to help me understand your position, not from the position of being argumentative, but from finding another way to state what you are saying that makes your position more clear.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. The point is it doesn't change the dynamic enough to discount MMA as the arbiter of success.
> 
> Eye gouging isn't a high percentage fight finisher in the street either.
> 
> ...



I'll rehash my list you quoted:

Stuff that work in MMA
Stuff that to does not work in MMA, but would work in a real fight
Stuff that does not work in a real fight
For the most part, MMA can sort techniques into Group 1, or (Group 2 and Group 3), but it cannot sort past there.  If you claim MMA can sort between Groups 2 and Groups 3, you are attempting to solve for variables that are not accounted for in the test.  To make such claims is scientifically inaccurate.

To be clear, if I am defending myself, I am going to conduct myself much different than if I were in a ring.  My strategy would be to use my footwork to gain enough distance to draw my S&W.  It's not something you can test in the ring, though, so I don't know if MMA fighters would find that strategy viable.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'll rehash my list you quoted:
> 
> Stuff that work in MMA
> Stuff that to does not work in MMA, but would work in a real fight
> ...



If you are committed to that as a self defense strategy you should test that under MMA conditions.

And of course you can test that in the ring.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If you are committed to that as a self defense strategy you should test that under MMA conditions.
> 
> And of course you can test that in the ring.



You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.



Why would that factor in?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.



I mean here is the scenario. You are scrambling with a guy. You get to your gun but because fake rounds don't kill people you continue to scramble shoot and escape.

But in this instance he for some reason just drops dead.

Are you disadvantaged by continuing as if he hadn't?

Or he shoots you and again you are used to fake rounds and keep fighting. 

But in this instance you just drop dead.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I mean here is the scenario. You are scrambling with a guy. You get to your gun but because fake rounds don't kill people you continue to scramble shoot and escape.
> 
> But in this instance he for some reason just drops dead.
> 
> ...


I'd suggest continuing to fight a dead guy is at best inconvenient, and therefore a disadvantage, plus it may mKe you look like an out of control phyco, and that's definitely a disadvantage if it goes to court


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'd suggest continuing to fight a dead guy is at best inconvenient, and therefore a disadvantage, plus it may mKe you look like an out of control phyco, and that's definitely a disadvantage if it goes to court



Rule #2

Double tap.


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Rule #2
> 
> Double tap.


r?ule one don't turn a set of circumstances that are possibly justifiable homicide, but at worse manslaughter in to a bolt on murder conviction


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> r?ule one don't turn a set of circumstances that are at worse manslaughter in to a bolt on murder conviction



Murder is premeditated. Not making a dead guy more dead.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 17, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> i do not want to assume what you mean when you mention rules being interchangeable.  but i think many rules are universal and its possible some will change as the encounter changes.
> 
> i also know that the bear was interviewed after and he said he was "just playing around"


Wouldn't universal and interchangeable have the same meaning in this context?


----------



## jobo (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Murder is premeditated. Not making a dead guy more dead.


that depends if he is actually dead or not,, people general considered dead when declared so by a doctor, if he is still in the act of dying ( a flicker of brain activity is enough)then its murder with the double tap, thatsif they can determine which came first,  it certainly removes any defence that you had no intent for him to die, as clearly the double tap means you did,


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> But we can build an imaginary world full of threats and danger, there an awful lot of inconsiderate , agresive knob heads round here , but I can generally choose if I get into a confrontation with them or just wander off, and mostly I can't be bothered.



or we can look at a realistic stance of predatory violence where you don't choose to fight at all.

And the very relevant and important and useful proverb: "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."    Never hurts to not forget that one.  

Anyway, you prepare for your circumstances to what you believe to be important etc etc.





skribs said:


> You can test if you can get to your gun, you can't test if it will stop the fight.



You can, go out hunting with it and see how long it takes and reliable it is in killing game.  I believe pigs are quite similar to people.     If it will drop a bear pretty fast you know it will drop a person relatively fast.     draw some educated guesses from either hunting experience, if you have ever killed anyone with it or if anyone else has, so stats of the round/firearm.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 17, 2019)

Sorry for double post, saw the double tap comments.  you could probably easily justify two shots in rapid succession if the person drops.    If the person doesnt drop, no issue as they are still a viable threat to keep shooting.   If you how ever shoot somone on the floor clearly after they stopped being a threat that wouldn't be justifiable for self defence.  (which no one said anyone did or wouldn't be, i was just making the point of a clearly justified shot and a clearly not justified shot)

And double tap is a good policy as the likelihood of one shot stopping the threat/being effective on its own is pretty low but pending round.  

Dont people tend to run after being shot or get killed in the first couple of rounds or otherwise incapacitated to stop being a threat?  Haven't looked into any stats for it, i would presume running and/or dying/being incapacitated is the top few results of shootings in self defence where a shooting is needed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Will that move place me in an advantageous position?. Will the move risk me being put in a disadvantaged position?


I think this pair of questions (especially the second half) gets missed in some approaches to traditional grappling. There are techniques I like as recovery moves (I screwed up, and need a way out), but wouldn't choose as a go-to, because the entry puts you in a bad spot. (For clarification, as a recovery move, you're already in that bad spot.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Rule #2
> 
> Double tap.


Is rule one "restomp the groin"?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2019)

Buka said:


> Right now I'm headed to the ball field to meet some fellas to do pushups and beat the crap out of each other. Hopefully I won't get poked in the eye.


Is that baseball you are playing?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> This flinch is what I'm talking about.  In a lot of the cases here that flinch was really bad.  When you flinch in class, people tend to back off.  When you flinch in the ring, the ref steps in.  If you flinch in a real situation, you're done.
> 
> In the case of your friend - I think there's a difference between seeing pepper spray and knowing what's coming (especially ahead of time like him), compared with suddenly having a finger in your eye in the middle of a fight.


Well, what would you do if you were the guy who got poked in a real fight, something serious where someone who is with you, like your wife/infant child/mother/sister could be in terrible danger of a severe beating or rape or murder, if you go down?  Would you just chuck in the towel and roll over? Or do you think that you just might see if you could dig deep inside you and go Berzerker on that dude and make sure your wife/infant child/mother/sister made it home ok?  That eye poke just might not be enough to end the fight you've still got inside you. 

I keep saying, it depends on how much is on the line.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, what would you do if you were the guy who got poked in a real fight, something serious where someone who is with you, like your wife/infant child/mother/sister could be in terrible danger of a severe beating or rape or murder, if you go down?  Would you just chuck in the towel and roll over? Or do you think that you just might see if you could dig deep inside you and go Berzerker on that dude and make sure your wife/infant child/mother/sister made it home ok?  That eye poke just might not be enough to end the fight you've still got inside you.
> 
> I keep saying, it depends on how much is on the line.



For the first two seconds? Probably would react instinctively to protect my eye.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Is rule one "restomp the groin"?



Rule one is cardio.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> For the first two seconds? Probably would react instinctively to protect my eye.


It also depends on what kind of “eye poke” you get.  Does it just rub your eyeball for a moment?  Or did he bury his fingers two knuckles deep in your eye socket and rip/dig/scoop your smashed and ruined eyeballs out of your head and they are left dangling by the ocular nerve from his jagged and dirty fingernails.  That’s a hell of a different kind of eye poke.  That is a factor.

But at any rate, you acknowledge that while the eye poke may give you some level of advantage, even if temporary, but it may well not be a fight stopper.  Because you are sure as hell gonna come back at that guy with the pedal to the metal, full-blown whopper gonzo *** whooping face stomping on his sorry soul.  ‘Cause you want your child to get home safe.  And an eye poke ain’t gonna prevent that.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think this pair of questions (especially the second half) gets missed in some approaches to traditional grappling. There are techniques I like as recovery moves (I screwed up, and need a way out), but wouldn't choose as a go-to, because the entry puts you in a bad spot. (For clarification, as a recovery move, you're already in that bad spot.)



Yeah. The easiest example is rolling off mount for an arm bar. Which is considered a no no for MMA. 

But you will see it a bit when a SD. school incorporates some BJJ. 

Now two out of three ain't bad. But you are trying to get all the elements in place if you can


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> It also depends on what kind of “eye poke” you get.  Does it just rub your eyeball for a moment?  Or did he bury his fingers two knuckles deep in your eye socket and rip/dig/scoop your smashed and ruined eyeballs out of your head and they are left dangling by the ocular nerve from his jagged and dirty fingernails.  That’s a hell of a different kind of eye poke.  That is a factor.
> 
> But at any rate, you acknowledge that while the eye poke may give you some level of advantage, even if temporary, but it may well not be a fight stopper.  Because you are sure as hell gonna come back at that guy with the pedal to the metal, full-blown whopper gonzo *** whooping face stomping on his sorry soul.  ‘Cause you want your child to get home safe.  And an eye poke ain’t gonna prevent that.



Kind of hard to get the eyeball out without bracing the head.

And generally people go for the eyeball when they are loosing which makes bracing the head difficult.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 17, 2019)

Rule


gpseymour said:


> Is rule one "restomp the groin"?


Rule one is cardio, fittingly enough.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Rule one is cardio.


This is why i should read all the posta before responding


----------



## Martial D (Jul 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> ...I assume this is a passive-aggressive rehash of the claim that I'm putting words in your mouth?
> 
> Let's come back to this:  *"You've quoted my words but you haven't read or understood them"*
> 
> ...


This has entered Monty Python territory.


----------



## skribs (Jul 17, 2019)

Martial D said:


> This has entered Monty Python territory.



Yep, that clears everything up.


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ya, I can't argue against that. I certainly don't think squaring off is the best solution in most cases, and despite what words some others in this thread might be trying to put in my mouth, I'm actually a big fan of finger jabs to the eyes. I am a WC guy after all.


We have approached what is much the same issue from different perspectives and come to a different conclusion. my starting point is when I was doing tma( lau gar kung fu) in my physical peak, it was extremely effective rhe times I used it fights. ergo if my current art( karate) is not equally so, its because I'm not a 28 yo athlete any more so the logic solution is obviously to trust the art and work on my fitness. or the reverse, if I can't go someway towards matching the the physical abilities of my opponent my karate is useless, beyond catching them b surprise and poking them in the eye or some such. my instructor oft asks why I don't attend more than one class a week, the answer is it disrupts my fitness routine,  t  class I do counts as a rest day,I'm happy with my " mastery" of basic techniques, what I need is more umph when doing them


----------



## Buka (Jul 18, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Is that baseball you are playing?



No. But it is on a field next to the baseball field. There are so many athletic fields here it blows the mind. They're bunched together, with soccer fields, baseball fields and just plain open fields, sometimes a half dozen of them that you wouldn't even know were there if you were driving by. You might see one and go down to it.....and find six more in lower fields right next to them.

It's always amazed me. I'm guessing that they're used, but I don't know, I'm never there in the late afternoon or early evening hours.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 20, 2019)

Martial D said:


> This has entered Monty Python territory.


I actually covered the Monty python territory in the original post when I referenced being attacked by an assailant with a banana. But it seemed to be missed by most


----------



## jobo (Jul 20, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> I actually covered the Monty python territory in the original post when I referenced being attacked by an assailant with a banana. But it seemed to be missed by most


though it was a typo and youmeant to say  bandana


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Wouldn't universal and interchangeable have the same meaning in this context?


yes.  I was agreeing with him. But only that SOME rules will span across but not all.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jul 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> though it was a typo and youmeant to say  bandana


banana was funnier.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 8, 2019)

I use to believe in rules,  chair to the face solved that issue.

Although, I do believe in legalities. Check your state laws or at least Supreme Court rulings.

Rules sets are a great idea but, they are not in the realm of reality, when it comes to life. Legal issues, yes..rulesets, not so much.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 9, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I use to believe in rules,  chair to the face solved that issue.
> 
> Although, I do believe in legalities. Check your state laws or at least Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> Rules sets are a great idea but, they are not in the realm of reality, when it comes to life. Legal issues, yes..rulesets, not so much.


my definition of a rule set is much wider then yours.
rule sets to me includes things like gravity and human biology.  our biological make up conditions our behavior.  most people dont think to much about why they behave the way they do but scientists do.  our behavior is not as "free" as we think.  those are rule sets.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 9, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> my definition of a rule set is much wider then yours.
> rule sets to me includes things like gravity and human biology.  our biological make up conditions our behavior.  most people dont think to much about why they behave the way they do but scientists do.  our behavior is not as "free" as we think.  those are rule sets.


I understand your definitions, in the area of our thinking and I am aware of the papers, that you have drawn this information from. It is true that we might not be as "free" in our behavior as we think. But, once made aware of these things, it is not a hard task to change those behaviors.

In combat and preparing for combat, this is great for you. But, in the actual combat when facing your opponent,  (non sport) you do not know your opponents background. At least, the chance of not knowing him/her is highly likely. And, even though it is great to "get to know thyself", it will not be very helpful for you, in knowing your opponent. Simply because no two people, will ever experience life the same way. Although our 'biological make up conditions our behaviour'  our experiences always determine our biological makeup, as do our choices.

If you know the person, yes you have a better understanding of their 'rulesets' but, if you do not know your opponents, you will be very hardpressed, even to understand their rulesets.

And, the law, really doesn't take any of that into consideration, when it comes to being in a situation where you must defend life and limb. It cares only if you had justification.

An interesting concept though.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 9, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I understand your definitions, in the area of our thinking and I am aware of the papers, that you have drawn this information from. It is true that we might not be as "free" in our behavior as we think. But, once made aware of these things, it is not a hard task to change those behaviors.
> 
> In combat and preparing for combat, this is great for you. But, in the actual combat when facing your opponent,  (non sport) you do not know your opponents background. At least, the chance of not knowing him/her is highly likely. And, even though it is great to "get to know thyself", it will not be very helpful for you, in knowing your opponent. Simply because no two people, will ever experience life the same way. Although our 'biological make up conditions our behaviour'  our experiences always determine our biological makeup, as do our choices.
> 
> ...


i am not sure we are thinking along the same trajectory of thought, but i like your input and would like to hear more.

i will lay out one concept that comes to mind for me.  we are all coded from birth to have an "Us/ Them"  circuit that differentiates between the two. When we see someone as a "them" ( outside of our own group)  we are more inclined to use lethal violence on the individual.  the closer our brain recognizes the individual to our own group the more we are going to exhibit con specific aggression (non lethal violence).   this is encoded within us from an evolutionary necessity to help propagate our own DNA over others.  one can imagine the conflics between groups of humans and between humans and Neanderthal or Clovis.
we can see this behavior in chimps.  within the group there is conflict but these are dominance disputes and neither party sustains much injury.  however chimps actually go out on patrol of their territory and if an outside chimp is found the chimps will literally rip and tear the outsider to little pieces.  Jane Goodall was very hesitant to document this behavior because it is just so brutal.  
this delineation between us / them  explains why in combat we de-humanize the enemy. the enemy if often seen as "subhuman"   Dave Grossman does a good job explaining this process in his books. it also explains why in a bar fight often times getting the other guy to submit is enough and in combat we often switch on a more predatory behavior.  we feel more empathy when in an "us" mode and less empathy in a predatory "them" mode.
this is a biological response and not something you can tell yourself to feel different about.  maybe you can lose your bias over time but not in the moment.

my earlier post was directed at behaviors like us/ them and how it creates our own moral code of ethics and those morals were passed into our laws.  
_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"_
  oh yeah except for the black slaves and those indians,  there not really human anyway.

but over time we did begin to see them as US and the laws now protect against hate crimes.
 however concentration camps, gulag's , May lay, Nanking... all examples of "other"  mind set.  we can try to convince ourselves that we are more modern now and things like that wont happen in todays society but they keep happening. it will never stop, its in our DNA.
its a law or rule that governs our species.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 10, 2019)

I agree that this is a gross explanation of how people respond in extreme situations. But it is not consistent. Not everyone is going to act in the ways you describe. There will always be people in the foxhole so driven by fear that they cannot move or act. Many will die by the hands of "them" without lifting a finger. It is a very hard concept for people who have never really been in the life/death situation to grasp and process rationally. 

Your example of how blacks and Indians used to be treated is proof that we change. Our code changes. Individual conditions effect how/when the code changes. Some through external and internal influence, some that strain of humans simply dying off. We are not the same species we were 1000 years ago.
There is continued violence through hate crimes. The cause and effect is one way these internal/external influences come about. 
Everyone will agree we have came a long way since the 1700 &1800's.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> it is not consistent. Not everyone is going to act in the ways you describe


 Yes that is a given. Robert Sapolski has some good lectures on line that explains how the wide range of nature vs nuture influences effect us and brings our behavior right down to the individual level.  But he is a firm believer in the idea we have no free will.  



dvcochran said:


> Your example of how blacks and Indians used to be treated is proof that we change. Our code changes. Individual conditions effect how/when the code changes.


 The brain circuitry doesn't change. All that changed was how we perceived the individual. There are studies that were done where someone was given a sports team hat to wear and what was shown is that if the test subject was from a different city from the sports team they were more likely to put that person in a "them" catagory, but then the person said he was born in the same city as the test subject and wow all of the sudden that person becomes recognized as an "US".


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2019)

We also know about 2% of the population does not feel remorse when killing and these are not necessarily psychopathic monsters. Most are good people but their brain registers empathy differently.
I initially used the term rules for consistency in the post but rules are really constraints.  One of the things I said was that people say there are no rules on the street. But if rules are constraints then street fighting still has constraints.  Example. ..weight classes.  In the ring there is a rule of being in the same weight class as the opponent.  On the street this rule does not apply BUT if we think with a paradigm shift this removal of one rule brings a different constraint to the surface.  I am constrained by the laws of my own human body.  I cannot grow to be the size of Brock Lesnar. I cannot change my age or physical limitations.  These are constraints we have to contend with and still fight with them and try to be successful. In the ring the rule acts as a constraint to midagate the constraints of physical limitation. By removing one you didn't remove the other.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 10, 2019)

Really, I thought we were discussing Rulesets, pertaining to combat. So, I will bow out, of this conversation.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Really, I thought we were discussing Rulesets, pertaining to combat. So, I will bow out, of this conversation.


Why bow out? I'm sure you have a lot of value to add to the conversation.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I agree that this is a gross explanation of how people respond in extreme situations. But it is not consistent. Not everyone is going to act in the ways you describe. There will always be people in the foxhole so driven by fear that they cannot move or act. Many will die by the hands of "them" without lifting a finger. It is a very hard concept for people who have never really been in the life/death situation to grasp and process rationally.
> 
> Your example of how blacks and Indians used to be treated is proof that we change. Our code changes. Individual conditions effect how/when the code changes. Some through external and internal influence, some that strain of humans simply dying off. We are not the same species we were 1000 years ago.
> There is continued violence through hate crimes. The cause and effect is one way these internal/external influences come about.
> Everyone will agree we have came a long way since the 1700 &1800's.


I'm not sure it's at all true, that we have progressed as a species since 1700, if the acceptable behaviour has changed in a very small number of countries in really only the last few decades, a world wide look at the behaviour of our " species" shows that precisely nothing has change apart from the method of persecutions have more ssophistication,,

even a good number of the counties we currently vi  as civilised are engage in the persecution of their own populations, though the targets may have changed, or maybe not


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2019)

Where do rules come from?  I would propose they are an expectation extended to society based on our own morality. Our morality is conditioned by our biology, behaviors that are chemical based in our systems many of which we share with other species.  Monkeys understand "fairness"  they get very angry if one monkey is given a bigger piece of banana then the others.
Interesting studies have been done and it has been suggested that pastoral nomadic people's and their decedent's have higher rates of violence than agricultural or hunter gatherer societies.  The nomadic people have a "honor" code, a morality that is cultural. This allows certain violence to be morally ok within that culture.  

Sorry if I am rambling, just thinking out loud..on in text as the case may be.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 10, 2019)

It the 1700's Monarchy's were the norm and democracy was not even a thing. Public execution was a form of control. Slavery/serf/indentured servant was much more of the norm. Especially on your side of the pond. I would say mankind has come a long, long way.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 10, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> Where do rules come from?  I would propose they are an expectation extended to society based on our own morality. Our morality is conditioned by our biology, behaviors that are chemical based in our systems many of which we share with other species.  Monkeys understand "fairness"  they get very angry if one monkey is given a bigger piece of banana then the others.
> Interesting studies have been done and it has been suggested that pastoral nomadic people's and their decedent's have higher rates of violence than agricultural or hunter gatherer societies.  The nomadic people have a "honor" code, a morality that is cultural. This allows certain violence to be morally ok within that culture.
> 
> Sorry if I am rambling, just thinking out loud..on in text as the case may be.


I can see that with nomadic people. They are too busy just trying to survive to fight. Somewhere in that they may have figured out the odds of winning, fighting mother nature or natural predators, was not in there favor. So to survive they have to stay on the move. I wonder if this is more out of necessity rather than "honor". After doing this for centuries I can see this as cultural.


----------



## jobo (Aug 10, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It the 1700's Monarchy's were the norm and democracy was not even a thing. Public execution was a form of control. Slavery/serf/indentured servant was much more of the norm. Especially on your side of the pond. I would say mankind has come a long, long way.


well I said, some countries have moved a bit, most of the world however has not, and as your comments was about our species rather than the uk or America your comments are at best inaccurate. slavery was never a y legal thing in the uk, well not since the Romans left anyway though modern slavery is quite common now and it wasn't a all a couple of decades ago so that's going backwards

democracy goes back thousands of years, even the Romans had a play with it, in between emperor's


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 10, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> Yes that is a given. Robert Sapolski has some good lectures on line that explains how the wide range of nature vs nuture influences effect us and brings our behavior right down to the individual level.  But he is a firm believer in the idea we have no free will.
> 
> The brain circuitry doesn't change. All that changed was how we perceived the individual. There are studies that were done where someone was given a sports team hat to wear and what was shown is that if the test subject was from a different city from the sports team they were more likely to put that person in a "them" catagory, but then the person said he was born in the same city as the test subject and wow all of the sudden that person becomes recognized as an "US".


The key word in you post is some. Some people, not most. We can all be put into some categories (black, white, Asian, etc...) but that is way too specific of an example to pool everyone under.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 10, 2019)

You need to do your homework. Lots of serfs in Roman times.


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You need to do your homework. Lots of serfs in Roman times.


if your replying to mne I didn't say anything about serfs, rather slavery after the Romans had departed

after just spending 30 seconds checking your facts, its seem there were no( certainly not many) serfs in roman ttimes in the uk, it being a system that was developed after the fall of the roman empire, so most definitely not LOTS of them

perhap a  source for your fact ?


----------



## geezer (Aug 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It the 1700's Monarchy's were the norm and democracy was not even a thing. Public execution was a form of control. Slavery/serf/indentured servant was much more of the norm. *Especially on your side of the pond.* I would say mankind has come a long, long way.



I'm definitely getting _confused _here, so please straighten me out. DV, who's location is listed as the "Southeast" (US?) -which was a slave-based agrarian economy during the 17th-19th centuries, is saying to Jobo that slavery in the 1700s was more the norm on "your side of the pond" ?!?

Setting aside indentured servitude, serfs, share-croppers, and the horrible state of the working poor during the industrial revolution (on both sides of the "pond"), and just talking about _slavery_ per se, I was under the impression that in the UK proper, slavery was illegal. Slavery was only allowed in the colonies of the empire. And furthermore, slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, roughly three decades before we fought a horrendous war to abolish it here in the States.

Now to get back on topic, I'm with Jobo about the human _species_ not having evolved in any positive direction over the centuries. Developed human _societies_ have definitely evolved to become more egalitarian and "humane", at least _during times of prosperity and peace. _We haven't done so well during the World Wars, Stalinist purges, the Maoist "Cultural Revolution", Vietnam War, and the many other regional conflicts of the last century, though.

Let's see how we do in the coming century, especially if climate change and political upheavals put a real dent in our ability to feed our population and we have to contend with massive global migrations of starving masses of refugees. I'm guessing that our responses won't be anything to brag about or hold up as paradigms of evolved human behavior.

No. IMO _Jobo_ has an unvarnished grasp of human nature.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 11, 2019)

geezer said:


> Let's see how we do in the coming century, especially if climate change and political upheavals put a real dent in our ability to feed our population and we have to contend with massive global migrations of starving masses of refugees. I'm guessing that our responses won't be anything to brag about or hold up as paradigms of evolved human behavior.


i think the big changes will come from ideology. always do


----------



## geezer (Aug 11, 2019)

Well, regardless I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy. But still pessimistic enough to train self defense. 

Yet optimistic in that I enjoy it!


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> Yes that is a given. Robert Sapolski has some good lectures on line that explains how the wide range of nature vs nuture influences effect us and brings our behavior right down to the individual level.  But he is a firm believer in the idea we have no free will.
> 
> The brain circuitry doesn't change. All that changed was how we perceived the individual. There are studies that were done where someone was given a sports team hat to wear and what was shown is that if the test subject was from a different city from the sports team they were more likely to put that person in a "them" catagory, but then the person said he was born in the same city as the test subject and wow all of the sudden that person becomes recognized as an "US".



Brain circuitry does change. The interesting thing about nature vs nurture is they effect each other.

Behavior effects brain circuitry/chemistry which effects behavior.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I use to believe in rules,  chair to the face solved that issue.
> 
> Although, I do believe in legalities. Check your state laws or at least Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> Rules sets are a great idea but, they are not in the realm of reality, when it comes to life. Legal issues, yes..rulesets, not so much.



For me if I can dominate a person under the restrictions of a rule set. I should have a better chance of winning when unrestricted.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> Where do rules come from?  I would propose they are an expectation extended to society based on our own morality. Our morality is conditioned by our biology, behaviors that are chemical based in our systems many of which we share with other species.  Monkeys understand "fairness"  they get very angry if one monkey is given a bigger piece of banana then the others.
> Interesting studies have been done and it has been suggested that pastoral nomadic people's and their decedent's have higher rates of violence than agricultural or hunter gatherer societies.  The nomadic people have a "honor" code, a morality that is cultural. This allows certain violence to be morally ok within that culture.
> 
> Sorry if I am rambling, just thinking out loud..on in text as the case may be.



If morality was genetic. It should be constant across culture. 

Let's look at nakedness. It is a morality that dramatically changes from culture to culture and time to time.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 11, 2019)

geezer said:


> I'm definitely getting _confused _here, so please straighten me out. DV, who's location is listed as the "Southeast" (US?) -which was a slave-based agrarian economy during the 17th-19th centuries, is saying to Jobo that slavery in the 1700s was more the norm on "your side of the pond" ?!?
> 
> Setting aside indentured servitude, serfs, share-croppers, and the horrible state of the working poor during the industrial revolution (on both sides of the "pond"), and just talking about _slavery_ per se, I was under the impression that in the UK proper, slavery was illegal. Slavery was only allowed in the colonies of the empire. And furthermore, slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, roughly three decades before we fought a horrendous war to abolish it here in the States.
> 
> ...



I'm not exactly sure what the point is you are trying to make but yes, I am from the southeast U.S. If you are implying that everyone from the southeast are black racists then you are the typical uninformed who think they are doing humanity a favor arguing about something for the sake of argument. Very sad. 
Mankind has become more egalitarian,  "But" yada, yada, yada is a total statement of no position. It gives you an out to meaninglessly argue on either side of the coin. If you are going to side with someone then side with them; not make paper statements so you can wiggle out of them.  
It is totally illogical to "set aside" indentured servitude, serfs, and even share croppers as something completely different from slavery. Most of the debate with Jobo regarded the 1700's but as you confirmed there was slavery in the UK in the 1800's.
I have no clue what your argument is. If you think mankind has done such a bad job then what are doing to facilitate change?


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I'm not exactly sure what the point is you are trying to make but yes, I am from the southeast U.S. If you are implying that everyone from the southeast are black racists then you are the typical uninformed who think they are doing humanity a favor arguing about something for the sake of argument. Very sad.
> Mankind has become more egalitarian,  "But" yada, yada, yada is a total statement of no position. It gives you an out to meaninglessly argue on either side of the coin. If you are going to side with someone then side with them; not make paper statements so you can wiggle out of them.
> It is totally illogical to "set aside" indentured servitude, serfs, and even share croppers as something completely different from slavery. Most of the debate with Jobo regarded the 1700's but as you confirmed there was slavery in the UK in the 1800's.
> I have no clue what your argument is. If you think mankind has done such a bad job then what are doing to facilitate change?


I think you may need to read his post again there most certainly WAS NOT slavery in the UK in the 1800,s or at least a thousand years before that, 

I think his other point may be, that some Americans have no idea if any history but their own, as indicated by your continual insistence that the UK had slavery in the 1800s


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> I think you may need to read his post again there most certainly WAS NOT slavery in the UK in the 1800,s or at least a thousand years before that,
> 
> I think his other point may be, that some Americans have no idea if any history but their own, as indicated by your continual insistence that the UK had slavery in the 1800s


You need to better read my post. Indentured servants, and serfs are a form of slavery.
Oh, and the UK sent criminals or undesirable to the US to be used as slaves as a form of punishment. Where did most of the people who migrated from the US come from?
So get off your high horse.


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You need to better read my post. Indentured servants, and serfs are a form of slavery.
> Oh, and the UK sent criminals or undesirable to the US to be used as slaves as a form of punishment. Where did most of the people who migrated from the US come from?
> So get off your high horse.


deAr god man you don't even know own your own history, most of the people who migrated to the USA were from Germany, 

they had penal camps in Australia, I'm not aware they had them in the USAthough you may be correct, IL Google it, but criminals are bit slaves, they are prisoners , like those sentenced to hard labour s serfs went out with the middle ages, so a thousand years give or take 

it's very very unfortunate , to make coparisons with servants and the brutality of the American slave s, I mean really there no comparison at all on legal status,


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> deAr god man you don't even know own your own history, most of the people who migrated to the USA were from Germany,
> 
> they had penal camps in Australia, I'm not aware they had them in the USAthough you may be correct, IL Google it, but criminals are bit slaves, they are prisoners , like those sentenced to hard labour s serfs went out with the middle ages, so a thousand years give or take
> 
> it's very very unfortunate , to make coparisons with servants and the brutality of the American slave s, I mean really there no comparison at all on legal status,



You consistently leave out facts when it is convenient to you. Fact. The English founded the first US colony.
From Wikipedia:
*Convicts in Australia*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Government began transporting convicts overseas to American colonies in the early 17th century. When transportation ended with the start of the American Revolution, an alternative site was needed to relieve further overcrowding of British prisons and hulks. Earlier in 1770, James Cook charted and claimed possession of the east coast of Australia for Britain.

There was a surge of German migration from around 1830 to 1860 before the World Wars started. Way after the Revolution.

Who needs to get their facts straight?

I can do this all day.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> For me if I can dominate a person under the restrictions of a rule set. I should have a better chance of winning when unrestricted.


Agreed, to a point. They lose the same restrictions you do. If you are better equipped (than them) without those restrictions, then removing them is in your favor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> If morality was genetic. It should be constant across culture.
> 
> Let's look at nakedness. It is a morality that dramatically changes from culture to culture and time to time.


Agreed. The mechanism is probably genetic (how the brain processes and develops this), but the actual moral code is largely learned. There's probably a reasonable argument that some of it could be genetic, but I'm not sure how we'd manage to separate that out among the (likely) larger portion that isn't.


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You consistently leave out facts when it is convenient to you. Fact. The English founded the first US colony.
> From Wikipedia:
> *Convicts in Australia*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


unfortunately I fear you might, but you said we're did the highest number of migrants come from, nothing about when, and that was Germany, yes they sent prisoners to America, but those were NOT slaves, they were criminal serving their sentence some where els e all most certainly in much better conditions than the prisons they left behind, when they finish their sentence they were released, so bit slaves at all


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> deAr god man you don't even know own your own history, most of the people who migrated to the USA were from Germany,
> 
> they had penal camps in Australia, I'm not aware they had them in the USAthough you may be correct, IL Google it, but criminals are bit slaves, they are prisoners , like those sentenced to hard labour s serfs went out with the middle ages, so a thousand years give or take
> 
> it's very very unfortunate , to make coparisons with servants and the brutality of the American slave s, I mean really there no comparison at all on legal status,


I suspect he's referring to indentured servitude, which I recall being used at the time. I can't recall what portion (if any) of that came from England (or was it already the UK by then? I'm bad with historical sequencing).

I think Georgia was founded as a penal colony for prisoners from England...assuming my sketchy memory didn't swap countries in that.


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I suspect he's referring to indentured servitude, which I recall being used at the time. I can't recall what portion (if any) of that came from England (or was it already the UK by then? I'm bad with historical sequencing).
> 
> I think Georgia was founded as a penal colony for prisoners from England...assuming my sketchy memory didn't swap countries in that.


I know what he is referring to, he just isn't making a good point, indentured servitude of criminals to serve their sentence is not in anyway the same as slavery , where,,children ( and adults) who had committed no crime, were used a slaves, you must see there a complete moral difference , even if he can't


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> I know what he is referring to, he just isn't making a good point, indentured servitude of criminals to serve their sentence is not in anyway the same as slavery , where,,children who had committed no crime, were used a slaves, you must see there a complete moral difference , even if he can't


I'm not familiar with the situation indentured servants were subjected to, so can't speak to the morality of them. If we stick to talking about adults (I'm not sure all types of slavery over time included children, nor that any excluded them), the question could be whether it's ever moral to put someone in a slave-like situation (whether as a consequence of their actions, or otherwise). That'd be a long debate, and likely to drift into politics. And I'm not nearly well enough informed to give good input from the start.


----------



## Buka (Aug 11, 2019)




----------



## geezer (Aug 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> unfortunately I fear you might, but you said we're did the highest number of migrants come from, nothing about when, and that was *Germany.*..



_Germany? _Really? Not sure about that. But as DV said, there was a big influx of Germans in the mid-19th Century. They account for about half my ancestry on my father's side.

BTW, in a sense the _same_ is true of the UK especially the eastern coast, you just have to role the clock back to the "Age of Migrations" (the so-called Dark Ages) when all those Germanic Angles, Saxons, Geats, Frislanders, Danes and Norsemen came swarming over to the great dismay of the Gaelic Britons and Welsh. God knows my old English ancestors, the Forsyths, Colcords, Browns, and so on and my Texas German immigrant ancestors (yes, from the mid 1800s), the Frerichs, Baders, Roethes, etc. may have all been from the same tribe 1,400 years back.

You know, e_veryone is related_ if you look hard enough! I Read where Barak Obama was a distant cousin of ...Dick Cheney. Can't get much weirder than that!


----------



## geezer (Aug 11, 2019)

Now what was this thread about again???


----------



## jobo (Aug 11, 2019)

geezer said:


> _Germany? _Really? Not sure about that. But as DV said, there was a big influx of Germans in the mid-19th Century. They account for about half my ancestry on my father's side.
> 
> BTW, in a sense the _same_ is true of the UK especially the eastern coast, you just have to role the clock back to the "Age of Migrations" (the so-called Dark Ages) when all those Germanic Angles, Saxons, Geats, Frislanders, Danes and Norsemen came swarming over to the great dismay of the Gaelic Britons and Welsh. God knows my old English ancestors, the Forsyths, Colcords, Browns, and so on and my Texas German immigrant ancestors (yes, from the mid 1800s), the Frerichs, Baders, Roethes, etc. may have all been from the same tribe 1,400 years back.
> 
> You know, e_veryone is related_ if you look hard enough! I Read where Barak Obama was a distant cousin of ...Dick Cheney. Can't get much weirder than that!


it's not easy to add up, as they keep jumping about between English and British.

but if you split England Scotland  and wales up, then the germans win by about a half a million, britain as a whole however exceeds the germans ( obviously excluding the Irish who arnt British)

the largest number of white Americans have German ancestry I read d recently

History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## geezer (Aug 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> ...the largest number of white Americans have German ancestry I read d recently: History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia



Yeah, but what it really comes down to is this: Most of us are mutts. Dogs or people, either way, I love mutts!

BTW, I don't go for that new DNA testing ...seems kinda like a racket to me..., but from what little I do know about my own ancestors, there are English, German, Scottish, Irish and even French. And although I cant _prove_ any Latino ancestry, that's the biggest group here in the Southwest. After all, this was all Mexico first. At least after the Mexicans kicked out the Spanish who in turn stole it from the Indians.


----------



## jobo (Aug 12, 2019)

geezer said:


> Yeah, but what it really comes down to is this: Most of us are mutts. Dogs or people, either way, I love mutts!
> 
> BTW, I don't go for that new DNA testing ...seems kinda like a racket to me..., but from what little I do know about my own ancestors, there are English, German, Scottish, Irish and even French. And although I cant _prove_ any Latino ancestry, that's the biggest group here in the Southwest. After all, this was all Mexico first. At least after the Mexicans kicked out the Spanish who in turn stole it from the Indians.


yea but, the Mexicans are significantly Spanish ancestry, so the whole north American kicking out European over lords was significant Europeans kicking out European over lords.

America was very much a mixing pot, there's been a lot less breeding across national borders in Europe, so genetic markers are far more pronounced, even from tribes that share a common ancestry a couple of thousand years ago, there are clear and unmistakeable national traits.

the notable exception being Britain, that got invaded by every one, frequently until 1066 and then no one at all for the next thousands years, which has given a currius match of hair colour and skin tone that doesn't really have a national stereo type, like say the French, the italians or the spannish , for the north eorpean tribes,the polish are easily distinguishable from the germans, and the germans from the Scandinavian, though they are geographic extremely close


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Brain circuitry does change. The interesting thing about nature vs nurture is they effect each other.
> 
> Behavior effects brain circuitry/chemistry which effects behavior.


yes and no
only certain networks have plasticity enough to be changed by behavior, but since we are discussing morality in this instance i would say that the pathways are fundamental but have a certain amount of ability to change. so i would agree up to a point.  i would add that there is a lot of variability in what effects our brains not just nature and nurture but for the conversation we can simplify it to those two.



drop bear said:


> If morality was genetic. It should be constant across culture.
> 
> Let's look at nakedness. It is a morality that dramatically changes from culture to culture and time to time.



i dont think i agree, that it has to be constant, but i dont have much to back my opinion up at the moment.
i would say lets look at murder.  this moral judgement has been around at least 2000 years. its in the bible commandments and is probably much older all the way back to the Sumerians, the beginning of civilization.  dont kill people is pretty constant across cultures. and we know for a fact that those who do not feel that morality, IE serial killers and such, have very particular differences in the brain then the rest of the population.  thats not to say everyone that kills has a deficient brain.  
i would say the foundations of morality come from genetic sources.  it is an evolutionary advantage to have morals for species survival, it would make sense to have developed from a biological standpoint.  however the particularities would be culturally diverse.  evolutionary survival is the driving force and what works in one region and culture will not work in another.
referencing something i said earlier,  nomadic people have a different code of ethics, values or morality  than an agrarian society.  and  some scientists are pretty sure these values are genetically passed down to current descendants. (im sure a google search might find something)


----------



## drop bear (Aug 13, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> yes and no
> only certain networks have plasticity enough to be changed by behavior, but since we are discussing morality in this instance i would say that the pathways are fundamental but have a certain amount of ability to change. so i would agree up to a point.  i would add that there is a lot of variability in what effects our brains not just nature and nurture but for the conversation we can simplify it to those two.
> 
> 
> ...



As a quick example honor killings are still done in Saudi Arabia. 

To solve the problem the government institutionalized it.


----------

