# Can a martial art kills?



## TigerHeart (Oct 10, 2017)

Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.



Any time people fight, there is always the risk of serious injury or death.  That's life.  Two drunks get into a fistfight, one falls and hits his head and dies.  Or one has a heart attack and dies.  And so on.

We should all be aware that risk is part of violence, whether or not you are justified in using it.  

Good martial arts training will provide you with the ability to defend yourself in many circumstances.  Over time, you will learn control as well as technique.  You will have options (for example, locks, evades, throws, trips) as opposed to strikes which you may choose to employ if you judge that the circumstances call for it.

In the end, however, all of us, trained and untrained, have to accept the fact that when people fight, death or serious injury is always a possibility.

When it comes to self-defense, well if someone has to die, I do not want it to be me.  I value life, but I put mine in front of the life of a person who is attacking me.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 10, 2017)

Is this a serious question?  Of course "martial arts" "can kill."  Punching, kicking, choking, stabbing, clubbing, etc. all can cause serious, even deadly, injuries.

If you are not comfortable with the idea of using your martial arts training in such a way as to injure someone, then don't do that.  You can keep training in whatever martial arts you wish.  Just make the conscious decision that you aren't going to use your skills to hurt anyone, even in self defense.  

It's a personal decision.  You can choose to be a pacifist.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Martial D (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


 I wouldn't worry about it. If you haven't practiced those blows in a sparring or fighting situation your chances of hurting anyone with them are pretty remote anyway.

PS how'd you get inside the bag?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 10, 2017)

You touch on an interesting point. It is OK to not think about killing with your strikes. The JKD guys call it chaining, but the idea, is that your strikes, are meant to give pause. So, if a bad guy points his plastic finger at me, I might back knuckle his hand, and while he holds his hand close, wondering, what the hell, I slip behind him, put him in a choke hold, and kill him that way.


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 10, 2017)

I was nearly got assaulted while I worked as a Street photographer.  The assailant threw a punch at me.  I was so scared at the time, and that compelled me to take a karate lesson.  After mastering few forms, I realized when I had known karate, that assailant was very sloppied try to attack me, I would have finished him off with one strike.


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


you get a lot of bravado on here , but, for all sorts of legal and moral reasons you don't want to seriously hurt someone if you can avoid it, far better to put them on their bum and leave than break an arm or choke them out. It's just easier that way, the techniques that are to deadly to spar with, are to deadly to use, unless your life literally depends on it


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 10, 2017)

If they attack you then that's their choice. You're legally allowed to defend yourself. Also punching a bag or doing a form is very different to a real fight


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> I was nearly got assaulted while I worked as a Street photographer.  The assailant threw a punch at me.  I was so scared at the time, and that compelled me to take a karate lesson.  After mastering few forms, I realized when I had known karate, that assailant was very sloppied try to attack me, I would have finished him off with one strike.


Maybe, maybe not, don't put all this hype in the one kill strike mentality. It can happen of course it can but a lot of times an attacker will be either full of adrenaline so he doesn't feel pain or under the influence of something so again he doesn't feel pain. So yeah you may finish with one strike but also 1 strike may not even hurt him at all


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


It's different between

- You can do it but you don't want to do it. vs.
- You want to do it but you can't do it.

When someone drags your wife into his car,

- a knock down punch can save your wife from being rapped. you may save her life too if she will commit suicide after been raped.
- a weak punch will make you to be regret for the rest of your life.

Self-defense is not only to protect yourself. It also includes to protect your family members.


----------



## marques (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


Well, people fight back, moves and have bones. Hardly we can apply the same power to a living human.

On the other hand, I understand you. I am afraid of doing too much damage, too. (Or too little and lose my opportunity.) This is why I focus on leg kicks. The worse I can do is muscle rupture (could I break a femur?!). So nothing permanent. And usually, little power is already painful enough.

You can keep doing the entire Karate as a sport or an art, and focus on a few things for self-defence application.


----------



## Streetfighter2 (Oct 10, 2017)

Kill or be killed I know which I'd prefer


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Maybe, maybe not, don't put all this hype in the one kill strike mentality. It can happen of course it can but a lot of times an attacker will be either full of adrenaline so he doesn't feel pain or under the influence of something so again he doesn't feel pain. So yeah you may finish with one strike but also 1 strike may not even hurt him at all


you don't have to hurt them, you just have to knock them over


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> you don't have to hurt them, you just have to knock them over


And then they get up and attack you harder


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.



learn to wrestle then.


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> And then they get up and attack you harder


no not generaly no, not once they have hit the floor hard, anyway it should give you a ten second head start, or you just knock them over again


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> And then they get up and attack you harder


There is something called "choke".


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> If they attack you then that's their choice. You're legally allowed to defend yourself. Also punching a bag or doing a form is very different to a real fight


well yes, but from a moral stand point, i really don't want to leave someone blinded or,with a permanent disability just Coz they had a few beers , had a row with their girl friend and then decided to take it out on me, its not at all proportionate to the " crime" if i can put them off the,whole idea by bopping them on the noise, then that seems best . From a legal stand point, the less damage you do, the less heart ache and hassle you will get from the law if it comes to having to justify the,amount of force used,

its so much easier to say, he attacked me, so i gave him a punch and broke his nose, than it is to say, he attacked me, so i poked him in the eye, permanently blinding him, then smashed three ribs, broke an arm, cracked his neck leaving him in a wheel chair and then choked till he passed out and left him brain damage. Just saying!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yes, but from a moral stand point, i really don't want to leave someone blinded or,with a permanent disability just Coz they had a few beers , had a row with their girl friend and then decided to take it out on me, its not at all proportionate to the " crime" if i can put them off the,whole idea by bopping them on the noise, then that seems best . From a legal stand point, the less damage you do, the less heart ache and hassle you will get from the law if it comes to having to justify the,amount of force used,
> 
> its so much easier to say, he attacked me, so i gave him a punch and broke his nose, than it is to say, he attacked me, so i poked him in the eye, permanently blinding him, then smashed three ribs, broke an arm, cracked his neck leaving him in a wheel chair and then choked till he passed out and left him brain damage. Just saying!



You didn't restomp the groin.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You didn't restomp the groin.


i did, that was remiss of me!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 11, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


 This isn't as easy as it sounds.  First you have to be able to hit the guy that you are fighting and there's no telling if the guy is more skilled than you are until punches are thrown.   When you get into a real fight all of your ideas about how deadly you are "goes out of the window."

Think of it like this.  How many martial arts "masters" and fairly skilled martial artist lose too MMA without landing that "deadly punch."    If you are in a street fight and you are worried about your attacker's safety, then you are probably in a fight that you could have walked away from.   When you are in a real fight where you are in danger then the last thing you'll worry about is the well being of your attacker.  

I'm pretty sure almost all the martial artist here wouldn't worry about their attacker's safety if the attacker is mugging them in the street.

Don't get me wrong, your punches will get stronger, but in a fight you still have to land punches on your attacker and that's always easier than it sounds


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 11, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


Do you think that people spend years of "iron palm" training so they can scratch their opponent's back?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> This isn't as easy as it sounds.  First you have to be able to hit the guy that you are fighting and there's no telling if the guy is more skilled than you are until punches are thrown.   When you get into a real fight all of your ideas about how deadly you are "goes out of the window."
> 
> Think of it like this.  How many martial arts "masters" and fairly skilled martial artist lose too MMA without landing that "deadly punch."    If you are in a street fight and you are worried about your attacker's safety, then you are probably in a fight that you could have walked away from.   When you are in a real fight where you are in danger then the last thing you'll worry about is the well being of your attacker.
> 
> ...



You can still shut a guy down without really messing them up. You just have to be better than them.


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 12, 2017)

I was watching one documentary on YouTube. One school in Okinawa, they don’t want to kill or hurt anyone in self defense.  In this Youtube, scroll to 33:15 and learn about Choshin Chibana.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> I was watching one documentary on YouTube. One school in Okinawa, they don’t want to kill or hurt anyone in self defense.  In this Youtube, scroll to 33:15 and learn about Choshin Chibana.


Friend, you can stop worrying about it.  It is your choice whether or not to try to injure someone, even if they're attacking you.  You can choose to try or you can choose to not try.

You don't have to study Karate with the purpose of learning to hurt someone.  You can practice martial arts for fun, fitness, meditation, enlightenment, historic research, or whatever else you want.

It's really that simple.  You can stop obsessing.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> If they attack you then that's their choice. You're legally allowed to defend yourself. Also punching a bag or doing a form is very different to a real fight


And fighting is very different from SD.  Knowledge I see which continues to evade you.



Streetfighter2 said:


> Kill or be killed I know which I'd prefer


That represents a false choice.  You can defend yourself without being killed, without killing them, and stay within the law.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> And fighting is very different from SD.  Knowledge I see which continues to evade you.


Maybe.  Maybe not.  Both terms ("fighting" and "self defense") are far too nebulous and ill defined.  Sometimes they're the same, depending on context and intent.  Sometimes they're not the same.



> That represents a false choice.  You can defend yourself without being killed, without killing them, and stay within the law.


*Maybe* you can defend yourself without being killed or killing someone.  I'd hope so, but there are far too many variables which you cannot control.  The most common way for someone to die, in the U.S., from an "unarmed fist fight" is from a depressed skull fracture.  One person gets knocked out/down and bashes their head on something hard, such as a concrete curb or sidewalk.  Knock someone down, throw them with something like o goshi or o soto gari, evade and trip, or just push away and the other guy could potentially smash his head on a rock.

It's not always about stabbing him in the eye.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 12, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Friend, you can stop worrying about it.  It is your choice whether or not to try to injure someone, even if they're attacking you.  You can choose to try or you can choose to not try.
> 
> You don't have to study Karate with the purpose of learning to hurt someone.  You can practice martial arts for fun, fitness, meditation, enlightenment, historic research, or whatever else you want.
> 
> ...


I think people just assume that they take a martial art that they can easily hurt someone else and that's not the reality of martial arts.  Just because someone knows a martial arts doesn't mean they can easily win a fight.  Especially if non of the training that is being done is designed to make someone a better fighting.  Even if it is designed to make someone be a better fighter, it's like you say.  Its your choice of how much or how little you want to hurt someone, but that's only if you significantly more skilled than the person you are fighting.
.


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 12, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> but that's only if you significantly more skilled than the person you are fighting.
> .


Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?


I do not believe that every schmuck out there looking to cause trouble is a highly skilled martial artist.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 13, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level


Statistically speaking, this is very unlikely. However, someone who attacks you in the street _is_ more likely to have experience fighting than the average law-abiding citizen. That experience can make a difference.



TigerHeart said:


> There is no chance to win a fight?



Nah. Even if an attacker has martial arts experience, that doesn't make them unbeatable by a long shot.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 13, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> but in a fight you still have to land punches on your attacker and that's always easier than it sounds


I think you meant "_harder_ than it sounds."


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 13, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.


As others have noted, death or severe injury is always a _possibility_ in a fight. Someone could fall and hit their head on the curb. Someone could suffer a heart attack or an aneurism. Even just holding someone down could cause positional asphyxia. This is one part of why it's a good idea to avoid fights whenever possible.

That said, these outcomes are not particularly likely in the case of an unarmed fight. For every unarmed fight which results in a lethal outcome, there are probably thousands which produce nothing worse than bruises and cut lips.

Humans are actually pretty durable. If you have never fought full-contact, you may be surprised to find that it's a lot harder to break ribs or arms or legs than you think. (Especially legs.) It can be done, but don't assume that it will be easy based on your experience hitting the heavy bag.

You should also distinguish between killing, crippling/doing permanent damage, and disabling.

In an unarmed fight, lethal results generally happen either from a fluke accident (someone falling and hitting their head on the curb) or from deliberate excessive force (repeatedly stomping on someone's head while they are down, holding a choke after someone has passed out, etc). The same applies for most other forms of permanent injury.

Disabling someone (temporarily) is what you need to be able to do in order to reliably stop an attacker. Breaking an attacker's ribs will probably slow him down and might discourage him from fighting, but won't necessarily stop him. Breaking his arm will impair his ability to fight and will likely deter him from continuing, but not necessarily. Breaking his leg will probably stop him from being able to fight, but if it doesn't it will at least prevent him from being able to chase you if you run. Note that all these injuries will heal with time and proper medical care.

Some opponents will give up after getting a bruise or a bloody nose, but you can absolutely not count on that. In order to _reliably_ stop someone you need to be able to
a) render them unconscious
b) cause sufficient structural damage that they are unable to fight effectively.
c) pin them so they can't move until help arrives (applicable only against a single attacker when you know backup is on the way)


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 13, 2017)

So, I have been confronted so many times by random people as a street photographer.  I don’t think any of them has martial art skill.  I’m not interesting in winning a fight or putting severe damaged on the attacker. What is the reality of martial art?  Since my skill is not good enough for self defense, what is the point for me taking a martial art class?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 13, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> What is the reality of martial art?  [...] what is the point for me taking a martial art class?


What do you want to get out of it?

Figure out your goals and work toward that.  It's not that hard.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you meant "_harder_ than it sounds."


lol.. yeah. that's what I mean.  I haven't been getting enough sleep these days.  My brain is all out of whack.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?


I think it's very rare to have a martial artist of any system to be the initial attacker.  The more skilled one becomes at fighting the less likely they'll be to initiate the fight.  I'm thinking that the training changes the way they see fighting.  When we look at violent crimes, we usually discover that the attacker is not someone who has been trained.  Train soldiers don't go around shooting up everyone (there are a few exceptions), train boxers don't go around attacking people in the streets, trained karate black belts don't go around attacking people.   I think the more highly skilled someone is in fighting, the less it becomes about fighting, even though that's what they are training.

Now as for your statement. In a hypothetical sense I think a person would be in trouble because the martial artist wouldn't give notice of the attack.  I don't think there would be much of a stand off before punches started flying.  I think the person would be like most attackers and try to attack you when you are least able to defend against the attack.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> What is the reality of martial art? Since my skill is not good enough for self defense, what is the point for me taking a martial art class?


The reality of it martial arts is that it works based on why you train.   For example, you have not interest in winning a fight or being able to severely hurt someone.  Because of that you probably aren't training for the purpose of self-defense.  As a result, your self-defense using martial arts is probably not going to be that great.  Like 
*lklawson *stated, "What do you want to get out of it?"  Once you figure that out, then train for that purpose.


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 13, 2017)

My martial art instructors see me as hard working or potential.  I think my point is if I develop a skill of breaking bones, I don't want to go out there and start hitting people because I can.  It is like carrying a pistol and accidentally misfires.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 13, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> My martial art instructors see me as hard working or potential.  I think my point is if I develop a skill of breaking bones, I don't want to go out there and start hitting people because I can.  It is like carrying a pistol and accidentally misfires.


No it's not like that at all.  Accidental gun fire and misfires often happen outside of the context of being in a conflict or fight.   No one sits down thinking that they better put their hands in their pocket so they don't accidentally bump into a person and break that person's bones.

If you are doing martial arts and you are using a technique that was made to break bone, then you made the conscious decision to break someone's bone or at the very least put someone in the position where you could break their bones.  That's a choice that you made and there's no accident or misfire about it.  

My personal opinion is that you think you are more deadlier than what you really are and the only way to fix that is for you to get in the ring and have your reality adjusted.  I think it would greatly help you understand the reality of your skill level and understand that what you are talking about isn't as easy as you think it is.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Oct 13, 2017)

of course in the real street fight you gonna get hit hard and get injured its just better to avoid it if you need to Martial arts is used when you need to used it now if you avoid them and they still attack you thats a dfferent story if they hit you hard and injured you have to do the same but dont kill the person just injure them back LOL becaused you got no choice its either you gonna get injured and do nothing about it or youu gonna get injured and you gonna do something about it but remember martial arts is used when it need to be used if needed


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 14, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?


Martial arts aren't magic weapons a black belt can be beaten by anyone depending on the circumstances it's more about luck than ability most times


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 14, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> My martial art instructors see me as hard working or potential.  I think my point is if I develop a skill of breaking bones, I don't want to go out there and start hitting people because I can.  It is like carrying a pistol and accidentally misfires.


Yeah seriously I really don't think that's going to ever happen


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 14, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Yeah seriously I really don't think that's going to ever happen


It could. I get my leg broken training, a friend of mine got his arm broken training, and I've seen a ton of more minor injuries occur. It's not very likely (two broken bones among all the people I've trained with in 20 years is pretty good imo), but it's certainly possible.


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 14, 2017)

Dang, I actually believe every word Jake says.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 14, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Dang, I actually believe every word Jake says.


Why?


----------



## TigerHeart (Oct 14, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Why?


Oops sorry, wrong post.  My iphone is goofy today.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 14, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?



Can you spar hard without killing someone?

I mean can we mention wrestling again?


----------



## marques (Oct 14, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?


Well, there is always a chance. Especially when the BB guy doesn't train primarily for fights. Or is drunk, tired, old... There is always a chance. 

If Mayweather had fought 1000x, even against hundreds of "McGregors", he would lose at some point.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 16, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> Just wondering, the attacker is more likely to know martial art perhaps a black belt level.  There is no chance to win a fight?


People that go around attcking you (Career criminals, dickheads, etc) tend not to be the sort of people who have dedicated years of training to becoming a (reputable) black belt.  Not saying it never happens ofcourse, but generally speaking your not going to get attacked by a highly skilled highly trained MA.  Your attacker will however likely be highly skilled at criminal violence, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 16, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> PYour attacker will however likely be highly skilled at criminal violence, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.


i.e.: someone who is comfortable inflicting violence, pain, and injury, while being unruffled by taking shots to the face and body.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 16, 2017)

lklawson said:


> i.e.: someone who is comfortable inflicting violence, pain, and injury, while being unruffled by taking shots to the face and body.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



So i am training criminal violence then?

Actually being punched in the face still ruffles me.


----------



## Brmty2002 (Oct 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Any time people fight, there is always the risk of serious injury or death.  That's life.  Two drunks get into a fistfight, one falls and hits his head and dies.  Or one has a heart attack and dies.  And so on.
> 
> We should all be aware that risk is part of violence, whether or not you are justified in using it.
> 
> ...


Don't forget king punches. I don't think you would be doing martial arts while drunk either though. More like flailing you fists around.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So i am training criminal violence then?


Maybe.



> Actually being punched in the face still ruffles me.


OK.

I meant what I wrote, violent criminals typically have a history of, well, violence.  They're well acquainted with both dealing out and receiving physical violence.  It's part of their lives and usually always has been.

"Martial Artists" from the suburbs often seem to believe that everyone lived lives as civilized as theirs has been and that at the first sign of resistance the bad guy will just give up.  Just bop 'em in the nose right?

No.  Most violent criminals have a history of violence and know exactly what being bopped in the nose is like and, whether or not it "bothers" them, they certainly know how to work through it.

After finding out that I'm a "Martial Artist," one guy spent several minutes telling that "everyone has a plan until you sock 'em in the beak."  <sigh>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 17, 2017)




----------



## lklawson (Oct 17, 2017)

Yeah, that was the quote.  But the person telling me this didn't even get the quote right.  He had no idea what he was talking about or its context.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So i am training criminal violence then?
> 
> Actually being punched in the face still ruffles me.


all violence is criminal, outside of self defence and the dojo / ring etal,


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> all violence is criminal, outside of self defence and the dojo / ring etal,


Yes, but the term "criminal violence" specifically refers to the way criminals go about violence, which different from the way trained martial artist or 'street fighters' does.  

A mugger will ask for directions (as an example) in order to disguise their real intent, and then when you are distracted giving them directions they will sucker punch you then steal your phone/wallet etc.  They won't take up a fighting stance an offer to go three five minutes rounds with you with the winner going home with your belongings. A lot of MA's assume that engaging in a consensual fighting is the same as defending yourself from self criminal violence.

Case in point Drop Bear, who I don't even have to take off ignore to know has missed this point entirely and displayed his unwavering inability to distinguish between the two.

Here ended, today's lesson.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> all violence is criminal, outside of self defence and the dojo / ring etal,



Well if you look at the definition. But realistic violence would be closer to the concept. Rather than theoretical violence i think.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, but the term "criminal violence" specifically refers to the way criminals go about violence, which different from the way trained martial artist or 'street fighters' does.
> 
> A mugger will ask for directions (as an example) in order to disguise their real intent, and then when you are distracted giving them directions they will sucker punch you then steal your phone/wallet etc.  They won't take up a fighting stance an offer to go three five minutes rounds with you with the winner going home with your belongings. A lot of MA's assume that engaging in a consensual fighting is the same as defending yourself from self criminal violence.
> 
> ...



I have delt with muggers. You are incorrect.

Mabye take reality off ignore.

And look if you want to talk about ambushing dudes. What do people think I used to do as a bouncer. You would see a guy who you would potentially have to deal with. Then gang up. Then isolate them. Then ambush them.

But the idea that this is not just an extention of the methods you are already training is pretty strange. You still might have to fight them. In which case all the principles of fighting apply.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Maybe.
> 
> OK.
> 
> ...



I think martial arts training has to include a level of violence. And yes I don't think people get how much of an issue a just genuinely tough dude can be. 

I have mentioned why before.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, but the term "criminal violence" specifically refers to the way criminals go about violence, which different from the way trained martial artist or 'street fighters' does.
> 
> A mugger will ask for directions (as an example) in order to disguise their real intent, and then when you are distracted giving them directions they will sucker punch you then steal your phone/wallet etc.  They won't take up a fighting stance an offer to go three five minutes rounds with you with the winner going home with your belongings. A lot of MA's assume that engaging in a consensual fighting is the same as defending yourself from self criminal violence.
> 
> ...


your making a distinction were there is non , all violence is criminal, save the few exceptions, therefore all violence is criminal violence,


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> your making a distinction were there is non , all violence is criminal, save the few exceptions, therefore all violence is criminal violence,



Not really. He thinks there is a fundamentally different mechanic to shaping up and bashing some dude over an insult. Bashing them for their wallet and bashing them in the ring.

So therefore the training should be focused on these different aspects.

Rather than focusing on bashing dudes and then adding situational skills.

My view is it is all sizzle and no steak.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not really. He thinks there is a fundamentally different mechanic to shaping up and bashing some dude over an insult. Bashing them for their wallet and bashing them in the ring.
> 
> So therefore the training should be focused on these different aspects.
> 
> ...


I'm with you , the most important issue, is that you can bash, every thing after that is just window,dressing, which is of no use at all unless you can bash them


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm with you , the most important issue, is that you can bash, every thing after that is just window,dressing, which is of no use at all unless you can bash them



Correct. Which Is why wrestles and boxers win street fights. Their primary method ultimately works. Even though their methods are fundamentally different.


----------



## jobo (Oct 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Correct. Which Is why wrestles and boxers win street fights. Their primary method ultimately works. Even though their methods are fundamentally different.


but karate say, should fundamentally  work, that if you train the basics till your good enough, rather than complicate it with a multitude of useless techniques


----------



## drop bear (Oct 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> but karate say, should fundamentally  work, that if you train the basics till your good enough, rather than complicate it with a multitude of useless techniques



Also correct. And with that idea you can then go to say a karate school and see it work. Or have had it work somewhere.

I should stand up to scrutiny without having to come up with excuses like it will work but self defence is such a unique beast that it is somehow compromised everywhere else.

Except for the one place you can't check.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Correct. Which Is why wrestles and boxers win street fights. Their primary method ultimately works. Even though their methods are fundamentally different.


Wrestlers and boxers win street fights due to their training methods.  What training methods?  Getting hit/tackled/etc. and keep going, while realizing they’ not made of glass; working the basics over and over again, against non-resisting partners, semi-resisting partners and fully resisting partners; practicing advanced techniques over and over against non-resisting partners, semi-resisting partners to the point of making them easily usable against fully resisting partners.  Fully resisted competition leaves no realistic “what if’s;” it either worked for you that night or it didn’t.  You can either do it against your opponent and other opponents, or you can’t and need to get back into the gym and practice some more.

Pretty much any martial art can do this and be truly effective.  It’s not the art, it’s the training methods and the willingness of the MAist to do this and stop making excuses.  One can do point fighting or do full contact/knockdown.  One can make their forms look pretty or actually break down the movements and apply them against resistance.  One can break a few boards or concrete blocks and feel strong or do body conditioning.

Some do the easy stuff, some do a combination of the easy stuff and the hard stuff, others do all the hard stuff.  Learning some moves or even a complete system, be it traditional MA, MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc. won’t make you “tough.”  Training it the right way will.  Many people don’t want to feel pain.  Many people don’t want to put in the work.  Many people feel good about lying to themselves about what they’re actually training for.

Everyone’s got to do what they’ve got to do.  Many people don’t have the need nor desire to train like they’re preparing to fight.  They train because they like to for a variety of reasons.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Wrestlers and boxers win street fights due to their training methods.  What training methods?  Getting hit/tackled/etc. and keep going, while realizing they’ not made of glass; working the basics over and over again, against non-resisting partners, semi-resisting partners and fully resisting partners; practicing advanced techniques over and over against non-resisting partners, semi-resisting partners to the point of making them easily usable against fully resisting partners.  Fully resisted competition leaves no realistic “what if’s;” it either worked for you that night or it didn’t.  You can either do it against your opponent and other opponents, or you can’t and need to get back into the gym and practice some more.
> 
> Pretty much any martial art can do this and be truly effective.  It’s not the art, it’s the training methods and the willingness of the MAist to do this and stop making excuses.  One can do point fighting or do full contact/knockdown.  One can make their forms look pretty or actually break down the movements and apply them against resistance.  One can break a few boards or concrete blocks and feel strong or do body conditioning.
> 
> ...



Not really. You can train dumb stuff with resistance. Capoeira would be a prime example.

They train hard. Just what they train is not as efficient as say a combat sport.

They can get away with it because the other guy is doing capoeira as well. 

It also isn't really designed to be the most efficient method of messing a guy up.

TKD can fall in to this trap. Sport jujitsu falls into this trap.

The style will determine what you train. And that will effect your strengths and weakness's.

And people cross train for pretty much this reason.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not really. You can train dumb stuff with resistance. Capoeira would be a prime example.
> 
> They train hard. Just what they train is not as efficient as say a combat sport.
> 
> ...


Wait... Capoeira isn’t that effective?  Then how do I dominate Tekken with Eddie Gordo?  I beat karate, TKD, kung fu, Muay Thai, sumo, wrestling.  Hell, I even beat a few bears, kangaroos, a log, and even this cyborg-zombie thing with a sword.

You’re telling me capoeira doesn’t dominate like Eddie Gordo does?  You’re crazy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Wait... Capoeira isn’t that effective?  Then how do I dominate Tekken with Eddie Gordo?  I beat karate, TKD, kung fu, Muay Thai, sumo, wrestling.  Hell, I even beat a few bears, kangaroos, a log, and even this cyborg-zombie thing with a sword.
> 
> You’re telling me capoeira doesn’t dominate like Eddie Gordo does?  You’re crazy.


It depends on who is doing it and in what context and for what purpose.

Just like pretty much everything else.  No shock there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not really. You can train dumb stuff with resistance. Capoeira would be a prime example.
> 
> They train hard. Just what they train is not as efficient as say a combat sport.
> 
> ...


Agreed. It depends upon the level and kind of resistance offered. If one Capoeira-ist (I've forgotten the proper term for that) decides to do whatever he can to stop the other, the rota stops being a rota.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. It depends upon the level and kind of resistance offered. If one Capoeira-ist (I've forgotten the proper term for that) decides to do whatever he can to stop the other, the rota stops being a rota.



And becomes vale tudo


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, but the term "criminal violence" specifically refers to the way criminals go about violence, which different from the way trained martial artist or 'street fighters' does.
> 
> A mugger will ask for directions (as an example) in order to disguise their real intent, and then when you are distracted giving them directions they will sucker punch you then steal your phone/wallet etc.  They won't take up a fighting stance an offer to go three five minutes rounds with you with the winner going home with your belongings. A lot of MA's assume that engaging in a consensual fighting is the same as defending yourself from self criminal violence.
> 
> ...


While I agree that there are some differences between consensual fighting and criminal violence, I think you're overstating the issue. A boxer (trained reasonably as most boxers are) is much better prepared for violence (criminal or consensual) than someone who trains specifically for self-defense, but too softly and/or with too little resistance. Take a boxer and also train him for some of the contextual differences, plus some of the non-physical defensive material, and he does even better. And that can be reversed, as well - take a good context-based defensive training system and add good resistive training, train it hard, and you also get someone who is well prepared (as well prepared as we can manage, in general).

Resistive training helps. Training for context helps. Training hard helps.

I'd argue you could maybe get away with losing any one of those, and still manage something useful. Lose two, and I have my doubts.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> While I agree that there are some differences between consensual fighting and criminal violence, I think you're overstating the issue. A boxer (trained reasonably as most boxers are) is much better prepared for violence (criminal or consensual) than someone who trains specifically for self-defense


Someone who trains specifically for SD will (or should) practice preventing people closing the distance in order to set up a sucker punch.  A boxer does not.  A boxer probably hasn't even yet realised he's being interviews as a potential victim and that he is already in a SD situation.

I don't see how then someone who allows someone to get close enough to execute sucker punch, is better prepared to deal with violence than someone who is able to prevent a criminal for getting close enough to sucker punch them.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Someone who trains specifically for SD will (or should) practice preventing people closing the distance in order to set up a sucker punch.  A boxer does not.  A boxer probably hasn't even yet realised he's being interviews as a potential victim and that he is already in a SD situation.
> 
> I don't see how then someone who allows someone to get close enough to execute sucker punch, is better prepared to deal with violence than someone who is able to prevent a criminal for getting close enough to sucker punch them.


that's taking it to far, a boxer may well realise the danger, anyone with any,sense will be cautious if approach by someone out of the blue, the. Difference is a he boxer can do something about the punch if it comes
 we have talk about this before you can't just punch everybody that comes with in range, what you can do is not be so relaxed that you can't react to danger if it happens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Someone who trains specifically for SD will (or should) practice preventing people closing the distance in order to set up a sucker punch.  A boxer does not.  A boxer probably hasn't even yet realised he's being interviews as a potential victim and that he is already in a SD situation.
> 
> I don't see how then someone who allows someone to get close enough to execute sucker punch, is better prepared to deal with violence than someone who is able to prevent a criminal for getting close enough to sucker punch them.


If you cut off the quote to change the context, you lose the meaning. If that person who trained to maintain distance also never trained against a hard punch and violent entry, the fact that they still have space doesn't do much good, because a sucker punch might not be necessary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's taking it to far, a boxer may well realise the danger, anyone with any,sense will be cautious if approach by someone out of the blue, the. Difference is a he boxer can do something about the punch if it comes
> we have talk about this before you can't just punch everybody that comes with in range, what you can do is not be so relaxed that you can't react to danger if it happens.


And while the boxer might not maintain that distance (let's say they enter the monkey dance, rather than keeping distance), they would be faster to respond than the too-softly trained person, and would be less likely to be taken out of the fight by that sucker punch if it happens. And someone trained too softly, in spite of the training to keep distance, may not actually recognize the violence building.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And while the boxer might not maintain that distance (let's say they enter the monkey dance, rather than keeping distance), they would be faster to respond than the too-softly trained person, and would be less likely to be taken out of the fight by that sucker punch if it happens. And someone trained too softly, in spite of the training to keep distance, may not actually recognize the violence building.


yes all that, but it comes down to defintion, you can't sucker punch someone who is expecting it, that's said From the fact that most punches are telegraphed,haymakers and only trained fighters can throw devastating rights with little back lift,
if you get mugged by a decent boxer you are in trouble


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes all that, but it comes down to defintion, you can't sucker punch someone who is expecting it, that's said From the fact that most punches are telegraphed,haymakers and only trained fighters can throw devastating rights with little back lift,
> if you get mugged by a decent boxer you are in trouble


Agreed. I was referring to if the boxer (or the other subject) doesn't recognize that it's coming, so they still get a sucker punch.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I was referring to if the boxer (or the other subject) doesn't recognize that it's coming, so they still get a sucker punch.


, maintain your guard at all times, you don't need a sd course to tell you there are street robberies and its quite common for muggers to look like muggers, , they are helpful that way, if they start,wearing three piece suits or cashmere sweaters i might get myself in bother


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> , maintain your guard at all times, you don't need a sd course to tell you there are street robberies and its quite common for muggers to look like muggers, , they are helpful that way, if they start,wearing three piece suits or cashmere sweaters i might get myself in bother


Nobody maintains their guard all the time. And even being on guard doesn't mean people will recognize the signs of an impending sucker punch. Recognizing those signals is somewhat skill-based. People who haven't been exposed to those situations and also aren't trained are less likely to recognize the danger.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Nobody maintains their guard all the time. And even being on guard doesn't mean people will recognize the signs of an impending sucker punch. Recognizing those signals is somewhat skill-based. People who haven't been exposed to those situations and also aren't trained are less likely to recognize the danger.


no not at all times, you have to sleep, if you are out and about, you read the street or the room and if you someone suspect get in striking distance you should be " on guard" i don't mean with your,fists up, i mean be,aware that someone might strike you, I've been doing this all my life, it's called being,street smart, 

it doesn't take " training" it takes common sense, .someone MAY try and rob you, be,aware. That's a short training course,,, its like telling people it might rain, take a hat

i passed a group of youths the other day, it was dark in a deserted urban place, for fifty yards i listened for the sound of fast steps,after me, non came, i relaxed


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> no not at all times, you have to sleep, if you are out and about, you read the street or the room and if you someone suspect get in striking distance you should be " on guard" i don't mean with your,fists up, i mean be,aware that someone might strike you, I've been doing this all my life, it's called being,street smart,
> 
> it doesn't take " training" it takes common sense, .someone MAY try and rob you, be,aware. That's a short training course,,, its like telling people it might rain, take a hat
> 
> i passed a group of youths the other day, it was dark in a deserted urban place, for fifty yards i listened for the sound of fast steps,after me, non came, i relaxed


None of that is contrary to anything I have said. You seem once again to be trying to find something to argue about.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> None of that is contrary to anything I have said. You seem once again to be trying to find something to argue about.


why is it always about you, I'm giving my opinion, i didn't say you were wrong , rather i was agreeing with you and,adding a bit more by way of my thought on the matter


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If that person who trained to maintain distance also never trained against a hard punch and violent entry, the fact that they still have space doesn't do much good, because a sucker punch might not be necessary.


You are assuming a hard punch or sucker punch will come.  If you control the distance, and show you are switched on, you more often than not end the situation at this point (I know I have done it myself, as has my wife) as you have demonstrated you are obviously not the switched off, unaware victim the criminal was looking for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You are assuming a hard punch or sucker punch will come.  If you control the distance, and show you are switched on, you more often than not end the situation at this point (I know I have done it myself, as has my wife) as you have demonstrated you are obviously not the switched off, unaware victim the criminal was looking for.


Actually, I've made the assumption it's still possible. And soft training won't stop it. Whether you end it with simply maintaining distance really depends on the motive. If it's anger, just being switched on doesn't cut it as often as when someone is victim-shopping.

My point was and is that too-soft training leaves people less able to handle violence when it comes. No amount of awareness or de-escalation changes that position (it just changes how likely the violence is to come).


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Nobody maintains their guard all the time. And even being on guard doesn't mean people will recognize the signs of an impending sucker punch. Recognizing those signals is somewhat skill-based. People who haven't been exposed to those situations and also aren't trained are less likely to recognize the danger.


This is why Cooper's "Condition" color codes were developed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 20, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You are assuming a hard punch or sucker punch will come.  If you control the distance, and show you are switched on, you more often than not end the situation at this point (I know I have done it myself, as has my wife) as you have demonstrated you are obviously not the switched off, unaware victim the criminal was looking for.


How do you genuinely know you were going to be attacked if you didn’t do these things?

There’s been plenty of times I expected trouble, but nothing came of it.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> How do you genuinely know you were going to be attacked if you didn’t do these things?
> 
> There’s been plenty of times I expected trouble, but nothing came of it.


You don't, but then you don't know if you're genuinely going to have a car crash each time you drive to work.  So just in case you wear your seat belt.  It's too late to put your belt on after you've crashed, just like it's too late to go back and do that stuff after you've been punched.  So you do it before hand, to reduce that chances of you getting to the stage were you are hit.


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You don't, but then you don't know if you're genuinely going to have a car crash each time you drive to work.  So just in case you wear your seat belt.  It's too late to put your belt on after you've crashed, just like it's too late to go back and do that stuff after you've been punched.  So you do it before hand, to reduce that chances of you getting to the stage were you are hit.



i know think the point being made, is that you have no idea, if your action are preventing an attack or not, you have concluded with no evidence that they are. That's fine you can live as you wish,
i on the other hand haven't been attack either and i don't do what you suggest, i wouldnt go round claiming that other people should follow my example as it will prevent an attack. Though i have exactly the same evidence of its effectiveness as you do


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> i know think the point being made, is that you have no idea, if your action are preventing an attack or not, you have concluded with no evidence that they are. That's fine you can live as you wish,
> i on the other hand haven't been attack either and i don't do what you suggest, i wouldnt go round claiming that other people should follow my example as it will prevent an attack. Though i have exactly the same evidence of its effectiveness as you do


But I do know that I have prevented an attack.  On more than one occasion.  That doesn't mean every situation is going to end up with an attack of course, but you still take the same precautions.


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> But I do know that I have prevented an attack.  On more than one occasion.  That doesn't mean every situation is going to end up with an attack of course, but you still take the same precautions.


and as the attack didn't happen how are you so certain that one was imminent ?


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> and as the attack didn't happen how are you so certain that one was imminent ?


Experience.


----------



## jobo (Oct 21, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Experience.


so you have no idea then? I think there is a large element of conformational bias, in your assessment of the situation.
I'm not saying its bad idea, if your spider senses are tingling, just its not a prerequisit if some someone asks you for,directions or stands next to you at a bus stop


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2017)

LOL, yes I can see where you're heading with this and I'm not going to have an arguement with you, but yes.  I know.



jobo said:


> just its not a prerequisit if some someone asks you for,directions or stands next to you at a bus stop


I think it is.  There is no reason a stranger needs to stand close enough to sucker punch you if they are just want to talk.  I'd rather be safe than sorry.  Like I said, every time you drive your car it doesn't mean you'll crash, but you stil wear your seatbelt, just in case.  I'm not suggesting every situation will end in violence, or is started for that purpose, sometimes people are genuinely just lost and want directions.  But if they are genuine, I am of the opinion that you don't need to be that close to talk to me.  

The discussion was that a boxer is better prepared to deal with violence than someone who trains SD.  I am of the opinion that they are not.  My viewpoint is that a person who can only deal with violence once they get punched in the face, is not better prepared than someone who can prevent it getting to the point in the first place.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Nobody maintains their guard all the time. And even being on guard doesn't mean people will recognize the signs of an impending sucker punch. Recognizing those signals is somewhat skill-based. People who haven't been exposed to those situations and also aren't trained are less likely to recognize the danger.



And a SD instructor will have training and experience in setting up and countering these ambushes?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> i know think the point being made, is that you have no idea, if your action are preventing an attack or not, you have concluded with no evidence that they are. That's fine you can live as you wish,
> i on the other hand haven't been attack either and i don't do what you suggest, i wouldnt go round claiming that other people should follow my example as it will prevent an attack. Though i have exactly the same evidence of its effectiveness as you do



Street awareness has exactly this problem in that you dont know what you dont know.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2017)

lklawson said:


> This is why Cooper's "Condition" color codes were developed.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Which I am not sure what purpose they serve. I mean if you wanted to have an example of its raining wear a hat, Coopers color codes would be the one.







So aparently if I am not somewhere threatening like now I can be condition white. Stop scanning the cupboards in my bedroom for monsters.

But if I am walking down the street past a bunch of drunk roided up neck tattooed duschebags. I might want to be in yellow or orange and then use my training to avoid them.

I am with Jojo on this we are not discussing a secret skill here.


Now we could be. I have done bodyguard courses and cash in transit courses where I did learn actual protective and awareness skills. I have done sales courses where I have learned to manipulate people. But I am not paying money for color codes.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Someone who trains specifically for SD will (or should) practice preventing people closing the distance in order to set up a sucker punch.  A boxer does not.  A boxer probably hasn't even yet realised he's being interviews as a potential victim and that he is already in a SD situation.
> 
> I don't see how then someone who allows someone to get close enough to execute sucker punch, is better prepared to deal with violence than someone who is able to prevent a criminal for getting close enough to sucker punch them.



Because a boxing gym has what. less street experience within its ranks than a self defence gym?
Sucker punching is a risk in MMA. People do it off the touch gloves.

Now boxing allready has the mechanics in place to deal with sucker punching. This is because the mechanics of punching dont really change. The same opportunities that need to be present in a ring also need to be present on the street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And a SD instructor will have training and experience in setting up and countering these ambushes?


Some will. Some won’t.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Which I am not sure what purpose they serve. I mean if you wanted to have an example of its raining wear a hat, Coopers color codes would be the one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, nothing secret. The code, IMO, just gives a shorthand for discussing the strategies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Because a boxing gym has what. less street experience within its ranks than a self defence gym?
> Sucker punching is a risk in MMA. People do it off the touch gloves.
> 
> Now boxing allready has the mechanics in place to deal with sucker punching. This is because the mechanics of punching dont really change. The same opportunities that need to be present in a ring also need to be present on the street.


I think Paul is defining a sucker punch as one that comes without warning of danger, so differentiated from a surprise punch, I guess. The punch at the glove touch would be a surprise punch. One at the weigh-in, while acting casual, would be a sucker punch. In either case, I stand by my assertion that a well-trained boxer is probably better prepared than someone who trains too soft, but has specific awareness training.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think Paul is defining a sucker punch as one that comes without warning of danger, so differentiated from a surprise punch, I guess. The punch at the glove touch would be a surprise punch. One at the weigh-in, while acting casual, would be a sucker punch. In either case, I stand by my assertion that a well-trained boxer is probably better prepared than someone who trains too soft, but has specific awareness training.



I will have to do a whole thing about not getting sucker punched at some point.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> No, nothing secret. The code, IMO, just gives a shorthand for discussing the strategies.



OK. How would you actually use the color codes.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think Paul is defining a sucker punch as one that comes without warning of danger


Yes.

Drop Bear posted a great video a while back in another thread of people being sucker punched.  One in particular stood out, a guy asking for a cigarette off someone, chats to him than sucker punches him.  Victim was spark out before he knew he was in danger.  The attacker was clearly an experience criminal who uses deception to mask his real intent, then once the victim is unconscious or dazed can releive him of his belongings.  Ofcourse, Drop Bear being Drop Bear he claimed it was an unskilled punch because he was a criminal not a trained fighter.

I can see that you also now appear to be discussing consensual fighting in the ring, (weigh ins and glove taps) with someone I have on ignore, I don't suppose there are any prizes for me guessing who it is?  

Anyway, now he's succesfully ruined another SD thread, I'll get my coat and leave you to talk consensual fighting with him.  Good luck, you'll need it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I will have to do a whole thing about not getting sucker punched at some point.


Please do. Start a thread - it’s worth a separate discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2017)

drop bear said:


> OK. How would you actually use the color codes.


As I said, it’s just a shorthand. If we both know the codes, I can say, “If you are in condition yellow and see...”, and we both know I mean you are alert for signals, but haven’t already detected anything that makes you think there is one. 

For me, I also overlay them with discussion of the effects of the neurochemicals and psychological processes that can be involved.


----------



## jobo (Oct 22, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> LOL, yes I can see where you're heading with this and I'm not going to have an arguement with you, but yes.  I know.
> 
> 
> I think it is.  There is no reason a stranger needs to stand close enough to sucker punch you if they are just want to talk.  I'd rather be safe than sorry.  Like I said, every time you drive your car it doesn't mean you'll crash, but you stil wear your seatbelt, just in case.  I'm not suggesting every situation will end in violence, or is started for that purpose, sometimes people are genuinely just lost and want directions.  But if they are genuine, I am of the opinion that you don't need to be that close to talk to me.
> ...


this whole train of thought only applies of the boxer is not street aware, as above you don't need to train sd to be aware that someone might try and rob you, if our boxer is switched on so that he can't be sucker punched from say someone,asking directions, then he is in a much better place than someone who has only trained soft techniques, the punch comes, he,side steps and pow, no more mugger


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, it’s just a shorthand. If we both know the codes, I can say, “If you are in condition yellow and see...”, and we both know I mean you are alert for signals, but haven’t already detected anything that makes you think there is one.
> 
> For me, I also overlay them with discussion of the effects of the neurochemicals and psychological processes that can be involved.



Really?

I just hate that stuff. Scared is scared. Knowing which chemicals are at work might be fun but doesn't really help. 

We do a fair bit of mental prep but it leans more to the practical rather than acedemic.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> this whole train of thought only applies of the boxer is not street aware, as above you don't need to train sd to be aware that someone might try and rob you, if our boxer is switched on so that he can't be sucker punched from say someone,asking directions, then he is in a much better place than someone who has only trained soft techniques, the punch comes, he,side steps and pow, no more mugger



Not even. You do spend a lot of your time in boxing for the ring managing distance. The threats of those distances dont really change. The tools to counter those threats only kinda change.






And most self defence people teach this wrong. Because if you think that because you have your geoff Thomson fence up you are safe. You are sadly mistaken.


Anyway managing distance. For the ring. I mean the street, i mean self defence. Or mabye it is just a meta concept.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Yes.
> 
> Drop Bear posted a great video a while back in another thread of people being sucker punched.  One in particular stood out, a guy asking for a cigarette off someone, chats to him than sucker punches him.  Victim was spark out before he knew he was in danger.  The attacker was clearly an experience criminal who uses deception to mask his real intent, then once the victim is unconscious or dazed can releive him of his belongings.  Ofcourse, Drop Bear being Drop Bear he claimed it was an unskilled punch because he was a criminal not a trained fighter.
> 
> ...



The difference is I am not talking self defence methods from what I read about in a book. These are self defence methods and concepts I have pulled of and worked through. 

I have been here a few times and tried a few different tricks to manage this dynamic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 22, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Really?
> 
> I just hate that stuff. Scared is scared. Knowing which chemicals are at work might be fun but doesn't really help.
> 
> We do a fair bit of mental prep but it leans more to the practical rather than acedemic.


For a lot of people, learning about what's happening inside helps them get a handle on why things don't work the way they wish. It works when I'm teaching managers how to deal with angry people, too. People tend to think reasoning will help calm someone (or that they can reason through fear).


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> For a lot of people, learning about what's happening inside helps them get a handle on why things don't work the way they wish. It works when I'm teaching managers how to deal with angry people, too. People tend to think reasoning will help calm someone (or that they can reason through fear).



It is more of a negotiation than  an argument.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Which I am not sure what purpose they serve.


Then you didn't even bother skimming wikipedia, never-mind reading it.

I'll start you off.  Among the many possibilities, Cooper's Color Codes help facilitate discussion about the concepts.


----------



## jobo (Oct 23, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Then you didn't even bother skimming wikipedia, never-mind reading it.
> 
> I'll start you off.  Among the many possibilities, Cooper's Color Codes help facilitate discussion about the concepts.


coopers colour codes facilitate discussions about cooper colour codes, that much is self evidently true


----------



## lklawson (Oct 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> coopers colour codes facilitate discussions about cooper colour codes, that much is self evidently true


In exactly the same way that differentiating between a jab and a hook, facilitates the discussion about punches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2017)

An undertone that seems to be coming through some posts here is that people don't really need things like Cooper's color codes, because they already get the concepts. My experience is that many of them do not. Some have never thought about these thing, and need someplace to start. Others have considered it, and think MA training will give them preternatural awareness at all times. And some get it already, and these shorthands still give a way for them to discuss strategies and concepts more easily.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2017)

lklawson said:


> In exactly the same way that differentiating between a jab and a hook, facilitates the discussion about punches.



Like the force equation teaches correct punching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Like the force equation teaches correct punching.


It doesn't teach it, but it can help explain to those who aren't really thinking about it right.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It doesn't teach it, but it can help explain to those who aren't really thinking about it right.



Well maybe they are in condition white and need to learn how to achieve condition red. That way they are in the correct mind set to punch with decent technique.

{Nah. I still think this method is balls)

Even the fairly tragic threat assessment tools that you use in the work place are infinitely better.

And they are not exactly designed for geniuses.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Well maybe they are in condition white and need to learn how to achieve condition red. That way they are in the correct mind set to punch with decent technique.
> 
> {Nah. I still think this method is balls)
> 
> ...


I just use what works for the folks I train. Your mileage may vary - and I'm certainly not the right instructor for every student.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I just use what works for the folks I train. Your mileage may vary - and I'm certainly not the right instructor for every student.



You probably won't know if color codes work though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You probably won't know if color codes work though.


It works in helping them understand and discuss the concept - that's all it's for. The codes don't actually change their ability, because they're not something you use actively. You're not going to go around saying in your head:

"On the street. Quiet area. Yellow"
"Subway. Some sketchy folks wandering around. Orange!"
"Back home, all clear. White."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It works in helping them understand and discuss the concept - that's all it's for. The codes don't actually change their ability, because they're not something you use actively. You're not going to go around saying in your head:
> 
> "On the street. Quiet area. Yellow"
> "Subway. Some sketchy folks wandering around. Orange!"
> "Back home, all clear. White."



Is there a tool set attached to these codes? Or is it just some vague alertness level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Is there a tool set attached to these codes? Or is it just some vague alertness level.


I'm not aware of anything specific to those tools. I use the codes to talk about the transitions from one set of tools to the next, as I would teach them. So, when I'm discussing general awareness tools and tactics, that all falls under Yellow. Talking about that little voice that says something is wrong, knowing you're in a bad area, threat identification and that kind of stuff, all falls under Orange. The actual fighting stuff all falls into the transition from Orange to Red, directly from Yellow to Red, or into Red. And we sometimes talk about recovering as best you can if things go from White to Red.

So, I'm teaching the same tools I've learned and worked with - just using the color codes to facilitate discussion.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not aware of anything specific to those tools. I use the codes to talk about the transitions from one set of tools to the next, as I would teach them. So, when I'm discussing general awareness tools and tactics, that all falls under Yellow. Talking about that little voice that says something is wrong, knowing you're in a bad area, threat identification and that kind of stuff, all falls under Orange. The actual fighting stuff all falls into the transition from Orange to Red, directly from Yellow to Red, or into Red. And we sometimes talk about recovering as best you can if things go from White to Red.
> 
> So, I'm teaching the same tools I've learned and worked with - just using the color codes to facilitate discussion.



Yeah. See if it was a workplace hazard training. The level of threat would come with a set of procedures to address that. You see it with fire danger for example. (Which also has color codes)

Otherwise you are confirming the obvious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. See if it was a workplace hazard training. The level of threat would come with a set of procedures to address that. You see it with fire danger for example. (Which also has color codes)
> 
> Otherwise you are confirming the obvious.


Again, obvious to you. The questions I sometimes get tell me even those basics are not obvious to all. Nor are the tools - some of which are essentially procedures, and some are more on the order of strategy and tactics.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I've made the assumption it's still possible. And soft training won't stop it. Whether you end it with simply maintaining distance really depends on the motive. If it's anger, just being switched on doesn't cut it as often as when someone is victim-shopping.
> 
> My point was and is that too-soft training leaves people less able to handle violence when it comes. No amount of awareness or de-escalation changes that position (it just changes how likely the violence is to come).


I don't even know if I'd go that far. The assessment of these 'SD expert' types that insist that acting tough or assertive makes you less likely to get jumped certainly doesn't match my experience.

More likely they are waiting for someone that is alone, smaller than them and when nobody is around to see. If there are multiple the first two apply less.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Like the force equation teaches correct punching.


I see (another) your problem.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 24, 2017)

TigerHeart said:


> So, I have been confronted so many times by random people as a street photographer.  I don’t think any of them has martial art skill.  I’m not interesting in winning a fight or putting severe damaged on the attacker. What is the reality of martial art?  Since my skill is not good enough for self defense, what is the point for me taking a martial art class?


" I’m not interesting in winning a fight" Are you interested in learning how to lose a fight?
"Since my skill is not good enough for self defense, what is the point for me taking a martial art class?" Maybe so your skill level increases to the point you can use it for self defense?


----------



## Langenschwert (Oct 26, 2017)

Back to the OP: 

If it makes you feel any better, one is only able to do about 30% of what you've trained under stress. That perfect kick or punch isn't likely to happen. If you land a punch, it could be glancing, etc. Also, one punch, one kill is nonsense. If it weren't, people would die in BKB matches all the time, but they don't.  

Generally speaking, good boxers and wrestlers aren't going out and starting street fights... they're too busy training, and they don't want to risk injury for something stupid. 

If you get into a situation where you have to fight, you've already made a lot of mistakes. 

Enjoy your art, and be rest assured that without a lot of intense, resistant training, you're unlike to seriously harm anyone with it, even if you wanted to. A seasoned thug is much more dangerous than the average martial artist. 

And yes, learn to wrestle: collegiate wrestling, judo, bjj, catch wrestling, chin na, anything like that. Otherwise you're a sitting duck if someone decides to take you down and beat you senseless. You don't have to be a submission artist; you need to be able to stay standing, and defend yourself if you end up on the ground if Plan A fails. Personally, I have found Judo to fit my needs well in that regard, and some people find it blends well with karate.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2017)

Langenschwert said:


> Also, one punch, one kill is nonsense.



90 killed in single-punch assaults since 2000

How lives are devastated by a single blow

One Killer Punch - All 4

Woman jailed for 'punch killing'

Man accused of throwing punch that killed woman at Daytona Beach bar, reports say

Man killed by one punch for talking to group of women, court hears

Man killed in one-punch attack after 'challenging youths throwing fireworks'

Man dies after allegedly being punched in a Burnaby Starbucks over a cigarette butt

One-punch killer sent to prison

Shocking moment 16-year-old boy kills a homeless man with a single punch to show off to his mates


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> 90 killed in single-punch assaults since 2000
> 
> How lives are devastated by a single blow
> 
> ...


and what,% is 90 of all the punches throw since  2000,? 

you don't know !. Data is meaningless with out context,


----------



## DaveB (Oct 28, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I wouldn't worry about it. If you haven't practiced those blows in a sparring or fighting situation your chances of hurting anyone with them are pretty remote anyway.
> 
> PS how'd you get inside the bag?


It's rare I read a comment so utterly stupid and myopic, but this one takes the biscuit.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> and what,% is 90 of all the punches throw since  2000,?
> 
> you don't know !. Data is meaningless with out context,


You should probably re read the post.  The percentage is not relevant.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2017)

frank raud said:


> " I’m not interesting in winning a fight" Are you interested in learning how to lose a fight?


SD isn't about "winning" or defeating your opponent.


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You should probably re read the post.  The percentage is not relevant.


of course it is, your just saying that as you have no idea what it might be,

is it for instance. A greater or less or risk than being hit by an asteroid


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> of course it is, your just saying that as you have no idea what it might be,
> 
> is it for instance. A greater or less or risk than being hit by an asteroid


No it isn't.  Read the post.  The percentage is not relevant to the discussion.


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No it isn't.  Read the post.  The percentage is not relevant to the discussion.


its relevant to THIS discussion!


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> its reliant to THIS discussion!


No it isn't because I am not discussing the percentages.  You are trying to turn it into a discussion of percentages, but because percentages have no relevance to what I am discussing, then they are not relevant.

If you want to have a discussing on percentages that's fine.  Go ahead.  Although it will be a short one, as I don't know how anyone would find out such information.  But as they are irrelevant to what I am discussing, you'll have to have that discussion with someone else.


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No it isn't because I am not discussing the percentages.  You are trying to turn it into a discussion of percentages, but because percentages have no relevance to what I am discussing, then they are not relevant.
> 
> If you want to have a discussing on percentages that's fine.  Go ahead.  Although it will be a short one, as I don't know how anyone would find out such information.  But as they are irrelevant to what I am discussing, you'll have to have that discussion with someone else.


i hate to burst your bubble but you ARE discussing %  with me.

your showing that one punch kills are possible, but if its only one per twenty million punches thrown, then that pretty close to impossible, if it one in 50 million then that's so close to impossible that your data is meaningless


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> i hate to burst your bubble but you ARE discussing %  with me.
> 
> your showing that one punch kills are possible, but if its only one per twenty million punches thrown, then that pretty close to impossible, if it one in 50 million then that's so close to impossible that your data is meaningless


It reminds me of when my daughter’s pediatrician was talking about vaccinating her against chicken pox.
Me: Why vaccinate?  It’s a normal childhood thing.
Him: Tell that to the 126* kids who died last year from chicken pox’s parents.
Me:  How many didn’t die from it?  How many of the 126 kids had extenuating circumstances that my daughter doesn’t have?

We both looked at each other with identical ‘you’re an idiot’ looks.  He was probably thinking why take a chance, especially when there’s no known realistic risk to the vaccine.  I was thinking my kid has a far better chance of drowning in the tub, but that’s not going to stop me from giving her a bath.

My wife muttered “just give it to her” as we were still staring each other down. 

*I don’t remember the exact number, but it was pretty close to that.  I’d imagine millions of kids around the world had chicken pox that year and survived.  If he told me there was a lethal or crippling strain in our area, my daughter was predisposed to something abnormal, etc., that would be a different story.

Now back to your rant.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> you ARE discussing %  with me.


No I'm not.  You are discussing them, I am not.


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No I'm not.  You are discussing them, I am not.


but you discussing not discussing them, which IS discussing them


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 28, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> It reminds me of when my daughter’s pediatrician was talking about vaccinating her against chicken pox.
> Me: Why vaccinate?  It’s a normal childhood thing.
> Him: Tell that to the 126* kids who died last year from chicken pox’s parents.
> Me:  How many didn’t die from it?  How many of the 126 kids had extenuating circumstances that my daughter doesn’t have?
> ...



Because you don't want your kid to have shingles, either.
Get your kid vaccinated. End of story.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 28, 2017)

DaveB said:


> It's rare I read a comment so utterly stupid and myopic, but this one takes the biscuit.


If you think that,having never used or practiced a kick other than on a bag, it would be a dangerous thing to wield, you not only have by far outdone me in the 'utterly stupid' department, you have also betrayed a lack of practical experience


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> and what,% is 90 of all the punches throw since  2000,?
> 
> you don't know !. Data is meaningless with out context,


And how many of those were actually caused by an impact after the punch, which is a different thing than the legendary one-punch kill.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> i hate to burst your bubble but you ARE discussing %  with me.
> 
> your showing that one punch kills are possible, but if its only one per twenty million punches thrown, then that pretty close to impossible, if it one in 50 million then that's so close to impossible that your data is meaningless


What is that thing that is not impossible?


----------



## jobo (Oct 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> What is that thing that is not impossible?


highly unlikely?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> highly unlikely?



Close.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 28, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Because you don't want your kid to have shingles, either.
> Get your kid vaccinated. End of story.


Entirely off topic, but I thought shingles was more common with people who have not had chicken pox, so getting vaccinated actually would make it more likely later in life to get shingles. Is that incorrect?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 28, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Entirely off topic, but I thought shingles was more common with people who have not had chicken pox, so getting vaccinated actually would make it more likely later in life to get shingles. Is that incorrect?



Completely incorrect. It's the same virus as chicken pox. It never goes away, it just hibernates in your central nervous system. In short, if you never had chicken pox, you CANNOT have shingles. Which means you cannot have the chronic nerve pain, blindness, skin infections or brain damage caused by shingles.

You can, however, get chicken pox (if you're not vaccinated) from someone who has a shingles outbreak.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 28, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Completely incorrect. It's the same virus as chicken pox. It never goes away, it just hibernates in your central nervous system. In short, if you never had chicken pox, you CANNOT have shingles. Which means you cannot have the chronic nerve pain, blindness, skin infections or brain damage caused by shingles.
> 
> You can, however, get chicken pox (if you're not vaccinated) from someone who has a shingles outbreak.


Cool, that means I don't have to worry about shingles. Thanks.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 29, 2017)

Martial D said:


> If you think that,having never used or practiced a kick other than on a bag, it would be a dangerous thing to wield, you not only have by far outdone me in the 'utterly stupid' department, you have also betrayed a lack of practical experience



Except 1. that you assumed facts not in evidence. The OP never said anything about having never sparred or anything else that falls within your narrow focus.
2. In the 1970s in the UK martial arts became the focus of much vilification when a chef killed a man with techniques he'd seen in a *book *on karate.... 
3. As to personal experience, I've seen a number of people severely injured by punches and kicks. Not one of the assailants had training.

You see if not for your blinkers, you might see that the human body is generally pretty fragile and that serious harm is not solely within the reach of the martial artist.

Yes for the millionth time people who spar are more likely to be able to fight effectively, we heard you the first 999999 times. 

But to suggest a person will be unable to cause injury without that specific kind of training alone ignores a huge swathe of evidence, ie the entire world outside of the ma bubble.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 29, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> It reminds me of when my daughter’s pediatrician was talking about vaccinating her against chicken pox.
> Me: Why vaccinate?  It’s a normal childhood thing.
> Him: Tell that to the 126* kids who died last year from chicken pox’s parents.
> Me:  How many didn’t die from it?  How many of the 126 kids had extenuating circumstances that my daughter doesn’t have?
> ...



People who think like you have caused diseases classed as extinct to start to reoccur. 

The more viable carriers of a disease the more chance of mutation into one of those virulent strains, maybe even one the community is not immune to. 

And if the doctor didn't mention extenuating circumstances in those 126 dead children why would you invent that as a factor??? Do those things only happen to other people???


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 29, 2017)

DaveB said:


> People who think like you have caused diseases classed as extinct to start to reoccur.
> 
> The more viable carriers of a disease the more chance of mutation into one of those virulent strains, maybe even one the community is not immune to.
> 
> And if the doctor didn't mention extenuating circumstances in those 126 dead children why would you invent that as a factor??? Do those things only happen to other people???


How stupid can you be?  No one’s discussing a genuinely deadly nor harmful disease here.  126 kids dying out of say 10 million hardly constitutes what you’re saying.  I had no problem with the other vaccinations; I question the chicken pox vaccine.

If you don’t think it’s logical to ask if there were extenuating circumstances to those 126 out of millions, you don’t think very critically.  How many of those 126 had other diseases or conditions that made chicken pox deadly?  It’s obviously not very deadly when compared to the overall number of cases.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 29, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Because you don't want your kid to have shingles, either.
> Get your kid vaccinated. End of story.


Both were vaccinated, 7 and 4 years ago, respectively, at the recommended time.

As for the vaccine, I know several people who were vaccinated against it when they were kids and developed chicken pox as late teens/early 20s.  One also developed shingles several years after chicken pox.

There was also a time I was working at a college where there was an outbreak of students on campus with chicken pox.  They were all quarantined to their dorm rooms and only allowed to go to the health center for check ups.  All were vaccinated as infants.  I was dumbfounded that a bunch of 18-22 year olds never had chicken pox.  It was the first time I heard kids were vaccinated against it.  There were about 40 cases at the time.  The school had about 6,000 students living on campus. 

An anomaly, but certainly not an impossibility.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 29, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> How stupid can you be?  No one’s discussing a genuinely deadly nor harmful disease here.  126 kids dying out of say 10 million hardly constitutes what you’re saying.  I had no problem with the other vaccinations; I question the chicken pox vaccine.
> 
> If you don’t think it’s logical to ask if there were extenuating circumstances to those 126 out of millions, you don’t think very critically.  How many of those 126 had other diseases or conditions that made chicken pox deadly?  It’s obviously not very deadly when compared to the overall number of cases.


It's more that your child may not have anything to aggravate an infection now, but she might when she gets infected.

And your opinion of the harm that can be done would be of little solace to those 126 sets of parents.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Except 1. that you assumed facts not in evidence. The OP never said anything about having never sparred or anything else that falls within your narrow focus.
> 2. In the 1970s in the UK martial arts became the focus of much vilification when a chef killed a man with techniques he'd seen in a *book *on karate....
> 3. As to personal experience, I've seen a number of people severely injured by punches and kicks. Not one of the assailants had training.
> 
> ...



I think the issue is that if the training is not applicable to fighting then the training won't really have that much impact on the outcome.

So bag only guy is on about even footing with no training guy.


----------



## jobo (Oct 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I think the issue is that if the training is not applicable to fighting then the training won't really have that much impact on the outcome.
> 
> So bag only guy is on about even footing with no training guy.


no that doesn't make sense   someone who has practised the power and accuracy of punches and kicks on a bag, should be much more able at punches and kicks than someone who never practises them


----------



## Martial D (Oct 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> no that doesn't make sense   someone who has practised the power and accuracy of punches and kicks on a bag, should be much more able at punches and kicks than someone who never practises them


It's a different world when the bag hits back and moves around. Luckily for this guy and all his potential 'injury victims', they do not.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2017)

jobo said:


> no that doesn't make sense   someone who has practised the power and accuracy of punches and kicks on a bag, should be much more able at punches and kicks than someone who never practises them



Yeah basically what martial d said. If you go to water mid flurry. Throw that time spent on bag work out the window.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah basically what martial d said. If you go to water mid flurry. Throw that time spent on bag work out the window.


I’d still argue bag work > no bag work.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 30, 2017)

Whilst you can practice, preemptive, non telegraphed strikes (with brain engagement to increase the chances of success) with a partner (aka sucker punches) you can't practice them with anything like the force you would use if you were defending yourself in a live situation.  That can only be done on a bag, focus mit, dummy, etc.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 30, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Whilst you can practice, preemptive, non telegraphed strikes (with brain engagement to increase the chances of success) with a partner (aka sucker punches) you can't practice them with anything like the force you would use if you were defending yourself in a live situation.  That can only be done on a bag, focus mit, dummy, etc.



Knockout power that can't hit the target is pretty ineffective.

Remember untrained people have knock out power. So you are not Getting an advantage really.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Knockout power that can't hit the target is pretty ineffective.


That's why it's best not to use preemptive, non telegraphed strikes, proceed by brain engagement on Derren Brown, or Neo from The Matrix.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Knockout power that can't hit the target is pretty ineffective.
> 
> Remember untrained people have knock out power. So you are not Getting an advantage really.


Are you saying hitting a bag has no impact on power, aim, or distance judgement? Heck, once they start swinging a bit, there’s even some minor tuning involved. Certainly better than nothing, or boxers wouldn’t use them so ubiquitously. Just because it’s not paired with a live partner, you don’t lose all of the benefit. Remember, untrained people manage to hit the target.


----------



## jobo (Oct 30, 2017)

Martial D said:


> It's a different world when the bag hits back and moves around. Luckily for this guy and all his potential 'injury victims', they do not.


well yes it is, but that's a,slightly different point, hitting bags doesn't simulate combat, but it is a necessity for practising your kicking and punching, unless you can get someone to let you kick them repeatedly whilst you work on power and co ordination


----------



## jobo (Oct 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Knockout power that can't hit the target is pretty ineffective.
> 
> Remember untrained people have knock out power. So you are not Getting an advantage really.


well some do, others punch like a wet dish cloth, few untrained people can punch properly, even less can kick correctly, it takes practise and that takes a punch bag or similar


----------



## lklawson (Oct 30, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Completely incorrect. It's the same virus as chicken pox. It never goes away, it just hibernates in your central nervous system. In short, if you never had chicken pox, you CANNOT have shingles. Which means you cannot have the chronic nerve pain, blindness, skin infections or brain damage caused by shingles.
> 
> You can, however, get chicken pox (if you're not vaccinated) from someone who has a shingles outbreak.


I had Chicken Pox as a child.  The odds that I'll develop Shingles is pretty low but non-zero.  I'll probably agree to Shingles vaccines when I hit the recommended age but I'm not really worried a whole lot about it.

That said, while Chicken Pox as a child was at the time seen as sort of a non-issue and a standard childhood ailment that you *wanted* your children to get (so they wouldn't get adult chicken pox), having it sucked *SOOOO BAD* that if there had been a vaccine available I would have insisted on it.

All these decades later and I still remember the utterly maddening itching that was wasn't allowed to scratch (but did anyway).  The stinking sticky pink calamine lotion that I gratefully slathered on for even the tiny amount of relief it barely offered.

Gads!  Just remembering it makes me want to go punch someone!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 30, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> That's why it's best not to use preemptive, non telegraphed strikes, proceed by brain engagement on Derren Brown, or Neo from The Matrix.



Preemptive strikes are the bomb digidy but the thing you don't learn about them on the bag is he also gets a go at them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 31, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I had Chicken Pox as a child.  The odds that I'll develop Shingles is pretty low but non-zero.  I'll probably agree to Shingles vaccines when I hit the recommended age but I'm not really worried a whole lot about it.



I've had three shingles outbreaks, which is not uncommon when you're undergoing chemo (or anything else that compromises your immune system). I'm not yet 60, but you can bet I'm getting the vaccine this year.



> That said, while Chicken Pox as a child was at the time seen as sort of a non-issue and a standard childhood ailment that you *wanted* your children to get (so they wouldn't get adult chicken pox), having it sucked *SOOOO BAD* that if there had been a vaccine available I would have insisted on it.



Before vaccines, this was the best option. Childhood pox is absolutely better than having it as an adult. 



> All these decades later and I still remember the utterly maddening itching that was wasn't allowed to scratch (but did anyway).  The stinking sticky pink calamine lotion that I gratefully slathered on for even the tiny amount of relief it barely offered.



Oatmeal baths seem to be better than calamine. Probably would have helped more if you'd known that as a child.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 31, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Entirely off topic, but I thought shingles was more common with people who have not had chicken pox, so getting vaccinated actually would make it more likely later in life to get shingles. Is that incorrect?



Maybe your are thinking of the thought that if you had chicken pox, you were less likely to get measles.  I don't think that is entirely true either, but it used to be an accepted belief.



Dirty Dog said:


> Completely incorrect. It's the same virus as chicken pox. It never goes away, it just hibernates in your central nervous system. In short, if you never had chicken pox, you CANNOT have shingles. Which means you cannot have the chronic nerve pain, blindness, skin infections or brain damage caused by shingles.
> 
> You can, however, get chicken pox (if you're not vaccinated) from someone who has a shingles outbreak.



So is the shingles vaccination the same as the chicken pox vaccination?  I had chicken pox as a kid, as did a lot of kids, but thankfully have not had shingles.  Yet.  I hope I never do.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 31, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've had three shingles outbreaks, which is not uncommon when you're undergoing chemo (or anything else that compromises your immune system). I'm not yet 60, but you can bet I'm getting the vaccine this year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have my sympathies!  Three outbreaks, wow.

Oatmeal baths I have heard of.  I don't remember how my mother treated me other than keeping a very close watch on me so she could keep me from scratching.  Wow I hated that!  I wanted to scratch so bad!  But oatmeal wasn't a treatment back then.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Are you saying hitting a bag has no impact on power, aim, or distance judgement? Heck, once they start swinging a bit, there’s even some minor tuning involved. Certainly better than nothing, or boxers wouldn’t use them so ubiquitously. Just because it’s not paired with a live partner, you don’t lose all of the benefit. Remember, untrained people manage to hit the target.



Fine so you can probably hit the target with knockout power. Untrained people can hit the target with knockout power.

What real advantage do you have?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Fine so you can probably hit the target with knockout power. Untrained people can hit the target with knockout power.
> 
> What real advantage do you have?


For this hypothetical person, they should have better power than if they hadn't trained. And probably some better targeting than if they hadn't trained. Training rarely gives us something entirely new - it just teaches us how to do it better. Many of us grew up wrestling with siblings and friends, but that's not a valid reason not to train grappling.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> For this hypothetical person, they should have better power than if they hadn't trained. And probably some better targeting than if they hadn't trained.


Oh my god what fresh hell is this, someone needs that explaining to them?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Oh my god what fresh hell is this, someone needs that explaining to them?



Because people think that is the case. Where they dont get anywhere near the advantage they think they are getting.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> For this hypothetical person, they should have better power than if they hadn't trained. And probably some better targeting than if they hadn't trained. Training rarely gives us something entirely new - it just teaches us how to do it better. Many of us grew up wrestling with siblings and friends, but that's not a valid reason not to train grappling.



Unless they get hit and cannot compose themselves in time to be able to use that training. Then it is not really a fight based on martial arts ability.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 1, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Maybe your are thinking of the thought that if you had chicken pox, you were less likely to get measles.  I don't think that is entirely true either, but it used to be an accepted belief.



Different pathogen entirely. I don't think there is any actual science behind this, though you're right that it was a widespread belief (as was "cats will suck the life out of a baby" and "you can't get pregnant if you're nursing" etc...).



> So is the shingles vaccination the same as the chicken pox vaccination?  I had chicken pox as a kid, as did a lot of kids, but thankfully have not had shingles.  Yet.  I hope I never do.



They have some similarity, but they're not the same. 
I hope you never do either.



oftheherd1 said:


> You have my sympathies!  Three outbreaks, wow.



Sadly, that's not uncommon for immune compromised people. Chemo is gonna get you no matter what...



> Oatmeal baths I have heard of.  I don't remember how my mother treated me other than keeping a very close watch on me so she could keep me from scratching.  Wow I hated that!  I wanted to scratch so bad!  But oatmeal wasn't a treatment back then.



Socks on the hands to prevent scratching was also popular. Big thick ones.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Unless they get hit and cannot compose themselves in time to be able to use that training. Then it is not really a fight based on martial arts ability.


That doesn't mean they didn't get any benefit from it. You could say exactly the same thing about someone who actually sparred, but never got hit hard until that moment (sparring too soft or they are simply better than their partners). They are still better prepared than if they didn't do the bag work. You're arguing an absolute position, DB.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 1, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Different pathogen entirely. I don't think there is any actual science behind this, though you're right that it was a widespread belief (as was "*cats will suck the life out of a baby*" and "you can't get pregnant if you're nursing" etc...).



I used to think that was totally superstition as well.  Then I noticed some photos with a cat sitting on a baby's chest, or curled up there.  It occurred to me that a cat might be lured there by the smell of milk on the baby's face/lips.  If large enough or the baby not yet sufficiently strong, I thought it possible the cat might have enough weight to inhibit the baby's breathing to the point of suffocation.  It probably wouldn't happen often, but it wouldn't have to for a superstition to take hold in less enlightened times.

The only one I could find with a quick search:  I have seen photos where the cat was perched entirely on a baby's chest, and leaned forward.







What would you think, other than cats for some reason sitting on a baby's chest after sensing a SIDS condition?



Dirty Dog said:


> They have some similarity, but they're not the same.
> I hope you never do either.
> 
> 
> ...



I have heard Chemo can be a bear.  My prostate cancer was caught soon enough to use radiation only, and that was debilitating enough.  Either way you are killing good cells with the bad, and your body must deal with that.

On yeah, you are right.  I had forgotten about thick socks.  But my dim recollection as probably a 3 or 4 year old, was that nothing available then would have prevented me from pitting my face like the moon, except my mother's stern watchfulness.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't mean they didn't get any benefit from it. You could say exactly the same thing about someone who actually sparred, but never got hit hard until that moment (sparring too soft or they are simply better than their partners). They are still better prepared than if they didn't do the bag work. You're arguing an absolute position, DB.



There are elements that have a large increase in a gross capacity to fight. And there are elements that have a finer increase. 

Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.

This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.

please tell me what advantage these guys training gave them.





Ok a bit of cardio mabye.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.


What is the evidence that this is absolute? That's where your argument is weak. I'd agree if you said without the gross development, you are less likely to get benefit from the finer development. And the video just muddies the issue.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There are elements that have a large increase in a gross capacity to fight. And there are elements that have a finer increase.
> 
> Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.
> 
> ...


I would say they were evenly matched, but not everybody was Bruce Lee.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> I would say they were evenly matched, but not everybody was Bruce Lee.



It is not about being Bruce Lee. It is about developing a tool set with no delivery system.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> What is the evidence that this is absolute? That's where your argument is weak. I'd agree if you said without the gross development, you are less likely to get benefit from the finer development. And the video just muddies the issue.



Sorry. In my experience. It is a trend I have noticed and a concern for a lot of fighters starting out.

And what you generally get is what happens on that Chinese masters video. Which is flailing.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There are elements that have a large increase in a gross capacity to fight. And there are elements that have a finer increase.
> 
> Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.
> 
> ...



All this still ignores the fact that the OP never said anything about having never sparred, making Martial D's comment just another attempt at derailing a discussion with his and your one single unchanging monotonous repetitive issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Sorry. In my experience. It is a trend I have noticed and a concern for a lot of fighters starting out.
> 
> And what you generally get is what happens on that Chinese masters video. Which is flailing.


I find that surprising, if they've spent time on a bag. They might not have great control, but I'd expect them to be able to throw a decent punch with decent power. My biggest issue with what was in the video was they seemed unable to deliver power. They made hits, but the hits weren't anything the other guy couldn't walk through.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2017)

DaveB said:


> All this still ignores the fact that the OP never said anything about having never sparred, making Martial D's comment just another attempt at derailing a discussion with his and your one single unchanging monotonous repetitive issue.



No it doesn't. The point I am trying to make doesn't hinge on OP having sparred or not. Just there are transitional elemnts that are important making a person able to use their martial arts for fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No it doesn't. The point I am trying to make doesn't hinge on OP having sparred or not. Just there are transitional elemnts that are important making a person able to use their martial arts for fighting.


And that statement I agree with.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.



Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
~ Mike Tyson 

The ability to take a solid hit and keep going is at least as important as being able to dish one out.  To be honest, I’d say it’s more important, as seldomly will a person be defending themselves against a weaker person, and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.

If you can’t take a hit, it doesn’t much matter what you know and/or do; it’s lights out.  Tap-tap sparring doesn’t teach that.  You don’t need to get hit day in and day out, but you need to get hit consistently and get hit hard every now and then.  Light, and certainly non-contact will only teach you so much; hard contact will teach you what you really need to know about yourself.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 2, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.


If you can't escape, and you can't deescalate, you strike  preemptively.  Yes things don't always go according to plan, but to say it is seldom you won't get hit by an attacker, no I wouldn't say that's right at all.  I would say the opposite, if you are doing SD properly, then to get hit first there are quite a few things have to go wrong in order for that to happen.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you can't escape, and you can't deescalate, you strike  preemptively.  Yes things don't always go according to plan, but to say it is seldom you won't get hit by an attacker, no I wouldn't say that's right at all.  I would say the opposite, if you are doing SD properly, then to get hit first there are quite a few things have to go wrong in order for that to happen.



Not really. You are confusing the reality of self defence with what you get told about self defence.

Ultimately there is a bad guy who wants to do bad, and is employing tactics in which to do so.

And there is you employing tactics to prevent that. So you can still do everything right and still get caught.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.



Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
~ Mike Tyson

The ability to take a solid hit and keep going is at least as important as being able to dish one out.  To be honest, I’d say it’s more important, as seldomly will a person be defending themselves against a weaker person, and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.

If you can’t take a hit, it doesn’t much matter what you know and/or do; it’s lights out.  Tap-tap sparring doesn’t teach that.  You don’t need to get hit day in and day out, but you need to get hit consistently and get hit hard every now and then.  Light, and certainly non-contact will only teach you so much; hard contact will teach you what you really need to know about you


Paul_D said:


> If you can't escape, and you can't deescalate, you strike  preemptively.  Yes things don't always go according to plan, but to say it is seldom you won't get hit by an attacker, no I wouldn't say that's right at all.  I would say the opposite, if you are doing SD properly, then to get hit first there are quite a few things have to go wrong in order for that to happen.


How come everyone gets the same tirade on SD?  Why do you assume I didn’t consider the things you said?

Taking all of those things into account, and pre-emptively striking your attacker, and the chances he/she’ll hit back are still very high.  I’m no Mas Oyama who allegedly (strong emphasis on allegedly) killed several bulls with one punch nor can I make power lines sway by punching telephone poles like he allegedly (again the emphasis) did.  Very, very few people are.  And often enough, hitting and running as fast as you can isn’t an option nor a realistic scenario.  Turning your back on an attacker in an SD situation could have quite dire consequences in many scenarios.  

I can hit pretty damn hard.  Just ask people I train with and people I’ve hit.  But far more often than not, people have hit me back - sparring bare knuckle, street/bar fighting, and actual SD (although I’m sure you know my personal SD situations better than I do and will say they weren’t true SD).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 2, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
> ~ Mike Tyson


This is not always true. Even if a boxer almost punches a wrestler to death, that wrestler will still look down on the boxer's leg and tries to take that boxer down. That wrestle has no other plan. Will that wrestler start to swing punches toward the boxer? That won't be smart.

IMO, "plan" is what you can do the best. In CMA, it's called "door guarding skills".


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 3, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> How come everyone gets the same tirade on SD?


That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you.  You said that most people will get hit by their attacker.  Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.

Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake.  They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it.  They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.  



JR 137 said:


> Why do you assume I didn’t consider the things you said?


Because you said in most cases you will get hit first.



JR 137 said:


> Taking all of those things into account, and preemptively striking your attacker, and the chances he/she’ll hit back are still very high.
> I’m no Mas Oyama who allegedly (strong emphasis on allegedly) killed several bulls with one punch nor can I make power lines sway by punching telephone poles like he allegedly (again the emphasis) did.


This is part of your problem.  You are thinking in terms of exchange blows with people, as you do in a fight/sparring/sporting contest.  You don't hit someone preemptively in SD and then stop so he can have a turn hitting you and keep taking it in turns until there is a winner.

Striking preemptively means you hit them, and do not stop hitting them until they are no longer a threat, then you escape.  That may in some cases be one blow yes, but in other cases it may take more.  Either way* he does not get a go.  * I get a go, then another go and another go until I don't need anymore goes.  That is why you are incorrect.  If done correctly, in more case than not you will not get hit by your attacker is you are doing SD correctly.  It's not 100% of the time, but I never said it was. 

I have no idea where you are getting this idea that you only hit once, but clearly the fact you have this idea (and the idea that you will get hit more times than not) shows you don't understand how SD is supposed to work when done correctly.  You are thinking in terms of fighting (exchanging blows).  You are giving not only bad advice but also dangerous advice by telling them they will get hit more often than not, and are only allowed to preemptively strike once, and then have to let the other guy hit them back.



JR 137 said:


> And often enough, hitting and running as fast as you can isn’t an option nor a realistic scenario.


That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios. 



JR 137 said:


> Turning your back on an attacker in an SD situation could have quite dire consequences in many scenarios.


That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.



JR 137 said:


> I can hit pretty damn hard.  Just ask people I train with and people I’ve hit.  But far more often than not, people have hit me back - sparring bare knuckle, street/bar fighting,


Because you are hitting fighters.  Again, you are thinking in terms of SD as one martial artists trying to out fight another martial artist.  Muggers, sexual predators, killers etc are not looking to fight you.  A mugger will ask you the time, then if you are daft enough to take your phone out of your pocket to see the time, they'll sucker punch your and steal your phone.  Did Ted Bundy challenge his victims to three five minutes rounds, or did he put his arm in a sling and ask his victims to help him load shopping into a car? 

They do not want to fight you, they want the easiest way to take what they want.  Hence, they don't get into fights, because a) they are very good at victim selection, and b) they will use the four D's (Deception, Dialogue, Distraction, Destruction) to take you out of the game before you even knew you were in it.  They won't give you "a go" at hitting back, because that lessens their chances of success.

You are hitting trained MAs who are used to being hit, and hit hard every week, because they are the people you train with.  Dojos up and down the country are not full of muggers and sexual predators stepping into the ring to learn how to take a hard shot.



JR 137 said:


> (although I’m sure you know my personal SD situations better than I do and will say they weren’t true SD).


No I don't.  But I can only go on the information in your post, which was suggesting that more often than not you will get hit, and and talking in terms of single preemptive strike. 

That was also an explanation btw, not a tirade.  The tirade would usually come after you continue to argue  with this post, but there is clearly little hope if you are going to argue with "if you are doing SD correctly you don't get hit more often than not".   

Over and out x x


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you.  You said that most people will get hit by their attacker.  Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.
> 
> Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake.  They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it.  They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.
> 
> ...



You are relying on a compilation of truth, half truth and fantasy. 

Which is my basic issue with self defence instruction. And how guys can get so messed up by it.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 3, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you.  You said that most people will get hit by their attacker.  Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.
> 
> Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake.  They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it.  They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.
> 
> ...


Please show where I said someone will more often than not get hit FIRST...


JR 137 said:


> Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
> ~ Mike Tyson
> 
> The ability to take a solid hit and keep going is at least as important as being able to dish one out.  To be honest, I’d say it’s more important, as seldomly will a person be defending themselves against a weaker person, and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.
> ...



As I’ve said, I’ve hit plenty plenty of people inside and OUTSIDE the dojo.  You seem to be so focused on my dojo experience and lesser so, although still focused on my bar fighting.  You somehow missed the part of me hitting people outside of those scenarios.  I’ve had to do that more than I ever wanted to.

Outside of dojo and consensual fighting, I’ve preemptively hit several people and have been hit first several times.  I can tell you that one punch (including throwing several in a combo) doesn’t always cut it.  My first strike(s) and my attacker’s.

Why did I call it yet another tirade?  Because you seem to throw out your SD definition EVERY SINGLE TIME.  And it goes on for pages EVERY SINGLE TIME.  And it’s started by and continued by you JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE TIME.  It gets quite old.

While your definition of SD is close to mine and most other regulars here, you’re off just a bit.  No one can talk about any physical part of defending oneself without you trying to school everyone in your definition of SD.

Again, you have no idea of what I was referring to, even though I said in non-consensual fighting.  And it’s not just this thread.  And it’s not just me.  If you’re the resident expert on what is and is not true SD, please elaborate on your experience and credentials.  If you have none other than “I’ve gotten myself out of a lot of situations” you should stop preaching.  And as I’ve asked in other threads, in those times you allegedly avoided having to defend yourself, how do you truly know you would’ve had to?  Did you have someone around the corner with a polygraph machine administer a survey?  All you’ve told us is you’ve avoided physical attacks.  We all have.

Maybe I’m not using an appropriate definition of tirade, but when someone keeps going on about the same thing ad neuseam every chance one gets, and continually derails every thread with it for pages on end, I’d call that a tirade.  

As for my all caps lines, I’m on an iPhone and can’t italicize easily.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 3, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you.  You said that most people will get hit by their attacker.  Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.
> 
> Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake.  They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it.  They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.
> 
> ...


And I forgot to mention in my tirade...

If you think just because an attacker doesn’t want to fight means they won’t hit back, you’re dillusional.  Most criminals that are going to do this type of thing have been around the block.  They’re not afraid of getting hit.  They can take a hit and give one back.  The ones you’ve come across that don’t fit that mold are amateurs and won’t bother anyone again after they get smacked the first time.  If you think they’re going to go into the fetal position and cry once they get hit, there’s genuinely nothing I can say.  I can only shake my head and walk away.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> And I forgot to mention in my tirade...
> 
> If you think just because an attacker doesn’t want to fight means they won’t hit back, you’re dillusional.  Most criminals that are going to do this type of thing have been around the block.  They’re not afraid of getting hit.  They can take a hit and give one back.  The ones you’ve come across that don’t fit that mold are amateurs and won’t bother anyone again after they get smacked the first time.  If you think they’re going to go into the fetal position and cry once they get hit, there’s genuinely nothing I can say.  I can only shake my head and walk away.



You have no idea how disappointed I was when I found out I couldn't just drop dudes at will during a street fight.

That the culmination of my slick moves was I may have backed them off or bloodied them up a bit.

I think the issue is that even guys who can fight will talk up the tales of themselves fighting.

That both guys can walk away claiming victory. Or even that deescalation skills are determined by the size of the guy that I was potentially fighting.

All you need then is a couple of repetitions and no one to varify and you get this mess of actual tested stuff, untested stuff and pure whimsy.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You have no idea how disappointed I was when I found out I couldn't just drop dudes at will during a street fight.
> 
> That the culmination of my slick moves was I may have backed them off or bloodied them up a bit.
> 
> ...


Add to that...
People walk through a dangerous neighborhood.  A few shady looking people looked at them, and maybe one or two asked them if they know what time it is or for some change.  They don’t respond and keep going, making it through the tough neighborhood without getting mugged, jumped, etc.  Then they tell anyone who’ll listen that they successfully employed their soft SD skills.  Sure.  They know for a fact that every one of those people looking at them or asking them a question was trying to attack them.  It’s too easy to say “prove they weren’t trying to attack me.”

Some people are a bit too paranoid.

I was never let down by the fact that I can’t drop anyone and everyone at will.  I learned that before kindergarten and got reminded too many times throughout my youth.


----------



## jobo (Nov 4, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Add to that...
> People walk through a dangerous neighborhood.  A few shady looking people looked at them, and maybe one or two asked them if they know what time it is or for some change.  They don’t respond and keep going, making it through the tough neighborhood without getting mugged, jumped, etc.  Then they tell anyone who’ll listen that they successfully employed their soft SD skills.  Sure.  They know for a fact that every one of those people looking at them or asking them a question was trying to attack them.  It’s too easy to say “prove they weren’t trying to attack me.”
> 
> Some people are a bit too paranoid.
> ...


yes, only yesterday i was in a very tough area, i live there, and two big dudes approached my asking for a light, they stood well within punching range, one directly in front one to the side, i gave them my lighter, they lit their cigs and gave me my lighter back and then walked off, this proves I'm a self defence expert , who put off their attack with my skills, or perhaps that they just wanted a light, hard to say


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2017)

Some videos of thefts.






You still may have to fight them.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes, only yesterday i was in a very tough area, i live there, and two big dudes approached my asking for a light, they stood well within punching range, one directly in front one to the side, i gave them my lighter, they lit their cigs and gave me my lighter back and then walked off, this proves I'm a self defence expert , who put off their attack with my skills, or perhaps that they just wanted a light, hard to say


Your skills failed, as you allowed them into punching range.  You should’ve “put up a fence” as they say.  But you redeemed yourself by giving up your lighter and doing all that stuff that subconsciously made them think you’re not a good target.  I’d put you at 2nd dan, not but not in 5th-10th dan “expert” status in SD.  If you follow the resident SD expert’s logic, you failed at SD because 1) you shouldn’t have been there; and 2) you allowed them the opportunity to ask you for a light.

I’m pretty sure they just needed a light.  If they wanted more, they’d have probably went ahead.  Unless of course they saw something you didn’t, like a cop (Bobbie in your English?) in their periphery.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 7, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Your skills failed, as you allowed them into punching range.  You should’ve “put up a fence” as they say.  But you redeemed yourself by giving up your lighter and doing all that stuff that subconsciously made them think you’re not a good target.  I’d put you at 2nd dan, not but not in 5th-10th dan “expert” status in SD.  If you follow the resident SD expert’s logic, you failed at SD because 1) you shouldn’t have been there; and 2) you allowed them the opportunity to ask you for a light.
> 
> I’m pretty sure they just needed a light.  If they wanted more, they’d have probably went ahead.  Unless of course they saw something you didn’t, like a cop (Bobbie in your English?) in their periphery.


Earlier today, I had a situation where I was in a bit of a bad area. I had about 30 addicts/ex-convicts/felons walk right by me, some of them so close they literally brushed against me. I then went into a room with 15 of them and closed the door for an hour! After that hour, they all got up, and I turned to face some of them, exposing my entire back to others.

This isn't the first time it's happened either. I did the same thing yesterday, and all of last week. A couple times a day, I go in a room with just one of them alone, I don't do a 'visual pat down' or anything, who knows what they could bring with them.

Pretty sure I would get a big fat F in SD. But, I'm also pretty sure if I followed SD procedure,

A) I would not have a job because I would not show up to such a dangerous place.
B) If I did show up, I would probably be fired for staying in a corner in the room and never addressing my clients unless I could do so in a way that let me look at all my clients at once.
C) If I showed up, and somehow B didn't get me fired, I would definitely be fired for refusing to meet with any of my clients individually.

The point I'm trying to make is that all the different SD tactics aren't always realistic, and just because you choose not to do one doesn't mean you "failed" at SD. Sometimes you have to forgo some SD tactics in order to function, and not be viewed as the crazy person who acts like he's going to get shot any second.


----------



## Buka (Nov 8, 2017)

In my very biased opinion, Self Defense training without contact fight training is like dry land synchronised swimming.

Might be fun, though.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 8, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Earlier today, I had a situation where I was in a bit of a bad area. I had about 30 addicts/ex-convicts/felons walk right by me, some of them so close they literally brushed against me. I then went into a room with 15 of them and closed the door for an hour! After that hour, they all got up, and I turned to face some of them, exposing my entire back to others.
> 
> This isn't the first time it's happened either. I did the same thing yesterday, and all of last week. A couple times a day, I go in a room with just one of them alone, I don't do a 'visual pat down' or anything, who knows what they could bring with them.
> 
> ...


Just as an aside, you detected a hint of sarcasm in my post that you quoted, right?


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 8, 2017)

Buka said:


> In my very biased opinion, Self Defense training without contact fight training is like dry land synchronised swimming.
> 
> Might be fun, though.


Or like, how do I put this... practicing intercourse without a partner.

Entertaining and fun most of the time, but not really preparing oneself for the real thing.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Your skills failed, as you allowed them into punching range.  You should’ve “put up a fence” as they say.  But you redeemed yourself by giving up your lighter and doing all that stuff that subconsciously made them think you’re not a good target.  I’d put you at 2nd dan, not but not in 5th-10th dan “expert” status in SD.  If you follow the resident SD expert’s logic, you failed at SD because 1) you shouldn’t have been there; and 2) you allowed them the opportunity to ask you for a light.
> 
> I’m pretty sure they just needed a light.  If they wanted more, they’d have probably went ahead.  Unless of course they saw something you didn’t, like a cop (Bobbie in your English?) in their periphery.



He should never have left the house


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 8, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Just as an aside, you detected a hint of sarcasm in my post that you quoted, right?


Yup haha, that was a serious response in agreement with your sarcasm.


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 10, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Your skills failed, as you allowed them into punching range.  You should’ve “put up a fence” as they say.  But you redeemed yourself by giving up your lighter and doing all that stuff that subconsciously made them think you’re not a good target.  I’d put you at 2nd dan, not but not in 5th-10th dan “expert” status in SD.  If you follow the resident SD expert’s logic, you failed at SD because 1) you shouldn’t have been there; and 2) you allowed them the opportunity to ask you for a light.



There's missing the point and then there's Full Retard.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 10, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> There's missing the point and then there's Full Retard.


Wow.  I don’t know which one’s worse...
1) A grown man using that as an attempted insult
2) You’d think that would bother me
3) It took almost a full week to come up with it
4) You couldn’t come up with something more effective 

Funny how you read and quoted that post, yet fully ignored answering what makes you the expert on SD.  Or are you on an “because I said I am” kick at the same maturity level as your previous post?

I’m still waiting for the same thing you do every few months... stomping your feet and claiming this place isn’t like it used to be because no one’s on your intellectual and maturity level (although see point # 1 above), and leaving for a few weeks, only to come back to the same mess and cry and leave yet again.

It won’t be long.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> He should never have left the house


And if he had to leave his house, he should’ve been rolling at least 10 deep*

*Having at least 10 people with him, for my non-street-speaking friends.


----------



## Ondrejmatej (Feb 16, 2018)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.




All martial arts are not design to kill a person, some martial arts are designed to hone the mind and body. Some are used as exercise or for spiritual harmony and some are designed to kill. Most use of martial arts as a form of self-defense rather than killing.


----------



## GreatUniter (Feb 16, 2018)

TigerHeart said:


> Sometimes, I have mixed feelings when I practice karate.  I was encouraged to punch hard and kick hard in a punching bag.  I feel like I could break someone’s rib cage, break a arm or leg.  If I get into a real street fight, I don’t think I want to kill or disable anyone.





Ondrejmatej said:


> All martial arts are not design to kill a person, some martial arts are designed to hone the mind and body. Some are used as exercise or for spiritual harmony and some are designed to kill. Most use of martial arts as a form of self-defense rather than killing.



All martial arts (speaking for traditional) were designed for killing people and originated from wars. Today, we don't practice like masters of old times and there are lots of philosophies about harmony, spirituality etc. With social development, we no longer have the need to use martial arts for killing and train only for defending ourselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2018)

GreatUniter said:


> All martial arts (speaking for traditional) were designed for killing people and originated from wars. Today, we don't practice like masters of old times and there are lots of philosophies about harmony, spirituality etc. With social development, we no longer have the need to use martial arts for killing and train only for defending ourselves.


Many techniques originated from wars, but many arts originated for civilian defense. Most contain things that can kill, but survival was their point. Empty-hand technique on a battlefield was almost certainly meant as a matter of surviving until you can get a weapon. Weapons were for killing.


----------



## GreatUniter (Feb 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Many techniques originated from wars, but many arts originated for civilian defense. Most contain things that can kill, but survival was their point. Empty-hand technique on a battlefield was almost certainly meant as a matter of surviving until you can get a weapon. Weapons were for killing.



That's not what I found about martial arts history. Maybe it's time for an update on that subject.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2018)

GreatUniter said:


> That's not what I found about martial arts history. Maybe it's time for an update on that subject.


Just to point at a few:

Karate - evolved (as far as I can find) as a civilian defensive method, originally on Okinawa
Aikido - developed from Daito-ryu by Ueshiba specifically for defensive (and perhaps law enforcement) use
Nihon Goshin Aikido - specifically assembled from previous arts (Daito-ryu, Shotokan Karate, Judo, and others) for self-defense use
Judo - developed from Jujutsu (and other sources) as a defensive/sport art (I think Kano had both in mind, originally)
Brazilian Jiu Jutsu - developed from Judo (at the time, still often referred to as Jiu Jutsu) as a sport/defensive art
The further back we go, the more likely an art evolved for warfare, so the koryu arts in Japan are more likely to be tied to warfare than newer arts.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 16, 2018)

GreatUniter said:


> All martial arts (speaking for traditional) were designed for killing people and originated from wars.


No, that's not true at all.  JitteJutsu has long been regarded as being intended "to enable non-lethal disarmament and apprehension of criminals who were usually carrying a sword."  And the European Smallsword or "Court Sword" is a Civilian Self Defense weapon, typically considered poorly suited to "war," often used for civilian dueling, and often believed to have been developed independent from "war" weapons as a result of prohibitions.



> Today, we don't practice like masters of old times and there are lots of philosophies about harmony, spirituality etc.


Some people do, some don't, and the "masters of old" were want to write and teach a lot about philosophy and harmony.



> With social development, we no longer have the need to use martial arts for killing and train only for defending ourselves.


This is wrong.  There are still plenty of people training for straight up killing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## GreatUniter (Feb 16, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No, that's not true at all.  JitteJutsu has long been regarded as being intended "to enable non-lethal disarmament and apprehension of criminals who were usually carrying a sword."  And the European Smallsword or "Court Sword" is a Civilian Self Defense weapon, typically considered poorly suited to "war," often used for civilian dueling, and often believed to have been developed independent from "war" weapons as a result of prohibitions.
> 
> Some people do, some don't, and the "masters of old" were want to write and teach a lot about philosophy and harmony.
> 
> ...



1. What is the origin of JitteJutsu? We talk about first origins of traditional martial arts. From what I learned, core element of TMA are indeed for killing people. We talk about martial arts that have long history (1000 or more years). Take this for example: there were wars on the east and when the innocent villagers were attacked from soldiers (in their free time) or bandit raids, it means that villagers that started to train themselves only train to defend themselves (we know that most martial arts are born within the villagers to survive)? If they won against the soldiers and they survived, it mean that they eventually couldn't come back to attack again? Or bandit raids, if bandit raid is stopped and all bandits survived, so they run and won't attack ever again? Usually there were big problems especially with bandits, where people in order to survive killed bandits (I won't go so far for "poor soldiers") to set examples and to be sure that bandits won't come back and harass again. Also, "men" at that time, all problems between themselves, they solved with duels (usually death duels). Street fights often ended up with killing the opponent. Even there are a lot of martial arts and systems (some of them modern) designed for killing (for example: silat, muay boran, kapu kuialua, kalaripayattu - I strongly recommend that you should read some history (if you didn't) about these arts). I'm so disappointed that there are not  so many information about martial arts on the internet and books in pdf that we can read online. Usually we start from what our teachers say or what some famous guys said (but believe me, there are plenty of great masters that are not so well known, even so there are plenty of great masters that are famous).

2. Give me example of one that nowadays train like old masters? Who right now have so much time as to train 12 hours a day like masters of old (I don't say that there doesn't exist someone that train long - personally, I know a guy that trained for 5-6 hours a day in his younger days)? Yeah, masters of old, liked to preach about philosophy, spirituality etc, but when? In their older years. Read some history on prominent martial artists of east culture and you will see when they "become so wise" as to preach all the harmony and all stuff - with all experience that they gathered in their younger days (there are still exceptions, like in everything). Read about their younger days and see what was the usual ending of martial art combat on the streets.

3. Yes, I absolutely agree on your point that there are people that train for killing.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, all this stuff are from what I have learned. Feel free to send me something that will prove me otherwise. Don't know if it's right or wrong, but here is something from the internet that I lastly read about this subject.
6 Great Martial Arts for Killing a Man With Your Bare Hands


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2018)

GreatUniter said:


> Don't know if it's right or wrong, but here is something from the internet that I lastly read about this subject.
> 6 Great Martial Arts for Killing a Man With Your Bare Hands


Most things like that you find are very over-hyped. Most arts can equip someone to kill. With the possible exception of systems taught directly to military (not the civilian off-shoots), none I'm aware of focus on killing except weapon arts. And the few empty-hand instructors I've seen that talked a lot about killing with bare hands were full of nonsense.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 16, 2018)

GreatUniter said:


> 1. What is the origin of JitteJutsu?


The commonly cited origin is the need for a weapon that wasn't a weapon.  The Jitte was never intended for use in "war."



> We talk about first origins of traditional martial arts.


"We" do?  Which "traditional martial arts?"  Heck which "martial arts?"



> From what I learned, core element of TMA are indeed for killing people


And some folks in this thread are helping you update your learning.



> We talk about martial arts that have long history (1000 or more years).


That's rather arbitrary.  Why not 2,000 years or more?  Why not 500 or more?  It seems like you have a whole lot of preconcieved notions about what "martial arts" are and are unfortunately caught up in the very natural human trap of confirmation bias.



> Take this for example: there were wars on the east


There weren't any wars anywhere else?



> and when the innocent villagers were attacked from soldiers (in their free time) or bandit raids, it means that villagers that started to train themselves only train to defend themselves (we know that most martial arts are born within the villagers to survive)? If they won against the soldiers and they survived, it mean that they eventually couldn't come back to attack again?


Your whole "example" is predicated that "martial arts" *MUST* have a military origin.  They just don't.



> Or bandit raids, if bandit raid is stopped and all bandits survived, so they run and won't attack ever again?


Maybe the Bandits have better "martial arts."



> Also, "men" at that time, all problems between themselves, they solved with duels


They did?  I don't think that the historic texts actually support this.  Most of the ancient civilizations seem to have had a legal system which supported judicial methods of conflict resolution.  Babylonian, Hebrew, and Hammurabic codes are quite clear.  No doubt that duels happened, but you certainly can't say that the only, or preferred, method was dueling.  Heck, according the Hebrew texts, Moses had to flee from his home as the result of settling a problem he had with another man in a fight, which resulted in the others death.  Again, it seems that you are looking for what you want to see instead of what is actually there.




> (usually death duels).


Define "duel," the context, and then offer support of how often a duel was engaged in and how often it resulted in death.  I know that this is very interesting to historians.  I recall sitting for one Doctoral who read excerpts of his dissertation on dueling.  There was so much variation over the centuries that he had to restrict it to a specific area for a small slice of time.  I helped republish the book "The History of Deulling."  https://www.amazon.com/History-Duelling-Countries-Jared-Kirby/dp/0557343526  See that name "Kirk Lawson" there under "transcribed?"  That's me.




> Street fights often ended up with killing the opponent.


What is a "street fight," what historic and geographical context, and please reference what you used for your source for number of "street fights" vs. number of fatalities from "street fights."  Carolyn Conley's "The Agreeable Recreation of Fighting" sifted a lot of source, including court records which showed that deaths were less common than what some people might have thought but that when deaths occurred it was often not considered as big a deal as some today would assume.




> Even there are a lot of martial arts and systems (some of them modern) designed for killing (for example: silat, muay boran, kapu kuialua, kalaripayattu - I strongly recommend that you should read some history (if you didn't) about these arts).


<cough> <cough>  I've trained with some folks from a few of these and have friends in more.  I was once asked to give a brief presentation of European Military Saber to some of his Silat students.



> I'm so disappointed that there are not  so many information about martial arts on the internet and books in pdf that we can read online.


Ummm.... what?  The internet is positively awash in free texts on martial arts and martial arts histories.  If you haven't found them, you're just not looking.




> 2. Give me example of one that nowadays train like old masters? Who right now have so much time as to train 12 hours a day like masters of old (I don't say that there doesn't exist someone that train long - personally, I know a guy that trained for 5-6 hours a day in his younger days)? Yeah, masters of old, liked to preach about philosophy, spirituality etc, but when? In their older years. Read some history on prominent martial artists of east culture and you will see when they "become so wise" as to preach all the harmony and all stuff - with all experience that they gathered in their younger days (there are still exceptions, like in everything). Read about their younger days and see what was the usual ending of martial art combat on the streets.


Friend, I have read "about" many of these folks.  I've actually read what they wrote in some instances.  They didn't typically have 12-hour training days.  It happened some, but it wasn't a life-long effort.  The body just can't handle it, particularly as it ages.  That or what you're defining as "training" is a bit different from what most of us think.




> 3. Yes, I absolutely agree on your point that there are people that train for killing.
> 
> P.S. Don't get me wrong, all this stuff are from what I have learned. Feel free to send me something that will prove me otherwise. Don't know if it's right or wrong, but here is something from the internet that I lastly read about this subject.
> 6 Great Martial Arts for Killing a Man With Your Bare Hands


You know, don't you, that Cracked is a humor site known for it's listicals, not an actual scholarly site?  You read Cracked to laugh (back when they were funny) not to get advice on Martial Arts.

Would I be wrong in guessing that you haven't been pursuing Martial Arts for very long?  You seem to be promoting positions that I've come to associate with people who are still fairly new to martial arts training.  I'm not trying to insult you or promote myself, it's just an observation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 16, 2018)

GreatUniter said:


> All martial arts (speaking for traditional) were designed for killing people and originated from wars.



The overwhelming majority of currently practiced martial arts have civilian origins. Even most of those which do have legitimate links to military usage were mostly supplemental and not primary battlefield arts. 



GreatUniter said:


> We talk about martial arts that have long history (1000 or more years).



Contrary to marketing spin, there are no existing arts which are 1000 years old. The oldest continuous lineage that we know of in the martial arts is probably Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū, which is only 571 years old.



GreatUniter said:


> Give me example of one that nowadays train like old masters? Who right now have so much time as to train 12 hours a day like masters of old



Given the need to earn a living, there weren't that many masters of old who had the leisure to train 12 hours per day. Even professional soldiers and noblemen usually had other demands on their time. Doubtless there were some, but the percentage of the population who have that much leisure time to devote to martial arts training is probably higher today than at any other point in human history.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 16, 2018)

i do not understand why these myths are still being perpetuated.  
DONT PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE???


----------



## lklawson (Feb 16, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i do not understand why these myths are still being perpetuated.
> DONT PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE???


The myths are more cool than the reality.  I kinda wish that the myths were real.  The reality is often times boring or just flat out disappointing.  I recall doing some research on a well known martial arts master of the early Renaissance.  Turns out that his magnum opus book on wrestling was mostly just an advertisement and resume trying to get work as the official martial arts instructor for an aristocrat's children.  Even when he got the job, he didn't have time to train 12-hours a day.  He was too busy training teens and pre-teens of his employer. 

The reality of a master who's spent his entire life perfecting his physical art having to almost beg an aristocrat to train said aristocrat's snot nosed kids so that he wouldn't starve while wearing rags on the roadside is a whole lot more suck than imagining a wizened master being brought bribes by the entire contry-side for the the privilege of watching him train (and try to copy him) for 12 hours a day.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Feb 16, 2018)

I have it on good authority, that ancient Monks, did indeed, train twelve hours a day, every day.

But upon further investigation of cave drawings... okay, so it wasn't actually a cave drawing, it was a men's room wall, it turns out they trained an hour and a half, then went online, probably an abacus connected to some coconuts, and had some rocking forums.


----------



## GreatUniter (Feb 16, 2018)

lklawson said:


> The commonly cited origin is the need for a weapon that wasn't a weapon.  The Jitte was never intended for use in "war."
> 
> "We" do?  Which "traditional martial arts?"  Heck which "martial arts?"
> 
> ...



I must admit, you are making a good point. I have done some research, but it's not much I'm afraid. I will do some research and see to it. And for the last part, yes, I'm not very long in martial arts (to sum up, about 6-7 years), but not new to street fights though. That's why I'm here at the first place, my goal is to see if what I have learned is true (although I learned almost all on this subject from some books, documentaries and some posts, outside training). I don't have intention of promoting positions, martial art styles or myself, I apologize if it looked like that.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Feb 16, 2018)

Remeber we only used Karate when we need to specially when you need to defend your self in the street. Also you can walk away in the situation to avoid hurting the guy or you getting hurt. but heres a senario what if you walk away and he still go after you and try to harm you what you gon a do you have to fight back right you dont have to break his arms or leg or face just teach him a lesson and he will learn from it


----------



## Tomarn (Feb 20, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I wouldn't worry about it. If you haven't practiced those blows in a sparring or fighting situation your chances of hurting anyone with them are pretty remote anyway.
> 
> PS how'd you get inside the bag?


I was trained as a Commando in UK and later 3 years in Jui Jitsu and Kuatsu from1976_1978 and have yet to use it in defence in all the years since. What this training gives you is the sense of confidence. You don't go looking for fights to prove your self, yet you don't walk away in fear. There have been occassions when I was confronted and I held control. The other person usually mouthed off and walked away. Why? I don't know. Maybe because I didn't back off. Training gives one self the confidence to stand up. At 77 years old I still train in the gym and once a week boxing training to keep in shape.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 20, 2018)

Tomarn said:


> I was trained as a Commando in UK and later 3 years in Jui Jitsu and Kuatsu from1976_1978 and have yet to use it in defence in all the years since. What this training gives you is the sense of confidence. You don't go looking for fights to prove your self, yet you don't walk away in fear. There have been occassions when I was confronted and I held control. The other person usually mouthed off and walked away. Why? I don't know. Maybe because I didn't back off. Training gives one self the confidence to stand up.* At 77 years old I still train in the gym and once a week boxing training to keep in shape*.



Good on you!  Welcome to MT.


----------



## Buka (Feb 20, 2018)

Welcome to MartialTalk, Tomarn.


----------

