# Testing Certain Techniques



## MJS (Jan 19, 2007)

Groin kicks, kicks to the knee, a palm heel to the face, a shot to the eyes. These are all moves that are included in pretty much every Martial Art out there. Many times we hear that those techniques are not effective because we can't test them or they haven't been done in that magical spot..the ring. 

I often find it interesting when people say those things are not reliable, as I've taken a finger to the eye, accidentally, during training, and its made me stop, my eye tears up, and for that brief moment, I'm hoping that when I open my eye, I can see and that there is no damage.

We've seen a few MMA fights in which the fight is stopped, a point deducted, etc., because of a hit to the groin. Pancrase events use open handed strikes and they appear to be pretty effective. 

I thought that we could discuss the ways that you train these moves. Are these moves deemed not effective because we can't go all out?

I'm interested in hearing everyones thoughts. 

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 19, 2007)

This morning I rolled over in bed.  As luck would have it, the corner of my wife's pillow was in exactly the right spot to stick me square in the eye.  

The flinch reflex, I guess you would call it, caused me to stop before any real damage was done, but even so, I felt it and it made it clear how dangerous an eye shot is.  

No, you can't really test it at all.  You can only go thru the motions.  But I have full faith that it would work.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 19, 2007)

There are basic, damaging strikes that just don't need to be drilled much ... perhaps on a bag or focus pads, but ... groin strikes and stuff, that's pretty simple. Fingers to the eyes ... same ... elbow to the throat, chokes ....


----------



## kachi (Jan 19, 2007)

I've been wondering about this topic myself for far to long, so I too am hoping someone will be able shed some light. I've always wondered whether a kick to the knee will really do damage or if striking certains points on the body will result in a knock out. But the only way to test these types of techniques is in a fight and unless it's in your work it's not something you can regularly practice.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 19, 2007)

I have been nailed pretty hard in the groin in sparring (open target for us) and even with the groin protector it dropped me.  Sure, I'm not high on PCP or anything, but I've given and received that shot enough times to know that it is effective. (On Tuesday, something was catching because about 4 guys got DROPPED with groin strikes in sparring,)  On the other hand, my brother-in-law got hit hard enough that he can't have kids anymore, and he said it didn't hit him for a half an hour.  

I've taken a hard shot to the throat in sparring as well (sidekick slid up), that was a fight ender.  I absolutely would not have been able to continue no matter how real the situation was.  So for me, throat = good target.

I've watched my instructor fight with a concussion, another instructor finished his fight with two broken ribs, I have continued in a fight with an injury that later sent me to the hospital.  For me, I've seen enough of the damage that people can deal with to get an idea of what "really works."  

Lamont


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 19, 2007)

When I was in high school, I used to shoot the bow and arrow in the back yard.  I went down to the basement one day to get it out.  I carried it up the stairs, and my younger brother was walking up the stairs in front of me.  He didn't realize how I was holding the bow.  He suddenly turned around for some reason, and took the tip of the bow straight into his eye.  It was really freaky the way he started screaming.  I thought he might have had some real damage.  Granted, he was just a kid, not a big thug on drugs, but the affect was dramatic.

Another time, again while in high school, I was laying on the floor of the living room.  My older brother lobbed a tennis ball at me, just for kicks.  I didn't see it coming, and it hit me square in the groin.  I can't describe the sick, painful feeling that spread thru my guts and had me doubled over.  

I've also on occasion hyperextended my knee while practicing my kicks.  My knee swelled up for a couple of months, and it was painful to walk.  

I think that if we all think back on our lives, we have probably had some pretty convincing examples of how effective these targets can be if struck.  Granted, you still need to have a good delivery and the know-how to land a good strike, and that should be practiced.  Also, everyone's reaction will be different.  But I don't think there is any question how effective these targets can be.  We just can't deliberately practice them on each other.  Practice the delivery, and trust the effects will be there if you follow thru.


----------



## Rook (Jan 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> Groin kicks, kicks to the knee, a palm heel to the face, a shot to the eyes. These are all moves that are included in pretty much every Martial Art out there. Many times we hear that those techniques are not effective because we can't test them or they haven't been done in that magical spot..the ring.


 
The knee is tested the same way as everything else.... there is no rule against kicking in any manner to the knee in the sparring I do, in the sparring done by every MT, international style kickboxing, and MMA gym on earth.  We can test it.  Kicks to the knee area are part of my fighting strategy, and I am kicked in the knee and kick others in the knee weekly (as MT, international kickboxers and MMAists also do).  

Palm heels to the face are currently, to my knowledge, legal in ALL MMA competitions.  There is no rule prohibiting its use and Bas Rutten used it frequently in the UFC as well as in Pancrase.  (Mark Kerr also used the open hand even when not required on occasion.)  There is nothing that prevents its use in the place of a closed fist in any MMA gym in the world.  

As for the groin, attacks to the groin were legal in all of the early UFCs and are still completely legal without any penalty whatsoever in Finnfight, Combat SAMBO total, and many other tournaments.  You will not find it legal in the US anymore (although it was in the past).  There is nothing that prevents its use in these tournaments.  

The eye attacks are rare to find legal.  Even in Combat SAMBO total, you will recieve a fine.  Even in the early UFCs, you would have recieved a fine.  As a result, it is necessary to turn to no-rules tournaments (the AFCs and early Vale Tudos) as well as no-rules challenges matches (Gracies in Action, Chute-Boxe Challenge, Bullshido challenges, etc).  There, we can see what happens when skilled fighters defend against such techniques.  

Personally, I have trained pulled strikes to the groin (as in it does not actually make contact) in both sparring and drill format although I question its use.  I do not practice eye attacks in any form, although I have in the past (but never with actual contact).  I prefer the closed hand to the palm, so I rarely use the palm (I'm more worried about breaking fingers if my palm hits too low than breaking the much stronger handbones if my fist lands improperly).   



> I often find it interesting when people say those things are not reliable, as I've taken a finger to the eye, accidentally, during training, and its made me stop, my eye tears up, and for that brief moment, I'm hoping that when I open my eye, I can see and that there is no damage.


 
That has happened to me as well.  



> We've seen a few MMA fights in which the fight is stopped, a point deducted, etc., because of a hit to the groin.


 
One of the things I have noticed as that in tournaments in which groin strikes are allowed and fully legal, they are rarely fight enders (the exception being Keith Hackney vs. Joe Son).  Fighters chose not to try to push on despite a groin injury because it is to their advantage in terms of points to have the fight temporarily stopped and points awarded or deducted.  



> Pancrase events use open handed strikes and they appear to be pretty effective.


 
Agreed.  The differences between the open hand and the palm are frequently overstated.  Changing open hands to fists or fists to closed hands rarely makes a major difference.  Indeed, Bas Rutten and Mark Kerr used the two interchangably and where both were legal.  



> I thought that we could discuss the ways that you train these moves. Are these moves deemed not effective because we can't go all out?
> 
> I'm interested in hearing everyones thoughts.
> 
> Mike


 
I see no reason why we can't go all out with palm strikes and knee attacks.  The others can be trained to a limited extent in the air, but I think it would be a more productive use of time to concentrate on techniques that can be applied full force.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 19, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This morning I rolled over in bed. As luck would have it, the corner of my wife's pillow was in exactly the right spot to stick me square in the eye.
> 
> The flinch reflex, I guess you would call it, caused me to stop before any real damage was done, but even so, I felt it and it made it clear how dangerous an eye shot is.
> 
> No, you can't really test it at all. You can only go thru the motions. But I have full faith that it would work.


 
I've had a pillow kick my butt that way too. I'm glad you admitted it first, though.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 19, 2007)

Ever been poked in the eye, scratched your cornea, been kicked in the groin, taken a baseball in the throat, been kicked in the knee? It doesn't take martial arts experience to understand these strikes can work, if you've had the same type of injuries in other places in your life. 

As for training for them, some of them can be pretty hard. I've taken groin shots with a cup on and without. I have a definite preference but even with a cup on, it broke my concentration until I could make sure everybody was okay!

Having a bad knee, I'm not too hip on being kicked there. I'll let a student kick me in the groin, hit me in the head, throat etc., but what they're going to hit is my hand and not the actual body part. I think we can train targeting for these more "delicate" targets quite easily but the actual practice is pretty tough.


----------



## still learning (Jan 19, 2007)

Hello, In most fights...there are rules, WHY? because they are dangereous and can cause permanent damages or death.

Techniques like eye strikes,pokes are very effective (not neccessary easy tarkets). Most likely will end alot of fights. gouging  for sure will let the other person slow down.

Hitting/striking the thoat (cutting the air),will end someone life?  or gasping for air.  A hit here will keep them from talking back?  

Breaking elbows,fingers,knees, ankles,and collar bone will give you some advantage.  

Most of these technique needs to be set-up, or is present to you...for them to work.

You will also need to believe these are important tarkets to ending confrontations and fights. (Life and death situtions)

Most arts teach them because they do work, and are very effective...BUT humans can take alot of punishment and hitting with the right force and point is not always easy.

Hitting a homerun does not come everytime up to bat?  ...so is striking these areas....practice to be perfect...just maybe if you need to tarket these areas...It will work for you.....

The eyes open or close can be destroy.  No matter how big a person is..the eyes still can be attack and damage..even a little person can smash/dig into them!

Just my thoughts here.......Aloha

PS: most people have two eyes and one nose...watch where you put your fingers?


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2007)

kachi said:


> I've been wondering about this topic myself for far to long, so I too am hoping someone will be able shed some light. I've always wondered whether a kick to the knee will really do damage or if striking certains points on the body will result in a knock out. But the only way to test these types of techniques is in a fight and unless it's in your work it's not something you can regularly practice.


 
True, some things will need to be done with protective gear and with scenario drills.  IMO, I don't think that any strike should always be looked at as a fight finsiher.  Sure, when we strike or kick, we envision not just stopping at the target but instead, going thru the target.  Even if the strike does not KO them on the first hit, it does two things.  1) as Flying Crane said, it gives you that startle reflex.  If I throw a shot to the eye, and the person brings his hands up and moves his head back, he just opened himself up to other targets.  2) It buys me some time to, as I said in #1, take another target or to get the hell away from the person.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2007)

Rook said:


> The knee is tested the same way as everything else.... there is no rule against kicking in any manner to the knee in the sparring I do, in the sparring done by every MT, international style kickboxing, and MMA gym on earth. We can test it. Kicks to the knee area are part of my fighting strategy, and I am kicked in the knee and kick others in the knee weekly (as MT, international kickboxers and MMAists also do).
> 
> Palm heels to the face are currently, to my knowledge, legal in ALL MMA competitions. There is no rule prohibiting its use and Bas Rutten used it frequently in the UFC as well as in Pancrase. (Mark Kerr also used the open hand even when not required on occasion.) There is nothing that prevents its use in the place of a closed fist in any MMA gym in the world.
> 
> As for the groin, attacks to the groin were legal in all of the early UFCs and are still completely legal without any penalty whatsoever in Finnfight, Combat SAMBO total, and many other tournaments. You will not find it legal in the US anymore (although it was in the past). There is nothing that prevents its use in these tournaments.


 
Agreed.



> The eye attacks are rare to find legal. Even in Combat SAMBO total, you will recieve a fine. Even in the early UFCs, you would have recieved a fine. As a result, it is necessary to turn to no-rules tournaments (the AFCs and early Vale Tudos) as well as no-rules challenges matches (Gracies in Action, Chute-Boxe Challenge, Bullshido challenges, etc). There, we can see what happens when skilled fighters defend against such techniques.


 
Yes, I recall the fines in the early UFC.  Personally, I don't know who I'll end up facing.  While I do my best to train for that worst case scenario, I don't want to discard a potential technique because someone tried to use it in against Rickson and it didn't work.  But, to each his own. 



> Personally, I have trained pulled strikes to the groin (as in it does not actually make contact) in both sparring and drill format although I question its use. I do not practice eye attacks in any form, although I have in the past (but never with actual contact). I prefer the closed hand to the palm, so I rarely use the palm (I'm more worried about breaking fingers if my palm hits too low than breaking the much stronger handbones if my fist lands improperly).


 
I'm with you on the palm strikes.   I've done some work with the eye shots, with the other person wearing eye protection.  There are times when I've had more success with a finger whip, rather than an actual poke.  





> That has happened to me as well.


 
I recall one day it was pretty windy outside.  A piece of sand blew into my eye and I have to say, that was the most irritating thing that ever happened to my eye.  A little piece of sand did that, yet imagine if someone did land a good eye shot with the finger.  





> One of the things I have noticed as that in tournaments in which groin strikes are allowed and fully legal, they are rarely fight enders (the exception being Keith Hackney vs. Joe Son). Fighters chose not to try to push on despite a groin injury because it is to their advantage in terms of points to have the fight temporarily stopped and points awarded or deducted.


 
Yeah, I remember that.  He landed a bunch of shots.  Like I said in a post above, even if it doesn't get me the KO or totally stop the person, it may open them up to other things.





> Agreed. The differences between the open hand and the palm are frequently overstated. Changing open hands to fists or fists to closed hands rarely makes a major difference. Indeed, Bas Rutten and Mark Kerr used the two interchangably and where both were legal.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason why we can't go all out with palm strikes and knee attacks. The others can be trained to a limited extent in the air, but I think it would be a more productive use of time to concentrate on techniques that can be applied full force.


 
Agreed.

Thanks for commenting.:ultracool


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 20, 2007)

Just remember though if you are going for the eyes you need to lick your fingers first or else the eyeballs stick to them! 
Advice we give to students, sometimes it takes a little while for them to laugh!


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 20, 2007)

MJS said:


> Groin kicks, kicks to the knee, a palm heel to the face, a shot to the eyes. These are all moves that are included in pretty much every Martial Art out there. Many times we hear that those techniques are not effective because we can't test them or they haven't been done in that magical spot..the ring.
> 
> I often find it interesting when people say those things are not reliable, as I've taken a finger to the eye, accidentally, during training, and its made me stop, my eye tears up, and for that brief moment, I'm hoping that when I open my eye, I can see and that there is no damage.
> 
> ...


Correct, all hard to train safely. With a parner you can't really practice an eyejab with contact but if you curl your fingers back (4" or so), not making contact or accidently poking your partner,  your footwork will be in line to exactly where you need them to be with a real eyejab. Footwork is key. If you extend your finger and don't make contact, then your either not extending your arm enough for training purposes or your feet will be to far back which would leave you streching to make your poke work.

Working with your footwork in mind at all times will help solve a lot of problems as best as we can. Curling your fingers back also lines your bpdy structure for palm strikes. Its almost like practicing two strikes at once but again with my analagy, the palm strike needs a few inches adjustment (forward) in footwork. When inside those two strikes are powerful.

With the palm strike try having your partner where a helmet w/facemask. If the mask is caged, watched your fingers to not tangle and possibly break them. MMA gloves worl well. If the fingers are loose, sew the two small fingers together that will save your pinky from breaking.

If your footwork is "on" for the palm strike, it also is "on" for a lead grab to the throat, strike to the throat or similar. The footwork is key to blending all these strikes to becoming "one" being able to use any of them in any order. If you've ever heard me say I can use just about any of my technique at any time that because if we relate our techniques using footwork as the common denominator, everything is just a slight translation.


----------



## zDom (Jan 22, 2007)

*Regarding knee strikes:* I haven't really seen any knee kicks in televised MMA type matches that look particularly dangerous.

I haven't seen any serious attempts at the front of the knee at all. If there is enough bend in the knee, this probably won't be a fight-ender.

I believe, however, that an kick to the front of a knee that is straight or nearly straight could hyperextend or even dislocate it. No evidence to back this up  what do you all think?

As for strikes to the inside or outside of the knee, again: I haven't seen any kicks land that looked hard enough to cause an immediate injury (although they may not feel so good the next day).

I do remember in one of the recent UFCs a kick to the leg just under the hip that knocked the guy down and ended the fight. I'm thinking he was lucky THAT kick didn't catch him at the knee joint.

I also think there is a lot of variety in knee stability. Nearly all of us know someone who has sustained a knee injury that has never quite rehab'd to the point where they have the same athletic ability they had before the injury.

So in conclusion on this subject, it is my opinion that most folks do not kick hard enough and accurately enough to depend on this attack as a "fight ender." But then again, I think there are SOME folks who could inflict an injury that will bother the recipient for the rest of their life.

*Regarding palm strikes:* when I started martial arts and tested strikes on the heavy bag, my initial preference was for palm strikes: I could generate more power that my wrist could stand up under.

Eventually after some training, I found I preferred a punches  at least on the heavy bag  because I would sink my palm far enough into the bag that it was bending my hand back farther than was comfortable and my wrist had become strong enough to deliver the power without "folding."

*Regarding targets in general:* Why doesn't anybody ever talk about striking the solar plexus? I find striking this target is _extremely_ effective in hard/full contact sparring.

Those with not enough abdominal training are pretty much done for when you hit it. Those with enough ab training may be able to stay in the fight, but they generally start to open up their head for shots once you've rocked this target.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 22, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This morning I rolled over in bed.  As luck would have it, the corner of my wife's pillow was in exactly the right spot to stick me square in the eye.
> 
> The flinch reflex, I guess you would call it, caused me to stop before any real damage was done, but even so, I felt it and it made it clear how dangerous an eye shot is.
> 
> No, you can't really test it at all.  You can only go thru the motions.  But I have full faith that it would work.



Along the same lines, one can know something works because the biomechanics work.  It doesn't always need to be tested, to be true and effective.  Likewise, just because something is effective doesn't mean everyone can do it effectively.


----------



## Rook (Jan 22, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Along the same lines, one can know something works because the biomechanics work. It doesn't always need to be tested, to be true and effective. Likewise, just because something is effective doesn't mean everyone can do it effectively.


 
Well, I personally want to see a move used consistantly against competent opponents in match that I can see convincing proof of before I start to train it.  

Lots of stuff works against a compliant opponent that holds up poorly under pressure.  Knowing the anatomical weakpoints for a jointlock, and actually being able to intercept an attack and apply it are two very different things.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 22, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Along the same lines, one can know something works because the biomechanics work.  It doesn't always need to be tested, to be true and effective.  Likewise, just because something is effective doesn't mean everyone can do it effectively.




Just be careful about where you get your into on biomechanics from.  I imagine a good percentage of the people here have come across the "Nose bone through the brain" or the "Knees break under x pounds of pressure, so even a light kick will destroy it" not to mention all the "biomechanical" stuff involving meridians and nerve centers and chi.

Eye gouges, yes, we know they work, we've all been hit lightly, we've seen pro fighter go down for a minute after accidental ones.  Same for groin strikes.  

And, if you really feel the need, slow down a little, slap on some safety goggles and see how often and reliably you can hit the target.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 22, 2007)

Rook said:


> Knowing the anatomical weakpoints for a jointlock, and actually being able to intercept an attack and apply it are two very different things.



That is indeed true!  So what does this mean?

Does this mean that whatever it is ineffective, because I cannot do it?  Or does it mean that I don't know how to make it work?


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 22, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Just be careful about where you get your into on biomechanics from.  I imagine a good percentage of the people here have come across the "Nose bone through the brain" or the "Knees break under x pounds of pressure, so even a light kick will destroy it" not to mention all the "biomechanical" stuff involving meridians and nerve centers and chi.
> 
> Eye gouges, yes, we know they work, we've all been hit lightly, we've seen pro fighter go down for a minute after accidental ones.  Same for groin strikes.
> 
> And, if you really feel the need, slow down a little, slap on some safety goggles and see how often and reliably you can hit the target.



I am speaking about some rather realistic approaches here, not ki strikes and groin strikes.  

Just like I don't have to watch someone fall from 2,000 foot cliff without a chute to know it is likely they are going to die.  Because I know that there are some fundamental principles working against the person, such as elevation above ground, gravity, acceleration to terminal velocity, and impact speed.  If I have an good understanding of these things, it is no surprise that I can conclude that technique will be quite effective in killing the person falling.

Same goes for techniques.

Don't confuse this with performing it.  One can understand the effectiveness of something, yet not be able to demonstrate it themselves at that time, but with training, they can.


----------



## Rook (Jan 22, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> That is indeed true! So what does this mean?
> 
> Does this mean that whatever it is ineffective, because I cannot do it? Or does it mean that I don't know how to make it work?


 
Neither.  It means it is time for more investigation.  

It sounds like a cop out, but it isn't.  We look to others - we see if people with similar physical traits can make the technique or principle work according to the 3 Cs I mentioned earlier, and then decide whether or not to train it for ourselves. (This is called this SYSTEMS PRESSURE TESTING.)  If we train it for ourselves, we then test personal ability to perform the technique.  (This is called PERSONAL PRESSURE TESTING).  

-------

Let me give a hypothetical example.  Let us say that I am a very obese man and I have poor leg flexibility.  One person says "fat people can't kick high," another tells me it is still quite anatomically possible.  I look to PRIDE FC, and notice the very overweight Mark Hunt performing sucessful highkicks, and conclude that it will be possible for me to lose some weight, limber up, gradually develop flexiblity, and eventually kick high.  (systems pressure testing testing)  

Hypothetically, I would then find a competent teacher who guides me through this process, and I periodically test my progress by kicking high at opportune moments in sparring.  Perhaps I am sucessful - then I have added a weapon to my abilities.  Perhaps I am unsucessful - then I will know, I can ditch that training and do something more productive.  (Personal pressure testing)

The reason this works is that the systems pressure testing establishes it as probable, improbable, or impossible, and then personal pressure testing establishes that I personally can do it.  In the example, I don't simply draw a conclusion based on my present circumstances, nor do I take the word of any person.  I look for evidence for and against each side, and then test whether that applies to me or not.


----------



## MJS (Jan 22, 2007)

Rook said:


> Neither. It means it is time for more investigation.
> 
> It sounds like a cop out, but it isn't. We look to others - we see if people with similar physical traits can make the technique or principle work according to the 3 Cs I mentioned earlier, and then decide whether or not to train it for ourselves. (This is called this SYSTEMS PRESSURE TESTING.) If we train it for ourselves, we then test personal ability to perform the technique. (This is called PERSONAL PRESSURE TESTING).
> 
> ...


 
3 C's??  I'm sorry, can you tell me about that again.  I must've missed this. 

Considering that we're all different, don't you think that a better method would be to just test yourself and see what you can/can't do?  I mean, sure, I can try to find someone thats my height and weight, but that doesn't mean that we're going to be 100%.  The other person could still be more flexable, a bit stronger, etc.  Like I said in another post here, I personally don't want to disregard a potential move just because someone else can't make it work.  If I'm the one doing the move, be it a kick, punch, grappling, etc., I need to know if it works for me.


----------



## Rook (Jan 22, 2007)

MJS said:


> 3 C's?? I'm sorry, can you tell me about that again. I must've missed this.


 
Consistancy - should have a reasonable ratio of sucess to failure
Competency - should have been used against high quality opponents, not the local drunk
Convincing proof - should have proof like court documents or video to prove that the asserted instance actually occured as reported.  



> Considering that we're all different, don't you think that a better method would be to just test yourself and see what you can/can't do? I mean, sure, I can try to find someone thats my height and weight, but that doesn't mean that we're going to be 100%. The other person could still be more flexable, a bit stronger, etc. Like I said in another post here, I personally don't want to disregard a potential move just because someone else can't make it work. If I'm the one doing the move, be it a kick, punch, grappling, etc., I need to know if it works for me.


 
True, but no one has time to test every possible technique.  You have to screen out ones that you don't want or are unsuited for to figure out what you want to focus on.  There is only so much time and energy to train with, and you shouldn't spend all of it testing new techniques all the time.


----------



## Robert Lee (Jan 22, 2007)

Practice finger strikes on a focus shield bag ect As you need to know to condition for the strike. Eye pokes you could end up hits to forhead  Groind kicks train the focus shield. Knees the same. Now as a fight goes it is what gets done eye pokes groins did it effect the other person that much if so it worked. Best to just keep going until you have the upper hand and end the fight. We never know who we would be fighting just if we do have to fight use what ever is needed and keep it up no time to test anything just do it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2007)

Rook said:


> Consistancy - should have a reasonable ratio of sucess to failure
> Competency - should have been used against high quality opponents, not the local drunk
> Convincing proof - should have proof like court documents or video to prove that the asserted instance actually occured as reported.


 
Thank you. 





> True, but no one has time to test every possible technique. You have to screen out ones that you don't want or are unsuited for to figure out what you want to focus on. There is only so much time and energy to train with, and you shouldn't spend all of it testing new techniques all the time.


 
True and I see what you're saying.  Sure, I have a number of kicks and punches in my art.  While I can perform all of them, there are some that I tend to focus on more.  Kind of like the "Take whats useful, discard the rest" theory.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2007)

> True, but no one has time to test every possible technique. You have to screen out ones that you don't want or are unsuited for to figure out what you want to focus on. There is only so much time and energy to train with, and you shouldn't spend all of it testing new techniques all the time.


 



> Let me give a hypothetical example. Let us say that I am a very obese man and I have poor leg flexibility. One person says "fat people can't kick high," another tells me it is still quite anatomically possible. I look to PRIDE FC, and notice the very overweight Mark Hunt performing sucessful highkicks, and conclude that it will be possible for me to lose some weight, limber up, gradually develop flexiblity, and eventually kick high. (systems pressure testing testing)
> 
> Hypothetically, I would then find a competent teacher who guides me through this process, and I periodically test my progress by kicking high at opportune moments in sparring. Perhaps I am sucessful - then I have added a weapon to my abilities. Perhaps I am unsucessful - then I will know, I can ditch that training and do something more productive. (Personal pressure testing)
> 
> The reason this works is that the systems pressure testing establishes it as probable, improbable, or impossible, and then personal pressure testing establishes that I personally can do it. In the example, I don't simply draw a conclusion based on my present circumstances, nor do I take the word of any person. I look for evidence for and against each side, and then test whether that applies to me or not.


 
I just want to expand a bit further on this.  Now, just like when we go to a seminar, theres going to be a ton of info. given out.  Chances are, we won't remember everything, so I usually take a few things that I learned and focus on those, as chances are, I may see the same or a similar technique again in the future.  So, going with that, the same can be said for a sparring technique.  We may have our 'signature' moves, that we have success with.  The same with a certain technique against a punch, kick or grab.

The fact remains, that we're all built genetically different.  No matter how hard we try to find someone close to our height, weight and build, I just may not be able to pull something off that the next guy can.  What makes me think that the techniques person A uses for them, are going to suit my needs?  I don't want to clone myself after someone, because A) we're not robots and B) as I mentioned, we have genetics.  I want to find whats usefull to me and train that.  

In the case you mention above about the overweight fighter.  Due to genetics, I may never develop enough flexability to throw a head high kick.  Just because they do it, maybe the next guy can't.  But, I can throw a kick lower and have success with it.  Again, I'm the one doing the technique, not them.

I hope this makes sense. 

Mike


----------



## Rook (Jan 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> I just want to expand a bit further on this. Now, just like when we go to a seminar, theres going to be a ton of info. given out. Chances are, we won't remember everything, so I usually take a few things that I learned and focus on those, as chances are, I may see the same or a similar technique again in the future. So, going with that, the same can be said for a sparring technique. We may have our 'signature' moves, that we have success with. The same with a certain technique against a punch, kick or grab.


 
So far I agree.  



> The fact remains, that we're all built genetically different. No matter how hard we try to find someone close to our height, weight and build, I just may not be able to pull something off that the next guy can. What makes me think that the techniques person A uses for them, are going to suit my needs? I don't want to clone myself after someone, because A) we're not robots and B) as I mentioned, we have genetics. I want to find whats usefull to me and train that.


 
No, you're right.  No two people fight exactly the same nor should they.  However, in order to find out what is useful to you, you will need to train it regularly and then test it for yourself.  There is only so much training a person can do before they overtrain, and there is only so much time available for training.  There will only be enough time to "try out" so many techniques and strategies etc.  In order to get a technique to the point that you can make a final conclusion about whether or not it will work for you will take time and energy.  It is important not to simply try to personally try every single technique out there.  You need a method of screening out the junk that you won't or can't use so you can focus on the good stuff.  



> In the case you mention above about the overweight fighter. Due to genetics, I may never develop enough flexability to throw a head high kick. Just because they do it, maybe the next guy can't. But, I can throw a kick lower and have success with it. Again, I'm the one doing the technique, not them.


 
Thats why the second part, *personal* pressure testing, is so important.  At the end of the day, you will have to see if you can do as they do and to what extent.  If it doesn't pan out for you, then it will still need to be ditched.  Seeing others capable of doing it just means that it might be worth trying - it is not a guarantee of sucess by any means.  



> I hope this makes sense.
> 
> Mike


 
Makes sense.


----------



## zDom (Jan 23, 2007)

Well... yea, except with training you can do things you thought were impossible before the training.

15 years ago I could kick, jump and kick, and spin and kick.

But jump-spin kick? Pfft. Not a chance.

Now? Not only can I jump spin heel kick head high, I can do it in a "pressure situation" accurately and with good enough timing to hit an unwilling target  hard.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 23, 2007)

Rook said:


> 1) Well, I personally want to see a move used consistantly against competent opponents in match that I can see convincing proof of before I start to train it.
> 
> 2) Lots of stuff works against a compliant opponent that holds up poorly under pressure. .


 
1) It's not that simple. If it was your technique base will be more limited than need be. There are no true anything goes mathces. Where are you going find this "convincing proof."

2) Techniques don't generally work the way they are taught. Thats the nature of martial arts. To be able to translate our knowledge base to usable techniques without thinking is one of the final stages of development.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2007)

Rook said:


> ...there is only so much time available for training. There will only be enough time to "try out" so many techniques and strategies etc. In order to get a technique to the point that you can make a final conclusion about whether or not it will work for you will take time and energy. It is important not to simply try to personally try every single technique out there. You need a method of screening out the junk that you won't or can't use so you can focus on the good stuff.


 
Interesting point, and I think we all develop that screening method with experience.  In the beginning, as a complete newbie, we have no idea what we might be able to accomplish, where we might excell, where we might have problems, and even what kind of techs we might have interest in.  So to try them all is more important, work them enough to get a sense of what they are about, how they work, whether or not YOU can make them work.  Later, with more experience under your belt, you can make an educated judgement when seeing new techs, as to whether or not they are right for you.  At this point, you don't necessarily need to try them all before making some choices.


----------



## still learning (Jan 23, 2007)

Hello, The most successful martial artist...the very true martial artist and and true Black Belts are those who NEVER TESTED OR USE THERE ART ON SOMEONE !!!!

To be humble, kind, and gentle person, as well confident, physcially strong and mental sharp (strong minded -knowing right and wrong)....should be the GOALS every martial artist should achieve!

Yes there will be times we need to step in and correct the wrong!

But our goals is to never escalated, get into fights or trouble situtions!

AWARENESS!!!!

If you live your life truely.....you will never ever have to use your martial art skills!

Verbal Judo works and running too!

PS: Best to keep mouth close and be thought as a FOOL....than to open it and remove all doubt!      ....practice...practice and more practice...Aloha


----------



## Brad Dunne (Jan 23, 2007)

I have seen this discussion before and there is a very important point that most if not all participants overlook and that is the vast majority of folks in the arts are not going to be up against Pride, UFC, K-1 etc trained attackers. The focus always seems to be aimed at "does the technique work in the ring" or something of a similar nature. Is every technique going to work on everybody? Of course not!, but it will work on the majority of human beings that the average person training in the arts will encounter and that's what matters, plus the given aspect of more than one technique being used (follow ups) come into play. There will always be the "exception to the rule" person out there and hopefully we won't have to deal with him/her, but even with that, any technique in question would just be a spring board for the followup technique(s).


----------



## Rook (Jan 23, 2007)

Brad Dunne said:


> I have seen this discussion before and there is a very important point that most if not all participants overlook and that is the vast majority of folks in the arts are not going to be up against Pride, UFC, K-1 etc trained attackers. The focus always seems to be aimed at "does the technique work in the ring" or something of a similar nature. Is every technique going to work on everybody? Of course not!, but it will work on the majority of human beings that the average person training in the arts will encounter and that's what matters, plus the given aspect of more than one technique being used (follow ups) come into play. There will always be the "exception to the rule" person out there and hopefully we won't have to deal with him/her, but even with that, any technique in question would just be a spring board for the followup technique(s).


 
Well, the thing is, many people in the street are not really very good fighter, but a few are.  Instead of taking my bearings from the average "street thug" or the local town drunk, I want to be prepared for the possibility that I will face one of the few.  Now, a normal person in good physical condition and with good situational awareness who doesn't panic has a pretty good chance of winning against the majority of the opponents he or she is likely to face.  I don't want to wonder what I can get away with, but rather what the most I can do with the time and energy I can put it.  (At some point that is going to mean switching to a full out MMA gym rather than my karate dojo, but I'm covered ok as it is.)


----------



## pstarr (Jan 24, 2007)

You know, the big thing nowadays seems to be on trying out ALL techniques for real - just to ensure that they work.  In my opinion, this is often pretty absurd.  It's one thing to train these techniques for accuracy, quickness, and power, but something else to "test" them on another human being just to see if they really work.

     I'm sure glad our knife-fighting teachers didn't have this same mindset...


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2007)

Something to take into consideration.  While we could gear our training for the worst case scenario, meaning facing a highly skilled person vs. a lesser skilled person, the fact remains, that we have jobs that we need to go to.  I work 40hrs, sometimes more a week, and I have other responsibilities that need to be tended to.  That being said, someone who is a professional fighter does not have those worries.  His job is training for X number of hours each day.  Fighting/training is his job.  

So..taking that into consideration, the best we can do is keep training hard, when we can.  Work our techniques the best we can.  Of course, the use of environmental weapons, ie: a stick, rock or sand, in addition to weapons that we carry on us, ie: keys, knife, could also come into play.

Brad:  You summed it up pretty good IMHO and I've said the same thing.  As I've said, I do my best to train for that worst case scenario, but chances are, the guy thats going to try to mug me at knife point is not going to be a protege' of Chuck Liddell, but instead, some strung out punk thats looking for an easy victim for his next fix.

Mike


----------



## Rook (Jan 24, 2007)

pstarr said:


> You know, the big thing nowadays seems to be on trying out ALL techniques for real - just to ensure that they work.


 
Its not just to see if the techniques work, but if you personally can do them and how well.  Feedback from actually using the technique will tell you what you need to improve.  



> In my opinion, this is often pretty absurd. It's one thing to train these techniques for accuracy, quickness, and power, but something else to "test" them on another human being just to see if they really work.


 
Why shouldn't we?  



> I'm sure glad our knife-fighting teachers didn't have this same mindset...


 
Thats probably why I don't study a knife art.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 24, 2007)

pstarr said:


> You know, the big thing nowadays seems to be on trying out ALL techniques for real - just to ensure that they work.  In my opinion, this is often pretty absurd.  It's one thing to train these techniques for accuracy, quickness, and power, but something else to "test" them on another human being just to see if they really work.
> 
> I'm sure glad our knife-fighting teachers didn't have this same mindset...




I think you are setting up a straw-man here.

Things don't need to be tested to full execution by everyone.  I've not broken someones arm with a arm bar, but I still train armbars, I make sure I can get them, I make sure I can control the person sufficiently, and I make sure I can get enough leveredge to do damage if I wanted.  I do this in sparring, against full resistance.

When we train with weapons we blunt them somewhat so that we can go to work the next day, but we still spar, and we still try to hit each other.  If a block doesn't work we get hit, if a strike lands well, it still hurts.

It is a question of making sure you are capable of doing your techniques against someone that is motivated to not let you, and is trying to do nasty things to you.

It is also a matter of looking at the evidence out there, and the evidence gained through training.  I've been kicked in the knee countless times, kicked many others in the knee, seen countless kicks to the knee in Kickboxing and MMA events.  Very, very rarely has it ended a fight, or even done much to turn a fight.  I have been hit in the nose countless times, hit people in theres countless times, seen full contact fighters hit in the nose countless times with a lot more force then I will ever be able to generate, and not once have I seen someone drop dead from nose bone to the brain.

It doesn't matter how hard you can hit someone in the face, not unless you CAN hit them in the face, and the only way to get good at that is to, Hit them in the face.  And if you want to learn to hit people in the face hard, guess what you need to do?  Glove up, headgear if you like, and hit people in the face, hard.

Not testing things in this way is kind of like getting a gun and firing blanks at a target all day to work on your accuracy.  Dry firing may have its benefits, but until you actually put holes in the target you have no idea how good of a shot you are.


----------



## zDom (Jan 24, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Not testing things in this way is kind of like getting a gun and firing blanks at a target all day to work on your accuracy.  Dry firing may have its benefits, but until you actually put holes in the target you have no idea how good of a shot you are.



I think a more accurate analogy is trying to argue that the only way to REALLY train gunnery is by shooting people.

Your analogy lines up more with an argument regarding practicing punches and kicks in the air versus hitting a heavy bag.

As for knee strikes, we KNOW that a football tackle has the possibility of causing serious injury to a knee. Not all football tackles injure knees, but some definately DO.

And there are some people who can kick as hard as a football tackle. Why is it so hard to believe that a kick has the potential to cause serious knee injury, given the proper angle and timing?

Sure, I too have seen many  (in my opinion, weak) kicks do no apparent damage. But there are MANY kickers I know (including myself) that I would NEVER want to receive a kick in the knee from.

Heck, you HAVE seen demos of people breaking up to two or three baseball bats with a roundhouse kick, right?

Crippling someone on videotape to "prove" to posterity that knee kicks have the potential to cripple up a knee makes about as much sense as shooting someone to prove bullets cause serious injury.


----------



## Rook (Jan 24, 2007)

zDom said:


> I think a more accurate analogy is trying to argue that the only way to REALLY train gunnery is by shooting people.


 
That would be closer to saying that the only way to train streetfighting is to be in a streetfight.  

It is necessary to actual fire a gun to become proficient in its use, ideally against a target.  You don't necessarily have to shoot a person and kill him or her.  You could approximate it with a non-human target.  Someone who shoots proficiently in a competition is probably capable of utilizing the weapon.  Someone who never fires the gun but talks alot about "blowing people's brains out" to the point that it sounds like a fetish isn't going to be trusted. 



> Your analogy lines up more with an argument regarding practicing punches and kicks in the air versus hitting a heavy bag.
> 
> As for knee strikes, we KNOW that a football tackle has the possibility of causing serious injury to a knee. Not all football tackles injure knees, but some definately DO.


 
Sure.  



> And there are some people who can kick as hard as a football tackle. Why is it so hard to believe that a kick has the potential to cause serious knee injury, given the proper angle and timing?


 
The two are not the same.  



> Sure, I too have seen many (in my opinion, weak) kicks do no apparent damage. But there are MANY kickers I know (including myself) that I would NEVER want to receive a kick in the knee from.


 
Yep.  I wouldn't want to be punched by many people, but that doesn't meant that I uncritically accept their proposed punching power.  I wouldn't want to be stabbed by many people whose "credentials" as "knifefighters" I doubt.  



> Heck, you HAVE seen demos of people breaking up to two or three baseball bats with a roundhouse kick, right?
> 
> Crippling someone on videotape to "prove" to posterity that knee kicks have the potential to cripple up a knee makes about as much sense as shooting someone to prove bullets cause serious injury.


 
You don't need to shoot someone yourself to prove that bullets cause serious injury.  There are reams of video, mountains of case reports, hundreds of medical studies and years worth of proof.  I don't have to trust anyone about what a gunshot can and can't do.  If I doubted it, I can turn to the medical literature or the video or other reliable sources and examine what is known.  

On the other hand, your proposed leg kick seems to be rare indeed.  It may actually happen, but not very regularly and certainly not at the consistancy against competent opponents with convincing proof that I would expect of so supposedly effective a technique.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 24, 2007)

zDom said:


> I think a more accurate analogy is trying to argue that the only way to REALLY train gunnery is by shooting people.




No, because that kills people.

More accurate would be live fire on targets, combining that with other drills with people on each side.  



> Your analogy lines up more with an argument regarding practicing punches and kicks in the air versus hitting a heavy bag.



Assuming I meant more then target shooting as a sport 

But that does line up well with just hitting a stationary target, like a bag.  If you want to learn to shoot against living, moving targets that are fighting back, you need to train against them.  Whether it is martial arts (sparring) or military (war games)

A army that did nothing but shoot targets in training would not do very well in a combat situation.



> As for knee strikes, we KNOW that a football tackle has the possibility of causing serious injury to a knee. Not all football tackles injure knees, but some definately DO.



yes, but I'd imagine that most people look for techniques that have a high percentage of success, not a low percentage one.  There is also a large difference between a tackle and a kick, there is a lot more weight behind a tackle.



> And there are some people who can kick as hard as a football tackle. Why is it so hard to believe that a kick has the potential to cause serious knee injury, given the proper angle and timing?



It's not, a good kick can do serious damage, but experience says, most of the time it won't.



> Sure, I too have seen many (in my opinion, weak) kicks do no apparent damage. But there are MANY kickers I know (including myself) that I would NEVER want to receive a kick in the knee from.



Yup, most pro kickboxers I wouldn't want kicking me.  But they kick each other, and live to tell about it.



> Heck, you HAVE seen demos of people breaking up to two or three baseball bats with a roundhouse kick, right?



Yes, with aluminum bats as well.  They bend though, not snap.  He was also a pro kickboxer


----------



## Adept (Jan 25, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> When I was in high school, I used to shoot the bow and arrow in the back yard.  I went down to the basement one day to get it out.  I carried it up the stairs, and my younger brother was walking up the stairs in front of me.  He didn't realize how I was holding the bow.  He suddenly turned around for some reason, and took the tip of the bow straight into his eye.  It was really freaky the way he started screaming.  I thought he might have had some real damage.  Granted, he was just a kid, not a big thug on drugs, but the affect was dramatic.
> 
> Another time, again while in high school, I was laying on the floor of the living room.  My older brother lobbed a tennis ball at me, just for kicks.  I didn't see it coming, and it hit me square in the groin.  I can't describe the sick, painful feeling that spread thru my guts and had me doubled over.
> 
> ...



One thing it is important to remember is that the injuries we take in our everyday lives catch us largely by surprise, and exponentially more devastating because of it.

I remember attempting to eject an extremely large, aggravated man by myself (in hindsight I should have waited for backup, but my ego wouldn't let me) and we got into a wrestling match on the dance-floor. I jabbed my thumb into his eye and started scrabbling around and while it loosened his grip, it was certainly no fight ender.

It was effective in that it distracted him and allowed me to take his balance, but don't count on an eye gouge or poke to be a fight ending move.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2007)

Adept said:


> I remember attempting to eject an extremely large, aggravated man by myself (in hindsight I should have waited for backup, but my ego wouldn't let me) and we got into a wrestling match on the dance-floor. I jabbed my thumb into his eye and started scrabbling around and while it loosened his grip, it was certainly no fight ender.
> 
> It was effective in that it distracted him and allowed me to take his balance, but don't count on an eye gouge or poke to be a fight ending move.


 
I agree.  I'm not a card carrying member of the one shot, one kill club.  But like you said, if it opens up that moment, where I could escape or follow up with something else, I'm going to take it.  This is why I stated in another post, that, and I'm speaking for myself only here, but I don't want to 'throw away' a move because it can't be used in the ring or because someone else may not have success with it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2007)

On another note, talking about the application of kicks.  Perhaps I'm just missing it, but it seems to me that the majority of kicks that are thrown in MMA matches, are done to the thigh area, not the front of the knee.  We've seen Ruas, Smith and Belfort, to name a few, wear down opponents with those kicks.  I'm wondering a) why they never target the front and b) if they did target that area, what the results would be.

Mike


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2007)

Dspote what some people think MMA fighters aren't thugs and when they are fighting in the ring/cage they will not use certain moves that they know will finish the fight very quickly but will damage their opponent badly. I don't know any fighter over here that would damage anyone badly deliberately, yes they will try to knockout/choke/get a submission but not to the point of being irresponsibly destructive.


----------



## MJS (Jan 25, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Dspote what some people think MMA fighters aren't thugs and when they are fighting in the ring/cage they will not use certain moves that they know will finish the fight very quickly but will damage their opponent badly. I don't know any fighter over here that would damage anyone badly deliberately, yes they will try to knockout/choke/get a submission but not to the point of being irresponsibly destructive.


 
So its not so much that these types of shots are hard to pull off in the ring, its just that the fighters don't want to cause serious injury?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2007)

MJS said:


> So its not so much that these types of shots are hard to pull off in the ring, its just that the fighters don't want to cause serious injury?


 

Well we aren't animals! the point is to win the fight (competition) hopefully in a skilful and entertaining manner. I don't know how it is in the States but most of us know each other over here, train with in each others clubs and it does take a lot of skill to control your techniques. We occasionally get brawlers trying their luck but these don't usaully cause much damage against a skilled MMA fighter. We have many fighters who also train TMA (myself for one) and would not find it difficult to do a front kick to the knee but why break a kneecap when it's not necessary? A good kick to the thigh will deaden the leg without causing damage. I don't think people realise that MMA fighters are warriors with old fashioned ideas about sportsmanship and honour! Of course in the street if attacked all bets off lol!


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Well we aren't animals! the point is to win the fight (competition) hopefully in a skilful and entertaining manner. I don't know how it is in the States but most of us know each other over here, train with in each others clubs and it does take a lot of skill to control your techniques. We occasionally get brawlers trying their luck but these don't usaully cause much damage against a skilled MMA fighter. We have many fighters who also train TMA (myself for one) and would not find it difficult to do a front kick to the knee but why break a kneecap when it's not necessary? A good kick to the thigh will deaden the leg without causing damage. I don't think people realise that MMA fighters are warriors with old fashioned ideas about sportsmanship and honour! Of course in the street if attacked all bets off lol!


 
I'd say for the most part it seems that most of the fighters tend to be pretty friendly here as well.  Thats just my opinion though.  I think alot of the pre fight hype, is just that...hype.

In any case though, my point was not so much that the fighters want to cripple one another, whether or not they could actually be pulled off in the ring.  In your post, you stated this:



> Dspote what some people think MMA fighters aren't thugs and when they are fighting in the ring/cage they will not use certain moves that they know will finish the fight very quickly but will damage their opponent badly. I don't know any fighter over here that would damage anyone badly deliberately, yes they will try to knockout/choke/get a submission but not to the point of being irresponsibly destructive.


 
which led me to ask this:



> So its not so much that these types of shots are hard to pull off in the ring, its just that the fighters don't want to cause serious injury?


 
Reading your post, I get the impression that these types of shots can be pulled off, but yet, reading what others have to say, they tend to disagree.

Mike


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 28, 2007)

MJS said:


> I'd say for the most part it seems that most of the fighters tend to be pretty friendly here as well. Thats just my opinion though. I think alot of the pre fight hype, is just that...hype.
> 
> In any case though, my point was not so much that the fighters want to cripple one another, whether or not they could actually be pulled off in the ring. In your post, you stated this:
> 
> ...


 
I think the big difference between MMA fighters in the UK and the States is that predominatly ours come from a TMA background usually karate, TKD and Muay Thai we have no tradition of wrestling as you do over there so striking and kicking is second nature to us therefore making these moves much easier for us to do. In the States you have the tradition of wrestling where I believe they start fairly young making ground work easier for your fighters who have to learn striking later and it may not come as second nature to them. The new generation of MMA figters coming up however are learning it all as a whole and promise some awsome fight skills!


----------



## MJS (Jan 28, 2007)

Thank you for the clarification. 

Mike


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 28, 2007)

There are a couple of fighters I know that have a wrestling background, one is from Iran and the other from Georgia ( Russia). Both their ground work is amazing but their stand up is still progressing. I think too that those of us with a TMA background also have a bigger repertoire of kicks than those who don't, I know we teach MMA beginners just the basic front kick and the roundhouse type ( I call it that to simplify ) to the thigh. They don't learn side, hook,crescent,back, groin kicks etc. Nor do they do them as spinning or jumping kicks. Since this thread came up I've watched several fights where I've thought a front snap kick to the knee would be done easily.
Pre fight hype is just that, it's actually quite fun sometimes when both sides try to outdo each other but are laughing their socks off while doing it.


----------

