# martialtalk thread of interest to RMA people



## Arthur (Oct 24, 2003)

I thought the K-Sys, ROSS and Systema people might find this thread of interest.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=10352

Arthur


----------



## TAZ (Oct 24, 2003)

Arthur,
         interesting article..thanks for bringing it to my attention...funny how most people see everything in black and white...all or nothing..this way or that...stranger when we are talking about reality...in a world that is built on shades of grey...

One mans reality is another mans un:rofl: 

regards

Dave


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Oct 24, 2003)

Mildly interesting if somewhat narrowed minded thread/article. Thanks for bringing it up Arthur. I will keep my eye on it to see what if anything developes. One major problem I see is that the author clearly limits his thinking of appropriate space to arms distance +. If that is where he feels comfortable, great. Frankly I am not as enthused about that distance as the author. I prefer to be up close and personal, for me it makes it much easier to feel and read the potential threat, as well as deal with the threat when/if it becomes physical. At a close range I don't need to enter, I am already there. 

Likewise the article only looks at distance and nothing about relative angles. A prefered distance is all relative to the relative angle of the two combatants. Furthermore, by changing the relative angles one can exhibit some degree of control over anothers reactions as they struggle to maintain their prefered relative angle. All of this is an interesting topic but it can't be as easily summed up as the author would like.

The intense focus on the hands likewise seems to be narrow minded. If you don't want to get hit move your feet! Moving the body is far faster and far more affective than hand/arm work in my opinion. Plus the body movement to avoid naturely creates my counter attack at the 'SAME' time as my avoidance, i.e. move and counter attack similtaneously. Ah, yet another concept not considered in the article.

And then there is the psychology of always raising the hands. It instantly tells the aggressor that you view him as a threat and that you are prepared to defend youself. He is now more aware of the potential counter threat, he is more prepared to defend himself. He is more aware that he will need to work harder and be prepared for counter actions by his target. I don't always want to give him all of this information and insight. 

None of this is to say raising the hands is bad or wrong, for surely it is not. The point is the article takes a hard line stance on what the author believes is absolutely correct and name calls anyone else with a different opinion. As mentioned above the world is shades of grey, not black and white. 

mark


----------



## Furtry (Oct 24, 2003)

Mark is correct, I agree with his assessment of the article and point of view.
The last time I had time to bring up my hands against an aggressor the ref had asked us if we were ready.
And I'll go as far as saying that the author is a keyboard warrior himself.
(Boy I've got big ones  )


----------



## NoSuchChick (Oct 24, 2003)

I know... I'll bring my hands up to maintain my "personal space" so that someone can either break them or punch me!  Yeah, great thinking!  But being based in reality, an aggressor will respect my "personal space" (because my hands are up) and not do that to me...  

I don't know what reality YOU live in...

Jennifer


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Oct 24, 2003)

Furtry, thanks for the vote of confidence. Good point Jen. But then the three of us are just martialtalk 'yellow belts' so what do we know.   

mark

When is the orange belt testing scheduled? Darn if sensei didn't have it out for me I would be a mauve belt by now! Or at least a teal belt with 2 eggshell strips. Damn I hate politics!


----------



## woda (Oct 25, 2003)

When dealing with anyone at my jobs whom I may consider to be hostile (even if it's unlikely), I'll keep my hands up in the manner one of the other respondents to the article mentioned: the prayer position. Or "casual conversation stance." The hands are very close to the body and you look relaxed, no signals given to the subject at all imo.

The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel and also ,imo, it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such) and brings your elbows into play much sooner - also an advantage at a close distance.

As far as the "fencing" position the author states, anyone who's deterred by that isn't very serious to begin with and could be similarly disuaded from aggression through any number of other means.

Also, I have seen moves from several different systems that show how to take advantage of such a situation. I remember one guy, for example, who recommended cops to never take that position when they had their guns drawn (hand with gun held back in a "chambered" position near the torso while the free hand is extended straight ahead).


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2003)

"Keep your hands up!" is good advice for boxers and I think it's good advice in general!

I have noticed in Systema videos and vid clips that starting with the hands relaxed at the waist is fairly common.


----------



## NYCRonin (Oct 25, 2003)

When standing close to a potentially violent individual, I have had my hands both in a 'casual' and down...and many spots in between. The situation depends on so many factors.
I have seen where others on the job have put their hands up - something like the fencing position - and it brought out a violent reaction that might not have happened otherwise.

Arnisador - many times we will also just 'move' from where we are. Particualrly when doing an exercise that has more than one attacking partner. Anyone whos been to Club Vlad in Toronto may find themself subject to a playful attack at any time - not just on the training floor. Thank God the bathroom has a lock on it!


----------



## Pervaz (Oct 25, 2003)

Sergi said that you shouldnt have your hands in any position - except by your sides - he said that if u want to have your hands anywhere keep them near your flies or around your nose --

Last week at Mikhails seminar this point was sort of reiterrated with Floyd (and a whip) - He was in a boxers stance until M told him the error of his ways - after he finished he came to me and smiled and said "ahhh now i know what he means " -

P


----------



## Mark Jakabcsin (Oct 25, 2003)

Arnisador,
I agree keeping your hands up is good 'general advice'. However, the author wasn't giving general advice. He made a definitive statement about what is absolutely the best way to handle all situations. Then he goes on to ridicule anyone who disagrees with his position. Hardly an open minded chap.

The problem with general advice is just that it is general. You can't really draw any specific conclusions to specific events. Plus it tends to be very elementary in nature so the 'general' public can understand and use the 'general' advice. I believe this topic to be the perfect example, always keeiping your hands up is decent advice for the average Joe that doesn't train, doesn't have any interest in training and is unlikely to be in a physical confrontation. 

But then the average person can get by in life only knowing how to add and subtract, they don't need to learn how to multiply, divide, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. I don't mean addition and subtraction are wrong, only that there are more efficient methods to handle many complex problems, plus new ways of viewing those problems. But the author draws a line in the sand at addition and subtraction and states everything else is a waste and it is wrong. Sorry but to me that reeks of close mindedness brought on by fear.

Woda wrote: "The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel and also ,imo, it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such) and brings your elbows into play much sooner - also an advantage at a close distance."

Woda I am not saying that raising your hands is wrong and I like the prayer or thoughtful type stance. However I believe your statement in the quoted paragraph over states the position. My desire is not to nit-pick but discuss an interesting topic.

Let's start towards the end of your paragraph. You write "....it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such)...." Perhaps we are discussing two different things when we both use the term angles. The only way I can see to use your arms to create a different angle would be to physically push, pull or rotate your opponent. Not very efficient. If they are attacking you could use your arms to misdirect their attack with a visual bearer or false target. This is better but perhaps not in the scope of the discussion. 

When I talk about changine angles I am talking about moving around the opponent. Not staying squared up and directly infront of the opponent, i.e. moving my entire body. The best (perhaps only) way I know to do this is to use my feet. By moving the feet I can easily change the range and relative angle.....continuously if I want. 'Look mom no hands.' Plus avoiding or deflecting a blow by moving the entire body is far faster than arm motion. Moving the body to safety while keeping structural integrity is a better option than the typical arm flailing seen in most confrontations. As an added bonus as I move to safety I can use my arms to counter attack simultaneously. Heck it's only motion, why not do both at the same time. You mentioned faster, that is faster imo.

Now back to the first part of the the statement, You wrote 'The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel ...'

First you state you can react faster because your hands are up. I disagree with this. Your hands are up so you are creating tension and counter tension in numerous muscle groups. This pre-existing tension slows your reaction time and reduces the speed of your movement as you fight the tension throughout your motion. 

At a seminar this summer, Sonny P. gave a demonstration on this very point. He stood directly infront of a student at a little closer than arms length. He then told the student exactly where he was going to strike them (center of the chest). He then had the student move his hand a few inches from the point of impact. Sonny stood with arms at his side and continuously pounded the student. Even though the student knew where the strike was going, had his hands near and knew roughly when the strike was coming he was far to slow to react. This was demonstrated on several people all with the same affect. 

The basic math comment is a frequent one in these discussions but it really overstates reality. The basic math comment holds true if one is using the fence stance, then the hands are closer. However in the prayer or thinker stance this is not really the case. Stand up and place your hands at your side in a very natural position. The hands are roughly on the forward most vertical plane of the body, the feet and big noses pierce this plane but generally  everything else is on or behind the plane. Now stand in the prayer or thinker stance and note the relationship of the hands to the plane. Generally (there's that word again) the hands are still on the plane although the front part of the hands maybe slightly forward of the plane. Hence you really haven't gained any distance or so slight a distance that it doesn't come close to making up for the increased tension in my body from those stances.

The problem in looking at this situation is that most of us don't realize how close we actually are to our opponent because we focus on one or a limited portion of the opponents body, to the exclusion of the rest of the body. Instead of placing the plane vertical to the body running floor to ceiling we tend to make it horizontal and we feel that by raising our hands we are closer to their body. In actuality we are closer to their head and shoulders (our focus point) but not really any closer to their body.

To often we get caught up in the belief that our strikes have to be to the head or chest when there is a perfectly juice stomach, ribs, pelvis, etc to strike. With the hands hanging at the sides I am just (or almost) as close to these targets as someone in the prayer/thinker stance is to the opponents head. They have simply told the wary attacker their intentions and created tension in the body that slows them down.

As I understand it the big difference in philosophy  is that one group feels the arms are used for defense, then offense. The other group believes the feet/body are used for defense through movement and simultaneously employs their offense through the arms (or another body part), i.e. move to safety and counter attack in the SAME motion, not one then the other. One important note is that what one group considers safety (safe range)  is probably not what the other considers safety and vis versa. The ranges are vastly different in my camp then the authors. Safety to me means my belly is generally touching the opponent at an odd angle. 

I don't understand your comment about being able to employ the elbows faster when the arms are raised. Unless you are head hunting, this doesn't hold true. Perhaps this has to do with range again. I like to use my elbows immediately and in conjunction with my initial movement, great for striking the rib cage.

Sorry to A be so long winded and B have to cut this short due to a time contraint. I am sure others can flesh this out better than I. Take care.

mark


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2003)

The issue of the position of the arms creating some tension that must be oversome is a good one. It's more complicated than the shortest distance between two points reasoning would suggest.


----------



## NYCRonin (Oct 25, 2003)

It is difficult for someone who is based in a method that is loaded with muscle tension to understand how useful relaxation/lack of tension is in responding to an attackers movement.
When you 'stance' - particualrly when the position includes 'pre-loading' a muscular contraction in the limbs or tilt the body out of alignment - it actually slows down free reaction time. Makes the body suseptable to easy off-balancing and the tension of the trunk really retains the pain when struck.

Mark- good post. I also prefer to 'work' extremly close to an attacker.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2003)

I like to be up close and personal to my opponent, but my instructors are always telling me to back up! For stickwork it makes sense of course to use the length of the weapon, but it's the same in open hand. I like to be able to reach out and grab my opponent!


----------



## Furtry (Oct 25, 2003)

Whenever anyone gives me that "fence" stance I find it's easy to break his or her fingers.  (Learned that trick at club Vlad )
Second thing is this: "Relax, you'll live longer" Being relaxed makes it easier to shift/move out of the line of fire.
I think we all agree on that one:shrug:


----------



## Klondike93 (Oct 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Furtry _
> *Whenever anyone gives me that "fence" stance I find it's easy to break his or her fingers.  (Learned that trick at club Vlad )
> *



Been there and done that    Brad is always getting my fingers when I try to do that  

It was a good post Mark


----------



## mpowell (Oct 27, 2003)

Same here....
Anyone dumb enough to put their hands low and out like that is gonna get their fingers split open.
Any kid on the street is gonna go high, right over the 'fence'.
I see it everyday due to my profession...I watch real street fights everyday from thugs and gang members, crack addicts, homeless people...all fighting to get away.  

I once had a student who had trained in Wing Chun for around 13-14 years.  He left it, saying it was not street practical, and examples like the 'fence' were why.  He kept assuming his stance, and kept getting hit from high angles outisde of where he expected. 

In the Russian styles, we use whole body movement to address situations, not just our hands or our feet, and use waves and absorbtion to address impacts, not yells and screams.
RMA is different in our approach...that's why we all like it.  

I don't generally take anyone talking 'reality' seriouslly if they run around with samurai swords. As David  James of Vee Arnis Jitsu said, and I paraphrase, "When was the last time you turned on the news and saw someone in the street got killed with a samurai sword?  It doesn't happen, so why train for it all the time?"
There's this neat 'I wanna look tough' image that apparently knives, swords, mean looks, and AK-47's give you in websites.  Save the theatrics for the theatre.

Lastly, I quote the article:


> You aren't always in control, you don't always get a choice, and your feelings don't matter



The why think or assume that just one stance is the answer?



> Natural selection constantly thins the ranks of the world's UBSD exponents.  Don't follow them into extinction



Kinda like guns did to samurai swords...like real street clothes did to Ninja booties...So, I like to train in reality with guns, and in street clothes and be ready for anything anytime. 

I take my training and combative expression more serious than I do my writing and my pictures. 

M


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 27, 2003)

While I agree with most of what has been said here, I'm having a problem with the following --



> "When was the last time you turned on the news and saw someone in the street got killed with a samurai sword? It doesn't happen, so why train for it all the time?"



Many different reasons.  There is an idea of timing, distance and movement within sword work.  That same concept transfers to unarmed just fine.

Why is Jujutsu taught to people that study sword?  Same reasons.  There is a feeling that needs to be learned and understood before a blade is in one's hands.  There was a reason after the Edo period that bujutsu schools studied multiple weapons, though battlefield fighting had ended....and it wasn't just for tradition sake.

In answer to the question...people in the news get killed by katana about once every six months for the last few years.  He must not read newspapers very often.


----------



## mpowell (Oct 27, 2003)

That's like saying so many people die of drowning in the tub each year we should all learn to swim in a tub and there should be important classes about it.

So everyone in the nation should train to fight against a katana?
Is being attacked by a katana more reality than being tackled?
Is being hit with a highspinning kick reality?   Sorry, it isn't.  Most of us probably have more of a chance dieing from a big mousetrap than someone running up on the street with a katana. 

It's all about what you training for...and what you are telling the people who train under you.  

The point is, if you are doing 'reality'...why train for non-reality  'all the time'?  You can train in it, fine, but to the detriment of other skills?  Or, thinking that fighting with a katana is 'reality'.  I'll call it like I see it...Reality is the actuality and perception of what you will face in an real-world scenario were you to be attacked today, and you train for it.  Police have one thing, military has another thing, civilians have another, etc.  

In K-Sys, we work with swords, for the exploration of various principles.  The principles of fencing figure into our mechanics and use of physics.  But, we don't run around with shaska's all the time....everything has it's place.

But, if people come to a site, and see 'REALITY' and the guy is teaching how to kill with throwing stars, is that really fair?  Reality is the big buzz word to sell something nowadays to the people in our society who need it most:

Women.

Since Oprah got the craze going, women (houseiwves, soccer moms, single women, etc) look for the 'reality' stamp of approval.  And our industry is allowing people to LIE to them.  Our industry is allowing people to make women think that reality is Charlie's Angel's and kickboxing will ward off a 220 lb determined rapist, and you are a 100 pound girl.

In general, and to no one in particular, if you have a 'reality' fighting site, and have things that aren't reality, it's should be justified.  If I had the time, which I don't because I have a job and things to do, I would create a wonderful 'reality' satire site.

This is my opinion on the matter...reality is what you perceive and what you would actually face in a street fight.  Unless you live in feudal Japan, a katana is not reality.  I think about one thing when it comes to 'reality' fighting for civilians:  Could my 95 pound girlfriend use that to defend herself against a rapist.

If it's not feasible, it's not reality.  I would rather my girlfriend learn to kick groins, hit throats, gouge eyes, remove equilibrium, or used improvised weapons than do the crane kick or slice someone with a katana she will never have in the street.

M


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 27, 2003)

> So everyone in the nation should train to fight against a katana?



Nope...didn't say that.  I was simply replying to the inaccurate comment that you posted by the gentleman about katana.



> Is being attacked by a katana more reality than being tackled?



Nope...didn't say that either.



> Is being hit with a highspinning kick reality?  Sorry, it isn't.



For the people that have been hit by one, it sure as hell is.



> In K-Sys, we work with swords, for the exploration of various principles. The principles of fencing figure into our mechanics and use of physics. But, we don't run around with shaska's all the time.



Which is exactly what I explained, was it not?  No one said anything about wearing a katana everywhere they go.



> Unless you live in feudal Japan, a katana is not reality.



By the people in their graves due to some looney in New York killing people with one, it sure as hell is(was) reality.



> Could my 95 pound girlfriend use that to defend herself against a rape.



If she was trained to use one, yes.

Reality is not just what is defined by one's own experiances and understanding.  It has to be willing to go further then that.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mpowell _
> *Kinda like guns did to samurai swords... *



As a tangent, this is a complicated and fascinating story:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=417

I find the comment about being hit from unexpected angles an important point. Still, "hands up" still seems sensible advice for a lot of people. In part, it raises the level of awareness that a threat is there.

I agree that training to defeat a sword-wielding attacker is a low odds scenario, but also agree with the every six months estimate!


----------



## jellyman (Oct 27, 2003)

What my hands are doing is contingent upon what his are doing. Anyone who says 'put up your dukes' is looking for permission to hit you, imo. But nobody walks around with their hands up all the time... Frankly I don't pay it too much mind when I'm working.

Sword training is useful for developing certain attributes, which I think Mssrs. Bell and Powell are in violent agreement over. Learning situationally specific stuff is of course antithetical to what we do, but we do learn to generalize from specifics. So being good at dodging a sword without relying on the fact that it's a sword as opposed to a poker or a stick will make you hard to hit with a broken pool cue (say).


----------



## NYCRonin (Oct 27, 2003)

What we are dealing with are 'lines of force' directed at the defender. The sword/cue/ax or the shuriken/knife/beer mug or the lead stab/jab/poker. There are, of course, specifics to each individual weapon or attack but the motions are similar in many cases.
   All should, eventually and to different degrees; be worked but certain ones are much more likely to be encountered. Further, each individual might have certain particulars that may be more important because they may encounter them more. In my job, unarmed, armed (clubbing weapons - sticks, pipes and flexable flails - belts, soap in a sock or stabbing 'shanks' and sharp edged 'bangers'...jail weapons rarely combine both, it is usually geared more for one or the other use) and group assault (w/without weapons) are of MUCH greater concern than firearms. I have fought much, much more frequently at work than the street but I still work against firearms and do defenses from a car or other scenarios.
   I have not, though, encountered the bayonetted AK-47, other than some training with with it - and although I can use a spets shovel...I dont carry one in my normal days affairs.
   The overall principles outweigh the specifics.

  I agree that 'realistic' training may vary but, I think we can all agree that the person who spends more time perfecting the field stripping, firing and other uses of an auto weapon than he does spend in movement, deflection and strikes is hardly training realistically (unless LEO or military, in which case; firearms use should be heavily done).

  One of the beautiful principles is the 'overlap' of the principles that can be expressed in training with all the above. They outweigh the specifics by far.


----------



## mpowell (Oct 28, 2003)

As I noted, we train using swords due to principles of fencing, which are applicable to hand to hand combat in defense against attacks using hands, feet, pool sticks, or whatever...

I have no problem with 'applied' learning...applying knowledge of one thing to another in order for preparation.

My disagreement is focused training in unrealistic things and branding it 'reality' training. 

I've conversed with Jay before, so I hope it's not violent agreement, lol.  


There is the actual reality, and the perceptual reality.  We know what could have, and we have a perception of what might happen.  We have to bring those into line as close as we can to streamline the training of someone wanting to learn K-Sys (or any 'reality' based combatives styles, IMHO).  If they are trained to react in a way that is dangerous to them, the teacher is screwing them.  When one trains a certain way all of the time, there is the trap they will expect an enemy outside of that training to fight using that training.  If someone defend against high spinning kicks all day, and uses them, there is a propensity to expect that to work in 'reality'.  Hell, it's one of their main 'sparring; weapons. THat is why I tell people to go out in the parking lot between two cars, or go in the bathroom of the school and 'spar'.  That's reality.

Objectively, when one measures the nature of the changing scenario, one would, IMHO, realize that a high spinning kick is probably not going to be a method to use in a 'real' fight.  I've been hit with a spinning kick IN A GYM, but have never seen one successfully pulled off outside of a gym because the conditions are rarely favorable.

Reality is reality.  It's also what is statistically most likely for you to encounter in a street fight.  If you truly believe you will be attacked by a katana wiedling fruitcake in NY, then train for it, if that is your reality.  Out of 250 million people in the USA, and 1 person being attacked by a katana every six months, stastically there is little chance of it happening.  I'm not gonna specifically train for it.

Therefore, in my mind, you either train with said weapon to: a) preserve tradition; b) use the lessons used in applied knowledge toward another pursuit (against a pipe, crowbar, pool stick, etc).

Of course, there are other means to train so...like, using a crowbar, pipe, or whatever. That's the K-Sys way.  Let me put out my point of view about this.  Your mind is much quicker to associate such weapons with specific trained defensive measures...if you have worked against a pipe, crowbar, knife, whatever, you will be less apt to be in 'shock' when they appear.  Nevermind the general movement patterns of employing an attack ( a low stab is the same as a low punch, etc).  It's the very APPEARANCE of a weapon that changes everything.    That's why one should use some form of live knife pretty quickly in training.  Not enough to kill you, but enough to feel it, so the respect is there.  Training with dummy knives for long periods does nothing to keep the student honest...they will get sloppy.  It's my job not to train 'cool' looking students with dummy knives, but someone who can survive a knife attack with as least damage as possible, no matter how 'sloppy' it looks.

If you must take the lessons of the sword, which generally require different measures than a crowbar (a crowbar will injure or break a bone, not cut your arm in half like a sword), the methods used against a katana, if you really want to apply training, are not as similar as using a real baseball bat.  The injury they do to the body is different, as such, the measures you will use to defend are different.  The principles are there (angles, deflection, footwork), but the mechanical means combined with the mindset in doing so, are different.  

When I want to train methods against a sword, I use a sword for the prupose of training.  When I want to teach the methods of defense against a baseball bat, I use a baseball bat.  The science of fencing does give certain insight into the sciences of energy management, angles and deflection, footwork, etc., but they must be put into context.

Though there are some ways, it is difficult to train someone to address a club physically the same way you teach them to address a sword.  So, you must work with both, and lean in each direction precariously.  Lean toward the sword for specific reasons (teaching your methods) but lean toward the weapon (baseball bat) for the physical training (for K-Sys, it's Theory + Movement = Application).  While you are giving some methods which are useful, you are not giving ALL of the methods that are useful because you are talking about two different weapons.  Similar ancestor, but different weapon.  

I'm not gonna say, "you can't train someone to defend against a crowbar using a sword, that's stupid...!"  What I will say is if you never bring the crowbar in, it's not complete training.  They will never be conditioned to the impact, and methods of using the crobar, and will be slow and sloppy to address the attack of the crowbar, because they have to spend time in the street bleeding to draw coorelations that should have been drawn in training with someone not wanting them dead.

So, you have to train with both...If we look at the FBI Crime Statistics, and the places we live in, we are much more likely to face some things than others.  For me, teaching combatives, I am a much more effective teacher if I use a baseball bat or a spray-painted knife (so there is no gleam and you don't see it) than using the Lord of the Rings collector sword (though it does look cool as hell).  I do my students an unjustice if I don't train them for the reality of what they will face: mass attacks, shanks, small caliber firearms, sucker punches, etc.

The sword for heritage and basic principles, the crowbar for the physicality and realistic application.

In our System in Russia, there is a saying, "Against a crowbar, there is no 'defense', only levers to use.'  You have to apply the principles to the weapon you will face, or you'll be using sword blocks against a crowbar (or vice versa) and take damage you shouldn't be taking.  Therefore, you must train with both and learn how to apply principles.

Truly, as well-rounded martial artists and 'warriors' (if I may use that term) we have a duty to learn to utilize all classes of weapons (ancient and modern) and blend them with the art we study.  As teachers, we must know the difference between the two and prepare our students accordingly.

It seems we're all in agreement here, I'm just longwinded agreeing!   

M


----------



## woda (Oct 28, 2003)

Mark, let me clear it up a bit for you. In a work environment you don't have really have the same amount of options. Most people will not react violently, but almost all people expect to have a conversation with you in a face-to-face position. Therefore you have to be square to the subject. I have experimented with standing at different angles and sometimes it works, but usually the subject will keep squaring off. Not to be aggressive, but because it's the natural way to have a conversation. This is not to say that every work situation is like this. I'm simply refering to everyday dealings with people at work with a "you-never-know" type of attitide. 

As for distance and angles, if your arms are by your sides they will first have to come "up" before being able to do anything. At extremely close distances I would think every inch counts. I do concede the distance is slight, especially to those with a great deal of training.

As well, who says your arms have to be tense merely because you're in a "conversational" stance? They are not. In fact, personally, I find the position relaxing. I never seem to know what to do with my arms when they're just hanging by my sides and so I start to fidget. Plus, how many people really stand there and talk with their arms down by their sides.  To me, it actually looks confrontational or militaristic. Different if you're walking. Most people will clasp their hands, cross their arms or stick their hands in their pockets. 

Also, you have your liability issues. The first move is going to have to be a hold or throw or lock and strikes would be rare.

I don't mean to argue with you and I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Merely trying to expand on what I meant.


----------



## mpowell (Oct 28, 2003)

Good postings, all!  I love threads like this.

Talking with your hands is a great way of remaining both offensive and defensive, in a nonthreatening manner, at all times.  Many gestures, hand movements, eye movement, etc., can be used to position yourself advantegeously in the conversation should things 'go wrong' while all the time being nonthreatening.

M


----------



## Pervaz (Oct 28, 2003)

..Does it really matter what weapon the attacker has as long as you get out of the way - otherwise it can become technique based in terms of damm its a crowbar I need to do x,y whereas if its a sword then i need to do a,b,c - remember its the idoit who has the weapon who is the danger not the weapon...

When discussing weather hands should be tense, relaxed - or up or down - remember you have your legs..  why confine yourself to convention - you can always rely on keeping your hands up and tensed for as long as you want (I bet you cant keep the same tension for longer than 70 seconds though !!!)


Pervaz 'Spacecadet'


----------



## jellyman (Oct 28, 2003)

> Objectively, when one measures the nature of the changing scenario, one would, IMHO, realize that a high spinning kick is probably not going to be a method to use in a 'real' fight. I've been hit with a spinning kick IN A GYM, but have never seen one successfully pulled off outside of a gym because the conditions are rarely favorable.



Well, you never know. For example, I once saw a small Korean immigrant blast out a biker's teeth with a jumping spinner. Not saying I advocate using it myself, but I learned the hard way not to assume people won't do stuff because it's no good. A lot of this stuff is cultural, and there's a lot of different cultures around these days.

Case in point - I took karate for years, and we were told that using a round punch is 'inefficient' - straight line is the shortest distance etc. So because it was 'suboptimal' we never worked with it, never had to defend it, etc. Then came the evil day I got pulled into a fight, and the first thing that gets thrown is an overhand right that I only recognized _after_ it had dented my head. According to my karate culture, hooks and overhands aer foolhardy moves, but the other guy didn't know that...

That's why I think principles are key - if you come up against an offense or variation you've never seen before, you should ideally be able to improvise a good response via application of principle.


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 28, 2003)

*chuckle*  Violent agreement?   

The main thing I was trying to convey is simply that if someone deals with a perticular threat in real life, then it is reality.  I've been capped off by a crowbar....to *me*, that's reality.  To most people, even those I know, it would typically fall into the "rarely to never" bucket.

One of the primary reasons that I always loved muto dori (unarmed vs sword) work was the level of threat.  If I swung a baseball bat at a student, the threat would be gauged in a perticular way.  A three-foot razor is a different threat.  Same length possible, same swing (by someone that's untrained)...but it is not the same weapon.

We used to do a lot of taihenjutsu training with baseball bats....ocassionally when a shinken was pulled, they'd move like they were born doing evasions.

If this is applied to body movement, we get a perticular reaction.  If I'm using a hanbo, is the threat as strong as a katana?  About the same length, used differently....but watch someone's reaction to being swung at by each one.  It's a completely different ballgame.

Now...that said, I will agree with you, Matt about people passing swords of as "reality" training.  Though swordwork has it's merit...I'm much more likely to run into someone that's unarmed or swinging three inches of steel as opposed to three feet.  Honestly, I think I'd be laughing too hard if a burglar broken into my house with a saya strapped to his side.


----------



## Clive (Oct 28, 2003)

In my humble opinion, the arms being held up could be used as a guage by the opponent, especially if he knows about fences. If the arms show nothing how can the opponent second guess you?

As for the weapons debate - Never say never. :snipe:


----------



## Arthur (Oct 28, 2003)

> Do the math....{and all the related things that came from that}



If some reason you feel the need to deflect or "block" or whatever, rather then simply moving.... and you want to actually do the math....

Well in the fence position the hands are at least a foot away from your head (the nearest hand). Your lead hand is about a foot and a half away. That means you are a foot and a half closer to your opponent. 

Let's say it takes x amount of time for him to start his strike and get it to your head. Assuming your opponent is 3 feet away...  it will take about 1/2 x for him to get to your lead hand. So your decision to use that hand to foil his attack must take place at twice the speed it would take to simply move your head. By trying to pick him up early... you have simply made him faster.

Furthermore, by chosing to pick him up early, he still has the ability to change the around direction of his strike somewhat. this makes you more vulnerable to fakes and feints. Considering this, we've entered another decision loop into the reaction which fiurther slows down our response time. So we have now compounded our need to move even faster.

On the other hand... if we want to "block" and we simply do it with our shoulder, it is only six inches or less from our head at all times, its movement will insure the head moves as well, creating a margine of safety, while facilitating the opponents tracking along the same vector. The interception will basically happen at approximately the original intended targets distance, so you have full time of reaction. Net result... the opponent moves furthest, you move the least and have no real decision to make. Working this way you can be 25% as the opponents speed and still make it work.

So... I did the math... it seems I got a different result. Funny thing about math formulas is... you plug in the wrong variables... and you get the wrong answer.

Arthur


----------



## jellyman (Oct 28, 2003)

Arthur is correct with the 'thin work' rationale.

Boxers do this too.


----------



## VegasJody (Oct 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by woda _
> *As for distance and angles, if your arms are by your sides they will first have to come "up" before being able to do anything.*



Anything?

This sounds to me like the talk of someone who has limited his/her options by consideration alone. I'm inclined to think that bringing the hands up to deal with an attack is simply one option. Not nessessarily the best option, but one option. Another option might be to leave hands down for an attack to the goin, hip(s), or knee(s).

One of the aspects of the Systema philosophy that I love is the idea of complete freedom of movement. Maintaining the idea that hands have to come before they can do anything is limiting to say the least.

Hope I'm not coming too far out of left field.

- Jody


----------



## TAZ (Oct 28, 2003)

It also presupposes that we need our hands to defend/attack...


----------



## jellyman (Oct 28, 2003)

> Hope I'm not coming too far out of left field.



Far from it, just check out the strikes DVD. Chest, shoulders, elbows, hips, knees, feet - it's all good.


----------



## Kingston (Oct 28, 2003)

lets not forget that moving your hands up is not always a bad thing.....or not always as effective as hands by your sides....

body language is very important....hands at your side is a relaxed possition...if it doesn't feel natural....dont do it, when you talk, your hands are moving all the time... your not going to stand there like a robot. the whole hands at your side is to get you off the rigid stance idea...hands at your side is not a stance...because it is not rigid....moving any part of your body wont change anything. where as the fence stops being the fence if you let your body move naturaly....

Vlad showed us once how you could get your hands closer to the oponent head using the palms facing outwards type of "dont hit me" motion (this is before the physical confrontation). You can get your hands in a much better position to rock the guy....he wont even realize what your trying to do...if you put up the "fence" he knows right away....."those hands want to hit me"

When you do this, the attacker does not consider it being your weapons are closer to him, he just thinks your a *****, and are going to get beat down....meanwhile you are in a good possition to get first strike.

sometimes you mite want offensive body language.....lol but i would say there are better ways to do that then the fence....


----------



## TAZ (Oct 28, 2003)

IMHO fences are used for three things..1) Painting 2) shifting stolen goods..3) sitting on

Tongue firmly in cheek

Dave


----------



## jellyman (Oct 28, 2003)

You know, I don't mind the concept of maintaining a comfortable distance, but for me that's more of a foot thing.

I think Kingston is right, and if this guy's referring to systema (he didn't say) he missed the point I think.



> By contrast, my instructor will discreetly bring at least one of his hands up if he perceives a low-level threat. (This looks to me like the posture of someone scratching absent-mindedly at his chest.)  The difference is clear:  the person with his arms hanging by his sides will lose the initiative in most cases.  Reaction rarely beats action when facing an incoming strike.



Of course, he may never have seen the footage, but Mikhail is forever shifting and twitching as the attacker approaches, you must try to adjust to your attacker. The difference, I think, is a matter of mindset. Mostly, this person speaks about strikes, and pre-emption, which implies to me that's his basic fight philosophy - hit them first, ask questions later - gunslinger kind of thing. Don't let anyone get close. At least that seems to be it from the article. This implies to me that he is not comfortable with short range fighting, and perhaps does not use all the tools available to him. I think another difference in schools of thought is that in systema we train from contact. We accept the possibiity or even the probability that we will be hit. We train to take blows and work from there. Of course, that's not all we do, but my point is that there seems to be a stronger emphasis on defensive skills in systema. Certainly I can ward off a strike without warning, but again, if someone raises his hands, I've had planty warning.


----------



## VegasJody (Oct 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jellyman _
> *The difference, I think, is a matter of mindset. Mostly, this person speaks about strikes, and pre-emption, which implies to me that's his basic fight philosophy - hit them first, ask questions later - gunslinger kind of thing.*



Agreed.

It is certainly a matter of mindset. I think what you would find is a mindset of *fear*; this individual is not comfortable confronting an aggressor. As such, the fear pushes him/her to neuturalize the threat first and foremost, regardless of the order of magnatude of the threat.

Approaching self defense issues from a stance of fear is dangerous for all involved. While the fear is understandable, maintaining relaxation both physically and mentally will keep you much safer. Interestingly, this relaxation also allows one to maintain a higher degree of control and, as such, responsiblity over the situation.

Anyway, I could ramble on.

- Jody


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2003)

I always say that fear is OK, as it's your body's way of saying you're in a dangerous situation--you just need to be in control of it.

Is the RMA philosophy that fear is to be avoided, or just managed?


----------



## NYCRonin (Oct 28, 2003)

'Fear' is accepted, understood and utilized.


----------



## woda (Oct 28, 2003)

I hope that people understand that all of what I've said relates to work where, except under exceptional circumstances, I cannot strike someone. 

I also admit, that when it comes purely to blocking, it doesn't matter where the hands are. You can use the shoulders, as Arthur pointed out, or rotate the trunk or step back, etc. So you're right, the math argument isn't a great one.

I also pointed out though, that standing with my arms to my front relaxes me. Me personally. Not necessarily anyone else.

And, my skill level as compared to an Arthur or Rob sucks, so what I do will probably involve my hands vs. his upper body anyways. Though, admitedly, with more training I could attack lower areas of the body with the lower areas of my body (though still not with strikes).


----------



## Jay Bell (Oct 28, 2003)

Yep...Rob beat me too it.  Fear is allowed in RMA.


----------



## NYCRonin (Oct 29, 2003)

Woda
   There are many stealthy strikes that can be fired off - and appear to be nothing of note to relatively close witnesses. If I am ever in your area for a seminar - please ask about them. You should know them - PURELY FROM AN ACADEMIC INTEREST, of course! 
  Vlad can play 'whack a mole' (with you as the mole, of course) and make it appear as though he is helping you - almost as though you are suffering a spasm.


----------



## woda (Oct 29, 2003)

NYCRonin, I'd be very interested in such ACADEMIC INTERESTS and would be sure to ask.


----------

