# Salt vs fighting in the real world



## girlbug2 (Oct 11, 2010)

If you glance on Salt's IMDB message board you'll find a thread denouncing Angelina for being anorexic, as well as a claim that arms and legs as "bony" as hers couldn't hold up in a fight (claiming they'd break when she tried to strike or block against the big guys she is fending off and smashing right and left). 

While I know there's a lot of ignorance in the general public about MA, it does raise a good question as to how much flesh is needed to reinforce or pad one's bones. Is only muscle of value, or does fat help (she asked hopefully...)?

Also, to anybody else who has seen this movie, what are your thoughts on Evelyn's fighting and the likelihood that somebody her size could pull of that kind of widespread mayhem? I lost count of the men she laid low, very quickly, often with only one well placed strike. Very impressive; but in the real world, is _anybody_ that great of a fighter? I kept thinking that if she were that good, she didn't belong in the CIA but straight at the top of UFC, raking in the cash and glory.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 11, 2010)

Wow, totally not what I expected from reading that thread title.

I guess what you are trying to ask is how much adipose tissue or muscle does one need to protect the bones.  The real answer is non, if your bone is gonna break from a blow it's just gonna break.  At that point it's more about the mechanics of accepting the strike's energy so that it does not break the bone (if you are blocking properly).


----------



## Big Don (Oct 11, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Wow, totally not what I expected from reading that thread title.


Yeah, I was thinking salt would be a great thing to throw in your attacker's eyes in a pinch...


----------



## Omar B (Oct 11, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, I was thinking salt would be a great thing to throw in your attacker's eyes in a pinch...



My thoughts exactly!


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollywood fighting is generally bs. Even in something like the Bourne series (which were okay choreography wise) theres a few moments that make me go "Hmmmm okaaay".

Its not just the moves that are bs, its generally the consistency of the fighter (ie: kicking everyones **** never getting a scratch on them) or the situation (ie: fighting on a very precarious position with no regard for their own safety or fighting 5+ opponents at once etc).

I havent seen Salt but I can tell ya a borderline anorexic 40 year old women is (generally) going to kick about as much **** as she looks like she could kick (ie: none). The average black ops agent a la CIA's PAD or SAD (or whatever Salt/Bourne/Bond is supposed to be) doesnt spend heaps of time on unarmed combat. They prefer that you are smart, speak multiple languages, retain masses of information and recall it all without omitting small details etc. Think of the average Marine. Theyd rather he be trained in his primary use (a rifleman) than martial arts. Hes not a martial artist, hes a rifleman. Unarmed combat isnt really a massive amount of what they do, its tiny. Could they still kick your ****? You betcha but thats because hes a fit, confident well conditioned soldier not because he learned split kicks and fancy ********. Same goes for black ops agents, theres more important things to spend time (and money) on training than kung fu. A CIA PAD operator may have come from the military, but he isnt an **** kicking machine for hire. He is hired as a clandestine unit and is prized for his intellect and local knowledge etc...no use in training him to be a kung fu badarse


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2010)

I believe that padding over bones is important.  The style I train in, Isshin-Ryu, makes that assertion as well.

Our blocks are different than the blocks of other Okinawan styles.  We turn the hand so that we present the 'meat' of the arm to the threat, rather than doing a 'bone block'.  Some other styles do something similar as I understand it; I am told that Shotokan head blocks are first received on the 'meat' and then 'rolled' up to stretch out the opponent and open them up to a strike.  But one of Isshin-Ryu's distinguishing features is that our blocks are not bone blocks.

My Sensei teaches that the blocks used by other styles are quite effective, he doesn't put them down or say that they don't work.  Great respect for other styles here.  Just that we do it a bit differently, there is a reason why we do so, and for us, we believe this is a better way.  Block with the meat, not the bone.

And yeah, if you got no meat, that might be a problem.

For me, it isn't and won't ever be a problem.  Hehehehe.


----------



## girlbug2 (Oct 12, 2010)

That's how my blocks are trained as well Bill.

At the very least she'd come away with some massive bruisin' when it was over. It's Hollywood though, not one bruise or scratch on her entire body after the brawl.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2010)

I haven't done any striking in a while, but isn't the idea of a "block" more to redirect or deflect than to actually stop a blow?

Regarding the movie, I thought it was more like a superhero movie than anything resembling actual combat.  Sort of like the Transporter wasn't about actual driving.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I haven't done any striking in a while, but isn't the idea of a "block" more to redirect or deflect than to actually stop a blow?



It can be.  My very limited understanding is that blocks can be punches, punches can be blocks, both can be used to deflect, trap, redirect, or (sometimes) just flat-out stop.  Depends on the circumstances, right?

If I understand my training correctly, we're told to block hard with soft, and soft with hard.  So we might counter a soft technique with a very hard block that is just that - a block and nothing else.  Sometimes called a 'bang block'.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2010)

I was taught that a block is a bucking force used to stop a weapon in motion without an intent to hurt. A block can also be a strike, "Never block when you can strike"
A parry is a riding force used to redirect a weapon in motion


----------



## Nomad (Oct 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe that padding over bones is important.  The style I train in, Isshin-Ryu, makes that assertion as well.
> 
> Our blocks are different than the blocks of other Okinawan styles.  We turn the hand so that we present the 'meat' of the arm to the threat, rather than doing a 'bone block'.  Some other styles do something similar as I understand it; I am told that Shotokan head blocks are first received on the 'meat' and then 'rolled' up to stretch out the opponent and open them up to a strike.  But one of Isshin-Ryu's distinguishing features is that our blocks are not bone blocks.
> 
> ...



*Part* of the reason of blocking with the meat rather than the bone is to stop you and your partner from seriously hurting each other when doing repetitive drills.  Blocking a punch with a bone (eg. elbow) can be *very* effective, and probably stops the person from throwing a second punch with that hand for awhile.

If you do meet a strike with a bone, make sure the bone you're using is bigger and tougher than the ones your opponent is using (forearm to forearm is very risky for both of you, finger bones to elbow has a clear winner every time)  

It is also easier to deflect using the meat (usually accompanied by a twisting motion) on the block rather than simply smashing your arm into your opponents.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I haven't done any striking in a while, but isn't the idea of a "block" more to redirect or deflect than to actually stop a blow?



I've always liked the block as a way to punish your opponent for trying to hit you.  It is not that difficult for a well placed and timed block to break an incoming arm.  OTOH, if you're just wanting not to get hit, movement or deflection are MUCH easier to foil the attack.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Blocking a punch with a bone (eg. elbow) can be *very* effective, and probably stops the person from throwing a second punch with that hand for awhile.



I do not want to give the impression that the bone-block is not effective.  We use a different method, that's all.  Our sensei says that yes, other methods are quite effective.  Hope you didn't take it the wrong way.

As to stopping a person from throwing a second punch - yes, but no.  Allow me to explain.

In class last night, we practiced something we often do in the way of self-defense drills.  Intercept an incoming punch with a small circular 'soft' block, then throw a hard lunge punch or uppercut counter.  As sensei demonstrated to us, a punch blocked with a hard block can cause the opponent to automatically throw the other hand; it triggers the 'one-two' combination, as the opponent's mind tells them that punch 'one' has either landed or been defeated, time to throw punch 'two'.  When the 'one' is sort of 'rubbed away' with a small circular soft block, the opponent's mind does not make that connection instantly, which delays their 'two' punch with the other hand.  This gives you that micro-second to step in and land your counterpunch.

EDIT: The example above is actually straight out of the Isshin-Ryu 'Naihanchi' kata.

I meant no offense to anyone's style, hope you didn't take it that way.  I'm not an expert or an authority on any martial arts style, including my own.  This is just what I've been taught, based on my limited understanding of that training.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 12, 2010)

None taken.  I just wanted to point out that avoiding damage to yourself and your partners while performing repetitive drills may be part of the reason that your (and many other) martial arts prefer to block with the meat rather than bone.  This reason may be unstated, and there may be other valid reasons for this as well.

The example of blocking a punch with a hard stop to the elbow does not imply that your opponent will stop attacking, just that you have a good opportunity to disable one of his weapons by breaking several small bones in the hand.  It may not even do that much, depending on the amount of adrenaline flowing... he may only feel it sometime later.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2010)

Nomad said:


> None taken.  I just wanted to point out that avoiding damage to yourself and your partners while performing repetitive drills may be part of the reason that your (and many other) martial arts prefer to block with the meat rather than bone.  This reason may be unstated, and there may be other valid reasons for this as well.



I do not think this is correct with regard to Isshin-Ryu.


----------



## Carol (Oct 12, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I haven't done any striking in a while, but isn't the idea of a "block" more to redirect or deflect than to actually stop a blow?



No.  The idea of a parrie is more to redirect or deflect than actually stop.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It can be.  My very limited understanding is that blocks can be punches, punches can be blocks, both can be used to deflect, trap, redirect, or (sometimes) *just flat-out stop*.  Depends on the circumstances, right?
> 
> If I understand my training correctly, we're told to block hard with soft, and soft with hard.  So we might counter a soft technique with a very hard block that is just that - a block and nothing else.  Sometimes called a 'bang block'.



I would try to avoid the complete stop.  Energy has to go somewhere and placing something that completely stops it means that thing is going to take in a lot of energy.  There's a reason the blocks travel in those exagerated arcs, it's not simply to stop, but to accept and redirect energy.  Just my take on the whole thing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I would try to avoid the complete stop.  Energy has to go somewhere and placing something that completely stops it means that thing is going to take in a lot of energy.  There's a reason the blocks travel in those exagerated arcs, it's not simply to stop, but to accept and redirect energy.  Just my take on the whole thing.



When you block a soft technique with a hard technique, the person throwing the soft technique is the recipient of the energy (or chi if you prefer).  That's at least part of the reason we don't block hard with hard or soft with soft.  I really need to be careful here, though; I'm getting into "I don't know what I'm talking about" area pretty quickly.  I can only explain that we do it - if it's wrong according to some, I can't argue pro or con; I can only say we do it and why I think we do it based on what I've been told.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 12, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> If you glance on Salt's IMDB message board you'll find a thread denouncing Angelina for being anorexic, as well as a claim that arms and legs as "bony" as hers couldn't hold up in a fight (claiming they'd break when she tried to strike or block against the big guys she is fending off and smashing right and left).
> 
> While I know there's a lot of ignorance in the general public about MA, it does raise a good question as to how much flesh is needed to reinforce or pad one's bones. Is only muscle of value, or does fat help (she asked hopefully...)?
> 
> Also, to anybody else who has seen this movie, what are your thoughts on Evelyn's fighting and the likelihood that somebody her size could pull of that kind of widespread mayhem? I lost count of the men she laid low, very quickly, often with only one well placed strike. Very impressive; but in the real world, is _anybody_ that great of a fighter? I kept thinking that if she were that good, she didn't belong in the CIA but straight at the top of UFC, raking in the cash and glory.


 


First thing your martial arts instructor should tell you.

First thing ANY self defense/unarmed combat instructor should tell you.

Is that if you're 5'0" and 100 pounds, and the other guy is 6'6" and 300 pounds-- then barring the introduction of some kind of force multiplier, the other guy's gonna win.( IF you stick around to "fight" ).

The second thing that instructor should teach you is the First Rule of Unarmed Combat ( Never be Unarmed). Even when you must be, there are always things you could use that aren't "Weapons" per se. Fights happen in places, which in turn are full of stuff.


Now, are there techniques that can be employed that can make physical qualities matter less? Sure. Jujutsu, Aikido, Hapkido, Wing Chun, etc. and the arts descending from them are based around this entire concept. In an ideal world, technique could make physical qualities not matter at all. But in this one, they always matter, it's just a matter of to what degree.

Technical proficiency and the will to win are always desirable, but no amount of can do attitude will alter the laws of physics, and you must allow for this.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When you block a soft technique with a hard technique, the person throwing the soft technique is the recipient of the energy (or chi if you prefer).  That's at least part of the reason we don't block hard with hard or soft with soft.  I really need to be careful here, though; I'm getting into "I don't know what I'm talking about" area pretty quickly.  I can only explain that we do it - if it's wrong according to some, I can't argue pro or con; I can only say we do it and why I think we do it based on what I've been told.



Relax man, you know your style and how it does things.  Nothing at all wrong with that, in fact I like seeing how different styles do things.  Still if we want to get into the receiving and passing energy thing we should get an aikido or hapkido guy in on this.  I will say though that when I was doing Choi Kwang Do which is a pretty well thought out and organized style, movements were circular rather than linear in all cases and while accepting the energy in a block this arc acts as a can opener on the opponent's defenses.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 12, 2010)

Coming from a kung fu back ground the training I recieved is never go hard against hard unless it is certain you have the better structure, otherwise you are just clashing and eating energy.  Soft against soft doesn't get much accomplished.  Use force directed at your opponents and have supurior structure and leverage, so techniques thrown at you can be sheered off or redirected.  This is how a smaller person can beat a bigger person.  Larger stronger people do not have to be as precise in thier fighting, but smaller people can, and do, beat larger stronger opponents.

As far as people nit picking Angelina Jolet's movie as not being realistic...really?  That's kind of a no brainer.  What movie is realistic?  What action flick has realistic fight scenes?  Realistic does not loan itself to good movie scenes.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 12, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Coming from a kung fu back ground the training I recieved is never go hard against hard unless it is certain you have the better structure, otherwise you are just clashing and eating energy.  Soft against soft doesn't get much accomplished.  Use force directed at your opponents and have supurior structure and leverage, so techniques thrown at you can be sheered off or redirected.  This is how a smaller person can beat a bigger person.  Larger stronger people do not have to be as precise in thier fighting, but smaller people can, and do, beat larger stronger opponents.
> 
> As far as people nit picking Angelina Jolet's movie as not being realistic...really?  That's kind of a no brainer. * What movie is realistic?  What action flick has realistic fight scenes?  Realistic does not loan itself to good movie scenes.*



I hear that man.  In fact, for years I avoided martial arts movies, even now I don't really watch them because nothing is even close to reality.  TV karate and real karate are totally opposite.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Oct 12, 2010)

It's hollywood what can you expect? 

Having a black belt and being able to do a cinematically pleasing choreography are two different skills. For one the cameras couldn't capture an MA that is performed in a realistic manner. 
With this, tell me the most realistic movie fight scene you can think of.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Relax man, you know your style and how it does things.  Nothing at all wrong with that, in fact I like seeing how different styles do things.  Still if we want to get into the receiving and passing energy thing we should get an aikido or hapkido guy in on this.  I will say though that when I was doing Choi Kwang Do which is a pretty well thought out and organized style, movements were circular rather than linear in all cases and while accepting the energy in a block this arc acts as a can opener on the opponent's defenses.



I'm relaxed.  I only mean that I am not an expert in any style, not even my own - two years of training does not an expert make.  So I'm describing what I've been taught and told.  I'm fascinated by other styles like you are.  I know there are many ways to do things, and most all of them are quite effective when applied as intended.  I do know that we do apply hard blocks sometimes, using the muscle pad rather than the bone, and we've been told there's a reason for it.  Other than that, I can't say.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 13, 2010)

Omar, I know what you mean about not watching the movies, but I enjoy the fight scenes.  There is skill to well choreographed fight scenes and some scenes take physical gifted actors to perform.  I can appreciate those things about fight scenes.

Mark, right off the top of my head, I can'tthink of any movie fight scenes that are realistic.  Maybe the Jason Bourne movie might be the most realistic that I can think of,,,but it is still movie choreography.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

I don't know how realistic it was, but I enjoyed the fight scenes in "Black Belt" (Kuro Obi) and thought it was relatively realistic.






Being realistic in MA movies may make things a bit boring to the average couch-potato.  But I like it.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 13, 2010)

Kuro Obi was a cool movie, but as a MA movie it didn't have a lot of fighting.  For a drama (which it was) it had a lot of fighting.

There are some actors I like watching even though I tend to stay away from MA movies.  Bruce Lee is a must, as is Michael Jai white, Scott Adkins, Chuck Norris.


----------



## Nomad (Oct 13, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> As far as people nit picking Angelina Jolet's movie as not being realistic...really?  That's kind of a no brainer.  What movie is realistic?  What action flick has realistic fight scenes?  Realistic does not loan itself to good movie scenes.



Not nearly as realistic as "Wanted".  I'm still trying to learn her ability to bend bullets, but haven't mastered the technique yet...


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 9, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Not nearly as realistic as "Wanted". I'm still trying to learn her ability to bend bullets, but haven't mastered the technique yet...


 
I've managed to figure out how to "curve" a pass of a gridiron ball... oh and frisbees


----------



## Tanaka (Dec 10, 2010)

For a second there it almost seemed like Blood Money was using Martial Arts as a description of "Unarmed Combat"
When Martial arts originally was for military and weapons. At least in Eastern Culture...


----------

