# The Body's Natural Weapons



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

Bear with me for a minute. I have to begin by stating the obvious so I have some context.

Obviously, tigers have claws and snakes have fangs and venom. Humans have....well, we have what we have. You know what we have 
But the thing about it that I found odd is that, compared to other animals, we have a lot of weapons, and we can use them in many ways. We have hands, arms, shins, feet, knees, and debate-ably more. And we can use these weapons in as many ways as we can think of. Particularly unique is the ability to make the tools of any other animal our own. Fur, claws, poison, camouflage, speed, etc. Plenty of people think the human hand evolved to be the way the precise way it is specifically to better use tools and weapons. 

However, we don't seem to have a natural formula for any of it. We don't hide, chase and pounce like a tiger. We don't have a specific method that we always use, and usually works. There are many theories about the best tools to use and the best ways to use them. This is a context thing too, since different places had different challenges. 

Here comes the discussion question. We can use plenty of things fight with against each other. But out of all our tools, what do you think we be our primary, natural weapon? Excluding weapons, what part(s) of the body would be the main ones used to defend yourself against both other people and animals? Or do we have one at all?

To me, is the legs. Knees, shins, and feet. Against animals, it's probably closer to the target than the hands. Plus, these parts are way more resilient to damage than the other parts of the body, almost no matter what you make impact with. Plus, in a survival scenario, the legs are going to be incredibly strong. I can't find the same link, but I once read an article about how much stronger ancient people's legs were because they needed to move all the time and carry a lot more. Farmers, nomads, hunter gatherers, and armies of any sort led lives that put a lot more stress on their legs. 

Ancient humans were better travellers than us - daily.bhaskar.com

Sure, your whole body would have been a lot stronger to, but the legs more so than any other part. Even with a weapon in your hand, you would still need to chase down your target. 

So, would it be wrong to say that leg strength is the most important strength you can have? Your legs create the strongest leverage you have. Since your always using your legs when you're doing things, you can hit the hardest, from the farthest away, with the least chance of hurting yourself, and give you the option to run OR fight. 

But the needs of people are different now. Obviously, leg strength isn't the end all to fighting.
Why I am I giving this so much thought? The I have a hypothesis that having a fighting method that's closer the we evolved to fight will be more easily applicable to more situations, both mentally and physically. I'm trying to look at peoples' reflexive responses to danger, particularly amongst people that haven't been trained to have a specific response. 

Do you think we have a primary natural weapon? Or instinctive fighting mechanics of any sort, or is it purely a learned skill? Do you think certain muscles are more important than others for fighting?


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 26, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Bear with me for a minute. I have to begin by stating the obvious so I have some context.
> 
> Obviously, tigers have claws and snakes have fangs and venom. Humans have....well, we have what we have. You know what we have
> But the thing about it that I found odd is that, compared to other animals, we have a lot of weapons, and we can use them in many ways. We have hands, arms, shins, feet, knees, and debate-ably more. And we can use these weapons in as many ways as we can think of. Particularly unique is the ability to make the tools of any other animal our own. Fur, claws, poison, camouflage, speed, etc. Plenty of people think the human hand evolved to be the way the precise way it is specifically to better use tools and weapons.
> ...




Yes. survival. Genetics. Muscles are muscles!


----------



## elder999 (Mar 26, 2015)

"leg strength" doesn't mean jack-**** without heart strength.......just sayin'
(P.S.-"just sayin'" often roughly translates as, "are you stupid?" )


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 26, 2015)

elder999 said:


> "leg strength" doesn't mean jack-**** without heart strength.......just sayin'
> (P.S.-"just sayin'" often roughly translates as, "are you stupid?" )



Going at it already


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

elder999 said:


> "leg strength" doesn't mean jack-**** without heart strength.......just sayin'
> (P.S.-"just sayin'" often roughly translates as, "are you stupid?" )



Heart....strength? Do you mean cardio? I don't think I'm picking up what you're putting down.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 26, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Heart....strength? Do you mean cardio? I don't think I'm picking up what you're putting down.



Not putting down anything, read between the lines. Really is quite liberating


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 26, 2015)

This may not be in the direction your thinking of but from an evolutionary perspective mankind's greatest weapon is his ability to talk. With the ability to talk we can pass detailed information from person to person, from generation to generation. We can cooperate. We can plan. From planing comes tactics and strategies. The ability to talk allows us to say "hey the tiger is over there. I'll go this way. You hit him on the head with the stick."


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> This may not be in the direction your thinking of but from an evolutionary perspective mankind's greatest weapon is his ability to talk. With the ability to talk we can pass detailed information from person to person, from generation to generation. We can cooperate. We can plan. From planing comes tactics and strategies. The ability to talk allows us to say "hey the tiger is over there. I'll go this way. You hit him on the head with the stick."



Agreed. Our advanced social skills and ability to work in a unit, plan, and adapt is our greatest advantage.  But that's a different thing entirely.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 26, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> This may not be in the direction your thinking of but from an evolutionary perspective mankind's greatest weapon is his ability to talk. With the ability to talk we can pass detailed information from person to person, from generation to generation. We can cooperate. We can plan. From planing comes tactics and strategies. The ability to talk allows us to say "hey the tiger is over there. I'll go this way. You hit him on the head with the stick."



The ability of vocal transmissions, does override  the basic belief of survival, this is fundamental! We do not need vocals my nephew could show the way! Sorry but that reply is narrow minded.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 26, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Agreed. Our advanced social skills and ability to work in a unit, plan, and adapt is our greatest advantage.  But that's a different thing entirely.



Perhaps some examples


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 26, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> The ability of vocal transmissions, does override  the basic belief of survival, this is fundamental! We do not need vocals my nephew could show the way! Sorry but that reply is narrow minded.


I dont understand what your saying about your nephew. But if you think we don't need vocals I think you should talk to some evolutionary scientists. We would not even exist today without it. Do you realize that our level of speech is the one factor that no other species on the planet has (dolphins are close).


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 26, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont understand what your saying about your nephew. But if you think we don't need vocals I think you should talk to some evolutionary scientists. We would not even exist today without it. Do you realize that our level of speech is the one factor that no other species on the planet has (dolphins are close).



My nephew was born deaf. I really doubt that you could even feel that.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 26, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> This may not be in the direction your thinking of but from an evolutionary perspective mankind's greatest weapon is his ability to talk. With the ability to talk we can pass detailed information from person to person, from generation to generation. We can cooperate. We can plan. From planing comes tactics and strategies. The ability to talk allows us to say "hey the tiger is over there. I'll go this way. You hit him on the head with the stick."


 From an evolutionary perspective, mankind's greatest weapon has been his ability to run (or, more properly, "jog.") -all other things proceeded from and support this, including vocalization-_*especially*_ vocalization.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 26, 2015)

Ok I see where you are coming from. Let me back up a bit then and be more accurate. I didn't think my casual comment was going to be disected and scrutinized. Speech is the most complex form of language. Language started as gestures and developed from there.   I am not going to go off topic here to entertain your insult that my comment was small minded. 
So language with speech as its most complex expression is what sets the human race apart from the animals. If you don't agree that's fine but please don't insult me.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Perhaps some examples



Our ability to work in a group and communicate and plan is indeed a serious advantage, but it's a different sort of advantage. I'm would like to know if anyone has an opinion about the body's natural weapons. Specifically, the weapons we use to protect our individual bodies and hit other people's bodies.

Examples
---------------------
You could argue that the forearms are the most important because they are a power bottleneck for using tools and weapons. You could argue that the shoulders, traps and deltoids are the most important muscles because they give the most force for most of your normal arm movement. You could argue it's the abs because you use them for everything. 

Do people have an instinctive defense mechanism? Do we have a specific stance or method of attack that untrained people will default to if provoked with danger? How do people put up their hands when they are surprised? Do you think we have a natural defense mechanism of any kind? 

Is their a part of our body that is used to hurt things that you feel is more important than others? The fist? Knuckle or palm? Or is it our ability to apply leverage in a way that breaks things with arm bars and such? Could are nails and teeth be important for self defense? Could they ever have been? Or are we only meant to use weapons and our hand to hand ability just HAPPENS to be handy for fighting other people because everyone else has the same crappy equipment? 

I don't want everyone to answer every one of those questions. I'm just looking for people's personal insights on what parts of the body are the most important for fighting people and animals, as well as survival.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

elder999 said:


> From an evolutionary perspective, mankind's greatest weapon has been his ability to run (or, more properly, "jog.") -all other things proceeded from and support this, including vocalization-_*especially*_ vocalization.



Are you saying that our ability to run and jog is supported by our ability to talk? Can you explain that?

We could chase other species into exhaustion. I've heard it estimated by (some scientific show? Can't remember ) that ancient humans could outrun horses, antelope, rabbits, pretty much everything.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 26, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Are you saying that our ability to run and jog is supported by our ability to talk? Can you explain that?
> 
> We could chase other species into exhaustion. I've heard it estimated by (some scientific show? Can't remember ) that ancient humans could outrun horses, antelope, rabbits, pretty much everything.



I dont think we could ever out run other species like you state. Scientists have computer programs that can calculate running speeds based on bone structure.  The human body just doesn't have the proper structure to do that.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont think we could ever out run other species like you state. Scientists have computer programs that can calculate running speeds based on bone structure.  The human body just doesn't have the proper structure to do that.



Not humans from today. Ancient humans. Plus, the feat has been done in modern day.

Long-distance running and evolution Why humans can outrun horses but can t jump higher than cats.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 26, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont think we could ever out run other species like you state. Scientists have computer programs that can calculate running speeds based on bone structure.  The human body just doesn't have the proper structure to do that.


 The theory (which I don't know has ever been fully validated) is that early hunters may have specialized in _distance_ running to wear down prey. Most animals can outrun us in the short sprint, but not many of them can run marathons.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 26, 2015)

Fists of Fury Human Hand Custom Designed for Violence Says University Study

Study on punching and evolution.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The theory (which I don't know has ever been fully validated) is that early hunters may have specialized in _distance_ running to wear down prey. Most animals can outrun us in the short sprint, but not many of them can run marathons.


 




 
The spear is only 350,000 years old.

Vocalization is likely a product of teamwork, not the other way around.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

elder999 said:


> The spear is only 350,000 years old.
> 
> Vocalization is likely a product of teamwork, not the other way around.



I can't watch this right now because I don't have good bandwidth. Sorry. I'll get back to it later if I have a chance.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 26, 2015)

elder999 said:


> The spear is only 350,000 years old.
> 
> Vocalization is likely a product of teamwork, not the other way around.


So they didn't have spears the year before? LOL


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Fists of Fury Human Hand Custom Designed for Violence Says University Study
> 
> Study on punching and evolution.



YES! More of this! This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for guys. 
It's pretty interesting. I've read articles of a similar nature in the past that pointed out that plenty of apes had excellent hands for grabbing and manipulating, but couldn't make effective fists. I also read articles that suggested that the human hand was designed to punch things. 

I kind of doubted that could be true at the time. Plenty of forum martial artists seemed to think so to, drawing from the fact that so many people break their knuckles against other people. I found myself conflicted because, sure your thumb makes a supporting buttress that makes an tight fist. But if the hand was designed for punching, the knuckles would be thicker, our arms would probably be longer, and it wouldn't hurt so much to punch things.

Now that I think about it again, especially in the context of that article, well...I need to think about it again. Punches would probably be a lot slower if the arms were longer. Plenty of apes and monkeys have really long arms, and don't have hands for punching. That could be pretty telling. I'm think gorillas can make fists, but they don't really punch either. Hm.... food for thought indeed.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 27, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> So they didn't have spears the year before? LOL


 
As I recall, no, no we did not have spears the year before they were invented. Just sayin'

(Or, you know, the 100,000 years or so before that....)


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 27, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Do you think we have a primary natural weapon?


Mankind's greatest weapon has always been his intelligence. It is a shame many people who perpetrate violence do not use it. Opposable thumbs have help a lot.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 27, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> Opposable thumbs have help a lot.


 
Man's hands were made for _clubs_.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 27, 2015)

And Michaelobe.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 27, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Plenty of apes and monkeys have really long arms, and don't have hands for punching.



They don't need to punch, have you seen their teeth?


----------



## Buka (Mar 27, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Bear with me for a minute. I have to begin by stating the obvious so I have some context.
> 
> Obviously, tigers have claws and snakes have fangs and venom. Humans have....well, we have what we have. You know what we have
> But the thing about it that I found odd is that, compared to other animals, we have a lot of weapons, and we can use them in many ways. We have hands, arms, shins, feet, knees, and debate-ably more. And we can use these weapons in as many ways as we can think of. Particularly unique is the ability to make the tools of any other animal our own. Fur, claws, poison, camouflage, speed, etc. Plenty of people think the human hand evolved to be the way the precise way it is specifically to better use tools and weapons.
> ...



I think it's more of  learned skill. If you watch little kids strike each other it seems that common downward slap is what comes naturally to all of them.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 27, 2015)

want to know what comes natural watch to children fight. They use what is natural for them which includes feet, hands, teeth, running, screaming, and anything they can get their hands on.  That's natural fighting for humans


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 27, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> They don't need to punch, have you seen their teeth?



Yeah. But, picture what a fight between an ape and a predator might be like if they could punch with their long, powerful arms. Mostly apes just slam or throw or bite. Hey! I wonder if the downward slamming/slapping thing that kids to is a vestigial instinct left over from apes?


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 27, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Agreed. Our advanced social skills and ability to work in a unit, plan, and adapt is our greatest advantage.  But that's a different thing entirely.



Yes, but not  just confined to humans.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 27, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Yeah. But, picture what a fight between an ape and a predator might be like if they could punch with their long, powerful arms. Mostly apes just slam or throw or bite. Hey! I wonder if the downward slamming/slapping thing that kids to is a vestigial instinct left over from apes?




My husband was a Rockape, he punches quite well


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> ...
> 
> We could chase other species into exhaustion. I've heard it estimated by (some scientific show? Can't remember ) that ancient humans could outrun horses, antelope, rabbits, pretty much everything.



Somebody has already corrected this above, but I would like to point out that I think you have a bit of a problem with the way you express things, unless you are doing it on purpose.  People don't always understand what you mean.

Surely you don't think mankind, even early man, was able to outrun horses?  More stamina to run them down over time, probably so.

As to your original question as I think you meant it, I think our brain that led us to tool making, would be our best weapon.  We figured out how to make clubs, spears, pit traps, run animals over cliffs, etc.  I don't see we now, or early humans before us, with physical abilities that could match large predators, The speed and strength of the large cats is not something I would want to tangle with.  And I would not expect to win with my own superior speed or strength.  Inventing spears and clubs for extra distance or penetrating power, or other weapons that were invented like bow and arrow, would all give me a better chance to survive, but even then, one of one, I might not make it.  Even a dog or wolf has great speed if if they get close enough to any vital spot, might cause enough injury to kill you or make you easy prey for others if they are in a pack.  There are things our brain has taught us that will enhance our chances for survival, but not all will provide any guarantees.

Is that what you were asking, and does that provide an answer?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 27, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> want to know what comes natural watch to children fight. They use what is natural for them which includes feet, hands, teeth, running, screaming, and anything they can get their hands on.  That's natural fighting for humans



For the most part, yeah. Maybe I'm just looking into it to deeply, but I could swear untrained people default to certain types of movement, provided they aren't just going for haymakers. 

I have some personal examples, but they are only based on my own experience. I want more data on the subject.
When something startles you, do you put your hands up and take a stance like you've been trained to, or put up your hands in a different way? When I'm startled, I default to a position where my hands are mid level, partially extended, and are relatively close to each other. It don't use a stance like it, but it's in my reflexes for some reason.
My brother is completely untrained. He isn't athletic. But even since he was young, he's had a reflexive blocking method that locks him deflect most body shots. He just lifts his hands up slightly (they hang in front of him about where your hips start and legs end) and just waves his hands in a circular motion while putting his arms together. I always that it ways strange because he didn't have any training at all and never cared about MA, but had a strangely sophisticated and effective blocking method. 

At some point it occured to me that my reflexive stance is extremely to where my brother puts his hands when he's preparing to  block something, and that blocking technique would be effective from my reflexive stance. My dad (who tells me he used to be really good at Okinawan Shorin Ryu and Boxing) also defaults to this same stance. To be fair though, the Okinawan stance is similar to his reflexive stance. The front hand is lower, but that's about the only difference. 





He also takes a boxing stance sometimes.

Is it possible that my brother and I just inherited some part of our dad's reflexes? I don't know. Maybe. It seems to me that something like that would take more time. But I can't ignore the possibility.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/nervous-system-the-nervous-system-reflexes.html


----------



## Argus (Mar 27, 2015)

elder999 said:


> The spear is only 350,000 years old.
> 
> Vocalization is likely a product of teamwork, not the other way around.



Fascinating. The amount of energy expended in such a hunt, and seeming risk factor (all of those calories burnt, and no catch to replace them) if your prey escapes over such a drawn out endeavor seems remarkable. But, it also seems as if it would be a rather natural thing; what else will a hungry man do but chase his prey to the ends of the earth?

In response to the OP, I believe that man's natural weapons are his hands, and what he can pick up and use with them. I can't agree that kicking is a good idea, nor a natural one; legs are for carrying you when you need to run down prey, or carrying you away from danger when you are hunted. They also happen to be rather fragile things, and sustaining a debilitating injury on your leg, knee, or feet will certainly impact your ability to survive.

Moreover, kicking is a very unnatural thing, and it removes your mobility and stability for the moment your foot is in the air. I can't imagine you can chase down prey by kicking it, nor could you hope to stop a large predator with a kick; you will simply be knocked to the ground and mauled.

It doesn't take much technical know-how to pick up a force multiplier such as a rock or a stick. If I'm recalling what I have heard correctly, even chimpanzees do this on occasion. Unlike chimps, we do not have the ability to inflict damage on most animals merely by biting them. We can still grab, claw, gouge, choke, and slam other animals, but we also don't have the weight, muscle mass, and over all durability to rely on that kind of tactic. The most natural, and commonsense approach, given that circumstance, is to utilize your hands to pick up an object that you can use as a weapon. I think that, more than anything, is a natural response for humans in a life-or-death situation -- grab something; anything, and use it to your advantage.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 27, 2015)

Argus said:


> Fascinating. The amount of energy expended in such a hunt, and seeming risk factor (all of those calories burnt, and no catch to replace them) if your prey escapes over such a drawn out endeavor seems remarkable. But, it also seems as if it would be a rather natural thing; what else will a hungry man do but chase his prey to the ends of the earth?
> 
> In response to the OP, I believe that man's natural weapons are his hands, and what he can pick up and use with them. I can't agree that kicking is a good idea, nor a natural one; legs are for carrying you when you need to run down prey, or carrying you away from danger when you are hunted. They also happen to be rather fragile things, and sustaining a debilitating injury on your leg, knee, or feet will certainly impact your ability to survive.
> 
> ...



Bigs up to force multipliers. 

Distance running actually burns a lot less calories than sprinting. You'll burn a lot more calories if you run for marathon distances all the time, but for normal purposes, you can do a lot of running and not see that much weight loss compared to high intensity exercise like sprinting. 

You don't think kicking is useful in a natural situation? - For the record everybody, these are the opinions I'm looking for.    -    Good point about your legs being vulnerable and them being injured is absolutely terrible. Comparatively though, you the parts of your leg that you use for impact can deal with a lot more than your hands can. Especially with shoes. I think kicking an animal in the leg or face, particularly with the shin, would be a strong argument for the predator to find a different prey. Obviously, this depends on the predator. Things like badgers and coyotes. Not so much pumas or bigger. Given the choice, I would definitely rather kick a badger than punch it. Definitely don't want to get too close. Obviously, if you had a spear or something, you would use that first. Google "girl punches bear". Apparently, lots of bears have been dissuaded with punches. xD 
More importantly, strong legs are just a handy thing to have in the forest. If you don't have the proper tool in hand (or you need to make some), strong kicking can be used to break or push things over, as well as help you rip things apart in conjunction with your hands. This I know from experience. You can make a shoddy club with just your feet and a rock (for cutting) in 10 minutes or so. 
Kicking in particular though... it has it's uses. Not often, but they can be occasionally handy too. Breaking thin trees for example. Side kicks and axe kicks against wood propped against another tree is handy. There are other ways to break wood without tools though.


----------



## VT_Vectis (Mar 27, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont think we could ever out run other species like you state. Scientists have computer programs that can calculate running speeds based on bone structure.  The human body just doesn't have the proper structure to do that.



I think he's referring less to outrunning them and more to the endurance factor of running them down, think of wolves hunting as opposed to a cheetah.

If you look up the Kalahari bush men you'll see that this is indeed the way they hunt ; using slow acting poisoned arrows o n antelope and then running sometimes half a day tracking it while the poison takes effect. Was a brilliant BBC documentary on them some years back that will no doubt be on YT. I would link to it but I really should be asleep...

Edit: Just read further and saw this point already addressed... Lol will definitely go to bed now


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 28, 2015)

VT_Vectis said:


> I think he's referring less to outrunning them and more to the endurance factor of running them down, think of wolves hunting as opposed to a cheetah.
> 
> If you look up the Kalahari bush men you'll see that this is indeed the way they hunt ; using slow acting poisoned arrows o n antelope and then running sometimes half a day tracking it while the poison takes effect. Was a brilliant BBC documentary on them some years back that will no doubt be on YT. I would link to it but I really should be asleep...
> 
> Edit: Just read further and saw this point already addressed... Lol will definitely go to bed now



Much appreciated anyway for finding a good source. lb


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 28, 2015)

Wolves would run down a Cheetah and corner it, then pretty much #### it up.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 28, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Wolves would run down a Cheetah and corner it, then pretty much #### it up.



Of course both species may well be somewhat confused, not knowing what the other is.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 28, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Of course both species may well be somewhat confused, not knowing what the other is.



The Wolf has teeth for all occasions


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 28, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> The Wolf has teeth for all occasions



If it gets to Africa it can also swim exceedingly well! Cheetahs don't swim 

My son in law's boss's wife has a cheetah.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 28, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> If it gets to Africa it can also swim exceedingly well! Cheetahs don't swim
> 
> My son in law's boss's wife has a cheetah.



Oh.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 28, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Oh.



 Her husband has a whole country.


----------



## Buka (Mar 29, 2015)




----------



## Transk53 (Mar 29, 2015)

Wondering if cavemen had couches then. The potato then crisps. Know how dog the feels


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 29, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Wondering if cavemen had couches then. The potato then crisps. Know how dog the feels




Ah but they had fire and probably nice warm animal skins to lie on plus scraps of food they didn't have to hunt for. Dogs are smart but cats smarter, they have the best of both world, they can be 'domesticated' and wild at the same time.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 29, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but they had fire and probably nice warm animal skins to lie on plus scraps of food they didn't have to hunt for. Dogs are smart but cats smarter, they have the best of both world, they can be 'domesticated' and wild at the same time.



Yeah but is because female cats are sooooo attentive


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 10, 2015)

Our ability to get food and survive has been tied heavily to our ancestors various degrees of tool use, basically from the moment we started diverging from the path modern apes took. For hunting, even before stone spearheads we could sharpen long bits of wood or pick up something heavy as a club, but mostly it was endurance running and probably some scavenging off the more competent apex predators. And even before that, they could use a rock to dig out a termite mound, or throw it to knock down fruits and seed pods, etc.

How would we have dealt with a predator trying to eat us? Well, the same way most prey animals do today. Gather the tribe against the threat, staying in a group, running faster than our sacrificial tribemates, and climbing trees. At any point in history, your odds of fighting off an apex predator one-on-one after it gets the drop on you are laughably bad. Even with a spear in hand, we're soft and all our important areas are easy-access.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> o
> 
> How would we have dealt with a predator trying to eat us? Well, the same way most prey animals do today. Gather the tribe against the threat, staying in a group, running faster than our sacrificial tribemates, and climbing trees. At any point in history, your odds of fighting off an apex predator one-on-one after it gets the drop on you are laughably bad. Even with a spear in hand, we're soft and all our important areas are easy-access.



Actually, most "apex predators" aren't that interested in us as prey- maybe that wasn't always true, but it is today....fact is, a stick is usually plenty to fight off a mountain lion or black bear, because they're just not that interested, and we're too much work...this is changing for the mountain lion, which is an ambush predator that is becoming more and more  interested in humans as we continue to encroach upon their normal habitat.....it's not unusual to see them in town in Los Alamos or even Santa Fe, and they'll snatch a kid, given a chance....most of the time, though, attacks by predators aren't actually predation, but responding to a perceived threat. A few years back, , a guy on the Winsor trail in Santa Fe managed-over the course of what had to be the longest 15 minutes of his life-to keep a mountain lion at bay by backing away from it while jabbing a walking pole in its face. He'd likely come upon it with a fresh kill that it was protecting......*walking pole*. Just sayin'


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 10, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Actually, most "apex predators" aren't that interested in us as prey- maybe that wasn't always true, but it is today....fact is, a stick is usually plenty to fight off a mountain lion or black bear, because they're just not that interested, and we're too much work...this is changing for the mountain lion, which is an ambush predator that is becoming more and more interested in humans as we continue to encroach upon their normal habitat.....it's not unusual to see them in town in Los Alamos or even Santa Fe, and they'll snatch a kid, given a chance....most of the time, though, attacks by predators aren't actually predation, but responding to a perceived threat. A few years back, , a guy on the Winsor trail in Santa Fe managed-over the course of what had to be the longest 15 minutes of his life-to keep a mountain lion at bay by backing away from it while jabbing a walking pole in its face. He'd likely come upon it with a fresh kill that it was protecting......*walking pole*. Just sayin'



True today, wasn't for most of our history. A few hundred thousand years ago your early proto-humans were a lot smaller, a lot dumber, and if you go with the current popular theory, springing up in Northern Africa, which is right up with Australia in terms of "here be dragons." Our ancestors would have been easy lunch for most of the major predators back then, or more likely a midnight snack since most predators operate much more effectively at night than humans can, especially before we figured out fire.

And I'll grant that your guy up there is an oddity, cougars, etc. don't really prey on humans today unless they're starving, desperate and an opportunity all but drops into their lap. As you say that guy most likely interrupted the cat's dinner, which is dangerous but not remotely the same circumstances, or nearly as dangerous, as an ambush from a predator that's committed to having you for dinner.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 10, 2015)

I think the main reason modern day apex predators are so unlikely to attack us is pretty simple. 
We've long since killed any critters that didn't learn to run at the first sign of man.
One of the reasons I enjoy SCUBA diving is that the critters underwater don't recognize us as predators, so they don't flee.
They also don't (are you reading this, Xue?) see us as food.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> True today, wasn't for most of our history. A few hundred thousand years ago your early proto-humans were a lot smaller, a lot dumber, and if you go with the current popular theory, springing up in Northern Africa, which is right up with Australia in terms of "here be dragons." Our ancestors would have been easy lunch for most of the major predators back then, or more likely a midnight snack since most predators operate much more effectively at night than humans can, especially before we figured out fire.
> 
> And I'll grant that your guy up there is an oddity, cougars, etc. don't really prey on humans today unless they're starving, desperate and an opportunity all but drops into their lap. As you say that guy most likely interrupted the cat's dinner, which is dangerous but not remotely the same circumstances, or nearly as dangerous, as an ambush from a predator that's committed to having you for dinner.



And yet humans wiped out most of the megafauna on the North American continent......and yet, there is evidence that humans were directly responsible for the worldwide extinction of the smilodon, that we simply and  unilaterally decided upon and pursued the extinction of the sabre-toothed cat.

No, we were the apex predators, even before we learned how to vocalize, which only made us more efficient,......


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 10, 2015)

elder999 said:


> And yet humans wiped out most of the megafauna on the North American continent......and yet, there is evidence that humans were directly responsible for the worldwide extinction of the smilodon, that we simply and unilaterally decided upon and pursued the extinction of the sabre-toothed cat.
> 
> No, we were the apex predators, even before we learned how to vocalize, which only made us more efficient,......



I believe by the time humans started spreading into Europe and the Americas, we had figured out how to create fire, we'd found the benefits of clothing, and we'd learned how to make proper stone/bone spears. With weapons, humans can begin to do more than scavenge. It becomes realistic to kill animals our own size or bigger. And yes, as a group the tribe can begin to oppose some of the big predators, even as hyenas will do with leopards and cheetahs today. At that stage the tools themselves are a complete game-changer.

Unfortunately I haven't studied the evolution of human language and communication very much, but I would imagine that it would have come about rather parallel to our improving tool-use, as the more inventive members of the tribe strive to pass on what they've learned, with the language becoming more complex as the need to describe more advanced concepts arises. Regardless, I'll have to earmark that topic for future study.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 10, 2015)

elder999 said:


> And yet humans wiped out most of the megafauna on the North American continent......and yet, there is evidence that humans were directly responsible for the worldwide extinction of the smilodon, that we simply and  unilaterally decided upon and pursued the extinction of the sabre-toothed cat.
> 
> No, we were the apex predators, even before we learned how to vocalize, which only made us more efficient,......



I suspect that even before humanity developed something that would be considered a language by scholars today, we had ways to communicate. There is far too much evidence that lots of "non-verbal" critters communicate with each other. Dolphins. Apes. Chimps. Any number of pack animals. Ants. Bees.
As individuals, catching and killing small game would have been possible. As pack hunters, larger game would have been realistic.
I suspect that the competition with other apex predators was one of the driving forces behind the development of both language and tools.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 13, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Actually, most "apex predators" aren't that interested in us as prey- maybe that wasn't always true, but it is today....fact is, a stick is usually plenty to fight off a mountain lion or black bear, because they're just not that interested, and we're too much work...this is changing for the mountain lion, which is an ambush predator that is becoming more and more  interested in humans as we continue to encroach upon their normal habitat.....it's not unusual to see them in town in Los Alamos or even Santa Fe, and they'll snatch a kid, given a chance....most of the time, though, attacks by predators aren't actually predation, but responding to a perceived threat. A few years back, , a guy on the Winsor trail in Santa Fe managed-over the course of what had to be the longest 15 minutes of his life-to keep a mountain lion at bay by backing away from it while jabbing a walking pole in its face. He'd likely come upon it with a fresh kill that it was protecting......*walking pole*. Just sayin'



Most animals are still afraid of us today because anything that came near us usually died. Like what Dirty Dog said. Dog's, for example, were wolves that neither ran nor tried to attack us. They just...stayed near, and begged for food. Wolves that weren't hostile towards humans could survive around them. Which is a lot more than most animals can say. Eventually they became dogs that way.

Things like bears are afraid of us too. It's...different though. It's debatable whether or not a human with a weapon could defeat an predator like a lion, depending on the weapon and who's using it. But even so, we just aren't worth the effort. Even if a bear or puma were to win, it could cost them an eye or a leg. Permanent disfigurement for a single meal isn't nearly worth it, assuming they even would win.
Anyone ever hear that legend/story/myth (I don't know which one) about the Indian man that wrestled a tiger? Or Mas Oyama fighting bulls? Can't help but think about that stuff.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> . It's debatable whether or not a human with a weapon could defeat an predator like a lion, depending on the weapon and who's using it. .



Attacking cougar killed with pocket knife - seattlepi.com

Alabama Man Fends Off Panther Attack With Knife Field Stream

Man armed with knife kills hungry bear - Bring a knife to a bear fight 


Note: in all these cases, the knife was a 3 inch pocket knife.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 13, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Attacking cougar killed with pocket knife - seattlepi.com
> 
> Alabama Man Fends Off Panther Attack With Knife Field Stream
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links. 
Something that many people forget to take into account with the "human versus predator" discussion, is that the animal's nearest target is it's head. The human's is their weapon. It's actually harder for me to picture _losing, _given you have the chance to square off with it first. Animals are extremely exposed. If a big dog was charging you, a single knee or kick would either land in an eye, nose, snout, knee, or at the very worst, the ribs. I would consider that an adequate dissuasion. 
Bears are bigger.   But nevertheless, I've always believed I could fend one off with just my staff or knife. Or at least have a pretty good chance. 
I've given the matter a lot of thought. I have a bit of a problem with bears and coyotes wear I live. It quiets the mind to be prepared for them. Even just getting the mail, I always have a knife and a stick with me. 

Just to note, I think a short, walking stick length would be better than a staff for fighting a bear. Jo length-ish. I see a staff lacking stopping power with pokes, and hitting the wrong targets during a rush, due to it's length. Instead of the eyes, snout, etc., I'd have a high chance of hitting the back, belly, or meatier parts. Even managing to land solid face blows, it would be easy to get caught tight.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2015)

I believe more people are killed yearly by mosquitos and flies than any other 'creature'.

Top 10 Most Deadly Animals - Listverse


----------



## K-man (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> If a big dog was charging you, a single knee or kick would either land in an eye, nose, snout, knee, or at the very worst, the ribs. I would consider that an adequate dissuasion.


As the owner of a big German Shepherd .... good luck!


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 13, 2015)

K-man said:


> As the owner of a big German Shepherd .... good luck!




Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you.  I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that.

I think I need to get better at expressing myself in these post form. 

This reminds me of something kind of funny I found on youtube once. This person says he's inherited a "dog fighting style" back from when the hebrews crossed that sea with moses. It was like dog judo and it was hilarious. I can't find the link though. I'll post it if I find it. xD


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 13, 2015)

*You know as someone who also has a big dog* I will tell you straight out you haven't seen speed until you are trying to touch one and they do not want to be touched. lol  Can you kick, knee a dog?  Maybe but if I was a betting man I would bet that the dog would have a good chunk of you before you are able to do anything!  Then the bigger question would be after they have a chunk of you are you able to do anything?


----------



## K-man (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you.  I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that.


Yep! I'll just sit back with my coffee and take bets.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you.  I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that.
> 
> I think I need to get better at expressing myself in these post form.
> 
> This reminds me of something kind of funny I found on youtube once. This person says he's inherited a "dog fighting style" back from when the hebrews crossed that sea with moses. It was like dog judo and it was hilarious. I can't find the link though. I'll post it if I find it. xD



I'm going to guess that the police and military K9 forces have encountered lots of people who shared your attitude.
Based on my experience patching up the bad guys after they've encountered K9 units, I'm going to say you're flat out wrong.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm going to guess that the police and military K9 forces have encountered lots of people who shared your attitude.
> Based on my experience patching up the bad guys after they've encountered K9 units, I'm going to say you're flat out wrong.



Oh yes! We have police dogs and we have guard dogs who are PAT which is 'Patrol Arm True', trained to bring a suspect/intruder down by biting onto the arm and stay locked on until the command to let go is given, they actually gnaw on the arm to maintain the grip though I'm not sure they have to or whether they just like to. They are also very handler protective, the handler is regarded as being armed when out on patrol with their dog. The dogs, either German or Belgian Shepherds and Rottweiler's are fast and relentless, they are attack dogs. The police dogs are less ferocious but will still attack on command and the chasnces of you fighting it off are Bob Hope and no hope.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 13, 2015)

K-man said:


> Yep! I'll just sit back with my coffee and take bets.



Wow....I didn't realize.... that I was so horribly wrong..... Dam. 
Specifically, I didn't know how accurate and effective they were about landing a bite in the first place, or how vicious they could be once they got you. 
 I do still think they could be easily injured, I was really wrong about how easy it would be to hit them at all. Especially after that initial bite. After that....you're just don't have much leverage, and there doesn't seem to be much one could do to change that. 

That said, I do still think it's possible fend off a dog of this size. But....WAY harder and more precarious than I initially thought. Odds are basically nil if it gets a running start like that.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 13, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm going to guess that the police and military K9 forces have encountered lots of people who shared your attitude.
> Based on my experience patching up the bad guys after they've encountered K9 units, I'm going to say you're flat out wrong.


How long can it take to recover from something like that?


----------



## K-man (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Specifically, I didn't know how accurate and effective they were about landing a bite in the first place, or how vicious they could be once they got you.
> I do still think they could be easily injured, I was really wrong about how easy it would be to hit them at all. Especially after that initial bite. After that....you're just don't have much leverage, and there doesn't seem to be much one could do to change that.
> 
> That said, I do still think it's possible fend off a dog of this size. But....WAY harder and more precarious than I initially thought. Odds are basically nil if it gets a running start like that.


A forty five kilo Shepherd or fifty five kilo Rotti swinging off your arm has a fair chance of breaking your structure, especially when they are moving fast.

The thing is, they are not really vicious. For them it's a game. In training they get rewarded for barking, they get rewarded for grabbing and not letting go, they get rewarded for bailing up a person hiding. That is just the start of guard dog training.

But the real issue with dogs has nothing to do with this type of training training. Dogs are pack animals. By their very nature they will die to save the pack. If you as pack leader are dominant then there is little chance that your dog will cause problems but if you appear frightened or alarmed the dog will jump in to protect its pack and its territory. The dog doesn't understand 'inappropriate' behaviour. I teach handlers not to look at their dogs when walking. Watching the dog puts the dog in charge. Ignoring the dog makes the dog watch you and makes you pack leader.

There are tools you can use to confuse a dog. Standing still, not eyeballing, yawning, talking softly etc will make most dogs stop. (I'm not talking about trained guard dogs here.) If you attempt to take on the dog it is just going to excite it more. You are playing the dog's game.


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Wow....I didn't realize.... that I was so horribly wrong..... Dam.
> Specifically, I didn't know how accurate and effective they were about landing a bite in the first place, or how vicious they could be once they got you.
> I do still think they could be easily injured, I was really wrong about how easy it would be to hit them at all. Especially after that initial bite. After that....you're just don't have much leverage, and there doesn't seem to be much one could do to change that.



This is why I say our best natural defenses were (and are) running and climbing. The human body is not built to offer a good fight against specially evolved predators. Weapons even the field but we can lose ours.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 13, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> How long can it take to recover from something like that?



Depends on what has been chewed up. At a minimum, wounds are going to take weeks to heal, and bites have a high infection rate. There will almost certainly be scarring, the significance of which will, again, depend on what's been chewed up. If the chewed up bits include tendons, then the recovery will absolutely be longer, and full recovery may well be impossible.
And if they chewed on your face...


----------



## K-man (Apr 13, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Depends on what has been chewed up. At a minimum, wounds are going to take weeks to heal, and bites have a high infection rate. There will almost certainly be scarring, the significance of which will, again, depend on what's been chewed up. If the chewed up bits include tendons, then the recovery will absolutely be longer, and full recovery may well be impossible.
> And if they chewed on your face...


One guy here actually had a chunk completely taken out of his buttock at Schutzhund training. That has taken months to close and will always be a disfigurement.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 13, 2015)

K-man said:


> One guy here actually had a chunk completely taken out of his buttock at Schutzhund training. That has taken months to close and will always be a disfigurement.



Missing chunks make repair a nightmare. Human skin is very elastic and can be stretched to cover somewhat, but the muscles underneath are not nearly as easy to stretch-to-fit. And the mouth of the sort of dog we're talking about here can certainly take out chunks that cannot be repaired. Those wounds will have to be grafted and/or allowed to heal by secondary intention. Function and appearance will certainly be permanently affected. 
A dimple in your butt may be considered cute, but a crater...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 13, 2015)

I remember going through the Police Academy and during riot training, etc. they allowed the K-9 officers to use us as training examples for their dogs.  That was a real eye opener on dog training and just how effective a trained dog could be.

On another level I have seen my dog move and if he doesn't want you to touch him while playing a game you just are not going to touch him.  Literally you have no chance or slim to none.  Plus he has a big brain to figure out angles and corners and what you are trying to do. They are simply amazing creatures.


----------



## donald1 (Apr 14, 2015)

Whaat?! I assume you mean no swords...as much as I like my fists holding a sword looks much more menacing

What are peoples natural weapon... crazy... you dont know what he/she is going to do... run in there and scratch someone or punch, bite, kick

Joking aside, humans have thumbs and knoledge.


----------



## Blindside (Apr 14, 2015)

I am late to the party on this one, but this is one of my favorite K9 training vids so I had to share:





One of my friends is a K9 officer, his dog Ziva is an impressive German shepherd.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 14, 2015)

donald1 said:


> Whaat?! I assume you mean no swords...as much as I like my fists holding a sword looks much more menacing
> 
> What are peoples natural weapon... crazy... you dont know what he/she is going to do... run in there and scratch someone or punch, bite, kick
> 
> Joking aside, humans have thumbs and knoledge.



The thread got totally side tracked from the original idea. The idea was to discuss what people thought were the most important parts of the body for certain tasks to try to gain greater insight into an instinctive or natural fighting method.  Examples - The most important muscles for blocking in particular methods (deltoids? forearms? shoulders? Traps? Abs?) or in general, what the body's natural primary weapon would be or if it has one at all, or the trunk muscles like chest back and shoulders because you use them for almost everything. What in the world are our nails for? Were we actually meant to punch things? That last one was actually discussed.
Anything would be on the table. Instincts, body parts, any physical feature that you thought gave us any kind of advantage for fighting. Average heights and widths of people, appendage length or size, whatever. Eye color, foot shape, hand shape, general hardiness and resistance to pain and shock, aggression, or a lack of it.Hair even. What if you could use your hair to make crude knots?  That one's a bit of a stretch. 


The thread ended up being whether or not people could go toe to toe, unarmed, against animals because I had some poorly written phrasing. Or perhaps I forgot to explain some critical detail. I don't really know. 

Obviously, we have a lot going for us with our thumbs, brains, and ability to function as a team. That stuff = inventions that give us an edge over other creatures. Like spears.   I've been told that we evolved the way we did in large part because we kept trying to defeat ourselves, and the best way to do that was by getting smarter. And all the other stuff.  I don't know how much truth there is to that though. Haven't researched it.

Biting! Good one to bring up. We talked about that one too. It was pointed out that many apes and monkeys have much longer arms than us, have crazy teeth, but don't have hands that would make for effective punching. To me, this means that longer arms would be less effective for fighting in the manner that we do, but make grappling to go in for biting less viable.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

Here's a 'vicious', hand to hand fight between gorillas...well until the silverback decides they are disturbing his peace lol. Kids eh. shows some good skills and you've got to love the little one.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 14, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Here's a 'vicious', hand to hand fight between gorillas...well until the silverback decides they are disturbing his peace lol. Kids eh. shows some good skills and you've got to love the little one.



That's adorable and kind of hilarious.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> That's adorable and kind of hilarious.




Isn't it though.  made me smile. It does show how quick and agile gorillas can be, I know they are strong but they also seem to think about what they are doing. I imagine the big silverback if he were to really attack would be formidable.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 14, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Isn't it though.  made me smile. It does show how quick and agile gorillas can be, I know they are strong but they also seem to think about what they are doing. I imagine the big silverback if he were to really attack would be formidable.



I was thinking about that too. It was surprisingly smart. You can really see that they are mindful about what they're trying to do.
That big silverback.... the might he could dish out is beyond my fathoming.


----------



## K-man (Apr 14, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Here's a 'vicious', hand to hand fight between gorillas...well until the silverback decides they are disturbing his peace lol. Kids eh. shows some good skills and you've got to love the little one.


Not a problem!

_"Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you. I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that."
_
I wonder if thus opinion has changed?


----------



## K-man (Apr 14, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Isn't it though.  made me smile. It does show how quick and agile gorillas can be, I know they are strong but they also seem to think about what they are doing. I imagine the big silverback if he were to really attack would be formidable.


Actually, if you look at the movement it is quite clear that they have had Systema training. They are going with the flow.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 14, 2015)

K-man said:


> Not a problem!
> 
> _"Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you. I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that."
> _
> I wonder if thus opinion has changed?



It has. I still think it's possible to fend off even big dog's like German Shephards, but only by a slim margin. It would be immensely harder than I initially thought.  It would be game over if it got a hold of you. Even owing a knife, it looks like it would be really hard to even reach the dog when it's yanking backwards like that.  Even, "theoretically", knowing what to do, chances of success are low. Their vulnerabilities remain the same, but acting on them, particularly if they get a running start, would be extremely difficult. 
We are talking about dogs right? Not silverbacks?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

K-man said:


> Actually, if you look at the movement it is quite clear that they have had Systema training. They are going with the flow



I was actually impressed with the way they were 'fighting', it did remind me of martial arts perhaps a CMA? Certainly it did flow!

Dogs such as the traditional 'fighting' dogs have a bite that locks on and it is extremely hard to make them let go. I've heard stories from police and military dog handlers that even when injured their dogs will continue the attack, they aren't distracted by being stabbed or shot unless it's fatal. I believe that actually causing the dog pain makes it more ferocious rather than making it let go. You just make things worse. 

I'd quite like a silverback for a pet but will make do with my Rockape.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 14, 2015)

donald1 said:


> Whaat?! I assume you mean no swords...as much as I like my fists holding a sword looks much more menacing
> 
> What are peoples natural weapon... crazy... you dont know what he/she is going to do... run in there and scratch someone or punch, bite, kick
> 
> Joking aside, humans have thumbs and knoledge.



Here's a great example of what I'm looking for.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

"They don't like it up em you know Mr. Mainwaring"

An English joke.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 14, 2015)

I think the entire premise of man fighting preditory animals is something that probably happened so rarely that it wouldn't have had any evolutionary significance.  In the case that humans were attacked by let's say a tiger, we know cats hunt at night and use ambush attacks. They target the week and young. There Is no way a human can fight against a large cat.  The tribe would wake up in the morning to find out little Timmy had disappeared.   So in all probability any evolutionary developments would be based on human to human conflict and the need for dominance and procreation rights.
Human defense against predators in all likelihood would not be much different than other apes.  Live in tribes or groups, make a lot of noise, throw rocks and mourn for the one that was taken from the tribe.


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 14, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Here's a great example of what I'm looking for.


In my belief, that default overhand swing is a holdover from our monkey days and, in the absence of a weapon, geared towards social violence and establishing the pecking order. You can see how it's used in fights between children or "chick fights," where typically the only damage is to egos and feelings. Even other animals like cats, when engaged in a dominance match, will spend a lot of time slapping each other around in a fight that bears no resemblance to such an animal taking down prey. Basically, humans have some deeply ingrained behaviors for dealing with conflict within the tribe and determining who's the baddest ape, but those behaviors don't really work well for actually injuring or killing.

I also don't buy into the idea that the human hand somehow "evolved" the way it did because it was the most effective punching platform. I think some very clever people took a look at what we had and searched for ways to maximize the damage dealt with the tools available, but if punching was a natural attack that we evolved to perform, then A. we wouldn't need to be taught how to do it without injuring ourselves, and B. the attack wouldn't have such a high rate of self-injury even amongst the trained.


----------



## K-man (Apr 14, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> "They don't like it up em you know Mr. Mainwaring"
> 
> An English joke.


Understood and appreciated by colonials .


----------



## Buka (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm loving this thread. Great conversation, man's natural weapons, good dogs, silverbacks... loving it.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 15, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> In my belief, that default overhand swing is a holdover from our monkey days and, in the absence of a weapon, geared towards social violence and establishing the pecking order. You can see how it's used in fights between children or "chick fights," where typically the only damage is to egos and feelings. Even other animals like cats, when engaged in a dominance match, will spend a lot of time slapping each other around in a fight that bears no resemblance to such an animal taking down prey. Basically, humans have some deeply ingrained behaviors for dealing with conflict within the tribe and determining who's the baddest ape, but those behaviors don't really work well for actually injuring or killing.
> 
> I also don't buy into the idea that the human hand somehow "evolved" the way it did because it was the most effective punching platform. I think some very clever people took a look at what we had and searched for ways to maximize the damage dealt with the tools available, but if punching was a natural attack that we evolved to perform, then A. we wouldn't need to be taught how to do it without injuring ourselves, and B. the attack wouldn't have such a high rate of self-injury even amongst the trained.



Interesting point in the first paragraph. 
I think the human body is better designed for creating force downward than in any other direction. And in the case of proving your might over the next person, slamming and stomping and swinging, is usually inclined downward. All good stuff for non lethally proving your dominance. 

Initially, I had the exact same position on the fist as you did. It wouldn't hurt our hand as much, less injuries, and their would be a better instinctual understanding for it. Our knuckles would be better reinforced.
But those scientists' hypothesis put me on the fence. By way of comparison, the shins and feet seem very sturdy to me. The arch is one of the strongest shapes in nature for supporting weight. Mostly, that just means our feet can support a lot of pressure for a long time from the way we run, and a springiness to our stride. The ball, heel are durable. The top of the foot is serviceable. Our shins, again, by comparison, are extremely sturdy and reinforced _on the inside _line of whichever leg. Unlike the elbow, which, despite being really hard and potent to hit with, can't take as much punishment before it hurts you.


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 15, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> I think the human body is better designed for creating force downward than in any other direction


Think I have to disagree. Look at just about any striking art and the attacks you see bear no resemblance to those aggressive "look how tough I am" overhead slams. They're slow, widely telegraphed, and don't remotely utilize the rest of the body for effective generation of force. But again, that's the point. These sorts of attacks are only meant to be used against an uppity tribesman who wants your spot in the pecking order. They're not supposed to be generating tons of force or do any real damage, because such extreme social violence would negatively affect the success of the tribe as a whole.



Orange Lightning said:


> Initially, I had the exact same position on the fist as you did. It wouldn't hurt our hand as much, less injuries, and their would be a better instinctual understanding for it. Our knuckles would be better reinforced.


Essentially, yes. A goat doesn't really "learn" how to headbutt. Their body alignment and bone structure naturally lends itself to such a maneuver. A properly aligned fist is more difficult to maintain through repeated blows, there's not that much muscle strength helping support the wrist, and the wrists and hands themselves are built of several dozen small, loosely arranged bones that are just soooo easy to pulverize if you're off alignment. The design is great for fine motor manipulation and dexterity, but terrible for delivering and absorbing force.



Orange Lightning said:


> By way of comparison, the shins and feet seem very sturdy to me. The arch is one of the strongest shapes in nature for supporting weight. Mostly, that just means our feet can support a lot of pressure for a long time from the way we run, and a springiness to our stride. The ball, heel are durable. The top of the foot is serviceable. Our shins, again, by comparison, are extremely sturdy and reinforced _on the inside _line of whichever leg. Unlike the elbow, which, despite being really hard and potent to hit with, can't take as much punishment before it hurts you.



Yes, our legs are built to withstand significant amounts of force, because they have to be. Even in four-legged animals, the hind legs generate most of the power for running, jumping, etc. Thicker, denser bones, and much greater muscle mass do let you deliver more force in a kick than you ever could with a punch. But on that regard I'll echo what someone else said about most kicks being a very unnatural form of attack unless you're on your back. It destroys your stability and throws off your point of balance. There are some animals that will use devastating kicks as a sort of last-ditch defense against predators, I think mostly the large flightless birds like Ostriches and Emus, but 1. They have some really huge, vicious claws as well as muscle strength, and 2. They only do it when running like hell hasn't been working.


----------



## LibbyW (Apr 15, 2015)

man vs gorilla....not how I thought it would end, especially at around 10 seconds, I thought the guy was done for sure.
He must have a serious set of baoding balls hidden somewhere


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 15, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> Think I have to disagree. Look at just about any striking art and the attacks you see bear no resemblance to those aggressive "look how tough I am" overhead slams. They're slow, widely telegraphed, and don't remotely utilize the rest of the body for effective generation of force. But again, that's the point. These sorts of attacks are only meant to be used against an uppity tribesman who wants your spot in the pecking order. They're not supposed to be generating tons of force or do any real damage, because such extreme social violence would negatively affect the success of the tribe as a whole.
> 
> Essentially, yes. A goat doesn't really "learn" how to headbutt. Their body alignment and bone structure naturally lends itself to such a maneuver. A properly aligned fist is more difficult to maintain through repeated blows, there's not that much muscle strength helping support the wrist, and the wrists and hands themselves are built of several dozen small, loosely arranged bones that are just soooo easy to pulverize if you're off alignment. The design is great for fine motor manipulation and dexterity, but terrible for delivering and absorbing force.
> 
> Yes, our legs are built to withstand significant amounts of force, because they have to be. Even in four-legged animals, the hind legs generate most of the power for running, jumping, etc. Thicker, denser bones, and much greater muscle mass do let you deliver more force in a kick than you ever could with a punch. But on that regard I'll echo what someone else said about most kicks being a very unnatural form of attack unless you're on your back. It destroys your stability and throws off your point of balance. There are some animals that will use devastating kicks as a sort of last-ditch defense against predators, I think mostly the large flightless birds like Ostriches and Emus, but 1. They have some really huge, vicious claws as well as muscle strength, and 2. They only do it when running like hell hasn't been working.



Top post- Purely for the greatest possible force generation, you can usually generate more force going downward. Hitting something that force is another matter. Take the axe kick or the hammer fist. They can both generate massive force. How the force can diffuse into the target is different. For the sake of argument, let's say that whatever part of your body you're hitting with is literally made out of a perfect spherical rock. An axe kick or hammer fist, for example, would have monstrous damage capabilities compared even to other strong moves like crosses or side kicks. 
Or picture swinging an a weapon. For this example, an axe. You can get more force swing downward than any other direction. Of course, connecting with these sorts of attacks is a different story. 

Bottom post - I don't understand this "unnatural" aspect of that point of view. We can certainly kick in various ways at many ranges using well reinforced body parts to devastating effect against any target. I don't see how it's any less natural than punching. I also don't think fact that other animals don't  do a lot of kicking is evidence that it couldn't be effective in a given scenario. Not a lot of animals change colors or shoot ink or have thumbs or break their own bones to impale targets with. 
But It's pretty effective for the animals that do those things. 

I understand the other point though. You totally sacrifice stability for a ranged attack. But...that applies to fighting people too. In fairness, we aren't going to try front kicking a charging wildebeest. It would be applied as needed, in conjunction with whatever other tools we have. Not for every move. Like high kicks. Assuming we're unarmed for some reason. 
When I picture it, I can't help but feel like our legs are the best chance we have to do serious damage _unarmed_ to any other kind of animal. Both heavy and light. I'm going to try kicking a badger before it get's near me. Incoming coyote? I'm probably not going to try punching it first. Rabid cow or horse? I'm almost certainly going to die or get seriously injured, but I see my best bet being breaking a leg or kicking/punching the sensitive face bits. In that situation, my hands are for when my opponent has gotten past my feet. Outside of, you know, picking up a rock or a stick. With a kick, you're almost always going to be able to hit it before it hits you. Hands, to me, would be the rough and tumble range. 

I wonder if some of us have different instincts for fighting? Especially in that sort of situation?  It could be argued that differentiating instincts could have played a part in making different styles. I'm not vouching for that though. I don't have the data for it.


----------



## BMhadoken (Apr 16, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> An axe kick or hammer fist, for example, would have monstrous damage capabilities compared even to other strong moves like crosses or side kicks.


An axe kick as about as far from a natural body movement as you can get without destroying connective tissue.

And you are way too hung up on the idea of early Hominids "fighting." When would a human even WANT to fight, from an evolutionary/survival standpoint? Tribesmen might "fight" each other, but it's designed to be all about intimidation without much damage to either party, because otherwise a tribes strongest males would be constantly too injured to hunt or flee from predators.

Fighting a predator that's already got you? Running has already failed, you're on the ground, you have limited mobility and anywhere you go in the short term is going to lead you into a nasty set of teeth. Your only real prayers are that you can push it off just long enough to make another dash for it, or that you were popular enough for your tribe to come roaring back to save you. Watch some wildlife documentaries, particularly with apes, chimps and any of the big predators on the Serengeti, you'll see the dynamics at work. Predators do not "fight" their quarry. They ambush it, they run it down, they take it to the ground, they rip it apart.

"Fighting," as you seem to think of it, did not evolve as a natural behavior. Apes could not create any martial art or combat system because apes have no need for such a thing. The habit of various peoples to devise ways of killing each other with their bare hands developed to serve a different set of needs entirely.

Edit for sidenote:
World s oldest stone tools discovered in Kenya Science AAAS News
Crafted stone tools, and possibly weapons, may be older than we think. Maybe even predating the entire Homo genus. Additional support for this idea is that modern chimps have been observed stripping down straight branches, chewing the end to a point, and using their primitive spear to hunt bush babies.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> but it's designed to be all about intimidation without much damage to either party, because otherwise a tribes strongest males would be constantly too injured to hunt or flee from predators



I think that is shown very well by the gorillas, it's all about intimidation with them, showing what they *could* do rather than doing it. it would do the species no good at all if they killed each other when they could just warn each other off instead. I can't see early humans being any different, they needed, still do I believe, each other to survive.


----------



## donald1 (Apr 16, 2015)

LibbyW said:


> man vs gorilla....not how I thought it would end, especially at around 10 seconds, I thought the guy was done for sure.
> He must have a serious set of baoding balls hidden somewhere


If he was smart he would have done what any rational person would do. Cover his face! if he cant see the ape the ape cannot see him (makes perfect sense!) When the ape gets tired of looking for him proceed to yelling making loud noise then super tiger-dragon ultimate 360 round house kick


----------



## Gwaredydd (Apr 16, 2015)

I think the greatest weapon is relaxation.  Whatever body part you use, if you can't relax; you have no power in its delivery.  It is the greatest paradox in the martial arts; it works well when we are tired, there is no process of tension, the impact is where the body weapon is formed, it is not even carried through.  A brick in your hand is hard and sharp, in the air it is soft as a cotton ball, on impact - it is hard and sharp again.


----------



## K-man (Apr 16, 2015)

Gwaredydd said:


> I think the greatest weapon is relaxation.  Whatever body part you use, if you can't relax; you have no power in its delivery.  It is the greatest paradox in the martial arts; it works well when we are tired, there is no process of tension, the impact is where the body weapon is formed, it is not even carried through.  A brick in your hand is hard and sharp, in the air it is soft as a cotton ball, on impact - it is hard and sharp again.


Welcome to MT. What a brilliant way to start.  A simple concept that is foreign to so many. Well done!


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 17, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> An axe kick as about as far from a natural body movement as you can get without destroying connective tissue.
> 
> And you are way too hung up on the idea of early Hominids "fighting." When would a human even WANT to fight, from an evolutionary/survival standpoint? Tribesmen might "fight" each other, but it's designed to be all about intimidation without much damage to either party, because otherwise a tribes strongest males would be constantly too injured to hunt or flee from predators.
> 
> ...



Point 1 -  Indeed it is. You can generate a lot of force that way though. For whatever purpose you might find for it. 
I don't see how that disproves my argument. The body can generate massive force swinging downward. You can stomp harder than you can sidekick. You can slam down on a table harder with a hammerfist than you could with fist or open palm (assuming you're at the right angle), even though bottom of your hand is softer and could probably be damaged somehow from doing so. An axe can be swung with the greatest possible force downward. With a knife in your hand, the way to get the post force and the best leverage is swinging an icepick grip, downward. 
Empty hand, it's fairly non lethal and non martial. With a hard force multiplier that can direct that force to a target using it's hard surface, it's most force we can possibly generate.
I think most of our natural defenses were developed fighting other hominids because they seem unlikely to have been developed fighting against animals. They mostly give us advantages over each other. That said, it also makes sense that certain things would have been handy for fighting animals too. Like hard shins. Ever notice that other animals don't have hard shins? I wonder if the nails could have been used to scratch at eyes. They're useless for digging. 

Point 2 - Can't disagree with that. Fighting a lot would be bad for both sides. But I would think they would want to know how even if conflict was unlikely. Or a tribe could have found enjoyed the sport of it amongst themselves. 
Although it's related, I don't remember bringing this particular aspect up. I'm talking about the biological tools we may or may not have (depending on who's opinion) for fighting and exerting force.

Point 3 - Why am I already on the ground? In that case, yeah, I 'm in quite the pickle. And why are always fighting lions or something massive in these examples?  Caught without a weapon, running will get us nowhere because we aren't faster than other animals. If I am indeed unarmed, I'm mostly just trying to get it to go away. Make myself too costly to eat. I have indeed seen nature documentaries, and many animals do exactly this. Even against packs. 

Point 4 - I don't recall arguing that either. I don't think we deliberately or accidental evolved martial technique. I do think certain traits for fighting that were more effective than others survived more and evolved more. Whether they be instincts or fists. 

You know what would really punch my point about kicking? Some articles about an 80 year man fighting off a bear using _kicks and a headbutt_, and getting injured and thrown off a cliff yet surviving, and some others involving runners getting bears to just run by _punching them in the head once_.

80-year-old Man Fights Bear Wins with Headbutt Eats Pie to Celebrate News Nature World News

Woman punches bear to save her dog Juneau Empire - Alaska s Capital City Online Newspaper

girl punches bear at DuckDuckGo

I hear a story every now and then about someone punching a bear and it just runs. Happens a lot apparently. The article about the bear punching sounds like she was operating on instinct too.


----------



## Blindside (Apr 17, 2015)

Here is an example of grappling versus animals, I met this guy in one of my BJJ classes.  No he didn't try an armbar or triangle choke.....
Business Ex-Wrestler Uses Moves To Thwart Cougar Attack -- Claws Teeth Can t Match Choke Hold Seattle Times Newspaper


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 17, 2015)

Blindside said:


> Here is an example of grappling versus animals, I met this guy in one of my BJJ classes.  No he didn't try an armbar or triangle choke.....
> Business Ex-Wrestler Uses Moves To Thwart Cougar Attack -- Claws Teeth Can t Match Choke Hold Seattle Times Newspaper



That's....is there a better word than epic? That's epic.
It's a great example of getting the animal to just decide you aren't worth the potential injury. Admittedly, I haven't given much thought to grappling animals because they usually outclass us in weight, and have fangs and claws  that could cause it trouble in a tight spot. Which is exactly the spot that guy was in, but still managed famously. 

So you met him? I wonder exactly how good one should be at BJJ before they're get to fight cougars. Not a beginner tactic I take it.  xD


----------



## Blindside (Apr 18, 2015)

It was actually before he started BJJ, but he had been a high school and college wrestler, so basically he did what he had been trained to do, he pinned the cat, had it mounted, sat on its chest, spread out its front legs, couldn't choke it, and was then stuck and didn't really have an end game.  In this case he was twice as heavy as the cat, I don't think it would have worked as well with a large male that might have been his same weight.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 18, 2015)

Blindside said:


> It was actually before he started BJJ, but he had been a high school and college wrestler, so basically he did what he had been trained to do, he pinned the cat, had it mounted, sat on its chest, spread out its front legs, couldn't choke it, and was then stuck and didn't really have an end game.  In this case he was twice as heavy as the cat, I don't think it would have worked as well with a large male that might have been his same weight.



Ah.... I somehow missed that he was sitting on the cat's chest. 
Was it a really light cat? I didn't figure he would have double the weight of the thing. How heavy was the guy?


----------



## Blindside (Apr 18, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Ah.... I somehow missed that he was sitting on the cat's chest.
> Was it a really light cat? I didn't figure he would have double the weight of the thing. How heavy was the guy?



He was about my size, so 160-170 or so.  Sub-adult male cougar are forced out of adult male cougar territory and often disperse long distances to find and establish a territory or survive until they are big enough to challenge for an existing territory.  This guy was probably only one year old or so at this point, and was estimated at 80 pounds.  The largest male cougar I have seen was about 150 and that is about their normal max, IIRC females usually max out around 100 pounds.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 18, 2015)

Blindside said:


> He was about my size, so 160-170 or so.  Sub-adult male cougar are forced out of adult male cougar territory and often disperse long distances to find and establish a territory or survive until they are big enough to challenge for an existing territory.  This guy was probably only one year old or so at this point, and was estimated at 80 pounds.  The largest male cougar I have seen was about 150 and that is about their normal max, IIRC females usually max out around 100 pounds.



Depending on habitat, male cougars can reach 200 lbs., even in your neck of the woods....seen a  couple that big over the last 20 years-actually saw the same one four times-not......comfortable.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 18, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Depending on habitat, male cougars can reach 200 lbs., even in your neck of the woods....seen a  couple that big over the last 20 years-actually saw the same one four times-not......comfortable.



Sounds like an improbable tactic for me. I'm 160 now, but about 20 of that is fat. Dam pizza and college life.  Spring just hit though. 

But as far as grappling with animals, I've always thought it would be really easy to break a leg_ if you could get your hand on one._ Not so much applicable to massive animals like bears. I wonder if it would apply to a 150 cougar?







Maybe. Cats seem to have a greater range of motion with their legs compared to say...dogs. In the story, the wrestler was able to pin the cougars paws to the ground. That would really injure a dog. Their knees don't seem very flexible though. And they don't seem to have reinforcements against pressure or impact on their legs. Not easy to break, but just from looking at pictures, they look a less sturdy than human legs. 
And they wouldn't have to be sturdy, because they're cougars and other animals probably aren't going for their shins. The just need to be fast and powerful. Clearly though, I'm not the residential expert on cougars.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 18, 2015)

Right.....


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 19, 2015)

Dam it. Wrong again.  In fairness, I wasn't AS wrong as last time. xD


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 21, 2015)

Anyone ever visit the site Manly Skills The Art of Manliness  ? 
It's an awesome site. 

Anyway, I just found an illustrated instruction and story about fighting dogs on it. 
Just thought someone might be interested.

How to Survive a Dog Attack The Art of Manliness


----------



## K-man (May 21, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Anyone ever visit the site Manly Skills The Art of Manliness  ?
> It's an awesome site.
> 
> Anyway, I just found an illustrated instruction and story about fighting dogs on it.
> ...


Not sure I'd agree with the bit about offering the forearm.


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 21, 2015)

K-man said:


> Not sure I'd agree with the bit about offering the forearm.



I wondered about that too. The story where he used his backpack instead made more sense. Better than a neck or a face I suppose, but probably not the optimal solution.


----------



## K-man (May 21, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> I wondered about that too. The story where he used his backpack instead made more sense. Better than a neck or a face I suppose, but probably not the optimal solution.


The problem with a dog hanging off your arm, particularly a big dog as seen in shutzhund or police videos, apart from the 40 kg weight is the pain and the shaking. The police dogs are trained to hold but a wild dog is going to rip and tear. Rottis are bigger again and dogs like pit bull terriers just aren't going to let go.

How would you like one of these guys on your arm?





To be honest I wouldn't want my arm in even a small dog's mouth.


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 21, 2015)

K-man said:


> The problem with a dog hanging off your arm, particularly a big dog as seen in shutzhund or police videos, apart from the 40 kg weight is the pain and the shaking. The police dogs are trained to hold but a wild dog is going to rip and tear. Rottis are bigger again and dogs like pit bull terriers just aren't going to let go.
> 
> How would you like one of these guys on your arm?
> 
> ...



The one where the dog jumped over the car and where 2 dogs pulled the gunman off his feet where particularly impressive. Some of them looked like they got a hold of their hands....scary thoughts.
I was thinking about those training videos you posted earlier. The forearm just seems...really painful with all that pulling and tearing. But, in fairness, as does anywhere. And kicking and punching the dog that's connected to your forearm would shake it more and be additional pain. 

Against a dog (not a police  dog) without a weapon or tool like a bag or knife (I carry a knife, but I may not have drawn it by that time), I don't know what I would do. Probably stick my forearm out instinctively to brace myself, and kick.  In theory, I know. But reflex and instinct don't work that way, and it's not like much dog fighting training to figure it out can be done. 
Do you have a way you would defend yourself, unarmed, from a dog?

By the way, the site has a similar instruction for grizzly and black bears.


----------



## K-man (May 22, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> The one where the dog jumped over the car and where 2 dogs pulled the gunman off his feet where particularly impressive. Some of them looked like they got a hold of their hands....scary thoughts.
> I was thinking about those training videos you posted earlier. The forearm just seems...really painful with all that pulling and tearing. But, in fairness, as does anywhere. And kicking and punching the dog that's connected to your forearm would shake it more and be additional pain.
> 
> Against a dog (not a police  dog) without a weapon or tool like a bag or knife (I carry a knife, but I may not have drawn it by that time), I don't know what I would do. Probably stick my forearm out instinctively to brace myself, and kick.  In theory, I know. But reflex and instinct don't work that way, and it's not like much dog fighting training to figure it out can be done.
> ...


Fortunately we don't have black bears, grizzly bears or even brown bears (for those who look for species variation). We only have drop bears and they seem to totally ignore the locals and only attack tourists, probably because the tourists are the ones looking up all the time.

But seriously, I think fighting a dog is a bit like fighting someone with a knife. You are likely to be bitten. I would initially try to defuse the situation by backing away, pretending to yawn and I would try to not show any emotion. The dog attacks I have seen have generally been to the legs so I would be ready to sprawl and get a good grip on the scruff of the neck, preferably with both hands. Dogs have very loose skin folds around the neck so if something grabs them they can still turn their heads and bite.

I often play fight with my dogs, German Shepherds, as it is similar training to training against a knife. Offer a decoy, don't try to stop their forward motion, use deflection etc, until you can get that controlling grip.

Of course a full on dog attack is like a full on fight. Hopefully you will instinctively do what you have to do, but offering the dog my arm to play with is not part of my plan.


----------



## Transk53 (May 22, 2015)

I personally think that the fart is well underrated!


----------



## Chrisoro (May 23, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> And you are way too hung up on the idea of early Hominids "fighting." When would a human even WANT to fight, from an evolutionary/survival standpoint? Tribesmen might "fight" each other, but it's designed to be all about intimidation without much damage to either party, because otherwise a tribes strongest males would be constantly too injured to hunt or flee from predators.
> 
> "Fighting," as you seem to think of it, did not evolve as a natural behavior.



Actually, I have to disagree. Recent research indicates that male facial bone structure in humans evolved to be able to better take punches. In order for facial bone structure to evolve to be able to take harder punches, a whole lot of individuals would have to die(or in other ways lose their abolity to reproduce) as a result of fighting, ensuring that the ones with the bone structure most likely to survive punches would be the ones passing along their genes. In other words, fistfighting were probably not only about intimidation, were often fatal, and can definately be considered a natural behaviour, if this research is on to something.


----------



## Chrisoro (May 23, 2015)

BMhadoken said:
			
		

> I think mostly the large flightless birds like Ostriches and Emus, but 1. They have some really huge, vicious claws as well as muscle strength, and 2. *They only do it when running like hell hasn't been working.*



Also, regarding your last statement, please google "Cassowary attacks".


----------



## Chrisoro (May 24, 2015)

Also relevant:

Fighting may have shaped evolution of human hand - BBC News


----------



## BMhadoken (May 25, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> Also relevant:
> 
> Fighting may have shaped evolution of human hand - BBC News



Covered this already. If by fighting you're talking about the use of tools and weapons, then yes that's exactly what our hands developed to be good at. But to the claim that we evolved our hands and arms specially for straight punching, I'm gonna say evolution really let us down there.


----------



## Chrisoro (May 25, 2015)

BMHadoken

Fighting among homo sapiens would take that form, yes. But as the articles states, fighting among our close ancestors might have been to a large degree unarmed, and formed our hands and faces to be able to effectively take and dish out damage. And as to "evolution letting us down. Well, evolution is an ongoing process, and if you compare the images of the various skulls in the article about facial bones, it appears that as humans increased the use of tools/weapons, it may not have been an evolutionary advantage to be able to take punches anymore, as most damage people would take, would take other forms (or the evolution of the facial bone structure reached a point where individual differences mattered little) and the heavy facial structure of our close ancestors started to be slowly reduced as other traits were selected for instead, leading back to more fragile facial bones again. I suspect the same is the case with the hand, and that it may have been far stronger in the past. However, they have still a structure that supports the transfer of energy trough the knuckles far better than in other apes, which is a heritage from our close ancestors going trough a selection for this trait over countless generations. But as our general bone structure density have been reduced steadily over the past million years, the support is not enough anymore as many people now can now generate more punching power than the hand can absorb in it's natural state. And as we as a species are currently selecting for other traits than ability to take and dish out damage in fighting, I don't see this changing anytime soon.


----------



## BMhadoken (May 26, 2015)

I'm going to regret trying to be intelligent after being awake for 26 hours. Here we go.



BMhadoken said:


> I think some very clever people took a look at what we had and searched for ways to maximize the damage dealt with the tools available, but if punching was a natural attack that we evolved to perform, then A. we wouldn't need to be taught how to do it without injuring ourselves, and B. the attack wouldn't have such a high rate of self-injury even amongst the trained.


Something I said earlier in the thread. The human hand is a marvel it's true, we have those superb opposable digits along with a level of manual dexterity and ROM not found in the other apes. Personally I believe that growing fine motor control was both a result of, and helped further facilitate tool use. I don't think we built our hands for punching, I think we built punching with our available hardware in mind.

Moving along, I've certainly read some interesting theories that the male skull evolved over time to be bonier, thicker, and better protect our important facial features, along with some of the other sexually dimorphic traits in our species. It's a reasonable argument. So I'm not saying human bodies didn't evolve a particular approach to threatening or deadly situations. I'm just saying that evolution was primarily in our brains and our ability to move and manipulate the things around us. That's what allowed humans to actually get anywhere. Bare-handed, even a chimpanzee can brutalize the hell out of us.

Also


> Also, regarding your last statement, please google "Cassowary attacks".


Every living thing on or around the Australian continent was carefully and lovingly crafted by a malevolent god for the purpose of extinguishing life in increasingly amusing horrifying ways.


----------



## PhotonGuy (May 26, 2015)

Well yes we do have natural weapons and the martial arts is all about how to use them effectively. There are some advantages to using natural weapons, particularly that they wont be considered weapons in court.


----------



## Chrisoro (May 28, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> I'm going to regret trying to be intelligent after being awake for 26 hours. Here we go.
> 
> 
> Something I said earlier in the thread. The human hand is a marvel it's true, we have those superb opposable digits along with a level of manual dexterity and ROM not found in the other apes. Personally I believe that growing fine motor control was both a result of, and helped further facilitate tool use. I don't think we built our hands for punching, I think we built punching with our available hardware in mind.



You  are of course free to believe that, but personally, I don't think it is an either/or situation. It's completely possible that our hand developed it's current form(or something close to ut), including the ability to form fists, *both* as a response to evolutionary pressure resulting from our ancestors fighting with their fists (and a lot of individuals breaking them which over time would select for the best structure to support a fist when punching), *AND* from increasing use of tools, where natural selection would favor those individuals who could use their hands for that application. These are not mutually exclusive, and don't need to have happened during the same time periods either, so in fact, both might be true.



> Moving along, I've certainly read some interesting theories that the male skull evolved over time to be bonier, thicker, and better protect our important facial features, along with some of the other sexually dimorphic traits in our species. It's a reasonable argument. So I'm not saying human bodies didn't evolve a particular approach to threatening or deadly situations. I'm just saying that evolution was primarily in our brains and our ability to move and manipulate the things around us.



Evolution is blind and can happen with every part of a species anatomy all the time. Some mutations are very notable, and others are not, but the bottom point is that evolution did not happen primary in our brains. A mutation doesn't have to be benign to be transfered on to the following generations. It just have to not result in a disadvantage that is great enough to have a marked impact on ability to reproduce.

Our whole body is on average different in notable ways from even ancestors from our own species if you go back 30000 years or so. Moving back another couple of hundred thousand years, you will find that close relatives of our species have generally thicker bones all over, larger teeth, etc. Which definitely does not support an argument of how hands did not evolve to sustain punches because our species _currently_ tend to break hands when punching full power into a human head.



> That's what allowed humans to actually get anywhere. Bare-handed, even a chimpanzee can brutalize the hell out of us.



Yes. But that doesn't really say anything about how the situation was with our much hardier ancestors, as stated above, nor does it tell us wether or not they fought among themselves using their fists or not.

Also, regarding how current people in the modern world tend to have to learn how to use their fists for punching, and how this was used as an argument against straight punches because they therefore supposedly are not "natural behaviour". What is the likelihood of these same people surviving naked in the woods alone, or even be able to create the kind of tools our ancestors used, without training? And what does that tell us the most about? Of how our ancestors survived and their abilities? Or about the general ability of an average, modern human living in a historically extremely peaceful society with an abundance of technological means for accomplishing stuff? As transmission of culture and skills have been observed even among distant relatives of us, such as chimpanzees, why couldn't the practice of punching with the fists be just another ability that after being discovered, could have been transferred over enough generations to have an evolutionary impact?

Sorry, but I still find the arguments of the researchers quoted earlier in the thread (these and these) more convincing than yours.


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 28, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well yes we do have natural weapons and the martial arts is all about how to use them effectively. There are some advantages to using natural weapons, particularly that they wont be considered weapons in court.



So, out of the tools we have, which ones do you think are the most useful? For what purposes? We have all sorts of reflexes, instincts, muscles, body parts like elbows or fists that could be helpful in survival situation. The idea of this thread is to generate discussion on what parts of us would be more helpful than others.  The fist is a great example. Is it designed for punch? Why or why not? If it is, what should natural punching look like? Or if we aren't designed to punch, what else?

A point to be made can be as simple as which muscles you think are the most important for whatever task, or as in depth as the current conversation on evolution. The objective is to incorporate the information to make fighting as close to our natural disposition. I think this emulation of our natural instincts and skills could both make your mind healthier and make the skills easier to call upon should they be needed. 
Plus, it's quite the subject in martial arts. What our bodies where made to do. It's a huge discussion. I was kind of surprised there wasn't already a thread on it.


----------



## pgsmith (May 28, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> So, out of the tools we have, which ones do you think are the most useful?


  Our advanced brain and ability to think is far and away the most useful tool we have. However, judging by popular TV programming, it's also the tool that's being left in the toolbox gathering dust most often.


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 28, 2015)

BMhadoken said:


> I'm going to regret trying to be intelligent after being awake for 26 hours. Here we go.
> 
> 
> Something I said earlier in the thread. The human hand is a marvel it's true, we have those superb opposable digits along with a level of manual dexterity and ROM not found in the other apes. Personally I believe that growing fine motor control was both a result of, and helped further facilitate tool use. I don't think we built our hands for punching, I think we built punching with our available hardware in mind.
> ...



I would agree that, in many ways, we had a lot of evolution in our minds.  And at some point or another, our ability to adapt our environment to us instead of vice versa became our greatest strength. Even so, certain traits are going to be favored in more than others. Even having inventions, certain traits are going to be more desired or useful in a situation where those inventions exist. Like the hunters that were posted earlier in this thread that were long distance runners.

" Bare-handed, even a chimpanzee can brutalize the hell out of us." - In addition to Chrisoro's point on this, would a human ever need to fight a chimpanzee barehanded? It could happen I suppose, but it doesn't seem like something that would be common enough to become integrated into our evolution. A lot of animals have very specific traits for incredibly specific tasks. The traits that enable a creature to kill another might spell failure for killing another. Can a bear catch a fox? No. But a wolf can catch a fox. A wolf can't so much fight  a bear. And birds having nothing to do with any of them. I doubt our bodies had chimpanzee fighting in mind.  If the fist for example is indeed for punching, it could be just for punching other people, and not....bears, wolves, or chimpanzees. 



BMhadoken said:


> Every living thing on or around the Australian continent was carefully and lovingly crafted by a malevolent god for the purpose of extinguishing life in increasingly amusing horrifying ways.



Indeed. xD

I've heard and read that our intellect evolved from outsmarting each other in war. This article talks about how we evolved aggression.

Tribal war drove human evolution of aggression

However, how war like we were is apparently a bit of a debated topic.

The Psychology of Killing and the Origins of War smellslikescience.com

Peace or War How Early Humans Behaved


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2015)

You can't evolve the fist, when punching is a learned activity.


----------



## Chrisoro (May 29, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> You can't evolve the fist, when punching is a learned activity.



You most definitely can. You just have to transmit the cultural behavior of punching over enough generations for it to influence the selection of certain traits. If someone broke their hand a million years ago, it was a pretty big deal, and would definitely affect their perceived suitability as a mate, and thus their reproductive success. The result of this happening again and again over time, for example as a result of males fighting, would be a steady increase in the strength of the fists in the population over time, or in other words, an evolution of the fists.

From the research article Protective buttressing of the human fist and the evolution of hominin hands published in the peer reviewed Journal of Experimental Biology:



> A third possibility is that the proportions of the human hand are the result of sexual selection for improved striking performance during hand-to-hand combat by males.





> Additionally, as would be expected if human hand proportions evolved as a result of sexual selection, there is also dimorphism in
> the shape of the hand. The ratio between the lengths of the second and fourth digits is lower in males than in females (Manning et al., 1998). This ratio is negatively correlated with levels of prenatal and adult testosterone (Manning et al., 1998), performance and success in football (soccer) (Manning and Taylor, 2001), and perceived male dominance (Neave et al., 2003). Importantly, among mammals, sexual dimorphism is often greatest in those characters that enhance a male’s capacity to dominate other males (Parker, 1983; Andersson, 1994; Clutton-Brock and Harvey, 1977). *Thus, the relatively high levels of sexual dimorphism in the arm and hand are consistent with the hypothesis that the proportions of the human hand have been influenced by sexual selection. *





> Thus, the proportions of the human hand provide a performance advantage when striking with a fist. We propose that the derived proportions of hominin hands reflect, in part, sexual selection to improve fighting performance.


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 30, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> You can't evolve the fist, when punching is a learned activity.



Do you mean that effective punching not seeming to be an instinctive skill (like walking or jumping) is evidence of our hands not being evolved to punch?

In that case, I would point out that physical attributes and instincts are different things. I don't think a lack of instinct for effective punching is evidence of a lack of fist evolution for punching. I don't see a reason why a physical trait couldn't be gained without the instinct for the skill that made it useful. Physical traits can be passed easily. From one generation to the next, things like hair color, body size, arched or flat feet, etc. are easily passed. Not so much with instincts. They seem to need a lot more...hard wiring.

I would posit that our minds our supposed to be a blank slate so we adapt most effectively to our environment instead of our past ones. Because it's meant to be a _learned_ skill that's useful for the environment you're trying to live in. Only a guess, but I think it might help account for all the different methods of striking with the hands around the world.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 30, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Do you mean that effective punching not seeming to be an instinctive skill (like walking or jumping) is evidence of our hands not being evolved to punch?
> 
> In that case, I would point out that physical attributes and instincts are different things. I don't think a lack of instinct for effective punching is evidence of a lack of fist evolution for punching. I don't see a reason why a physical trait couldn't be gained without the instinct for the skill that made it useful. Physical traits can be passed easily. From one generation to the next, things like hair color, body size, arched or flat feet, etc. are easily passed. Not so much with instincts. They seem to need a lot more...hard wiring.
> 
> I would posit that our minds our supposed to be a blank slate so we adapt most effectively to our environment instead of our past ones. Because it's meant to be a _learned_ skill that's useful for the environment you're trying to live in. Only a guess, but I think it might help account for all the different methods of striking with the hands around the world.


Well, then I would like to point out that women aren't knuckle watchers.


----------



## Orange Lightning (May 30, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Well, then I would like to point out that women aren't knuckle watchers.



OH. THOSE KNUCKLES. 

Not really the point, but it's funny anyway. xD


----------

