# The Eye as a Target



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

Found this on a German language site, thought it might be worth posting here. Real eye attack and results.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

That is total BS. I was told on good authority that the eye gauges I teach are a waste of time and just don't work!


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

Mine are useless too. Must be that we never pressure test them.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Mine are useless too. Must be that we never pressure test them.


Love it!


----------



## Buka (May 10, 2015)

That will wreck your day.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> That is total BS. I was told on good authority that the eye gauges I teach are a waste of time and just don't work!



Without good striking basics they are. You will notice they are employed in the same way punches are. And (Not in this case of course) they are defended in the same way punches are.

It is the delivery system and not the eye gouge that gets you across the line.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Without good striking basics they are. You will notice they are employed in the same way punches are. And (Not in this case of course) they are defended in the same way punches are.
> 
> It is the delivery system and not the eye gouge that gets you across the line.


Agreed, but once you get over the line that eye gouge is quite likely to be a game changer, whereas the punch might not be.


----------



## Buka (May 10, 2015)

What I've always found interesting is when people are fighting (for real) and someone gets damage to the eye(s) they will _sometimes_ vocalize in panic, "My eyes!"  They don't seem to do that for any other body part. Heard "my back" a couple times, but usually it's just the eyes.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Agreed, but once you get over the line that eye gouge is quite likely to be a game changer, whereas the punch might not be.



No.You have one video of an effective eye gouge. 

So if I can find an eye gouge not finishing a fight then I assume the weight of evidence cancels out?

Mabye find two videos of a punch finishing a fight.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Buka said:


> What I've always found interesting is when people are fighting (for real) and someone gets damage to the eye(s) they will _sometimes_ vocalize in panic, "My eyes!"  They don't seem to do that for any other body part. Heard "my back" a couple times, but usually it's just the eyes.



Considered an escalation. Like biting or nut grabbing in that the fight goes into death mode.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No.You have one video of an effective eye gouge.
> 
> So if I can find an eye gouge not finishing a fight then I assume the weight of evidence cancels out?
> 
> Mabye find two videos of a punch finishing a fight.


No, because video is not acceptable evidence of anything. 

However, speaking from more than one instance of personal experience (both accidental and deliberate), eye damage really takes the fight out of a person, and is no harder to inflict than a punch. 

Don't get me wrong, a punch can be effective too, but an eye jab is something else. I know I won't convince you of that, you have your position on these things, and that's fine. It works / has worked both for and against me, and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> No, because video is not acceptable evidence of anything.
> 
> However, speaking from more that one instance of personal experience (both accidental and deliberate), eye damage really takes the fight out of a person, and is no harder to inflict than a punch.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, a punch can be effective too, but an eye jab is something else. I know I won't convince you of that, you have your position on these things, and that's fine. It works / has worked both for and against me, and that's all that matters to me.



Ok. My stance is still the delivery method here. And that is easy to test. I mean all we need to do is find a boxer. Get a couple of sets of goggles and have an eye gouge off to see who's eye gouges are better.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ok. My stance is still the delivery method here. And that is easy to test. I mean all we need to do is find a boxer. Get a couple of sets of goggles and have an eye gouge off to see who's eye gouges are better.


We are probably not going to get into a situation where we need to eye gouge a boxer. What has that boxer done to us? 

Why does everything have to come back to style vs style?


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> We are probably not going to get into a situation where we need to eye gouge a boxer. What has that boxer done to us?
> 
> Why does everything have to come back to style vs style?



When people use comments like. "The eye gouges I teach"  and "Mine are useless too. Must be that we never pressure test them."

Well you can pressure test them. And you can find out if the eye gouges you teach are the most effective method of teaching them.

We even have kudo masks that would be perfect for this


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> When people use comments like. "The eye gouges I teach"  and "Mine are useless too. Must be that we never pressure test them."
> 
> Well you can pressure test them. And you can find out if the eye gouges you teach are the most effective method of teaching them.
> 
> We even have kudo masks that would be perfect for this


Already on it. Those earlier posts were examples of sarcasm. At least mine was.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

Well every time we practise a jab or two followed by the straight punch I emphasise that the jab is often really an open hand strike for the eyes. Apart from anything else it normally causes the flinch response and, being open hand, is faster and has the extra range than a closed fist jab.

From my point of view, there is little difference in delivering it from a strike as in the video or on the ground. A poke in the eye is a poke in the eye.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Already on it. Those earlier posts were examples of sarcasm. At least mine was.



Yeah I know. But there are two ways to look at effective eye gouging. One is backed by solid technique. Pressure tested striking equals pressure tested eye gouging. They become a tool in the tool box.

Or.

Craptastic striking equals I don't have to bother because eye gouges gives me the street edge over a punch.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> Well every time we practise a jab or two followed by the straight punch I emphasise that the jab is often really an open hand strike for the eyes. Apart from anything else it normally causes the flinch response and, being open hand, is faster and has the extra range than a closed fist jab.
> 
> From my point of view, there is little difference in delivering it from a strike as in the video or on the ground. A poke in the eye is a poke in the eye.



And from the ground you mean from underneath a guy?

Gnp eye gouging would work but seems a bit mean.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I know. But there are two ways to look at effective eye gouging. One is backed by solid technique. Pressure tested striking equals pressure tested eye gouging. They become a tool in the tool box.
> 
> Or.
> 
> Craptastic striking equals I don't have to bother because eye gouges gives me the street edge over a punch.


Agree. Shaping the hand for a gouge is less effective without a good foundation in striking to land the hand on target. That does not necessarily have to be based in boxing, though, especially if the strike is being trained for SD purposes. Boxing makes a fine foundation, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Agree. Shaping the hand for a gouge is less effective without a good foundation in striking to land the hand on target. That does not necessarily have to be based in boxing, though, especially if the strike is being trained for SD purposes. Boxing makes a fine foundation, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.



Easy way to test. I have the kudo masks.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Craptastic striking equals I don't have to bother because eye gouges gives me the street edge over a punch.


Hmm! I spend an awful lot of time teaching people to punch. In my Krav classes many of them have been boxers. The fact that now they are learning to punch bare hand changes things a lot and every one I have had so far has been punching with a tense arm.

I have no problem with the striking aspect of martial arts.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> Hmm! I spend an awful lot of time teaching people to punch. In my Krav classes many of them have been boxers. The fact that now they are learning to punch bare hand changes things a lot and every one I have had so far has been punching with a tense arm.
> 
> I have no problem with the striking aspect of martial arts.



How do you know?


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Easy way to test. I have the kudo masks.


No need to test if the practitioner has a reasonable established and tested striking base and that SD situation is not likely going to be against a boxer....given that most people don't box....However, I do like to test what I do, so yeah, thrash away with the masks on to your heart's content.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> How do you know?


You really need to ask? If some one is punching you properly you know. I might have thought with your experience you might have known how to tell if a punch was effective.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> You really need to ask? If some one is punching you properly you know. I might have thought with your experience you might have known how to tell if a punch was effective.



I get them to put a pair of gloves on and engage in hard punching. I haven't notice a discernible difference between bare knuckle and gloves punching. Especially with smaller gloves.

But I don't bare knuckle box. 

Are you suggesting that is the same method you use to define how your bare knuckle method is more effective?


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> No need to test if the practitioner has a reasonable established and tested striking base and that SD situation is not likely going to be against a boxer....given that most people don't box....However, I do like to test what I do, so yeah, thrash away with the masks on to your heart's content.



My test would be that if you can counter a boxer then you can counter most punching. And by default most eye gouging. Now you suggested you have a different method that is comparable to that. So I assumed you would have at least tested it against boxing.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> My test would be that if you can counter a boxer then you can counter most punching. And by default most eye gouging. Now you suggested you have a different method that is comparable to that. So I assumed you would have at least tested it against boxing.



Why, when boxing is not what it is intended to be used against?

If it is intended for use to protect myself, I am unlikely to need to use it against a boxer, boxers being the lovely friendly warm hearted people that they are.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> My test would be that if you can counter a boxer then you can counter most punching. And by default most eye gouging. Now you suggested you have a different method that is comparable to that. So I assumed you would have at least tested it against boxing.


Gnarlie has it spot on. I am not training to box. I did that years ago. I am not training others to box either although years ago I did teach guys to go into tournament karate.

What I am teaching is how to get through the average punter's defence and take him out whether it is a punch, elbow, kick or knee.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Why, when boxing is not what it is intended to be used against?
> 
> If it is intended for use to protect myself, I am unlikely to need to use it against a boxer, boxers being the lovely friendly warm hearted people that they are.



Testing against effective punching. Rather than a persons mean spirit.

Who do you test against?

Angry street fighters?


----------



## Gnarlie (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Testing against effective punching. Rather than a persons mean spirit.
> 
> Who do you test against?
> 
> Angry street fighters?


Whoever is available. Including boxers. But that's a belt and braces approach rather than necessary.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> Gnarlie has it spot on. I am not training to box. I did that years ago. I am not training others to box either although years ago I did teach guys to go into tournament karate.
> 
> What I am teaching is how to get through the average punter's defence and take him out whether it is a punch, elbow, kick or knee.



So where would you rate your students striking in comparison to say a boxer. Considering the bare knuckle difference.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> Whoever is available. Including boxers. But that's a belt and braces approach rather than necessary.



What method do you use to test?

Why unnecessary?


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So where would you rate your students striking in comparison to say a boxer. Considering the bare knuckle difference.


This becomes a philosophical discussion because a punch doesn't have to be delivered with full power to be effective. I would maintain that if I can teach a person to strike with more power then they would require less effort to achieve enough power to deliver an effective strike. Because every person is different it is impossible to compare a non boxer to a boxer. I mean, what are we comparing? Does a 65kg female student pack the same power as a 120kg male boxer? Obviously not, but I would claim that I can take an average boxer and teach him how to increase the power of his punch.

Now this is not an issue for big strong guys but for females in particular, being able to deliver maximum power in a punch becomes very important.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> This becomes a philosophical discussion because a punch doesn't have to be delivered with full power to be effective. I would maintain that if I can teach a person to strike with more power then they would require less effort to achieve enough power to deliver an effective strike. Because every person is different it is impossible to compare a non boxer to a boxer. I mean, what are we comparing? Does a 65kg female student pack the same power as a 120kg male boxer? Obviously not, but I would claim that I can take an average boxer and teach him how to increase the power of his punch.
> 
> Now this is not an issue for big strong guys but for females in particular, being able to deliver maximum power in a punch becomes very important.



Not sure how it is too philosophical. Because you could test. Find a comparable boxer of about the same size and ability and see if your method holds water. Or any other striking stylist. Continue to test untill you have found a trend.

That is why I suggested the eyegouge off in the first place. You could get an ide of eyegouge vs eyegouge or even eyegouge vs punch to a lesser degree.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Not sure how it is too philosophical. Because you could test. Find a comparable boxer of about the same size and ability and see if your method holds water. Or any other striking stylist. Continue to test untill you have found a trend.
> 
> That is why I suggested the eyegouge off in the first place. You could get an ide of eyegouge vs eyegouge or even eyegouge vs punch to a lesser degree.


Mmm. As I said, I used to box and I am teaching guys who box. What should I do next, sign on for Golden Gloves?


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> Mmm. As I said, I used to box and I am teaching guys who box. What should I do next, sign on for Golden Gloves?



You should. You have years of experience in an effective striking style that engages in life or death confrontation. You punch harder than most boxers and have even boxed previously.

Golden gloves should be easy.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

So effective eye gouging. Here is john jones using eyegouges effectively.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You should. You have years of experience in an effective striking style that engages in life or death confrontation. You punch harder than most boxers and have even boxed previously.
> 
> Golden gloves should be easy.


Agree with some but not all. I have had years of experience in an effective striking style and I have boxed. Then you get into misquoting and hyperbole.  Please show me where I said I punch harder than most boxers.

Only *Sad Dog* has faced the life or death bit, at least according to him.

As to Golden Gloves sadly, I think I might be a bit old to fit the age limit. I passed that age before you were born.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> Agree with some but not all. I have had years of experience in an effective striking style and I have boxed. Then you get into misquoting and hyperbole.  Please show me where I said I punch harder than most boxers.
> 
> Only *Sad Dog* has faced the life or death bit, at least according to him.
> 
> As to Golden Gloves sadly, I think I might be a bit old to fit the age limit. I passed that age before you were born.



You claim to teach people to hit harder. Are you not able to do so yourself?

"but I would claim that I can take an average boxer and teach him how to increase the power of his punch."

You are the one who raised golden gloves. I suggested an eyegouge test with some masks on.

By the way we recently had a two 55ish year old compete. And they have had nowhere near the level of training you have.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You claim to teach people to hit harder. Are you not able to do so yourself?
> 
> "but I would claim that I can take an average boxer and teach him how to increase the power of his punch."
> 
> ...


And I was 58 in my last tournament nearly 10 years ago. Is that meant to prove something? The reference to Golden Gloves was irony. Give me a break. I teach martial arts to the best of my ability. We are not all fit young guys fuelled with testosterone training for our next fight. If the guys I train wanted to fight in the ring their training would be totally different. We don't all have to train as you train, if indeed you train at all. We accept that you do what you say you do even though no one here has seen you train.


----------



## drop bear (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> And I was 58 in my last tournament nearly 10 years ago. Is that meant to prove something? The reference to Golden Gloves was irony. Give me a break. I teach martial arts to the best of my ability. We are not all fit young guys fuelled with testosterone training for our next fight. If the guys I train wanted to fight in the ring their training would be totally different. We don't all have to train as you train, if indeed you train at all. We accept that you do what you say you do even though no one here has seen you train.



Well I am not suggesting you train as I train. I am suggesting you test the delivery system for eyegouges to see if it works. 

Also I would suggest you test the bare knuckle punches if you are making changes to that. But unless you are bare knuckle punching people in the eye (hurts like heck by the way) probably a bit off topic.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 10, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well I am not suggesting you train as I train. I am suggesting you test the delivery system for eyegouges to see if it works.



Are you volunteering to let a few of us poke you in the eye?


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Are you volunteering to let a few of us poke you in the eye?
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.



I would do it with goggles on.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> What method do you use to test?
> 
> Why unnecessary?


First question: we use a range of sparring and other scenarios, both prearranged and free, and incorporate any type of strike. Including boxing. With contact, and with protective equipment where necessary. 

Second question: because as I have already said, being able to use the technique against a skilled pugilist or martial artist is not the point of the exercise.  That's not what it is for.

I've used it successfully, even by accident.  Poking someone in the eye is not a difficult thing to do at all if you have any idea about striking and they have less of an idea. Just like punching someone isn't that difficult if you use the element of surprise and strategically position the set up well. We are not really talking about a fight scenario.  We are talking about an execution of a technique supported by a set of principles, preemption and misdirection being two of them. If the oppo has a chance to react, something has gone wrong.

A: Perceives clear threat, deescalation having failed, subtly lines up oppo. 
A: "Hey, you used to work at that shop, right?"
B: *Milliseconds thinking of a response*
A: *Interrupts with preemptive poke, nut shot, throat grab, punch to the jaw, whatever*

This type of strategy does not require testing against a boxer. It requires a good strike, on target, and convincing confidence and interpersonal skills for misdirection. By the time the oppo realises the fight has started, it is over. 

Different to competitive fighting. Very.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 11, 2015)

The question 'how the hell did you get my watch?' works great as an uppercut or palm heel setup, as it tends to make people look at or gesture with their hands for a moment. For example.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> First question: we use a range of sparring and other scenarios, both prearranged and free, and incorporate any type of strike. Including boxing. With contact, and with protective equipment where necessary.
> 
> Second question: because as I have already said, being able to use the technique against a skilled pugilist or martial artist is not the point of the exercise.  That's not what it is for.
> 
> ...



So the technique is designed to work with the addition of either sucker punching or ambushing rather than work while engaged in a physical exchange with the other guy.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So the technique is designed to work with the addition of either sucker punching or ambushing rather than work while engaged in a physical exchange with the other guy.



All first line SD is preemptive, yes. That's why we get into these ongoing circular conversations about magic techniques and fantasy, I think we are talking different contexts. We are not talking fight, we are talking pre-empt. If after pre-empt there is still a fight then make the most of a bad situation.  That's the phase to be pressure tested, just in case. But hopefully avoid that via reading the situation and preempting.

Even in the video, the eye strike was still partly preemptive, as soon as the oppo started to move. This drastically increases the percentages of such a technique hitting home.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 11, 2015)

That said, also plenty of situations mid grapple where the opportunity might present itself...and be taken advantage of. I'm not claiming some magic anti grappling BS here, just a tool that can be used when the opportunity is there.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I would do it with goggles on.



But that's not real! Neither the impact or the result would be comparable to the Street.

I thought you were convinced that these strikes are ineffective?


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> But that's not real! Neither the impact or the result would be comparable to the Street.
> 
> I thought you were convinced that these strikes are ineffective?



I am not suggesting anybody else have a protectionless  eyegouge off either. So I am willing to do the training I suggest others do.

If you want to raise the level then it would be up to you to lead the way on this.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> All first line SD is preemptive, yes. That's why we get into these ongoing circular conversations about magic techniques and fantasy, I think we are talking different contexts. We are not talking fight, we are talking pre-empt. If after pre-empt there is still a fight then make the most of a bad situation.  That's the phase to be pressure tested, just in case. But hopefully avoid that via reading the situation and preempting.
> 
> Even in the video, the eye strike was still partly preemptive, as soon as the oppo started to move. This drastically increases the percentages of such a technique hitting home.



See I would have put the context of a fight. I actually stayed away from being extra duchebaggy with that considering it was a mutually agreed upon fight on a flat surface with a known opponent with no weapons or multiples. And so not self defence but monkey dance or sport.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Gnarlie said:


> That said, also plenty of situations mid grapple where the opportunity might present itself...and be taken advantage of. I'm not claiming some magic anti grappling BS here, just a tool that can be used when the opportunity is there.



As a tool its effectiveness is determined by how well you grapple though. Not how well you eye gouge.


----------



## Jaysonrd (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well I am not suggesting you train as I train. I am suggesting you test the delivery system for eyegouges to see if it works.
> 
> Also I would suggest you test the bare knuckle punches if you are making changes to that. But unless you are bare knuckle punching people in the eye (hurts like heck by the way) probably a bit off topic.



Instead of an eye gouge where you increase the chances of breaking your fingers what about an eye flick?  I learned this from watching this video.  I hope this isn't against the rules in regards to leaving a link, but it seems to add to this conversation in regards to is an eye gouge effective.  My opinion is it could be, but you increase the chance that you might miss and break your fingers on their nose, forehead, or cheekbone.  Then what are you going to do?  

Here is that video demonstrating an eye flick and why you shouldn't do an eye gouge.  

How To Shut Down A Bigger Attacker With One Simple Move


----------



## Gnarlie (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> As a tool its effectiveness is determined by how well you grapple though. Not how well you eye gouge.


Agreed.


----------



## Gnarlie (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> See I would have put the context of a fight. I actually stayed away from being extra duchebaggy with that considering it was a mutually agreed upon fight on a flat surface with a known opponent with no weapons or multiples. And so not self defence but monkey dance or sport.


Agree. Appreciate your restraint.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Jaysonrd said:


> Instead of an eye gouge where you increase the chances of breaking your fingers what about an eye flick?  I learned this from watching this video.  I hope this isn't against the rules in regards to leaving a link, but it seems to add to this conversation in regards to is an eye gouge effective.  My opinion is it could be, but you increase the chance that you might miss and break your fingers on their nose, forehead, or cheekbone.  Then what are you going to do?
> 
> Here is that video demonstrating an eye flick and why you shouldn't do an eye gouge.
> 
> How To Shut Down A Bigger Attacker With One Simple Move



Eye shots even eye flicks work. The issue is how to get them on target without getting your head punched off.

And people seem to forget that aspect when it comes to these techniques.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> When people use comments like. "The eye gouges I teach"  and "Mine are useless too. Must be that we never pressure test them."
> 
> Well you can pressure test them. And you can find out if the eye gouges you teach are the most effective method of teaching them.
> 
> We even have kudo masks that would be perfect for this.


Actually kudo masks aren't great for training even though we use them. The problem is one of distance. Even that small difference in range makes a difference both for the striker and the defender. Certainly better than nothing but not perfect.

It is actually another example where martial art is modified by sport, so we'll keep training our eye strikes on the pads.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> Actually kudo masks aren't great for training even though we use them. The problem is one of distance. Even that small difference in range makes a difference both for the striker and the defender. Certainly better than nothing but not perfect.
> 
> It is actually another example where martial art is modified by sport, so well keep training our eye strikes on the pads.



Which is more realistic because?


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Eye shots even eye flicks work. The issue is how to get them on target without getting your head punched off.
> 
> And people seem to forget that aspect when it comes to these techniques.


Actually, this is not at all logical. It is the same as saying, _"jabs work. The same issue applies, how to get them on target without getting your head punched off."_

In fact the eye strike is easier because it gives you an extra 4" (10cm) of reach. And what some people don't seem to understand is, I don't care if the fingers don't reach the eyes. I am working on flinch response to get a means of entering to land a follow up punch or grab hold.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Which is more realistic because?


Moot point. Neither is realistic but at least with pads you are getting the range right. Tell me now that you don't use pads in your training.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> Actually, this is not at all logical. It is the same as saying, _"jabs work. The same issue applies, how to get them on target without getting your head punched off."_
> 
> In fact the eye strike is easier because it gives you an extra 4" (10cm) of reach. And what some people don't seem to understand is, I don't care if the fingers don't reach the eyes. I am working on flinch response to get a means of entering to land a follow up punch or grab hold.



Which you are still relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work for you. Which is not a safe way to fight.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> Moot point. Neither is realistic but at least with pads you are getting the range right. Tell me now that you don't use pads in your training.



I use both pads and sparring. You are apparently just using pads.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I use both pads and sparring. You are apparently just using pads.


Just because we don't spar doesn't mean we are not 'sparring' in the sense of entering and engaging. If you class your rolling within the definition of 'sparring' then what we do is also sparring. Within karate sparring is basically either continuous (jiu kumite) or point sparring and we don't do either of those.

You keep misquoting what I say. I'm not interested in competition type sparring. That is the same as consensual fighting that you normally see. (In fact all sparring is consensual fighting legally.) Our training is to enter and engage even if you do cop a hit on the way in. A strike to the eyes is one way of achieving that objective.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Which you are still relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work for you. Which is not a safe way to fight.


Oh boy. Where do you get this notion? Eye strikes have never been *all* the entry work and as for exit, attacking the eyes is just one means of escape. But even here you are misrepresenting what I have said. Escaping from chokes etc is normally an eye gouge where you are driving you fingers or thumb deep into the eye socket. Here we are talking of a strike.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

Jaysonrd said:


> Instead of an eye gouge where you increase the chances of breaking your fingers what about an eye flick?  I learned this from watching this video.  I hope this isn't against the rules in regards to leaving a link, but it seems to add to this conversation in regards to is an eye gouge effective.  My opinion is it could be, but you increase the chance that you might miss and break your fingers on their nose, forehead, or cheekbone.  Then what are you going to do?
> 
> Here is that video demonstrating an eye flick and why you shouldn't do an eye gouge.
> 
> How To Shut Down A Bigger Attacker With One Simple Move


I think you'll find eye strikes (rigid fingers), eye flicks (soft fingers) and eye gouges (fingers driven into the eye socket) are all different techniques. Personally I would never really go for the first for a number of reasons, the ones you listed among them. The eye 'flick' for want of a better term, is what I was describing in my post when I wrote ...

_"Well every time we practise a jab or two followed by the straight punch I emphasise that the jab is often really an open hand strike for the eyes. Apart from anything else it normally causes the flinch response and, *being open hand, is faster* and has the extra range than a closed fist jab."_

What I was talking about as 'faster' is exactly that loose flick of the arm.

If you go back to the OP you will see the guy there has bent fingers.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ok. My stance is still the delivery method here. And that is easy to test. I mean all we need to do is find a boxer. Get a couple of sets of goggles and have an eye gouge off to see who's eye gouges are better.


I haven't read the entire thread yet.  Has anyone botherd to point out that if you are wearing goggles, you are not pressure testing your eye gouges?

Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested.

you don't need an excellent delivery system or superior technique to damage the eyes.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> Oh boy. Where do you get this notion? Eye strikes have never been *all* the entry work and as for exit, attacking the eyes is just one means of escape. But even here you are misrepresenting what I have said. Escaping from chokes etc is normally an eye gouge where you are driving you fingers or thumb deep into the eye socket. Here we are talking of a strike.



You haven't mentioned anything in relation to entry and exit work. Just you get a bit more reach.

That does not change the fundamental idea that you have to avoid getting hit on the way in and the way out.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> I haven't read the entire thread yet.  Has anyone botherd to point out that if you are wearing goggles, you are not pressure testing your eye gouges?
> 
> Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested.
> 
> you don't need an excellent delivery system or superior technique to damage the eyes.



How do you know? You don't pressure test.

I am sorry. I mostly don't hold with the too deadly to spar concept.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2015)

K-man said:


> Just because we don't spar doesn't mean we are not 'sparring' in the sense of entering and engaging. If you class your rolling within the definition of 'sparring' then what we do is also sparring. Within karate sparring is basically either continuous (jiu kumite) or point sparring and we don't do either of those.
> 
> You keep misquoting what I say. I'm not interested in competition type sparring. That is the same as consensual fighting that you normally see. (In fact all sparring is consensual fighting legally.) Our training is to enter and engage even if you do cop a hit on the way in. A strike to the eyes is one way of achieving that objective.



Like the video in the OP. Consensual sparring.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

Here you are saying I am relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work.



drop bear said:


> Which *you are still relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work* for you. Which is not a safe way to fight.



... and here you are saying I didn't say anything about entry and exit work.



drop bear said:


> *You haven't mentioned anything in relation to entry and exit work.* Just you get a bit more reach.
> 
> That does not change the fundamental idea that you have to avoid getting hit on the way in and the way out.


And who said you have to avoid being hit? We condition for being hit. I see plenty of boxers get hit and I see plenty of MMA guys getting hit and they seem to be able to wear most of those strikes to either enter to grapple or just hit. That is what I am saying we do, yet in my styles it isn't acceptable? How does that work?


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> How do you know? You don't pressure test.
> 
> I am sorry. I mostly don't hold with the too deadly to spar concept.


And I'm sorry. We just had a discussion about spin. Please show me anywhere where *Flying Crane*, or anyone else for that matter, has said that their style is 'too deadly to spar'.

And while you are at it, please define sparring. I haven't read anywhere where *Flying Crane* has ever said he doesn't pressure test. In fact in the seven odd years I've been part of this forum only two people have ever accused others of not pressure testing.


----------



## K-man (May 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Like the video in the OP. Consensual sparring.


So, was that your definition of sparring?


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> And I'm sorry. We just had a discussion about spin. Please show me anywhere where *Flying Crane*, or anyone else for that matter, has said that their style is 'too deadly to spar'.
> 
> And while you are at it, please define sparring. I haven't read anywhere where *Flying Crane* has ever said he doesn't pressure test. In fact in the seven odd years I've been part of this forum only two people have ever accused others of not pressure testing.



"Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested"

Sorry that is classic too deadly to spar.


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2015)

K-man said:


> So, was that your definition of sparring?



Yep. Sparring with eyegouges.


----------



## K-man (May 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yep. Sparring with eyegouges.


So you don't spar either. Interesting.

And BTW, that wasn't an eye gouge by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## K-man (May 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> "Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested"
> 
> Sorry that is classic too deadly to spar.


Um! No! Eye gouges are unlikely to be deadly. Permanent injury perhaps, but not deadly.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 12, 2015)

Random thoughts on the eye as a target...

I've received a solid (accidental) eye poke in sparring 3 times.
One time I dropped to the ground clutching my eye in agony.
One time I stepped back and asked for a moment to make sure I was okay. I could have kept going, but wanted to make sure there was no serious damage for safety's sake. (For the next 6 months I would see occasional flashing circles of light when I was out at night.)
One time I kept going, got hold of my opponent, took him down and submitted him working by feel with one eye closed.
Based on this small sample I would say that targeting the eye is an effective tactic, but not a guaranteed fight finisher.

I practice a drill I learned from Roy Harris (JKD instructor, BJJ black belt) for setting up eye gouges, head butts, elbows, knees, and groin slaps off of pummeling for head control. It's semi free form, but not competitive. I like it because it works with a structure that I do practice in a resisted sparring context on a regular basis and just makes me aware of the opportunities for  my opponent or myself to slip in those kinds of attacks without breaking our normal flow.

Given that we can't legally, morally, or practically practice eye gouges or pokes for real, we can never gain the technical mastery of them that we can with techniques such as chokes or punches. Nevertheless, they are effective enough and easy enough that it's worth not neglecting them entirely. Even if we don't want to use them, we should be aware of the possibility that someone could use them against us. I think a good compromise is to have awareness of how they fit into the other techniques that we can practice with more realism:

If I can hit you with a quick, accurate jab to your face (or even come up a couple inches short with my fist), then I _might_ have been able to poke you in the eye. (Not guaranteed, but certainly worth considering.)
If I can't hit you in the face at all, or even come up a couple of inches short, then I could not have poked you in the eye.
If I can control you with grappling well enough that I can put my hand on your face and you can't block me or move your head away, then I could very likely have gouged you in the eye.
If an opponent can put his hand on my face at all, then the chances of him being able to attack my eyes are non-zero, even if he doesn't have full head control.

Conclusion: if I want to be able to target the eye effectively or prevent someone from targeting my eyes, then I should practice being able to hit an opponent without being hit and being able to control him in grappling range so that I can reach his face and he can't reach mine.

BTW - just because you don't incorporate these techniques (or any other) into your regular sparring doesn't mean you can't be aware of them. Even when I'm grappling with no strikes I like to keep a little subroutine going in my head that notes "_he could have hit me with an elbow there, his hands were in place to poke me in the eye, I was open for a head butt, etc_" and adjust my body to prevent those opportunities as much as possible even though those techniques aren't allowed in practice and my sparring partner has no intention of using them.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> How do you know? You don't pressure test.
> 
> I am sorry. I mostly don't hold with the too deadly to spar concept.


You know how I train?  I didn't think we had met.  When was this?

Hey if you want to "pressure test" eye gouges, or better yet, let someone else pressure test them on you, be my guest.


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> You know how I train?  I didn't think we had met.  When was this?
> 
> Hey if you want to "pressure test" eye gouges, or better yet, let someone else pressure test them on you, be my guest.



I am only going by the bit where you said you couldn't pressure test eye gouges.

And for the most part if you are pressure testing pretty much any strike that could become an eye gouge you are pressure testing the eyegouge.

Because. As I made the point at the start of the thread. It is not the eyegouge that is effective. It is the ability to deliver it safely.

Otherwise it becomes an airgouge.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I am only going by the bit where you said you couldn't pressure test eye gouges.
> 
> And for the most part if you are pressure testing pretty much any strike that could become an eye gouge you are pressure testing the eyegouge.
> 
> ...


Sure you gotta land it or there nothing there.  If you are not landing it, you are not pressure testing it.  Eyes are delicate and easily damaged.  For some things, such as eye gouges, the danger outweighs the training benefits by a long shot.  Bad idea to do it.  

If you are not digging your fingers into your training partners eyes, and allowing them to do the same to you, you are not pressure testing them.  You are merely extrapolating what might be possible from other training.  Kinda like situational drills.


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure you gotta land it or there nothing there.  If you are not landing it, you are not pressure testing it.  Eyes are delicate and easily damaged.  For some things, such as eye gouges, the danger outweighs the training benefits by a long shot.  Bad idea to do it.
> 
> If you are not digging your fingers into your training partners eyes, and allowing them to do the same to you, you are not pressure testing them.  You are merely extrapolating what might be possible from other training.  Kinda like situational drills.



And so can only be trained on pads. As was the solution mentioned to this little dilemma.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And so can only be trained on pads. As was the solution mentioned to this little dilemma.


Sure, and I can work my punches on a heavy bag.  Also a useful thing to do.  Also not pressure testing.

Here's a secret:  it's actually ok to NOT pressure test some things.


----------



## drop bear (May 12, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, and I can work my punches on a heavy bag.  Also a useful thing to do.  Also not pressure testing.
> 
> Here's a secret:  it's actually ok to NOT pressure test some things.



And so punching becomes the comparison. If you cant punch bare knuckle full blat. Then the only solution is to dead drill a pad?


----------



## Buka (May 12, 2015)

Eye don't know about this thread.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And so punching becomes the comparison. If you cant punch bare knuckle full blat. Then the only solution is to dead drill a pad?


Do whatever you want.  Make your own solution.  But you are not pressure testing an eye gouge if you are not actually gouging eyes.  Do it if you want.  I advise against it.  If you do it, let us know how it turns out.

What is it you want to do?


----------

