Does the removal of "lethal techniques" lead to a better martial art?

[drop bear]

Well, yeah-and, of course, people died fairly often in free sparring. But it was training to ventilate people, without ventilating them, and it worked in combat-trained the reflexes, strength and timing for real combat, without having to take anyone's life until it was time to take someone's life-this goes against the one premise of Ohlenkamp sensei's article, and the glurge that Hanzou is trying to promote here....

You mean removing the lethality of a technique so it can be practiced with resistance?

That is the point of the op.

 

[elder999]

You mean removing the lethality of a technique so it can be practiced with resistance?

That is the point of the op.

No, that's not the point at all. Look at the title. Look at what's been posted by the original poster: Hanzou's position is that lethal techniques aren't practiced at all.

 

[drop bear]

No, that's not the point at all. Look at the title. Look at what's been posted by the original poster: Hanzou's position is that lethal techniques aren't practiced at all.

They are not practiced with resistance. Because they are lethal.

 

[Tgace]

This sort of evolved from an earlier thread discussing the evolution of Jujutsu into modern Judo and Bjj.

I found a good article on this subject from Judoinfo.com and I agree with most of it. Here's a snippet;

[/b]

Martial Art vs Sport

Thoughts?[/FONT][/COLOR]

The biggest flaw I see in numerous dojos is the "throw one punch and leave it hanging out there while I destroy you" training process.

[video=youtube_share;eaHl07VlfPs]http://youtu.be/eaHl07VlfPs[/video]

The usual retort is some sort of "yeah but we DO practice against resisting opponents"...but the idea of resistance always seems to be somewhat short of realistic.

 

[Hanzou]

And yet another between the ears disconnect rears its ugly head.

We live in very different worlds, I think-that is to say, everyone here in the real one, with me, living in the one, and you, living in some other.

I'd been training with sharp objects a scant five years before some young men on the NYC subway forced me to use that training. Up to that point, I'd never stabbed anyone. That was in the real world, decades ago, now, but not in some far off "era where there are roving bands of bandits invading your home and raping your women," which, btw, sounds like a pretty fair description of some crimes that take place today....."lfao"

"We live in very different times...." :lfao:

One deadly encounter in the span of decades isn't the same thing as being constantly in those types of situations on a day to day basis.

 

[Hanzou]

The biggest flaw I see in numerous dojos is the "throw one punch and leave it hanging out there while I destroy you" training process.

[video=youtube_share;eaHl07VlfPs]http://youtu.be/eaHl07VlfPs[/video]

The usual retort is some sort of "yeah but we DO practice against resisting opponents"...but the idea of resistance always seems to be somewhat short of realistic.

Yeah, there's a lot of this stuff these days.

The sad part is that some people view this as full resistance training, or view it as a replacement for full contact sparring.

 

[Hanzou]

They are not practiced with resistance. Because they are lethal.

Exactly. I have no idea where Elder is getting the idea that I said that lethal techniques aren't practiced.

 

[hoshin1600]

i hate to dive back into the cesspool that is this thread but ..oh well here goes...
this entire back and forth is based on assumptions and poor attempts to validate ones opinions.
Ohlenkamp's article was a fair attempt to validate what he does (judo) as self defense effective. if we analize this, we have to clarify and separate the total style from the technique. i will agree that judo techniques can be effective as self defense actions. i myself include certain judo techniques in what i do. however training at a judo club will not equal effective self defense.
Ohlenkamp expresses this..

Just as non-competitive martial arts training may not provide the benefits of competition, training for sport competition may not provide the full scope of self defense training.

but then continues his paragraph by saying that Judo also has non-competitive aspects.

Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo, was very concerned about preserving those self defense techniques that could not be used with full force in competition

if you train in Judo will you be better off than not training at all should the need arise for self defense? yes .. BUT ....the op and ohlenkamp show their bias by then going on to paint a picture that other arts are not as good.

The implication is that a sport is only for "play" and cannot be effective for self defense,

their alleged danger or lethality, many martial arts engage in artificial and even counter-productive training which involves "pulling" techniques,

Typifying this approach is a student who falsely equates the ability to break boards with the ability to punch a person in the face.

does not provide effective results

Slow, careful, non-contact training is not an effective approach to prepare for actual fighting situations that require the opposite reactions.

when i read this i have to put it in context and i feel the term "non-contact" doesnt really fit, you cant practice Judo as non contact so i have to read it as meaning not full out training..that being said
as Master Ken would say...********...
i have worked with Joe Lauzon and his teacher/coach many times and EVERYTHING they practice is slow, carefull and deliberate, untill its time not to be slow and carefull. the learning is slow and deliberate and the application is faster, but still deliberate.
all this means nothing because it is still not self defense training.
the back and forth is useless because there are more variations and neuances than just the black and white stereo type of sport VS self defense MA. in fact i would never confuse MA with self defense. one is a method of martial training the other is an aspect or an intent of purpose in your training.
i cant help but read the comments on this "lethal" technique that is there or not there...whatever ..let me give yall a clue the lethal technique is the one where you aim your firearm center mass and do a double tap. self defense training is not about techniques!! is it about the motivation and intent of your training.
the intent and motivation will condition the methods of training. all techniques can be self defense "lethal" or not lethal, the only differance is in the intent of training and the knowledgeable instructor who knows how to get the desired results from the student.

 

[drop bear]

Exactly. I have no idea where Elder is getting the idea that I said that lethal techniques aren't practiced.

You mentioned that they have been removed from judo or something. And technically is a sort of comment. You can kill somone with a judo move but you don't intentionally do it in training. Which was the point of judo.

Some of the shoulder throws that anchor off straight armbars and stuff. You don't necessarily want them when things are getting a bit competitive. Those moves have been taken out.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Really? I've seen it countless times;

The wrestler was able to provide fast, reflexive and accurate application of his techniques against an unwilling (trained) opponent.

OK, where were the realistic throat strikes and eye gouges? I must have missed them.

 

[RTKDCMB]

So "non contact" only applies to striking?

More or less.

 

[RTKDCMB]

The only comment I will make is to disagree with the idea of pulling punches to demonstrate control. Sure, people who pull punches may still be able to punch hard, but I do believe it is not good training. I think it is better to have the range right and punch with reduced power. It is easy to increase power. It is much more difficult to adjust range.

There are two basic ways to strike non-contact, you can adjust the distance so that the punch is fully extended so that if you wanted to actually hit them you will just step a little bit closer or you can pull the punch so that the punch would actually hit the opponent if the punch was fully extended. With the former you are not really finishing then technique properly. The best way to increase power is to strike with power more often.

 

[Danny T]

There are two basic ways to strike non-contact, you can adjust the distance so that the punch is fully extended so that if you wanted to actually hit them you will just step a little bit closer or you can pull the punch so that the punch would actually hit the opponent if the punch was fully extended. With the former you are not really finishing then technique properly. The best way to increase power is to strike with power more often.

Having trained pulling punches and pulling range punching both have drawbacks. Having retrained many to perform full contact both methods have reduced power on impact. If you have trained improper range or pulling for several years and during your sparring you will do so in full contact performance also. Every time I have such a practitioner come in to spar or to train with us one of the first things I have them do is to view a couple of our people sparring hard. They are then given full permission to punch or kick me or one of my fighters as hard as they are able. Almost every time the person either pulls the strike or is out of range to contact with any real power; I can only think of one who did contact with power, a person who also did some amateur boxing. Full Power development on the heavy bag, range, speed, and target acquisition on the focus mitts (if pad holder feeds properly), control and proper use of power during sparring.

 

[K-man]

There are two basic ways to strike non-contact, you can adjust the distance so that the punch is fully extended so that if you wanted to actually hit them you will just step a little bit closer or you can pull the punch so that the punch would actually hit the opponent if the punch was fully extended. With the former you are not really finishing then technique properly. The best way to increase power is to strike with power more often.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. In my early Karate days we trained pulling our punches and I now feel that is not the best way of training. In Aikido you must be at the correct range for the atemi to actually perform the technique. In Aikido schools that don't teach atemi you see techniques being performed all over the place at the wrong distance. In real life their techniques are unlikely to be effective. Thinking about it, Krav is a little different. We do pull our strikes because we are inside striking range and you simply can't beat the crap out of your partner, but it is a different type of non contact that you see in most TKD and Karate.
:asian: