How often do you use the more fancier Kicks?
- Thread starter Kenlee25
- Start date
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
which then brings us to pre emptive striking. Say, for instance, you are having a few drinks and some drunken thug walks over and accuses you of "looking" at his girlfriend. You do your best to try to calm the guy and make it quite obvious you dont want a fight and even offer to buy him a drink. But, he is one of those idiots who refuses to give up without a fight, and you can see in his eyes that a punch/kick is gonna come any second despite your attempts to calm the situation. In this case, you wont be attacked without knowing (as you put it), but there will be a fight. I honestly dont know the answer to this one, I ask because it happened to a close friend of mine 6 months ago, he refused to fight and ended up being beaten up. He now says to me that maybe he should have just thrown the first one once he realised the guy wouldnt take a backward step. I know its off topic, but where do you guys satnd on "pre-emptive striking"? Im personally against it, but in theory it can make sense. I agree that a good martial artist should be able to walk away from fights, but then I also believe any good human being should also be able to walk away from fights. Unfortunately there are a lot of non martial arts idiots who wont walk away from fights and a lot of martial arts idiots who also will not walk away from fights. Id like to think it was like the movies where martial artists are these upstanding members of society who show respect and dignity and only ever fight when necessary, but unfortunately "anyone" can walk into a martial arts club and join, and with the growing popularity of martial arts its understandable that not all martial artists are of the stereo type variety. I wont name names, but I know of two martail arts schools who encourage students to go out and pick fights with people they know they can beat so they can "see which techs work for them in a real setting". Neither of the two clubs are based in australia either. I believe that is downright irresponsible, but it will happen. I trained for one night at a friends muay thai club to give it a go and I saw some of the roughest, meanest guys Ive seen in my life and I dont believe for one minute that many of them would "walk away from a fight" (which is in no way having a go at muay thai, thats just the example I saw).
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
I like that, thats a good one
My shotokan instructor would say "by the time you are exchanging blows, you have already failed in self defence".ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
I agree, it is a lot to ponder, its just me rambling on
. I do think though, that there are people who get in fights who have martial arts experience.
andyjeffries
Senior Master
I hope that violence is never necessary, however I have no problem with pre-emptive self-defence if violence is necessary. For myself, if I've made obvious verbal attempts to defuse the situation and tried leaving - if the situation is still not resolved then I have no issue with pre-emptive striking. I'm not going to wait to be hit (or almost hit)! It also makes things more complicated if others are involved. For example, if I'm out with my wife and two young children I'm likely to go quicker from talking to leaving to striking - I'm going to be less willing to run the risk of taking a beating and leaving them standing there defenceless.
For what it's worth UK law agrees with me - as Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R [1988] AC 130: "A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Assault & Battery would be the crime and pre-emptive strikes prevent that crime. The danger has to be "imminent" for pre-emptive strikes to be legal and the force used has to be reasonable (you can't take them out and then stomp on them for a little while).
Also, under UK law you don't have to even attempt/be willing to leave - R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 - Whilst withdrawing or demonstrating an unwillingness to fight is good evidence that the defendant is acting reasonably and in good faith in self defence, there was no absolute obligation to demonstrate an unwillingness to retreat.
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
Its interesting you mention the wife and 2 young kids. The reason I brought the subject up was because I discussed this at length with a friend recently and Im one of those people where fighting really is the last resort and even pre emptive striking was something I didnt necessarilly agree with. My friend asked the question - "what if I was with my two young children and/or wife, and their safety was at risk so even running is not an option?". Once the kids were brought into the eqation my opinion started to differ.
You bring up a very interesting dimension to the discussion. Pre-emptive strikes are an effective and legit way of defending yourself, if there is reasonable reason to believe your life is in peril. What is reasonable is a very murky issue, though, and what type of pre-emptive strike you use is contentious, but my general principal is that I will not wait to be hit and beaten up before I figure out that I’m in danger.
Here in the U.S, many are currently embroiled in a very heated and emotional national debate about something known as the “stand your ground law,” following the fatal shooting of a teenager in Florida
That law, which exists in more than 20 states – after recent passage – allows citizens to use deadly force, if they reasonably believe their safety is in peril, in a public place including streets and parks. The law removes prior restraints of a “duty to retreat” – which is required in laws of many other states – from a threat while in public. While “stand your ground” laws have been primarily aimed at addressing concerns of folk who legally carry concealed handguns (48 states allow that), it can apply in any situation where deadly force is used in self defense.
The “stand your ground” law is gounded in an old English Common Law concept known as the “Castle Doctrine,” which addresses citizens' rights to self-defense while in their homes. “Stand you ground laws extend those rights beyond the homes.
RobinTKD
Blue Belt
That's an interesting law, though I don't really agree with it. I don't want to get onto the subject of whether I think handguns should be legal etc, but I don't believe deadly force should ever be necessary. We train to fight unarmed, and a lot of our self defence against weapons training should reflect the idea that someone isn't just trying to harm you, but to seriously injure or kill you. How many of you practice 'deadly' techniques? It's much easier to disable someone than to kill them and that should always be your first thought.
I'd also like to quickly say this. We don't have legal handguns in the UK. The guns that are legal cannot be carried around concealed at any time. They can not be carried around loaded unless on private ground. Yes we have murders, and the very very occasional shooting, handguns would only add to that number, they would not be a deterrent for attacks.
mastercole
Master Black Belt
We have a "stand your ground law in Ohio (USA)." I feel it is a good law, however, I feel that one must be wise and understand that any deadly self defense action against an attacker will certainly place one under the scrutiny of the law and that could place a person on a very slippery tight rope where one side is freedom and the other prison.
I always tell my sons choose the safest way out of a self defense situation or confrontation. If they can safely retreat, they must still do so, even thought Ohio has a stand your ground law. If they can retreat and do so but are pursued by an attacker (s), I say leave no attacker/accomplice standing. If they can not escape/retreat, I say the same. Once attackers/accomplices are down, stay on guard for more of their group and make a short brief call to 911 and state only "criminals are wounded and down, send police", give address, hang up then speed dial the attorney. They would still face legal scrutiny, however, it would give the defense attorney more to work with if the attorney could present evidence of pursuit by the attacker (s) and retreat by the target. Then one might be better judged by 12, while hopefully avoid being carried by 6.
andyjeffries
Senior Master
And it's funny that we don't really have any such law in English Modern Law. Here's a (very small) petition to add one: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/461
It was talked about during the run up to the last elections, but nothing ever happened with it.
There was a famous case of a guy called Tony Martin who shot two burglars (killing one and wounding the other) that got convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) The burglars were trying to flee at the time, but still...
andyjeffries
Senior Master
If I was out walking with my wife and children and was surrounded by a group of yobs with knives you can be DAMN sure that I'd use deadly force to defend my family if necessary and not give it a single moment's regret. There are situations where deadly force may be necessary (and they aren't that hard to imagine), but I agree it's better to aim for not using it.
It's as Ralph says - bring my wife and kids in to it changes my opinion rapidly from "just walk away" to "you're going down and your mates with you!"
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...ecting-son-from-gang-of-thugs-86908-22196023/
There's a very real example of when I think the guy would have been completely justified in using deadly force. His son was in trouble from a gang of armed youths (knives and guns). Shame it didn't turn out well for him, but it would be a justifiable situation in my book...
mastercole
Master Black Belt
If one are armed with a gun, knife, beer bottle, etc., or not, I still think retreating under attack in the streets is the wise thing to do, stand your ground law or not, as long as retreating does not place one in the same or more danger.
That said, if I myself am in danger, I really don't care about any laws at all. If I die or go to prison over defending my self, so be it. I really don't care once it got to that point.
That said, if I myself am in danger, I really don't care about any laws at all. If I die or go to prison over defending my self, so be it. I really don't care once it got to that point.
RobinTKD
Blue Belt
I'm open to the fact that my views will change when I have a wife and children.
What I'll say is this, about 2 years ago me and my brother got into a fight, it wasn't self defence, it was brawling and I'm not particularly pleased about it, but it happened. Anyway, as I said in another thread, I ended the fight with a sidekick to the chin as the guy was trying to do a rugby tackle. His eyes rolled back into his head and his tongue just kind of fell out. I'd knocked him out but at the time I was convinced I'd killed him, call it adrenaline or whatever but he wasn't moving. He eventually came round while I was there, at this point trying to get my brother away from his opponent, and it was only for about 2 minutes. They were by far and away the worst 2 minutes of my life, thinking that I'd killed a man, trying to stop my brother from fighting so he could just help me out with whatever we should do. All logical thoughts of calling an ambulance or the police just completely left my head.
I don't have kids yet but when I have my girlfriend with me or whatever my approach changes as well. I've only ever hit someone once in self defense and that was with a front kick in the solar plexus. He dropped like a rock, no permanent harm, and I got a student out of it from a girl who was watching.
mastercole
Master Black Belt
Maybe NAPMA will borrow that marketing strategy!
Not an ideal demographic, I'll admit, but it's what she was looking for...
I believe that it is important to at least attempt to use most kicks in sparring. Even the "fancier" kicks will have uses in sparring and learning when to implement the could help with spotting opening and timing. For instance, in my style of TKD (Moo Duk Kwan) when I was initially taught the tornado kick it was taught to me as a technique used to cover distance, not a spinning back crescent into a jump roundhouse. I was taught to feint a back pivot, then lunge of the back leg into a jump/switch roundhouse. Not very flashy but done properly, its quick and will at the very least, close the gap between you and your opponent.
Also, I agree that crescent kicks aren't flashy and serve important purposes when mixed into a combination. For instance, and inside-out crescent kick can lower your opponents guard and leave their head open. Or, if you have proper knee raise, you can sneak an outside-in crescent kick and they will never see it coming because the nkee gets hidden by their guard
Also, I agree that crescent kicks aren't flashy and serve important purposes when mixed into a combination. For instance, and inside-out crescent kick can lower your opponents guard and leave their head open. Or, if you have proper knee raise, you can sneak an outside-in crescent kick and they will never see it coming because the nkee gets hidden by their guard
Manny
Senior Master
You are not alone and in some point I am like you, the fancier kicks are a NO-NO when I do sparring, when I do sparring I use mostly kicks but the basic ones you know, the front kick, the round kick and the back kick, some times I trow a spining hook kick or a bakat chagui but most of my kicks are basic ones, also in the lcinch I use my fists.
I am 45 years old and not as flexible or quicker than in the yore days, so now I like to use counters and use fists and kicks to keep the young at bay.
Manny
