Jack Dempsey's falling step.

No, not really the same thing. The drop or falling-step can be done moving forward a foot or more, or virtually standing in place. Here's an interesting video on it by Keith P. Myers who was once a very active, if somewhat cantankerous member of our forum. The first half is more about Dempsey's drop-step, then he get's off on the Bruce Lee/JKD footwork used to cover more ground:


Now, here is how Latosa dropped his weight striking ...in this instance with a stick. The video cuts off his feet, but you can see the torque and weight drop pretty clearly. Also, notice that he barely moves forward at all in this demo. This video was made back in the early 90s:

Ok, yeah that's a very different thing. I know that the dempsey step is different - wasn't sure about the other. But I'm thinking of something entirely different. I do know that type of 'footwork' just never thought of it as a distinct thing.
 
z5Q0vMd.jpg
2BJ0aa1.jpg
That bar knockout highlights everything that is wrong with modern martial arts 😢
 
That bar knockout highlights everything that is wrong with modern martial arts 😢
Wellplay stupid games, win stupid prizes. Balboa was the initial aggressor—he took a step forward with his left foot and shoulder feinted. A court found Joe acted in self-defense.

Excerpts from "Courtroom KO! Joe Schilling cleared by Florida court over bar brawl:"

Ryan Harkness on Apr 28 2023 said:
Joe Schilling has been cleared of all legal liability related to a violent confrontation in a Florida bar in June 2021.

The incident saw an inebriated man, Justin Balboa, confront Schilling at B Square Burgers in Fort Lauderdale. After a brief back-and-forth, Balboa appeared to fake a punch at the former GLORY kickboxing and Bellator fighter. Schilling immediately let his hands go, knocking out Balboa...

Citing Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws, circuit court judge, Fabienne E. Fahnestock, wrote a filing that stated Schilling, “reasonably believed” Balboa, “posed a threat of great bodily harm to himself ... Schilling used only such force necessary to neutralize the threat, and is therefore entitled to immunity...”

While the short video seen by the public seemed to show Schilling taking the opportunity to wreck some random guy, the judge saw security cam footage from the night, which included other interactions between Balboa and the Muay Thai champ. After seeing everything, the court ruled in Schilling’s favor.

The legal battle isn’t completely over. Schilling’s lawyer, David Katz, says they plan on going after Balboa for lawyer’s fees.

“Hopefully the Plaintiff was warned of the risks of filing this lawsuit by his attorneys before filing this suit,” Katz told MMA Fighting. “Balboa now stands liable for all of Schilling’s costs and fees for defending this lawsuit, including the trips he had to make from California and the hiring of investigators and experts.”
 
Last edited:
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting - Sun Tzu ;)
 
That bar knockout highlights everything that is wrong with modern martial arts 😢
I don't know whether old school martial arts did any better. The counter example I immediately thought of was a famous Budo instructor who could afford to train all day because his family was wealthy and who'd then go "test his skills" by picking up fights with construction workers that had only their pride and salary to their name...

And I suspect that the samurai did their fair share of bullying as well.
 
I don't know whether old school martial arts did any better. The counter example I immediately thought of was a famous Budo instructor who could afford to train all day because his family was wealthy and who'd then go "test his skills" by picking up fights with construction workers that had only their pride and salary to their name...

And I suspect that the samurai did their fair share of bullying as well.
Motobu Choki had a preference for this kind of skill testing. Kuroiwa Yoshio used to head out and pick fights too. It seems they chose tough opponents.

Your example says the old school martial artist was picking fights with construction workers and they were more than likely a tough and rowdy crowd used to dealing with a bit of trouble.

But the guy in the video could be never described as tough or intimidating, yet the martial artist who knocked him out claimed he was scared for his life and was defending himself against the evil in this world :confused:
 
Last edited:
Your example says the old school martial artist was picking fights with construction workers and they were more than likely a tough and rowdy crowd used to dealing with a bit of trouble.
Picking up fights with people minding their own business is a dick move, period. Even if they are strong or used to trouble. And the guys were untrained, as they actually had to make a living through back-breaking work, unlike Budoman.
But the guy in the video could be never described as tough or intimidating, yet the martial artist who knocked him out claimed he was scared for his life and was defending himself against the evil in this world :confused:
In most jurisdictions, "toughness" has no bearing on assessing self-defense.
 
Picking up fights with people minding their own business is a dick move, period. Even if they are strong or used to trouble. And the guys were untrained, as they actually had to make a living through back-breaking work, unlike Budoman.

In most jurisdictions, "toughness" has no bearing on assessing self-defense.
My point was that all of it is unnecessary - especially knocking out the guy in the bar. There was no real threat there at all. Anyone who has seen real violent encounters knows that KO was wholly unjustified. The martial artist was lucky to get away with it, but it still reflects badly upon the martial arts community as a whole 😢
 
I get that, and probably the guy was just acting tough, but you never know who you're dealing with. I might have done the same, even against a smaller guy, if I'd thought that he might threaten the people around me or stab/shoot me. And this reasoning might hold even truer in places where people are likely to carry lethal weapons.

I was once at a trial for murder. In a bar, A (a man) bought a drink to B (also a man). It happens sometimes in Belgium, especially when you're partying and tipsy, that you spontaneously buy drinks or rounds to strangers for the sake of being friendly. B was from North Africa and got offended because he saw it as implying he looked/was gay. Things got out of hand and they had a relatively harmless physical altercation. Then B exited the bar, only to come back an hour later with a kitchen knife and stabbed A to death. You never know.
 
I get that, and probably the guy was just acting tough, but you never know who you're dealing with. I might have done the same, even against a smaller guy, if I'd thought that he might threaten the people around me or stab/shoot me. And this reasoning might hold even truer in places where people are likely to carry lethal weapons.

I was once at a trial for murder. In a bar, A (a man) bought a drink to B (also a man). It happens sometimes in Belgium, especially when you're partying and tipsy, that you spontaneously buy drinks or rounds to strangers for the sake of being friendly. B was from North Africa and got offended because he saw it as implying he looked/was gay. Things got out of hand and they had a relatively harmless physical altercation. Then B exited the bar, only to come back an hour later with a kitchen knife and stabbed A to death. You never know.
As I say, this is everything that is wrong with modern martial arts. Macho nonsense in a bar, same old same old 😢
 
Your point seems to be that 1) "modern" martial arts promote macho culture among practitioners; and that 2) macho culture is exclusive to modern martial arts and traditional martial arts uphold higher moral standards.

I have counter-examples for both claims, so I disagree with such generalisations. I've often heard those statements from traditional martial artists, often as a way to claim a moral high ground and, in my experience, this kind of thinking comes from watching too much UFC and not engaging enough with "modern" guys.
 
Your point seems to be that 1) "modern" martial arts promote macho culture among practitioners; and that 2) macho culture is exclusive to modern martial arts and traditional martial arts uphold higher moral standards.

I have counter-examples for both claims, so I disagree with such generalisations. I've often heard those statements from traditional martial artists, often as a way to claim a moral high ground and, in my experience, this kind of thinking comes from watching too much UFC and not engaging enough with "modern" guys.
Think you are mixing up two different points here. Modern culture promotes this kind of behaviour. Men have to be seen as tough. Heroes who save the day. Violence is the solution, rather than kindness or generosity. MMA aka Modern Martial Arts attract a certain percentage of males intent on proving how tough they are - it has probably been this way for a long time.

My main point is this - Knocking Out a drunk in a bar is unnecessary - a disciplined martial artist would not need to resort to violence to resolve such a situation. That is all, plain and simple - the skills learned in MA have the potential to harm or heal. How you choose to use them depends on your attitude of mind.

The peaceful warrior seeks a harmonious resolution - peace comes from within ☮️
 
Last edited:
The peaceful warrior seeks a harmonious resolution - peace comes from within ☮️
The peaceful warrior still has to develop his combat skill in the ring, or on the mat. The peaceful warrior doesn't have to always get into street fight.

My interest is not in the street fight. My interest is in the ring sparring and mat wrestling. To me, the ring sparring and mat wrestling have lot of fun that money can't buy it.
 
Back
Top