Martial Arts Based on attacking pressure points
- Thread starter brmoore134
- Start date
On a slippery slope?
Supra Vijai
Black Belt
With all due respect here, Page 5 was a slippery slope. Pretty much everything since has been a few feet off the edge of a very tall cliff free falling rapidly
Cyriacus
Senior Master
“Let's see, then.”
Great, I’ll make another attempt.
First, since you illustrated your faulty point with video, I’ll dispense with one inaccuracy first.
You said
“Dillman? Hmm, not the greatest bastion of credibility there....”
I would agree with you here, he is NOT the greatest bastion of credibility. I believe the entirety of what I have said about the man on this thread is below: My compliments of “nice” and “skilled” are far outweighed by my critiques (see unquoted second paragraph).
“George Dillman to my knowledge is a nice, and skilled man; but all things are relative, many karate practitioners "advance" to CMA like application after black belt level - why not start earlier, cross train at least!”
“Back to pressure point karateka----Back in the day Dillman and Moneymaker (one or both??) even sent me courtesy copies of their tapes (which I thought were GOOD for karate as well). But still, the movements are more rigid, lack the economy of motion, and are breaking some basic bio-mechanical / rules of physics that are holding them back, also even attempting to adhere to a long sequence (if that's what your doing) is well...not helpful, despite how comparatively helpful it was to what you were doing”
-----
Second, it appears the crux of your issue with me (and my posts) – is that you believe me to be wrong about kata:
“Everything you've said about kata is wrong. We couldn't possibly be in agreement on that. And no, I haven't pointed it out with specific instances, as I said that I would if you asked…”
Anytime I see words like “everything”, “nothing”, “always”, or “never” in someone’s argument, an extra B.S flag has to go up. Especially when no specific instance is described, nor is your take on kata described.
“Specific? Honestly, most of your comments in this thread alone, really. Most particularly when it comes to kata.”
Ok, so instead of conjecture and conclusory statements let’s be specific re Kata. Why don’t go through and explain why I am wrong about everything, why and how it can be fixed? It would be interesting to read, even if I disagree with your disagreements, at which point--without another venue of demonstration, or more context it becomes a race to the bottom.
“Then there's the back and forth where you quoted Erle's take on knife defence (don't grab the knife hand), got questioned about it, turned back 180 degrees, and still missed some of the most essential realities of knife defence. For some ideas of corrections, look here: http://icqpoa.blogspot.com.au/2012/0...ce-primal.html”
I don’t see a “back and forth” ,I posted a quote, was asked about a specific part, and I gave my take on it (below). There was no further discussion. Nor did I mean my post or quote to be a complete knife defense treatise.
“I agree in part with you, and from what I've learned from Erle in person-so did he. Ideally one should be able to evade/strike/control arm & weapon, and disable all in one swift move. Ideal, as I think Erle's rule is harping on is often times unrealistic. Counting on it to save your life is reducing your survival % significantly IMO. “
But a blade is a contact weapon, not just a stabbing one. A wildly flinging novice with a knife is very dangerous and difficult to wrist grab/control despite any --illusions / lack of proper training/exp.-- about how you may handle such life or death situation. (elbow, shoulder, head, and neck control can be used sometimes to greater affect)”
-----------------
“Thing is, a video wouldn't really do anything, as it's your intellectual understanding of the training method that's flawed. And that can be explained by the written word a lot easier than by video. The fact that you think it is shows that you're dealing with people a fair bit above your level here.”
Again, you have failed to point out why, and what your training method is. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth 30 frames per second, and yes, the intellectual understanding can be discussed via text to a point (harder via a one-way posting board). However, you have not engaged in such discussion other than vague and stern contempt. So give it a go, explain your training method, and why mine is flawed? Discussions as to what the best training methods are should be what this forum is about.
A “fair bit above my level”, HA! you couldn't be more wrong. Why don't you upload a few videos of yourself manifesting such principals? Ill be generous, and when able, I'll donate my time and provide you with a free consultation via video and demonstrate what/how you can improve. We can let the non-bias public decide for themselves if my combat principals and manifestation of such are above your level.
“No, believe me Gary, I can see exactly where your footing is, what your path has been, and the filters you're looking at all this through... which is why I can see how far off base you are, as well as why. I can see why you said it, or at least why you felt that it was an appropriate comment to have, but you are really off base completely here.”
Interesting B.S deduction Chris, from your profile it appears you have only studied one art? I don’t think that would give one much perspective? Regardless, I wouldn’t be so presumptive to pretend to know someone’s “footing” is based on a few posts and some decade + old material on the web? You must think you’re the Nostradamus of the MA, lol.
“Your constant claims that you could "handle" seniors in various arts without putting your tea down, that you could show persons such as Taira Sensei ways to "tweak" and improve their art, show that you are only thinking about the, frankly, very basic approach to martial arts, in that you aren't really focused on the martial art itself, just on what you think is most effective as a fighting method (in other words, your own personal take on techniques and [personsal] power).”
Yet another misquote and incorrect statement. My quote started with “Find a grandmaster or blackbelt etc who has solo kata experience alone…tea…” My point being that a person can’t learn to fight well without two-person training.
Yes, I could show Taira how to “tweak” things. I’m not talking about any specific “techniques”, I am talking about principals / concepts, and mechanics changes. These “tweaks” are not meant to be “focused on the martial art itself”, and yes, they are simply focused on what’s will result in the most combat viable material. These are after all MARTIAL arts.
As I’ve said before, I am not focused on techniques, but principal or “artform” as I believe your linked Ninjitsu site called it. If your training is anything like described, there are parallels too my approach. So in Lieu of you sharing your perspective on training / kata, I’ll post what was on the Ninjitsu site and comment…
“Common in most martial arts to repeatedly drill basic techniques. However this is not the approach that Takamatsu Sensei used. Instead he would present techniques that reflected the combat principle that he wanted his students to exercise, together with several variations.”
This describes part of my teaching method as well. I present a principal, and manifest it in several variations so the student could understand the combat principal. This leads to more personal development, and of course makes the methods more functional and dynamic when it comes to spontaneous adrenal stress training etc.
“This constantly changing series of techniques and variations was often confusing to his students. But what they didn't realize was that he was focusing on the essence of every technique ... the ninjutsu artform.”
True, it can be confusing; some students can’t grasp the principal until learning several variations etc. Additionally, many principals / “artform” / "body method" are packed into things the student isn’t academically, or consciously aware of until later, at which point they can develop things further, and take another step in their training.
“Countless techniques and variations overload the conscious mind, and can cause students to feel lost and confused. But what students often fail to realise is that the "techniques" are not the answer to developing a versatile self defence skill. The answer is actually the "artform" that is the basis of all the techniques.”
I agree, I believe “techniques” are not the answer to versatile skill, I’ve said so for more than a decade, “artform” / combat principal is what matters.
“Once you have grasped the artform, you can express 10,000 techniques.”
I agree to the basic premise, not sure If I would pin things down to an exact figure.
“So he taught in a way that gradually developed an unconscious expression of artform, not set techniques. And while his students were focusing on trying to remember the various strikes and kicks and limb-controls, he was focusing on natural power, balance, distance, timing... and retaining a centred mind.”
Interesting how you critiqued me for my alleged take on “power”, when it is the first focus mentioned here…again I agree with the above.
“This approach is a very sophisticated method of teaching, however most ninjutsu instructors around the world still don't understand it.”
I don’t doubt it; many schools of all styles get caught up in learning a set of “techniques” or collect forms or solo “kata” and never learn any combat principals that will manifest well under duress.
Again, many parallels, if this is your approach, I’m not sure why all of the hostile presumptions? Perhaps you are assuming I have not successfully applied and taught others via the training method / principals I mention?
Anyhow, the bottom line is that at large—you are simply wrong. That fact has already been proven to me, if you don’t want to believe me that’s fine, go about doing what you’re doing by all means. But, please, let the rest of us have a productive discussion without your interjection of conjecture, misquotes, and further negativity. Perhaps someone else can benefit from the information. Time is precious, why waste it.
Last, I don’t mean to be offensive. I am not saying anything I wouldn’t say in person, preferably over a beer and some laughs, agreeing to disagree is ultimately fine.
Best,
Gary
Great, I’ll make another attempt.
First, since you illustrated your faulty point with video, I’ll dispense with one inaccuracy first.
You said
“Dillman? Hmm, not the greatest bastion of credibility there....”
I would agree with you here, he is NOT the greatest bastion of credibility. I believe the entirety of what I have said about the man on this thread is below: My compliments of “nice” and “skilled” are far outweighed by my critiques (see unquoted second paragraph).
“George Dillman to my knowledge is a nice, and skilled man; but all things are relative, many karate practitioners "advance" to CMA like application after black belt level - why not start earlier, cross train at least!”
“Back to pressure point karateka----Back in the day Dillman and Moneymaker (one or both??) even sent me courtesy copies of their tapes (which I thought were GOOD for karate as well). But still, the movements are more rigid, lack the economy of motion, and are breaking some basic bio-mechanical / rules of physics that are holding them back, also even attempting to adhere to a long sequence (if that's what your doing) is well...not helpful, despite how comparatively helpful it was to what you were doing”
-----
Second, it appears the crux of your issue with me (and my posts) – is that you believe me to be wrong about kata:
“Everything you've said about kata is wrong. We couldn't possibly be in agreement on that. And no, I haven't pointed it out with specific instances, as I said that I would if you asked…”
Anytime I see words like “everything”, “nothing”, “always”, or “never” in someone’s argument, an extra B.S flag has to go up. Especially when no specific instance is described, nor is your take on kata described.
“Specific? Honestly, most of your comments in this thread alone, really. Most particularly when it comes to kata.”
Ok, so instead of conjecture and conclusory statements let’s be specific re Kata. Why don’t go through and explain why I am wrong about everything, why and how it can be fixed? It would be interesting to read, even if I disagree with your disagreements, at which point--without another venue of demonstration, or more context it becomes a race to the bottom.
“Then there's the back and forth where you quoted Erle's take on knife defence (don't grab the knife hand), got questioned about it, turned back 180 degrees, and still missed some of the most essential realities of knife defence. For some ideas of corrections, look here: http://icqpoa.blogspot.com.au/2012/0...ce-primal.html”
I don’t see a “back and forth” ,I posted a quote, was asked about a specific part, and I gave my take on it (below). There was no further discussion. Nor did I mean my post or quote to be a complete knife defense treatise.
“I agree in part with you, and from what I've learned from Erle in person-so did he. Ideally one should be able to evade/strike/control arm & weapon, and disable all in one swift move. Ideal, as I think Erle's rule is harping on is often times unrealistic. Counting on it to save your life is reducing your survival % significantly IMO. “
But a blade is a contact weapon, not just a stabbing one. A wildly flinging novice with a knife is very dangerous and difficult to wrist grab/control despite any --illusions / lack of proper training/exp.-- about how you may handle such life or death situation. (elbow, shoulder, head, and neck control can be used sometimes to greater affect)”
-----------------
“Thing is, a video wouldn't really do anything, as it's your intellectual understanding of the training method that's flawed. And that can be explained by the written word a lot easier than by video. The fact that you think it is shows that you're dealing with people a fair bit above your level here.”
Again, you have failed to point out why, and what your training method is. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth 30 frames per second, and yes, the intellectual understanding can be discussed via text to a point (harder via a one-way posting board). However, you have not engaged in such discussion other than vague and stern contempt. So give it a go, explain your training method, and why mine is flawed? Discussions as to what the best training methods are should be what this forum is about.
A “fair bit above my level”, HA! you couldn't be more wrong. Why don't you upload a few videos of yourself manifesting such principals? Ill be generous, and when able, I'll donate my time and provide you with a free consultation via video and demonstrate what/how you can improve. We can let the non-bias public decide for themselves if my combat principals and manifestation of such are above your level.
“No, believe me Gary, I can see exactly where your footing is, what your path has been, and the filters you're looking at all this through... which is why I can see how far off base you are, as well as why. I can see why you said it, or at least why you felt that it was an appropriate comment to have, but you are really off base completely here.”
Interesting B.S deduction Chris, from your profile it appears you have only studied one art? I don’t think that would give one much perspective? Regardless, I wouldn’t be so presumptive to pretend to know someone’s “footing” is based on a few posts and some decade + old material on the web? You must think you’re the Nostradamus of the MA, lol.
“Your constant claims that you could "handle" seniors in various arts without putting your tea down, that you could show persons such as Taira Sensei ways to "tweak" and improve their art, show that you are only thinking about the, frankly, very basic approach to martial arts, in that you aren't really focused on the martial art itself, just on what you think is most effective as a fighting method (in other words, your own personal take on techniques and [personsal] power).”
Yet another misquote and incorrect statement. My quote started with “Find a grandmaster or blackbelt etc who has solo kata experience alone…tea…” My point being that a person can’t learn to fight well without two-person training.
Yes, I could show Taira how to “tweak” things. I’m not talking about any specific “techniques”, I am talking about principals / concepts, and mechanics changes. These “tweaks” are not meant to be “focused on the martial art itself”, and yes, they are simply focused on what’s will result in the most combat viable material. These are after all MARTIAL arts.
As I’ve said before, I am not focused on techniques, but principal or “artform” as I believe your linked Ninjitsu site called it. If your training is anything like described, there are parallels too my approach. So in Lieu of you sharing your perspective on training / kata, I’ll post what was on the Ninjitsu site and comment…
“Common in most martial arts to repeatedly drill basic techniques. However this is not the approach that Takamatsu Sensei used. Instead he would present techniques that reflected the combat principle that he wanted his students to exercise, together with several variations.”
This describes part of my teaching method as well. I present a principal, and manifest it in several variations so the student could understand the combat principal. This leads to more personal development, and of course makes the methods more functional and dynamic when it comes to spontaneous adrenal stress training etc.
“This constantly changing series of techniques and variations was often confusing to his students. But what they didn't realize was that he was focusing on the essence of every technique ... the ninjutsu artform.”
True, it can be confusing; some students can’t grasp the principal until learning several variations etc. Additionally, many principals / “artform” / "body method" are packed into things the student isn’t academically, or consciously aware of until later, at which point they can develop things further, and take another step in their training.
“Countless techniques and variations overload the conscious mind, and can cause students to feel lost and confused. But what students often fail to realise is that the "techniques" are not the answer to developing a versatile self defence skill. The answer is actually the "artform" that is the basis of all the techniques.”
I agree, I believe “techniques” are not the answer to versatile skill, I’ve said so for more than a decade, “artform” / combat principal is what matters.
“Once you have grasped the artform, you can express 10,000 techniques.”
I agree to the basic premise, not sure If I would pin things down to an exact figure.
“So he taught in a way that gradually developed an unconscious expression of artform, not set techniques. And while his students were focusing on trying to remember the various strikes and kicks and limb-controls, he was focusing on natural power, balance, distance, timing... and retaining a centred mind.”
Interesting how you critiqued me for my alleged take on “power”, when it is the first focus mentioned here…again I agree with the above.
“This approach is a very sophisticated method of teaching, however most ninjutsu instructors around the world still don't understand it.”
I don’t doubt it; many schools of all styles get caught up in learning a set of “techniques” or collect forms or solo “kata” and never learn any combat principals that will manifest well under duress.
Again, many parallels, if this is your approach, I’m not sure why all of the hostile presumptions? Perhaps you are assuming I have not successfully applied and taught others via the training method / principals I mention?
Anyhow, the bottom line is that at large—you are simply wrong. That fact has already been proven to me, if you don’t want to believe me that’s fine, go about doing what you’re doing by all means. But, please, let the rest of us have a productive discussion without your interjection of conjecture, misquotes, and further negativity. Perhaps someone else can benefit from the information. Time is precious, why waste it.
Last, I don’t mean to be offensive. I am not saying anything I wouldn’t say in person, preferably over a beer and some laughs, agreeing to disagree is ultimately fine.
Best,
Gary
Last edited:
Cyriacus
Senior Master
"interesting b.s deduction chris, from your profile it appears you have only studied one art?"
"So give it a go, explain your training method, and why mine is flawed? Discussions as to what the best training methods are should be what this forum is about. "
"A “fair bit above my level”, ha! You couldn't be more wrong. why don't you upload a few videos of yourself manifesting such principals? Ill be generous, and when able, i'll donate my time and provide you with a free consultation via video and demonstrate what/how you can improve. We can let the non-bias public decide for themselves if my combat principals and manifestation of such are above your level. "
I guess its ok when you do it.
And now some humor.
*Sips Beer*
"Haha! We can let the non-bias public decide for themselves if my combat principals and manifestation of such are above your level. More beer?"
Alright Mr. Tae kwon Joke blue belt, lol - thanks for another substantive post. I haven't been so presumptive of Mr. Parker, so the hypocrisy is not as implied.
Cheers,
G
Cyriacus
Senior Master
And Im not going to respond to baseless insults, thanks
*Puts you on ignore*
EDIT: In hindsight, it seems that waking up all of an hour ago may have led me to be a bit misleading - Im not actually taking that seriously. I just dont feel like going into more detail about an arguement that doesnt affect me.
Sorry if that was misunderstood
All i will say is that MT is not a Proving Ground - Its for discussing anything MA related. Not just the best teaching methods. If thats what you want to use it for, thats a whole other matter. But expect a visit from the great debate.
Edit 2: In fact, ill just make the original reply nice and small. Because my vain attempt at humor may have resulted in coming across a bit differently to how id have liked. Eh... Yeah. Now i just kinda really want to see if you were typing a reply before i had a chance to edit this, thusly causing us to be having a totally disinformed conversation. Which would be amazing
Supra Vijai
Black Belt
I'm not about to overstep my bounds and speak for Mr. Parker or provide any specifics but trust me, he studies more than one art... not all is as it seems and not everyone advertises everything.
That said, in regards to the below quote and the rest of your response...
Gary, you copied stuff off the Ninjutsu website which you visited through a link on Mr. Parker's signature. Then how on earth did you manage to spell it wrong everytime you typed it??? Ninjutsu, not Ninjitsu.
I thought this thread was about attacking pressure points, not each other.
Pressure point study could be useful, but not probable in real scenarios.
Simply, people have different tolerances.
Now, applying these pressure point areas for a mild type of healing, still has to be proven to or accepted by modern medicine.
In short, pressure point attacks-defenses, are not the "magic bullet"
Pressure point study could be useful, but not probable in real scenarios.
Simply, people have different tolerances.
Now, applying these pressure point areas for a mild type of healing, still has to be proven to or accepted by modern medicine.
In short, pressure point attacks-defenses, are not the "magic bullet"
Agreed.
Also agreed it's not a magic bullet. But, generically speaking the best targets should be "built-in" so to speak into ones methods. Hit or miss though, your material should work.
A few minutes in you can see that in this push hands drill the vital points are built into the "circles" / "lines" etc, upon which you connect with your opponent / blend / attack , etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36QGqwuLZHI&feature=relmfu
Other random dim-mak application related stuff...
best,
G
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Not having the time to go through this presently, I'll reply to Gary on the weekend. This is really just so he knows I've seen it, and I'm not ignoring him.
punisher73
Senior Master
Here are my thoughts on pressure points in regards to martial arts...
Ok, pretty much anything that can be measured (in regards to physical aspects) can be measured. Applying that to pain tolerance, you are going to have about 70% of the population with a moderate response to pressure points. You are also going to have about another 15% of the population that has a very high response (low pain tolerance) to the pressure points, and then on the other end of the spectrum about 15% that will have little or no response (high pain tolerance). So, as a conservative estimate pressure points will work with about 85% of the people in normal circumstances. That figure will be slightly skewed due to adrenaline, drugs/alchohol.
So playing the odds, if you can hit a pressure point, it will likely have the effect that you wanted it to. On the other hand, if you know how to hit properly, you are still causing damage to the body whether or not the person felt it, and are still effecting them structurally.
I also think it is important to differentiate the different types of "pressure points". Are you talking pain points, nerve points, bone points, organ shots, etc. In my work, I have hit people with nerve shots and effected the limb to stop working, but they didn't really feel it at all, so I think it is important to figure out what is meant. Now, if on the other hand you are talking about only hitting a precise sequence of small accupoints, then I'm not a big fan of that. I still remember seeing a certain well known PP instructor in a magazine showing him pushing a pressure point in his partner's foot with his big toe, while he activated another one on the attacker's arm while the other hand was activated a 3rd point on the attacker. Huh? Even with a cooperative person he looked bound up and off balance. I prefer to rely on specific medical points, and know "why" it does what it does. I don't have time to check my watch and see that it is the hour of the ram so the small intestine meridian is vulnerable.
Ok, pretty much anything that can be measured (in regards to physical aspects) can be measured. Applying that to pain tolerance, you are going to have about 70% of the population with a moderate response to pressure points. You are also going to have about another 15% of the population that has a very high response (low pain tolerance) to the pressure points, and then on the other end of the spectrum about 15% that will have little or no response (high pain tolerance). So, as a conservative estimate pressure points will work with about 85% of the people in normal circumstances. That figure will be slightly skewed due to adrenaline, drugs/alchohol.
So playing the odds, if you can hit a pressure point, it will likely have the effect that you wanted it to. On the other hand, if you know how to hit properly, you are still causing damage to the body whether or not the person felt it, and are still effecting them structurally.
I also think it is important to differentiate the different types of "pressure points". Are you talking pain points, nerve points, bone points, organ shots, etc. In my work, I have hit people with nerve shots and effected the limb to stop working, but they didn't really feel it at all, so I think it is important to figure out what is meant. Now, if on the other hand you are talking about only hitting a precise sequence of small accupoints, then I'm not a big fan of that. I still remember seeing a certain well known PP instructor in a magazine showing him pushing a pressure point in his partner's foot with his big toe, while he activated another one on the attacker's arm while the other hand was activated a 3rd point on the attacker. Huh? Even with a cooperative person he looked bound up and off balance. I prefer to rely on specific medical points, and know "why" it does what it does. I don't have time to check my watch and see that it is the hour of the ram so the small intestine meridian is vulnerable.
