Martial arts for killing with your bare hands

[lklawson]

Again, not intended as a killing art. Wrestling and boxing in modern-day parlance have evolved as simple sport, not self-defense (regardless of how good they are when used in that sense). I'm not arguing that any of them are not martial arts. But with regard to 'killing with your bare hands' as the OP queried, boxing, wrestling, etc, are not that. They have no killing techniques that are in their systems. Yes, you can certainly kill someone if you're a good enough wrestler. Or, for that matter, just a really bad dude, some kind of serious street fighter. But that wasn't the question.

Again, all the way up through the early/mid 20th Century, there were certain Western wrestling styles that contained (little used but well known) techniques which could easily result in serious injury or death. Heck, the Fireman's Carry (Kata Guruma) was only recently fully banned from Collegiate style wrestling because of its propensity to break necks and cause permanent paralysis, even from the kneeling position, never mind the Back Heave (Ura Nage).

I know most people don't think about it, but Catch as Catch Can, for instance, had (has) all of those "dump 'em on their head" throws and a lot of the same sort of major joint lock which, if taken to completion, could lead to joint damage. Everyone remembers "Strangler" Lewis and Frank Gotch's "Famous Toe Hold."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, they all came from that. And if you go far enough back, all sporting fisticuffs or wrestling methods are based on combative techniques. No dispute there. I'm not unaware of the history of pugilism, as I'm sure you know.

However, such arts are no longer considered to be killing arts. Let's not pretend that Greco-Roman wrestlers are taught methods intended to end a life. Dim Mak is not to be found in the Marquis de Queensberry rules.

 

[lklawson]

Yes, they all came from that. And if you go far enough back, all sporting fisticuffs or wrestling methods are based on combative techniques. No dispute there. I'm not unaware of the history of pugilism, as I'm sure you know.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that that "history" is a lot more recent than you are implying. Mid-20th Century. You know, right around the time that you and I were born.

However, such arts are no longer considered to be killing arts. Let's not pretend that Greco-Roman wrestlers are taught methods intended to end a life. Dim Mak is not to be found in the Marquis de Queensberry rules.

You might be surprised. Many of these Pressure Point I can document up into the 1920's still being taught. For that matter, the Solar Plexus blow and "The Button" are still stock-n-trade.

Just because we don't commonly think of them as "killing arts" doesn't mean that it's not simmering there just below the surface. Plenty of sweaty old gyms where you can still learn "Dirty Boxing," right?

Just like Judo. Just because Atemi isn't frequently taught in the Judo Dojo doesn't mean that it's not in the official curriculum any more.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[WC_lun]

I hesitate to use the inclusion of "killing techniques" in a system as a defining marker if it is a martial art or not. Let's face it, we all have seen schools with "killing techniques" that couldn't kill the lights, much less a human being. I've been hit by western boxers, and without the wraps and gloves difusing the power transfer, and if in specific spots, I can assure you they do have the ability to kill. Hell, hitting someone hard enough to give them multiple concussions can kill a person, and that's not a specific spot. Throwing someone on thier head, neck, or making them land badly can end a life. The ability to kill is there in sporting arts. Now if the practitioner of a sporting art has the experience and knowledge to know how to apply those things is a different question. I would also question whther a TMA student with those "killing techniques" would even have a decent chance of getting a killing technique. It isn't something you can exactly train completley, and more often than not those missing details are what makes the difference. Besides all that, who really wants to kill a person?!

Cracked can be awful funny and should not be taken seriously. With all due respect to Martial Talk and all of the posters (including myself) no web site or forum should be taken too seriously.

 

[Cyriacus]

Again, not intended as a killing art. Wrestling and boxing in modern-day parlance have evolved as simple sport, not self-defense (regardless of how good they are when used in that sense). I'm not arguing that any of them are not martial arts. But with regard to 'killing with your bare hands' as the OP queried, boxing, wrestling, etc, are not that. They have no killing techniques that are in their systems. Yes, you can certainly kill someone if you're a good enough wrestler. Or, for that matter, just a really bad dude, some kind of serious street fighter. But that wasn't the question.

Indeed - I kind of expected that. Which is why Im inclined to reply with, Judo is considered a Martial Art.

I know youre not arguing against what they are, mind. Im not trying to convince you of everything, Im just discussing

 

[Touch Of Death]

Indeed - I kind of expected that. Which is why Im inclined to reply with, Judo is considered a Martial Art.

I know youre not arguing against what they are, mind. Im not trying to convince you of everything, Im just discussing

I don't know. You sounded pretty convincing to me.

 

[Cyriacus]

I don't know. You sounded pretty convincing to me.

Ill take that as a compliment, good sir

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Indeed - I kind of expected that. Which is why Im inclined to reply with, Judo is considered a Martial Art.

I know youre not arguing against what they are, mind. Im not trying to convince you of everything, Im just discussing

Right. But I think I got misconstrued somewhere along the line. I said of course boxing, wrestling, judo, and the like are martial arts. I would never say they are not. The OP's article talked about deadly martial arts, and martial arts that do not have 'killing moves' or 'finishing moves' as part of the curriculum aren't that. They're still martial arts.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Right. But I think I got misconstrued somewhere along the line. I said of course boxing, wrestling, judo, and the like are martial arts. I would never say they are not. The OP's article talked about deadly martial arts, and martial arts that do not have 'killing moves' or 'finishing moves' as part of the curriculum aren't that. They're still martial arts.

Yeah, but consider Judo throwing someone into a fire hydrant. They could die. LOL

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah, but consider Judo throwing someone into a fire hydrant. They could die. LOL

So could chess if you jammed your chess pieces into your opponent's various orifices, I suppose. Shall we now call that a killing move in chess?

 

[elder999]

So could chess if you jammed your chess pieces into your opponent's various orifices, I suppose. Shall we now call that a killing move in chess?

Judo is a killing art.

Hold a choke long enough, and the person you're choking dies from lack of blood to the brain.

Crush a windpipe with a choke, and the person you're choking dies-sometimes drowning in their own blood.

Almost all of judos throws require only the slightest alteration to drop the uke directly onto their head. A couple contain hidden percussives that make the action of the throw itself pretty much fatal.

Joke all ya want. As for the fire-hydrant, a funny story:

Before Mr. T became famous, he was a famous bouncer in Chicago-in fact, it was a "Bouncing Contest" on one of the networks that led to his fame. The way the story goes, someone stabbed a "friend" of his at the club where he worked, and he "escorted" the gentleman outside and dropped him on a fire hydrant, nine times.

That guy lived, though I imagine he wasn't very happy about it at the time.....:lfao:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Judo is a killing art.

Judo is a martial art.
Judo is a sport.
Judo is a valid and worthy self-defense method.

All of the above I agree with.

Judo is not a killing art. It contains no killing or finishing moves. It can be used to kill. So can chainsaws. That doesn't change what it is.

And while I agree that there are many martial arts which *do* contain so-called 'killing moves' that are not necessarily such, there are also plenty which contain moves intended to kill, described as killing moves, taught as killing moves, and if applied correctly, will certainly kill. That is a killing art.

Not that I would want to be stacked by Mister T. On a Fire Hydrant or a mat.

 

[seasoned]

The early days of judo were much different then the teachings of today. There were strikes associated with the art. It was tamed down as with many of the early arts to accommodate this ever popular "sport"............... Judo chop comes to mind, of which there was one.................

http://judoinfo.com/rules2.htm

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The early days of judo were much different then the teachings of today. There were strikes associated with the art. It was tamed down as with many of the early arts to accommodate this ever popular "sport"............... Judo chop comes to mind, of which there was one.................

http://judoinfo.com/rules2.htm

Is this the early days? I rest my case.

 

[elder999]

Is this the early days? I rest my case.

No, but some of us were taught by people who learned in the early days.

Step onto my mat? It's still pretty much the early days....:lfao:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, but some of us were taught by people who learned in the early days.

Step onto my mat? It's still pretty much the early days....:lfao:

I would be honored to be damaged by you.

 

[seasoned]

No, but some of us were taught by people who learned in the early days.

Step onto my mat? It's still pretty much the early days....:lfao:

I would be honored to be damaged by you.

I, would be honored to watch....

 

[Touch Of Death]

So could chess if you jammed your chess pieces into your opponent's various orifices, I suppose. Shall we now call that a killing move in chess?

Of course not, Bill! Geez! However, when we play chess I make a move so awesome, you die from the shame, it does then become a Killing Art. This is why I don't play anyone over Fifty. I have a heart.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

...he "escorted" the gentleman outside and dropped him on a fire hydrant, nine times.

That guy lived, though I imagine he wasn't very happy about it at the time.....:lfao:

and from Touch of death:

However, when we play chess I make a move so awesome, you die from the shame, it does then become a Killing Art. This is why I don't play anyone over Fifty. I have a heart.

So, this means that judo is not a killing art, since even from your chosen circumstance being repeated nine times it does not kill (although to be fair, Mr.T may have just been pitying the fool and letting him live), while chess has moves that are so awesome, it causes death from shame? Then while Judo is not a killing art chess is? Awesome! I should just drop martial arts and play chess instead!