One punch, one kill?

[thesensei]

Well, I can't seem to find a thread devoted to this subject. I'm interested in hearing opinions from everyone on this. I've recently begun working out with a black belt in tang soo do. He's very good, generates very good power and speed. We come from very different martial arts background, so it produces very good discussion and discovery for both of us. Our recent discussions have been around this idea.

He holds a "one punch, one kill" philosophy - stated in those words. My studies have focused more on striking to get a certain body reaction which sets up for the next strike... I can see certain merits for the idea of "one punch, one kill," but I wonder....

What do you all think about it??

Salute,
Jeremiah

 

[don bohrer]

Jeremiah,

I believe it simply means to focus for maximum effect in each technique. I also find the thought related to "KIME". I may be wrong through.

KIME
This term means focusing mental and physical power. Kime is a combination of the basics of karate: strong stance, use of hara (the centre of a body), effective movement patterns, relaxation, strength, timing and strong will. If you want to achieve a good kime, you have to give everything that you have, both in your body and mind. It takes several years to find and to develop the inner energy that you need in order to master your kime.

What do you think?


don

 

[arnisador]

When I studied Isshin-ryu they really emphasized the one punch, one kill philosophy (ikken hisatsu, I believe). I no longer buy it. People move around too much. It may be a good goal to train for--maybe--but I don't believe it'll often happen.

I prefer looking to set things up as you indicate.

Incidentally, I was surprised how much turned up in a Yahoo! search for "one punch one kill".

 

[don bohrer]

The statement is misleading and I doubt the person that coined the phrase meant it the way we take it today. I believe it's more of a training tool.

don

 

[Shiatsu]

I don't believe it. It is kind of like the no touch knock outs in my book. I would say it is more luck if it does happen.

 

[SenseiBear]

I also think it is a focusing tool. Hit them hard enough to kill them. Like punching through the target. It can happen, for sure - we aren't 3rd graders rolling around on the playground anymore. As adults, especially those who train to deliver strikes, when you start to hit people, they can die.

For defending yourself, it is a good mindset to have. I plan to kill the b@$t@rd with one hit... Then I hit him one one one one one one, etc.

 

[Cthulhu]

Ideally, one strike would end the fight. Realistically, you better be prepared for that not happening.

I don't find a problem with training with that mindset, as long as 'what if I miss?' is also covered.

Cthulhu

 

[pknox]

I also think of it is a training tool -- more for motivation than anything else. I was always taught to believe it meant making your strike as effective and damaging as possible, by imagining it is the last one you will have. In other words, don't go at it with half commitment, saving effort for the next strike. If the strike is effective enough, there won't be a need for a second strike. That however, doesn't mean you shouldn't be ready and able to deliver one. I liken it to weightlifting, when someone doesn't go "all out" on a set because he is pacing himself for the next. That's what is trying to be prevented.

As far as practicality, I myself have yet to hit someone once and had a fight end at that, and have rarely seen it happen to others. In cases where it did, usually either the person being hit was intoxicated, there was a very large size and/or ability difference between the two, the "hit" involved an object as opposed to a fist/foot, or the person being hit was surprised by the hit ("sucker punch").

 

[Cruentus]

It's good to make every technique count; as if that technique will be the one to end the conflict. It would be great if 1 technique is the one to end it. This cannot be relied on, because most likely it will take more then 1 move.

So you must always be prepared to counter, and counter the counter. If your not, then your self defense isn't based on reality.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by don bohrer
The statement is misleading and I doubt the person that coined the phrase meant it the way we take it today. I believe it's more of a training tool.

I'be wondered this myself--but then I've seen people killing/dehorning bulls to show their prowess at it. I wonder what the old-timers really thought?

 

[Ender]

I think maybe one punch CAN kill, but why take a chance. Hit 'em again.

 

[kenpo2dabone]

To kill a person with one punch I feel is sort of a myth. It would be very difficult to say the least. However we do hear, from time to time, about teenagers playing that game where you punch your friend in the chest for fun and the next thing you know your friend is dead. I was an aquaintence of someone in highschool that this happened to so I know it is possable. I feel that this type of thing is a fluke. The person who punched the other person got "lucky" or "unlucky" depending on how you look at it. I think the term "One punch, One kill" has better meaning if it is interpreted as "one hit, end of fight". This I feal is more valid though it is not what I practice. However, I have actually ended a fight that I was in with one solid punch to the soloplexis. My attacker dropped to his knees and his friend turned and briskly walked away. So one punch ended a fight potentially against two poeple. I don't feel lucky that I got the punch in solidly but I do feel lucky that the fight ended with that one punch. I think a better question might be...where would you hit someone if you intended to kill them with that strike? My first instinct wold be the temple. So if I were to train to kill with one strike I would only train to strike to the temple. To me it is not realistic enough to be focused on one target in a confrontation. Plus I don't see a need to take a persons life in an empty handed attack against my person. I know plenty of other ways to incapacitate my would be attacker with out taking their life. I don't think my conscience could handle it if I did. If, for some reason, I did feel the need to take the life of my attacker, though I can't really think of anything that would make me feel that way, I would go for a neck break instead and be sure of the outcome rather than rely on a strike that may or may not work.

Just few thought on the subject,

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

 

[stickarts]

Although the "one punch kill" has not been my approach to training, i have worked with people that had the speed, explosion, and strength to be able to do it. By this I mean the strike would disable, knockout, or kill.
I think many different approaches can work depending upon the skill of the practioner.

 

[MJS]

In the perfect world, yeah, it might work, but we dont live in that perfect world. Nobody is gonna stand there and let you hit them. If you are moving around, which I'm sure you will be, that in itself will make it hard to hit the person. IMO, in order for that to work, you need to hit them in just the right spot, which, like I said, if you're moving, is going to be difficult.

Mike

 

[Shiatsu]

Not for the George Dillman groups. They can hit a specific spot any time.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Shiatsu
Not for the George Dillman groups. They can hit a specific spot any time.

Yup, and thats due to the fact that the guy is standing still!!! Every time you see Dillman doing a KO, the guy is standing there. What is that?? To get the desired results of these points, which are not that big, you need to pretty much be right on target. PP's are going to work best if someone is grabbing you, but you cant tell me that its going to be easy with someone moving around.

Mike

 

[don bohrer]

I'be wondered this myself--but then I've seen people killing/dehorning bulls to show their prowess at it. I wonder what the old-timers really thought?

I have read stories like this too Arnisador. I also remember stories of swordsmen practicing on prisioners. Executing with a single clean cut! However the realization that the prisioners were restrained doesn't get much attention. I wonder how many details on these stories are left out?


Another thought...

Ok, when we say one hit one kill what do we really mean? The obviously meaning is a blow so penetratingly powerful that it destroys tissue, and bone resulting in instant death. Could it also have represented an attack that caused death many days or weeks later? Lastly a finishing blow might not be the one that killed the fighter but rather one that was the turning point in a fight. The blow that rendered the fighter unable to defend.

don

 

[don bohrer]

Mike,

Skills like this are brain teasers for sure. To bad people that practice these techniques don't do them in live combat.



don

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
To kill a person with one punch I feel is sort of a myth. It would be very difficult to say the least. However we do hear, from time to time, about teenagers playing that game where you punch your friend in the chest for fun and the next thing you know your friend is dead. I was an aquaintence of someone in highschool that this happened to so I know it is possable. I feel that this type of thing is a fluke. The person who punched the other person got "lucky" or "unlucky" depending on how you look at it. I think the term "One punch, One kill" has better meaning if it is interpreted as "one hit, end of fight". This I feal is more valid though it is not what I practice. However, I have actually ended a fight that I was in with one solid punch to the soloplexis. My attacker dropped to his knees and his friend turned and briskly walked away. So one punch ended a fight potentially against two poeple. I don't feel lucky that I got the punch in solidly but I do feel lucky that the fight ended with that one punch. I think a better question might be...where would you hit someone if you intended to kill them with that strike? My first instinct wold be the temple. So if I were to train to kill with one strike I would only train to strike to the temple. To me it is not realistic enough to be focused on one target in a confrontation. Plus I don't see a need to take a persons life in an empty handed attack against my person. I know plenty of other ways to incapacitate my would be attacker with out taking their life. I don't think my conscience could handle it if I did. If, for some reason, I did feel the need to take the life of my attacker, though I can't really think of anything that would make me feel that way, I would go for a neck break instead and be sure of the outcome rather than rely on a strike that may or may not work.

Just few thought on the subject,

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

I agree that it is a myth. Striking someone and killing them with one blow would mean someone with the strength of a gorilla and the speed of a striking rattler. You know the kind of guys you see in testosterone filled movies.
If it does happen then chances are the person has a weak heart or by freak timing the blow landed in between beats of the heart and shocked it (the heart) to immobility.
But as (Mike) said why would anyone do that in the first place? As martial artists we all should have the control so that it
doesn't happen. The high ranking Martial Artists on this board surely have enough common sense to know that killing someone when it isn't necessary is a waste of their training and skill. If a person warrants killing then do so but know exactly the situation going on before doing so. Do so when there is no alternative.

In his series Thomas Coveant The Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson wrote something that I found very useful. It's called the oath of peace:

Do not hurt where holding is enough, do not wound where hurting is enough, do not maim where wounding is enough, do not kill where maiming is enough, the greatest warrior is he who does not have to kill.

:asian:

 

[don bohrer]

In his series Thomas Coveant The Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson wrote something that I found very useful. It's called the oath of peace:

Do not hurt where holding is enough, do not wound where hurting is enough, do not maim where wounding is enough, do not kill where maiming is enough, the greatest warrior is he who does not have to kill.

MACaver
I loved that series... well all but the first 100 pages. Have you read anything else of Donaldson?

Ops not trying to get off topic


don