The Eye as a Target

[drop bear]

Actually, this is not at all logical. It is the same as saying, "jabs work. The same issue applies, how to get them on target without getting your head punched off."

In fact the eye strike is easier because it gives you an extra 4" (10cm) of reach. And what some people don't seem to understand is, I don't care if the fingers don't reach the eyes. I am working on flinch response to get a means of entering to land a follow up punch or grab hold.

Which you are still relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work for you. Which is not a safe way to fight.

 

[drop bear]

Moot point. Neither is realistic but at least with pads you are getting the range right. Tell me now that you don't use pads in your training.

I use both pads and sparring. You are apparently just using pads.

 

[K-man]

I use both pads and sparring. You are apparently just using pads.

Just because we don't spar doesn't mean we are not 'sparring' in the sense of entering and engaging. If you class your rolling within the definition of 'sparring' then what we do is also sparring. Within karate sparring is basically either continuous (jiu kumite) or point sparring and we don't do either of those.

You keep misquoting what I say. I'm not interested in competition type sparring. That is the same as consensual fighting that you normally see. (In fact all sparring is consensual fighting legally.) Our training is to enter and engage even if you do cop a hit on the way in. A strike to the eyes is one way of achieving that objective.

 

[K-man]

Which you are still relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work for you. Which is not a safe way to fight.

Oh boy. Where do you get this notion? Eye strikes have never been all the entry work and as for exit, attacking the eyes is just one means of escape. But even here you are misrepresenting what I have said. Escaping from chokes etc is normally an eye gouge where you are driving you fingers or thumb deep into the eye socket. Here we are talking of a strike.

 

[K-man]

Instead of an eye gouge where you increase the chances of breaking your fingers what about an eye flick? I learned this from watching this video. I hope this isn't against the rules in regards to leaving a link, but it seems to add to this conversation in regards to is an eye gouge effective. My opinion is it could be, but you increase the chance that you might miss and break your fingers on their nose, forehead, or cheekbone. Then what are you going to do?

Here is that video demonstrating an eye flick and why you shouldn't do an eye gouge.

How To Shut Down A Bigger Attacker With One Simple Move

I think you'll find eye strikes (rigid fingers), eye flicks (soft fingers) and eye gouges (fingers driven into the eye socket) are all different techniques. Personally I would never really go for the first for a number of reasons, the ones you listed among them. The eye 'flick' for want of a better term, is what I was describing in my post when I wrote ...

"Well every time we practise a jab or two followed by the straight punch I emphasise that the jab is often really an open hand strike for the eyes. Apart from anything else it normally causes the flinch response and, being open hand, is faster and has the extra range than a closed fist jab."

What I was talking about as 'faster' is exactly that loose flick of the arm.

If you go back to the OP you will see the guy there has bent fingers.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok. My stance is still the delivery method here. And that is easy to test. I mean all we need to do is find a boxer. Get a couple of sets of goggles and have an eye gouge off to see who's eye gouges are better.

I haven't read the entire thread yet. Has anyone botherd to point out that if you are wearing goggles, you are not pressure testing your eye gouges?

Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested.

you don't need an excellent delivery system or superior technique to damage the eyes.

 

[drop bear]

Oh boy. Where do you get this notion? Eye strikes have never been all the entry work and as for exit, attacking the eyes is just one means of escape. But even here you are misrepresenting what I have said. Escaping from chokes etc is normally an eye gouge where you are driving you fingers or thumb deep into the eye socket. Here we are talking of a strike.

You haven't mentioned anything in relation to entry and exit work. Just you get a bit more reach.

That does not change the fundamental idea that you have to avoid getting hit on the way in and the way out.

 

[drop bear]

I haven't read the entire thread yet. Has anyone botherd to point out that if you are wearing goggles, you are not pressure testing your eye gouges?

Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested.

you don't need an excellent delivery system or superior technique to damage the eyes.

How do you know? You don't pressure test.

I am sorry. I mostly don't hold with the too deadly to spar concept.

 

[drop bear]

Just because we don't spar doesn't mean we are not 'sparring' in the sense of entering and engaging. If you class your rolling within the definition of 'sparring' then what we do is also sparring. Within karate sparring is basically either continuous (jiu kumite) or point sparring and we don't do either of those.

You keep misquoting what I say. I'm not interested in competition type sparring. That is the same as consensual fighting that you normally see. (In fact all sparring is consensual fighting legally.) Our training is to enter and engage even if you do cop a hit on the way in. A strike to the eyes is one way of achieving that objective.

Like the video in the OP. Consensual sparring.

 

[K-man]

Here you are saying I am relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work.

Which you are still relying on the strike to do all the entry and exit work for you. Which is not a safe way to fight.

... and here you are saying I didn't say anything about entry and exit work.

You haven't mentioned anything in relation to entry and exit work. Just you get a bit more reach.

That does not change the fundamental idea that you have to avoid getting hit on the way in and the way out.

And who said you have to avoid being hit? We condition for being hit. I see plenty of boxers get hit and I see plenty of MMA guys getting hit and they seem to be able to wear most of those strikes to either enter to grapple or just hit. That is what I am saying we do, yet in my styles it isn't acceptable? How does that work?

 

[K-man]

How do you know? You don't pressure test.

I am sorry. I mostly don't hold with the too deadly to spar concept.

And I'm sorry. We just had a discussion about spin. Please show me anywhere where Flying Crane, or anyone else for that matter, has said that their style is 'too deadly to spar'.

And while you are at it, please define sparring. I haven't read anywhere where Flying Crane has ever said he doesn't pressure test. In fact in the seven odd years I've been part of this forum only two people have ever accused others of not pressure testing.

 

[K-man]

Like the video in the OP. Consensual sparring.

So, was that your definition of sparring?

 

[drop bear]

And I'm sorry. We just had a discussion about spin. Please show me anywhere where Flying Crane, or anyone else for that matter, has said that their style is 'too deadly to spar'.

And while you are at it, please define sparring. I haven't read anywhere where Flying Crane has ever said he doesn't pressure test. In fact in the seven odd years I've been part of this forum only two people have ever accused others of not pressure testing.

"Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested"

Sorry that is classic too deadly to spar.

 

[drop bear]

So, was that your definition of sparring?

Yep. Sparring with eyegouges.

 

[K-man]

Yep. Sparring with eyegouges.

So you don't spar either. Interesting.

And BTW, that wasn't an eye gouge by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[K-man]

"Eye gouges are one of those things that cannot be pressure tested"

Sorry that is classic too deadly to spar.

Um! No! Eye gouges are unlikely to be deadly. Permanent injury perhaps, but not deadly.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Random thoughts on the eye as a target...

I've received a solid (accidental) eye poke in sparring 3 times.
One time I dropped to the ground clutching my eye in agony.
One time I stepped back and asked for a moment to make sure I was okay. I could have kept going, but wanted to make sure there was no serious damage for safety's sake. (For the next 6 months I would see occasional flashing circles of light when I was out at night.)
One time I kept going, got hold of my opponent, took him down and submitted him working by feel with one eye closed.
Based on this small sample I would say that targeting the eye is an effective tactic, but not a guaranteed fight finisher.

I practice a drill I learned from Roy Harris (JKD instructor, BJJ black belt) for setting up eye gouges, head butts, elbows, knees, and groin slaps off of pummeling for head control. It's semi free form, but not competitive. I like it because it works with a structure that I do practice in a resisted sparring context on a regular basis and just makes me aware of the opportunities for my opponent or myself to slip in those kinds of attacks without breaking our normal flow.

Given that we can't legally, morally, or practically practice eye gouges or pokes for real, we can never gain the technical mastery of them that we can with techniques such as chokes or punches. Nevertheless, they are effective enough and easy enough that it's worth not neglecting them entirely. Even if we don't want to use them, we should be aware of the possibility that someone could use them against us. I think a good compromise is to have awareness of how they fit into the other techniques that we can practice with more realism:

If I can hit you with a quick, accurate jab to your face (or even come up a couple inches short with my fist), then I might have been able to poke you in the eye. (Not guaranteed, but certainly worth considering.)
If I can't hit you in the face at all, or even come up a couple of inches short, then I could not have poked you in the eye.
If I can control you with grappling well enough that I can put my hand on your face and you can't block me or move your head away, then I could very likely have gouged you in the eye.
If an opponent can put his hand on my face at all, then the chances of him being able to attack my eyes are non-zero, even if he doesn't have full head control.

Conclusion: if I want to be able to target the eye effectively or prevent someone from targeting my eyes, then I should practice being able to hit an opponent without being hit and being able to control him in grappling range so that I can reach his face and he can't reach mine.

BTW - just because you don't incorporate these techniques (or any other) into your regular sparring doesn't mean you can't be aware of them. Even when I'm grappling with no strikes I like to keep a little subroutine going in my head that notes "he could have hit me with an elbow there, his hands were in place to poke me in the eye, I was open for a head butt, etc" and adjust my body to prevent those opportunities as much as possible even though those techniques aren't allowed in practice and my sparring partner has no intention of using them.

 

[Flying Crane]

How do you know? You don't pressure test.

I am sorry. I mostly don't hold with the too deadly to spar concept.

You know how I train? I didn't think we had met. When was this?

Hey if you want to "pressure test" eye gouges, or better yet, let someone else pressure test them on you, be my guest.

 

[drop bear]

You know how I train? I didn't think we had met. When was this?

Hey if you want to "pressure test" eye gouges, or better yet, let someone else pressure test them on you, be my guest.

I am only going by the bit where you said you couldn't pressure test eye gouges.

And for the most part if you are pressure testing pretty much any strike that could become an eye gouge you are pressure testing the eyegouge.

Because. As I made the point at the start of the thread. It is not the eyegouge that is effective. It is the ability to deliver it safely.

Otherwise it becomes an airgouge.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am only going by the bit where you said you couldn't pressure test eye gouges.

And for the most part if you are pressure testing pretty much any strike that could become an eye gouge you are pressure testing the eyegouge.

Because. As I made the point at the start of the thread. It is not the eyegouge that is effective. It is the ability to deliver it safely.

Otherwise it becomes an airgouge.

Sure you gotta land it or there nothing there. If you are not landing it, you are not pressure testing it. Eyes are delicate and easily damaged. For some things, such as eye gouges, the danger outweighs the training benefits by a long shot. Bad idea to do it.

If you are not digging your fingers into your training partners eyes, and allowing them to do the same to you, you are not pressure testing them. You are merely extrapolating what might be possible from other training. Kinda like situational drills.