The rule sets of combat

[Martial D]

I'm not sure that, that is where this discussion is at, but there are most certainly techniques that are outlawed from licenced fight because of the damage they can do. if your style contains one or several of these, you could make a valid point that your style may be a lot more effective live, than it would be in a ring. that of course doesn't account for the variable of if any particular individual could actually do it live or against a trained fighter if they were allowed to do it in a contest

If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.

I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'

 

[skribs]

Ok, since you insist on continuing to argue points I've not made, I'll let you and your strawman continue without me.

You seem to be saying that eye gouges are ineffective and if someone gets poked in the eye it won't have any bearing on the rest of the fight. Is that your opinion on eye gouges?

 

[skribs]

If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.

I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'

Sometimes you get a hand on your face that isn't a strike. You may be ready to block strikes, or prevent someone from striking, but then all of a sudden while you're trying to wrestle them you have a knee in your groin or a finger in your eye. It doesn't take much force, especially for that finger.

However, your ignorance on the subject (how to apply an eye gouge, and how debilitating they can be, at least momentarily) reminds me of people who train for decades without ever sparring, and then get their butt handed to them by an MMA fighter as soon as one hit lands. It's the arrogance of "I have a perfect training method" and being completely blind to techniques you won't see in the ring.

 

[skribs]

I actually don't look down on TMA at all. All of the good stuff comes from TMA.

What I do have trouble taking totally seriously are people that make every excuse for why their stuff is untestable yet insist what they do is valid in the context of live situations.

It's called ethics. You can't go around poking people in the eye to see if it works.

 

[Martial D]

You seem to be saying that eye gouges are ineffective and if someone gets poked in the eye it won't have any bearing on the rest of the fight. Is that your opinion on eye gouges?

Just for fun, could you quote the bit of text that gave you the impression I have said anything even remotely close to that?

 

[jobo]

If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.

I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'

but you seem to be arguing against' things that haven't been claimed and using only a very narrow set of circumstances. you don't need to be particularly quick or accurate to poke people generally in the eye. poke ing a trained fighter who is in guard and maintaining range on the other hand is I imagine quite difficult

there are lots of circumstances were blinding the other guy, at least on a temporary basis is a very good move, as it will allow to win or escape a fight that you were otherwise destined to lose, the" ifwon't work on a trained fighter in a cage, it won't work " is but one philosophy of fighting, "it will likely work on the 99 % of the population that aren't trained fighters" is another

 

[Martial D]

but you seem to be arguing against' things that haven't been claimed and using only a very narrow set of circumstances. you don't need to be particularly quick or accurate to poke people generally in the eye. poke ing a trained fighter who is in guard and maintaining range on the other hand is I imagine quite difficult

there are lots of circumstances were blinding the other guy, at least on a temporary basis is a very good move, as it will allow to win or escape a fight that you were otherwise destined to lose, the" ifwon't work on a trained fighter in a cage, it won't work " is but one philosophy of fighting, "it will likely work on the 99 % of the population that aren't trained fighters" is another

My only point here, and I've repeated it a few times, is that gouges don't stop people.

I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.

Yes it's easy to poke a guy in the eyes when he isn't expecting an attack. So is a left hook. Do you want your opponent annoyed or unconscious?

 

[jobo]

My only point here, and I've repeated it a few times, is that gouges don't stop people.

I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.

Yes it's easy to poke a guy in the eyes when he isn't expecting an attack. So is a left hook. Do you want your opponent annoyed or unconscious?

well that clearly depends on how effective my right hook is likely to be,( my left is rubbish,), id pick the hook against most people, as I can general knock people over with a free punch but there are people who will just walk through my best punch, so in that case I've only annoyed them, if on the other hand I've poked them in both eyes they are not only annoyed but also with out sight, so the question then is, would I sooner fight a very annoyed strong man with or with out his eyesight, the answer seem obvious ?

 

[skribs]

My only point here, and I've repeated it a few times, is that gouges don't stop people.

I've never implied or stated they can't be at all useful, in fact I've explicitly stated the opposite.

Yes it's easy to poke a guy in the eyes when he isn't expecting an attack. So is a left hook. Do you want your opponent annoyed or unconscious?

That left hook might just annoy him as well, and I may get one free shot. If I have a free shot at an eye gouge, then that opens up more free shots while my opponent deals with that.

Would you rather get one free left hook, or several free blows?

 

[skribs]

Just for fun, could you quote the bit of text that gave you the impression I have said anything even remotely close to that?

I'm sorry, I don't have time to quote every post you've made in this thread.

 

[Martial D]

well that clearly depends on how effective you right hook is likely to be, id pick the hook against most people, as I can general knock people over with a free punch but there are people who will just walk through my best punch, so in that case I've only annoyed them, if on the other hand I've poked them in both eyes they are not only annoyed but also with out sight, so the question then is, would I sooner fight a very annoyed man with or with out his eyesight, the answer seem obvious ?

Sure, things might happen that way. Never know

This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting.

And I don't know if it really helps the overarching point that entire systems of fighting are so reliant on poking eyes that they can't be tested in a fight without eyepokes.

I mean, do people really think the guy that can punch, kick and wrestle can't also poke eyes, and more effectively due to their likelyhood to hold a better position/control the distance most of the time? I just dont see it.

 

[Martial D]

I'm sorry, I don't have time to quote every post you've made in this thread.

Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said.

 

[skribs]

Sure, things might happen that way. Never know

This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting.

And I don't know if it really helps the overarching point that entire systems of fighting are so reliant on poking eyes that they can't be tested in a fight without eyepokes.

I mean, do people really think the guy that can punch, kick and wrestle can't also poke eyes, and more effectively due to their likelyhood to hold a better position/control the distance most of the time? I just dont see it.

Do you think there are martial arts where their only technique is poking the eyes?

I do think that someone who can punch, kick, wrestle, and has never trained for an eye poke, isn't likely to deliver one and is likely to be caught off-guard by one. Let's step back and take a pure boxer and put them into MMA. They're gonna get caught by a lot of kicks, they're going to have their punches grabbed, and really won't know what to do. He's going to set himself up to get shot on and taken down.

The same can be said for someone who is used to eye pokes not being allowed. Just like how grabs, takedowns, and kicks aren't allowed in boxing. You may be in a position where I can't punch (due to my upper arm being wrapped up) but I can push on your head. In MMA, that's just annoying, but in a real fight I would be able to jam my fingers or thumbs in your eyes.

Now, this is one of my criticism of Taekwondo, is that because of how heavily the sport limits punching, that a Taekwondoist in most schools is more vulnerable to a punch than someone who takes boxing. We're very good at dodging kicks, but punches aren't something we train. If someone were to take their Olympic-style training into a street fight, they're just begging to get punched in the face or wrapped up.

Because you don't train the defense against a technique, you're not expecting it, and more likely to set your opponent up for it.

 

[skribs]

Well, perhaps it might help going forward, as you seem to be responding to things I haven't said.

You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight. I've shown points in the videos where it has.
You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight. I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work. Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.

 

[jobo]

Sure, things might happen that way. Never know

This is kind of drifting away though isn't it? Even in your example the finger poked guy is still fighting.

And I don't know if it really helps the overarching point that entire systems of fighting are so reliant on poking eyes that they can't be tested in a fight without eyepokes.

I mean, do people really think the guy that can punch, kick and wrestle can't also poke eyes, and more effectively due to their likelyhood to hold a better position/control the distance most of the time? I just dont see it.

you have a very narrow perspective that you apply to your training which is fine, but it doesn't apply to mine, I'm not at all worried about getting in a fight with a trained (mma )fighter, one it is really unlikely to happen and two if a very unlikely set if circumstances occurred and it did, I would lose, no matter what I trained or didn't, so its like being hit by an engine falling off a plane ,there's no point worrying about it, I'm far more concerned about my abilities against general bozos

that's mostly coz I'm old, and any fight against a 28 yo ( or so)athlete, let alone a fighting athlete willlikely end badly for me. I'm a bit more confident of my abilities, against the rest of the male population , but then I may just be one if them delusional old guys that think they still have it,

 

[Martial D]

you have a very narrow perspective that you apply to your training which is fine, but it doesn't apply to mine, I'm not at all worried about getting in a fight with a trained (mma )fighter, one it is really unlikely to happen and two if a very unlikely set if circumstances occurred and it did, I would lose, no matter what I trained or didn't, so its like being hit by an engine falling off a plane ,there's no point worrying about it, I'm far more concerned about my abilities against general bozos

that's mostly coz I'm old, and any fight against a 28 yo ( or so)athlete, let alone a fighting athlete willlikely end badly for me. I'm a bit more confident of my abilities, against the rest of the male population , but then I may just be one if them delusional old guys that think they still have it,

Ya, I realize not everyone is a pro cage fighter. That applies to people that train in MMA as well, or train anything. It's a spectrum, everyone has x amount of training, from 0 to pro. Ideally, you want what you do to be as effective as possible as far up the scale as possible, as you never know how good the other guy might be.

But that's really neither here nor there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you don't know how to fight, it doesn't matter what your favorite move or target is really. If you are so quick and accurate with your strikes that you can put fingers to eye, or foot to balls, you should also be able to land punches and kicks to much larger targets.

I still say 'it doesn't work in the cage' is the same as 'it doesn't work in a fight'

The only amendment I'd add to that last statment, MD, is "If it doesn't work in the cage, it doesn't work in a fight against a trained fighter." That's probably an overstatement, but it's a low-risk use of the information.

 

[Martial D]

The only amendment I'd add to that last statment, MD, is "If it doesn't work in the cage, it doesn't work in a fight against a trained fighter." That's probably an overstatement, but it's a low-risk use of the information.

Ya, I'd agree that anything works against someone that has no idea what they are doing.

My last post to jobo covers my take on this.

 

[Martial D]

You have said repeatedly that it doesn't stop the fight. I've shown points in the videos where it has.
You have said repeatedly that it doesn't have any bearing, as often times they continue to fight. I've shown in the videos where it has momentarily stopped the fighter, and you've dismissed it.
You have said repeatedly that it cannot be tested, because it isn't allowed, and that because it isn't allowed it probably doesn't work. Which is a logic so full of holes I don't even know where to begin.

You are so far off in left field now I can't even see you with binoculars.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ya, I'd agree that anything works against someone that has no idea what they are doing.

My last post to jobo covers my take on this.

Not necessarily just anything. There are things I can pull off quite easily on new folks that I wouldn't expect to pull off on anyone with any reasonable level of grappling. On those folks, everything needs more set-up, and they have the knowledge to just flat-out counter some moves. And they simply don't usually make the mistakes that make other things available.

All of that gets more significant the more training the opponent has. So there are going to be things that could be used at the lowest level of MMA competition (if done with enough skill), for instance, that would fail miserably at even the mid-level.