Liver Punch

I agree completely, Groinstrike.

There's a guy on here who's a much bigger expert in this stuff than am I...although his user name completely escapes me and I'm too lazy to look it up. Anyhow, while swinging anything about for a long amount of time is physically demanding, as is any variety of combat. However, I've got some literature that all points to something such as this sword, historically speaking, as only weighing 2 lbs. or so.

You chickened out and didn't mention that he looks bigger on TV?

It got cold here in northern Indiana, the wind blew, and it rained. That was about the extent of it.

YES!!!

This guy had one of the best stories ever, was a great announcer in the early days of MMA, and was hands down one of the best fight judges in the world. Perhaps not a household name, Jeff certainly should have been, and combat sports has suffered a big loss in his passing.

I think he should try Doc's out for a week or two...

Right, but it's not designed and intended as a weapon, thus could not be used as such in a Canadian court. If it said not designed or inded by the manufacturer, I'd be with you 100%. But if I were in a court room (and I certainly don't know the ins and outs of how these things go in Canada) arguing against someone who used them, my argument would be that you intended to use them as a weapon. I'd say that because you intended to use them as a weapon, their inded use was at that time to be a weapon. The law states that it must be designed or intended to be used as a weapon - not and...and there's a whole world of difference there. A quick google search turned up instances of people in Canada being charged with assault with a deadly weapon where that weapon was a car - certainly not its intended purpose. I'm not saying that everyday items should be consitered deadly weapons on a whim, because I think that w e agree they shouldn't. I would say, however, that once the police and courts are involved, common sense and intent of the law don't always count for much...if they want to throw the book at you, they'll do it at whatever angle they can. Of course the best way to avoid this is to not assault anyone period. Defense with a deadly weapon is generally more acceptable than assault with one.

It could be intended for use in causing injury or for the purpose of threatening though. Example: Saying "I'm going to stop your face in with my steel toed boots" is a threat/intimidation with steel toed boots. The threat/intimidation has just turned them into a deadly weapon. If you then use them to cause death or injury, you've done so with a deadly weapon. Almost anything could fit that bill, although I suppose the technical exclusion for the boots would be if you kicked or stomped someone and did not purposefully use the boots for that purpose. (i.e. you would've kicked them barefoot, but just so happened to be wearing steel toed shoes/boots)

The good news is that someone like you will probably never find himself in a dark place with unknown attackers and weapons with flashing colored lights.

I agree completely - unless they ran off crying, in which case you probably shouldn't give chase to use a follow-up.

I think that's exactly why most martial arts that are tailor-made for self defense stress the need for chaining attacks until there is no longer a threat. Is there a better technique than finger breaks? Yes. Does that mean that if you've got their fingers you should let go of them because there are better techniques for other parts of their body? Of course not. Break their fingers and assess the situation. Did the finger break cause them to run off crying? If yes, then it worked, if not then move onto something else. It's the same thing with the whole "do eye pokes work" debate. I'm a proponent of eye pokes and gouges. Does this mean that I'll give up a fully sunk in rear naked choke to poke at your eyes? Of course not. But if an eye attack is handy, I'll go to it. What is their response going to be to defend it - shut their eyes? That's great, they've defended my eye attack by closing their eyes...in the middle of a fight! As long as my reaction to that is to employ a technique that takes advantage of their self-imposed blindness, then it worked just fine. If you've got their fingers, break them. If that doesn't stop them you can move to a wrist lock, a take down, or whatever else presents itself. In no way, shape or form does my first technique failing constitute an inability for me to hit them in the face. In closing, do finger breaks work? Sometimes. Do finger breaks followed by a strike to the throat, headbutt to the nose, a kick to the groin, a stomp to the inside of the knee, a takedown, and an armbar work? Probably.

I suppose that almost any technique that exists, someone has been on the receiving end of and kept coming. I've been kicked, punched, I mean...whatever, and kept attacking. If fingers break don't work, then neither do throat strikes...I'll gladly take a throat strike, but would respectfully pass on someone breaking my fingers. The only technique that seems to be effective 100% of the time is hitting someone with your car, or maybe a few times with a shovel...

I think the classification system is spot on. The problem is that what and who you are changes completely based on whoever is assigning a category to you. It's all a matter of perspective. Every terrorist on Earth calls himself a freedom fighter.

Thanks for the answers - I'm going to pull a few books off the shelf that I know are going to remind me of everything else that I get curious about. I find the scope of almost anything historical to be incredibly lacking in detail - it's hard to cover a several hundred year period with attention to such a think I guess. How far back and to what extent of Europe have you studied? There's a heck of a lot of history there!