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!

I've been known to alternate between a straight line death march and literally bouncing around like a lunatic. When it become second nature, rhythmic, and dictates your pace and movement, it's a problem.

Are we defining better as by sharpness, ability to hold an edge, flexibility, or a combination of all of them? I've read conflicting information regarding this, but have read a that in a Katana vs Katana battle, you'd block with the backside to avoid damaging the blade because it was so hard and thus could be chipped relatively easily. In a world where there were people covered in metal roaming about the battlefield, I would think this would be a less than desirable property. I tend to define "how good" something is by how well it takes abuse, be it a blade or a wine glass. I suppose it's also worth noting that people define blade sharpness by whether or not you can shave with it, when such an ability is defined by a blade's angle. I have no idea what the angle of an average katana's cutting edge is. It would be interesting to get a cross sample of blades throughout history and compare that specification.

Other than why David Beckham was driving the boat? I would've gone with Jeremy Clarkson myself, but then again, I probably would've put the Top Gear presenters in charge of the entire thing. Aside from that, it was mostly just the 70's and 80's dance bits that were weird for me. I don't like dance, and some of the music was foreign (literally and figuratively) to me. Two thumbs up for Mr. Bean though, I used to watch him when I was a kid. Gordon Ramsey cursing at someone and Bear Grylls wrestling an actual bear would've been a nice addition. Oh, and Kylie Minogue...Yes, I know she's Australian, but I don't care.

I'm pretty up to date on British culture, and a few things were lost on me. My biggest complaint is anytime Sir Paul appears on a national or global stage to perform a Beatles song without Ringo. If Ringo isn't there, the performance isn't a proper Beatles song at all: It's just that guy from Wings pretending. Aside from that, it wasn't too bad, and I pretty much dislike 95% of of the Olympics. There were about a million ways the torch could've gone wrong and they pulled it off without a hitch.

Great videos, this sort of thing is right up my alley. Since you've probably got a better knowledge and outlet for finding answers about this sort of thing, I'm pretty excited. I've always wondered about European sword construction. What was the process by which the steel was made, how would a smith go about forging the sword - is there a multitude of methods and techniques or one generally accepted "best way?" How does the sharpness of these sword compare to other widely-used swords in history? The samurai sword was as sharp as possible and highly-polished to reduce drag, while the Greek bronze sword would have been poor at holding an edge and therefore produced more shallow cuts and done a lot of blunt-trauma. I would assume that these swords fall someplace in the middle? What sort of metallurgic properties does a longsword have? For example, the general properties of a Samurai sword are a hard shell with a flexible core. What sort of balance between hardness, shear strength, tensile strength, flexibility, etc...in short, what's the mechanics and theory behind how and why European swords worked in the fashion that they did? And I guess finally, what's the real context of how 16th Century armor and arms were used in their own time period. For example, smartphones, hybrid cars, and using the human genome were all basically new things 5 years ago - history books in 100 years will make it sound as though everyone today is utilizing them 100%, whereas that's not accurate. When the switch to plate armor was made, it would have been super-expensive, how long did chain mail and partial-plate armor appear on the battlefield? The same thing with swords - what would the cost of a broadsword be in the 1500s...no doubt your average person couldn't afford them and would instead appear on the battlefield with an axe, or a pike, or something within their means. How likely would we be to see two soldiers or knights armed with modern for the time technology square off in individual combat?

That's a +1 for me. I'm headed out for the night, but I'll be back to this thread tomorrow - I have about a million questions.

Yeah, places other than the eyes also sucks pretty badly. The eyes are just a membrane that are particularly affected, and when affected tend to cause a loss in vision. The nose and mouth also great delivery system. If you've never taken a dried hot pepper and rubbed in on your skin, go try it out...

You know guys, Dog the Bounty Hunter didn't become so hardcore by NOT deploying his pepper spray.

The live action version was pretty great - you know, in a lousy sort of way. I think it shows how good it could actually be. The first problem it has, is that there's about 10 different acceptable storyline for the whole thing. In the mini-comics, he's a barbarian and the two halves of the power sword are big important thing. In the cartoon, he's a prince who's mother is from earth and a bunch of other nonsense that's make out of sheer plot holes. In the newer incarnations, I have no idea what's going on - which brings me to my next point: If you turn away from an episode of He-Man for 10 seconds, you'll be completely baffled as to what happened, who the people on the screen are, and how the heck the story got to where it is. It's like concentrated A.D.D drank a gallon of jolt cola. What's with the Masters of the Universe universe? It's barbarians, monsters, and magic. Ok, I get that - it's a pretty standard formula. But wait, there's also computers, lasers, rocket ships, and....what?!?! Also, why not more Hordak? He's a cybernetic bat-guy thing, what's not to love?

So, I have this collection of He-Man DVDs and I have to say, this makes less sense than anything ever in the history of the universe. Like, seriously. Discuss.