Warp Spider

540/720 kicks are just for show. They are near impossible to land because you can't see where you are going and although they go very fast they don't pack that much power compared to a kick executed on the ground.

Actually, like I said earlier in the thread, "absorbing" blows has nothng to do with Ki. Harry Houdini did it all the time as part of some of his shows.

I think it's mainly just to look cool. Plus if you ever get in a fight and there's some boards or bricks nearby you could "accidentally" smash them with a chop disguised as a wild haymaker... that'll make you look a lot more powerful! Aside from that I'd agree that board breaking has no combat application, but that's just my personal opinion.

I'd vote for just wrapping it around your waist once and tying a double knot at the front. Alternatively, I'd just use a leather belt with a buckle on it, but I guess that's not as traditional.

I don't see why getting shot 9 times is cool, but maybe that's just me.

Yeah, but the middle east isn't that big. He could have gone to Cuba when there was first talk of war. He could be in China or Switzerland or even America. I wouldn't make the assumption that he could only be in Iraq or an Adjacent country. He could be anywhere in the world.

I don't think he knew the guy had a gun, and it's not that hard to chase down a car on foot if there is a fair bit of traffic. I would have done the same thing.

I hope you realize the irony of that.

I suspect a barrage of deuterium fusion or neutron implosion warheads would resolve any Urban Combat or Guerilla operation. However, since we are talking about the US and not France or China, we'll have to settle for the good ol' plutonium fission bomb. This would of course, cause massive civilian casualties, but unlike many generals that really doesn't bother me. There's only three types of people in a war as far as I'm concerned: the people on your side, the people who aren't on your side, and the people who are out of missile range.

Uh, dudes, Saddam is probrably in New York right now driving a taxi. Seriously, if you were him, would you stay in Iraw?

Either one could be good, and although a bo is more easily improvised, it's worth considering that an attack can occur in your home where you may well have a katana handy. The bo is definately more easily improvised outside your home, however. There are numerous cases of bo users defeating sword wielders, but then again, you know what I say about case studies. There's also likely numerous examples where a person trying to defend themselves with a stick-type weapon was sliced and diced. I think that the sword is overall a superior weapon. A lightweight sword can be quite quick and inflicts much more tangible damage than a bo. A glistening blade is also about 100 times more intimidating than a bo. (You can also shine the sun in people's eyes using a sword.) I'd say it's a toss up, generally speaking. The bo is more availible but less effective. I'd say go with the sword because it looks cooler. In an actual self-defense situation use a knife, stun baton, pepper spray, tear gas, handgun, or flamethrower. (whichever is legal where you live.) PS The above arguments are slightly different if you are talking a european sword. A nice bas-tard sword, claymore, or flamberge is probably unilaterally superior to a bo staff.

Sais are cool and I think they would be effective, but generally are not legal to carry and not easily improvised, so their value for self defense is limited. For the dojo though I'd say they are on par with any other martial arts weapon.

I believe the options we were arguing were submitting and hoping for an opening versus preemptive attack. Running was discussed to some extent as well.

Ah, the joys of reading. Perhaps I can spell it out for you. That site is exactly the propeganda I was referring to. The comment about the UN refers to a recent study that found that the US scored 17th in freedom of the press among developed countries. And Goshinman, I'm not British, and I don't care what their history books say either. It just so happens that the US is a small part of the world, despite their vision that they are the biggest thing in the world they actually are only about 15% of it... so I'd go by what every country in the world except for the United States says. Since it's 5 against 1 by count of the world's population, and you Americans claim to love democracy, it should be clear who to believe. Furthermore, Guerilla Warfare is easy to defeat if you step back and think about it. The argument about them being harder to fight because they use unconventional means is not very reasonable. Who's to define what's conventional? For Iraq, Vietnam, and many other countires, that is conventional warfare.

Uhh.. that's not true. The US may have "controlled" the land, but how "in control" were they really when they were ceaselessly getting picked off by guerillas? The US forces were everywhere, but the areas they were in were not secured.

Uh.. perhaps I could clarify this. The war of 1812 was not about Britain trying to take back the United States. I recognize from discussions with Americans that there is a good deal of US propeganda surrounding the war of 1812 so here's what REALLY happened: The colonies "the United States" wanted to expand into the north, the region that "Canada" now occupies. Canada was not officially a country at that time. However, the defending force was made up almost entirely of people from the colony that would become Canada, not soldiers from overseas. The "Canadians" essentially used terror tactics.. the "American" soldiers, who were not educated about the "Canadian" aboriginals, knew only that they were "savages" and that they would peel your scalp off. Understandably, this scared the crap out of the "Americans." The aboriginals were also experts at canoeing, and quickly made their way to the White House before word even got back there that a war had begun. The "Canadian" soldiers participating in this attack were primarily from Atlantic "Canada" and aboriginals from across "Canada." They took the White House by storm and burned it to the ground. Demoralized, the "Americans" gave up the attack. The French also supplied naval support on the atlantic coast primarily as a diversion during this attack. There are a lot of people who will probrably dispute this, but remember that modern American history books have been creatively written to tell a different tale, and, in fact, many Americans deny that such a war ever even took place... so before you point to history books and internet sites, perhaps you could take a look at a recent study by the UN regarding freedom of the press in various developed countries.

That's not entirely accurate... not all cars have crumple zones and generally they do not have any discernable effect at 10 miles per hour. A car going 10MPH has way more momentum than a .50 caliber round as well. A bullet focuses the force onto a smaller area, causing a greater disruption of the tissue. A .50 caliber bullet will not transfer the energy to you faster. For the most part, it won't even transfer energy to you. The only energy it will impart is a fraction of that drained from the friction as it passes through your body. Generally, a car hitting you at nearly any speed imparts relatively little energy to you. Generally, it retains the majority of it's energy. Like I said, the amount of "damage" you will cause is dependant on the volume and nature of tissues disrupted, and the level of disruption caused to those respective tissues. The only practical way for you to increase damage is to hit hard and hit accurately. I would advise attacking the same area because attacks to varied parts of the target will result in a great deal of total tissue disruption, but little actual tangible damage. Though it is not noticeable until it "kicks in" and you suffer a serious injury, damage to the same area is cumulative to an extent. Technically you could attack the person at the resonant frequency of the water in their skin, causing their flesh to boil over and splatter, but that would require precise attacks to a resolution of less than a millionth of a second, so failing that I'd stick with the advice above - hit hard, hit accurately, and hit often. PS Don't worry about hitting "past" the target or whatever.. whatever helps is fine, but I'd say just hit the heavy bag. Whatever makes the loudest smacking sound is causing the most disruption in the bag. Keep in mind, however, that "pushing" the target is not useless at all, anyone who's been thrown can attest that falling to the ground is as bad as any punch.

I'm sticking to my guns, so to speak. I'd wager I could conquer these "moros" if I had command of any developed country.

Without stepping too much into a minefield, (I suspect there are a lot of Americans here) Cybren is right. The British did not particularly value the west at that time and were not interested in spending any more money to continue attacking. As for the topic, there isn't really enough information. If we're talking full-out armed combat with armor and the works, I'd say the samurai. Hand to Hand, "dojo style" fighting I'd have to say the Filipinos would have a slight advantage because although both arts have armed and unarmed portions, I think that the Samurai's training was definately more focused toward weapons. BTW, whether or not someone has been conquered doesn't mean much as to how good of fighters they are. Last I checked the Vatican has never been conquered. That doesn't make the people there extraordinary combatants.

Rim of a hat and a cerdit card? How do you fight with the rim of a hat, and prevent the credit card from snapping off as soon as you hit someone? (Unless it's one of those fancy metal ones) The rest are all good ones.

About half of Hibben's knives are actually just meant as display pieces, though the other half would be useful.

I think knives are good, and I believe there are a few arts that focus on them. I haven't done any searching on the internet for specific sites, however.

I think a lot of people just watch it for the commercials.

In my experience, it is very difficult to grapple a really big fat guy. I grappled a few times with this one guy, I don't remember how heavy but I'm pretty sure he was well over 300 pounds. Basically all he tried to do is grab you and fall on you... and if he's successful it's very difficult to escape. I don't think I can bench press 300 pounds, let alone doing so while flat on the ground. After a while I had no choice but to give up because I could barely make him rock back and forth on top of me.. and this is without him actually grappling me on the ground, just casually plopped down across my body. I don't think I'd classify Sumo as a martial art, but it's the same as many things. No matter how good of a martial artist you may be, you are not likely to beat someone twice your size, let alone someone four times your size. Out of everyone on this forum, I suspect there is less than 5 people (possibly none) that could dislodge a 600 pound man draped across them on the ground. Evading the sumo may be an option, but I once saw on TV a guy who tried that (a smaller guy, like 150 pounds) and the sumo just picked up him and hurled him out of the ring, so it's not a surefire thing.

Those manuevers seem fair to me. They could happen in a real fight, so if you train without them being allowed, you risk putting yourself in a vulnerable position without knowing it in a real fight. (especially the toe stomping one.. a move many martial artists would be vulnerable to.)