Warp Spider

I think the term "brass knuckles" or "knuckle dusters" is a bit more universal. I'm pretty sure they are legal most places.

That formula is not correct. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. You do want to hit the target when fully extended, so punching "through" the target is not recommended. I believe that that recommendation refers instead to the mindset... if you are aiming to strike only the surface your arms will likely decelerate as they approach the "target" to avoid overshooting it. By aiming "past" the target, you can overcome that subconcious message to slow down, even though you may not be able to actually reach the target. On the other hand, the argument that pushing causes no damage isn't really accurate, it upsets the other persons balance, making your next technique easier to land. If the other persons balance is upset enough as a result of repeated blows, they may fall over, and can then be stomped on/jumped on/kicked on the ground, whatever you like.

You could use negative reinforcement to stop it from clawing at the door. An electric fence assembly on the door. Or you could just monitor it and throw things whenever it's bad. Or if you have a low-friction floor nearby you can put it on there and spin it around really fast. Any of those would work.

Yeah, but still, everyone has a different palate. For instance - some people can't stand soya sauce, no matter how "good" it may taste with pineapple. Just like potatos may taste "good" with whatever crud they mix potatos with to make potato salad, but I potato salad brings me to the verge of vomiting. I'd sooner eat potatos mixed with that smelly crud ants are filled with.

It's like that on purpose. Mufflers are for minivans. Real cars use glass packs.

I think the intention is to eat or at least display the thing you hunt, not just throw it away, but "whatever floats your boat."

Well, I'd say death would constitute a serious injury.

I'd say the fact that you have been stabbed in the side twice and have had several fingers removed is the bigger issue. You'll probrably pass out in a minute or so after being stabbed twice in the side. I think that the best style in that situation would be a striking art of some kind. It does depend, however on some other factors such as the stance and technique of the knife-wielder. There are nearly as many knife-fighting styles as there are unarmed styles, so it's kind of wide open there still. I will say, though, I much prefer this style of "what would you do if" scenario to some of the other ones that have been posted. Alot of the responses to those seem to be of the nature "I'd do this, then this, then that, then I'd do this.." all while assuming that all of your moves would be successful and the other person has no clue what to do and basically just stands still. I much prefer the more "interactive" style that was presented here.

You apparently didn't read the entire article. The snapping action of quickly removing your hand sharply reduces the feedback and causes the vibrations imparted by your hand to resonate within the brick/cinder block. This of course causes the brick/cinder block to vibrate and break apart. If it was sheer strength then I'm sure a "master breaker" wouldn't be hurt if you were to smash a cinder block over their hand or head. Trust me - that would seriously injure them.

Well, if some styles really were inherently better than others then there would have to be an "Ultimate" style. I think it's unreasonable for you guys to all continue bashing Shotokan. The claim that Shotokan is slow is kind of silly. Any art is slow if it's user is slow. Conversely, any fast fighter could do any other art fast. The speed at which moves are executed is entirely dependant on the fighter. The only effective way to get better at fighting is to practice. And by that I mean, practice fighting, as realistically as possible. Regardless of what art you practice and what ranking you may have achieved, a seasoned street fighter will likely still beat you if they have the real-life experience. Muay Thai does seem like a good art, but how good is it when the other person is at a higher elevation than you? (fighting on a stairway, they are standing on a table, or something like that.) Krav Maga is good versus unskilled attackers, but barely effective against someone with practice. Etcetera. Which art is the best depends highly on the situation and the environment. Rarely does a fight break out in the middle of a grassy field like most MMA competitions simulate. Often mobility will be restricted, weapons will be plentiful and varied, and some styles will be favoured by the environment. Throws and most grapples are useless if accosted in a bathroom stall. (which does happen) Striking ability can be greatly hampered in a crowded area or one where there are lots of obstacles. It unrealistic to say that one art just plain better than another, because it depends so much on the environment. Some situations are not very grappling-friendly. A grappler would likely be beaten easily if they could not grapple effectively.

That was a scam. No way a motorcycle is louder than my car, let alone a baby crying. My car could easily drown out either of those.

The definition of a deadly weapon varies in different countries, but in Canada it is essentially anything that could feasably be used to kill a person. Although almost anyone could probrably beat a person to death, the courts decide based on how easy they think it would be for you to kill a person with your hands/feet/whatever you used. If you are a black belt in nearly any martial art, it's not unreasonable for the courts to consider your hands deadly weapons. As far as most courts are concerned, it's either deadly or not - if you could kill a person with it feasably, they consider it deadly. If you couldn't feasably kill a person with it, then it isn't considered a deadly weapon.

My job kicks butt. I get to wage chemical warfare every day with only minimal complaints about how me and my coworkers are destroying the environment.. blah blah blah. I wouldn't mind being a dictator though. I want to take over the world so I can give mankind direction. Right now everyone's all focused on themselves, when really they should be working 18 hours a day making weapons and spacecraft so we can find alien civilizations, and then conquer them! Dahahahaha! The Universe will be at my mercy, held eternally in check by the might of my massive space fleets! Dahahaha, that'd kick butt! In the meantime I'll have to settle for chemical-based mass genocide.

Well, depending on the type of weapon, it can be used quite differently. You can use a knife the same as you use a fist, but there are more effective ways of using a knife. You COULD pistolwhip a person, but the gun works better when fired. Chairs can be used a club but that's not the most effective way to use them. Some weapons, however, like keys, are used the same as you would use your fists.

Well, I'm not really into taking pictures of little kids, but I'll point you to this site which has a technical explanation of how bricks/boards/etc are broken. It further states that a human bone can withstand 40 times as much force as concrete before it will break. http://www.jenningscc.com/TaeKwonDo/Breaking.htm

Self defense is more complicated than "he started it." Even if a person pushes you and threatens you, hitting them back means you are both committing assault. Self defense ends at parries and simple counters. You could not, for instance, choke a person to unconciousness, because you are required to stop as soon as the "attacker" ceases attacking, which, since you have to get them in a fairly defenseless position to choke them, they would have to have. In almost all fights, both persons are guilty of assault. If you were to, say, block a punch with a frying pan and the guy hurts his hand, that's self defense. If you then clobber the guy with the frying pan to knock him out, that's assault. Generally speaking, the courts don't care who started it. If you had any intention to cause the person harm, even if it is to protect yourself, that's what matters - that you intended to cause them harm.

I don't think it's fair to argue that certain styles are more effective inherently than others. It all comes down to how well you can perform the techniques and pick an appropriate one. In some fights a grappler will be able to close in and maul a striker. In others the "committed" attack is merely a test of your ability and your attempt to clinch is met with a sudden strike that not only stops the clinch attempt, but also often sends the grappler themself to the ground by themself. The striker could also throw themselves into a backwards somersault and roll back to their feet to increase the distance when you try to close in. (though not all fighters are capable of doing this quickly from a standing position) It mostly comes down to which fighter out-thinks the other. A takedown is not impossible to evade, nor is a strike always easy to block. Conversely against some opponents a takedown will be very effective. Because of the wide range of fighting styles it is impossible to say that one certain style is "better" than any other. Muay Thai is an effective art against fighters who stick to the floor. TKD fighters are often light on their feet and can evade leg and knee techniques through dodging. On the other hand, TKD strikes pack nowhere near the punch, especially versus a "hardened" fighter like a Muay Thai practitioner. So which one is "better?" As stated, it all comes down to who is better at their respective art and who is all around a better fighter. Futher, I'll say it again, though it has apparently already been beaten to death on other threads.. UFC is not a reliable source of information on which art is better. Real fights involve shoes, teeth, chairs, etcetera. Shoes make kicking with your foot a very attractive option. No shoes makes the shin a better choice. Therefore just because Muay Thai does better in UFC, does not make it better, it just makes it better suited for the UFC. Personally I consider Muay Thai to be better than TKD, but that's just my highly unfounded opinion, in reality I would suspect that it comes down to training and physical aptitude.

I agree with SubmissionFighter. Some fights will go to the ground, others will not. Sometimes a fight that goes to the ground will go back to standup. There's probrably no worse position for ground fighter to be in if they are still on the ground when a standup fighter gets back on their feet. (Stomping/relentless kicking seems imminent)

Facts? What facts? Better yet, what Theory? What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about? I've never seen or heard of a 7-year-old breaker, but if one could break a brick, he could break a leg. The facts are: Little kids can break bricks. Little kids cannot break my legs. Your theory is: If one can break a brick, they can break a leg. Obviously that theory does not agree with the facts. There are plenty of young children that are capable of breaking bricks, cinder blocks, and boards. I am shocked that you would continue to blindly fight this battle without any apparently research into the topic. Breaking bricks, cinder blocks, and boards is quite easy if you know the technique.

You could let loose a burst of fully-automatic firepower. (preferably not in the general direction of anything valuable.) It does wonders to alleviate boredom.

I'd say my first goal would be to locate a suitable weapon, fighting defensively while I do so if necessary. If weapons are unavailable because the fight is taking place in the middle of an empty gymnasium or simply because it's sparring/some kind of sport combat, then I'd try to maintain my distance and do quick strikes and the occasional counter until the other person loses interest.

I'm not saying that he is a good grappler, I'm just saying it's unfair to assume that he is not a good grappler just because that's what he said. I'm sure for most of you, martial arts is not your job, but that doesn't mean you don't train in it.

A 7-year old kid can break a pile of bricks. A 7-year old kid cannot break my leg. In fact, a 7-year old kid armed with a pipe wrench probrably still couldn't break my leg. Theory is all fine and good, but of little value when it does not adhere to the facts.

I'd have to agree with that, that stabbing is more common among inexperienced knife users. I think that it's more common though for them to go for a deep plunge, intending to bury the knife as deep as possible, instead of attempting numerous shallow stabs. I can't really say for sure though which they would generally do.

Eye-gouging you can practice if you were to wear safety goggles while sparring. Biting you could practice as long as you don't bite hard. On another note, I've been saying this same thing in many threads, that competitions like UFC are not realistic because the ground is padded and doesn't hurt nearly as much to get slammed down on, you can't wear shoes, which you normally would have on in a real fight, (strongly alters the effectiveness of kicking) no gouging or biting is allowed, as mentioned in the article, and it lacks the suddenness that the initial attack in a real fight often has.