Martial_Artist

How is training not related to style?

Kareem Abdul Jabar from the LA Lakers.

Fenris-Wolf, Actually my friend that lives in New Zealand is a true native. He's half Maori and Samoan. Born and raised in New Zealand. In fact, he's still there. It figures he'd come from the rich place, though. He's an aspiring actor, and it just makes sense for him to come from the rich part of town. Thanks. MA.

Hey Fenris, where abouts in NZ are you? I have a really good friend that lives in New Zealand. He's from Auckland. He keeps telling me how beautiful it is down there. You near Auckland?

Welcome.

You might want to introduce yourself in the Introductions. MA.

I hear you. Just keep practicing and using your natural advantages. They're most likely saying that because of some underlying shortcoming in their own training and just can't fathom why they can't get you. They'll grow out of it or they won't, it really shouldn't bother you anymore. Just remember you train for a reason and that reason isn't because your classmates tell you good things. It's personal and only you know it, so use it. Just forget about it. It's your skill. Being taller isn't that much of an advantage. They're just mad they can't work past it, or lack the skill to. So don't worry yourself over it too much. MA.

I've seen a few, but none of them I can find here in the US. Here's some of the anime I have seen (and liked). Berserk-mini series. Lupin III-series. Fushigi Yuugi - series. Samurai X - series. DB, DBZ, DBGT. (and most of all the movies) Tenchi Muyo in Love-movie Spirited Away-movie Princess Mononoke-movie I can't remember the titles to another series I used to watch overseas, but it was good. I've seen most of what other people have, but I only listed the ones I really liked. I don't watch much animation today. Don't have much time.

Welcome back.

Off topic but I can tell you every single statistic stated in Bowling for Columbine was falsified. Micheal Moore lied heavily in that film and deceived a great many people. It has already been discredited by several experts, not just gun experts. Bolwing For Columbine would rather blame an inanimate object than the influencial music of Marilyn Manson. Moore has categorically been shown to be a falsifier of information in Bowling for Columbine. Sorry, but a bad movie. Sorry you fell for it instead of doing your own research. The FBI, US Dept. of Justice and various other sources don't lie, just give the facts as they happen. I would tend to think someone would be better off analyzing something from the source rather than taking it from a tainted source. You really need to take a look at the world around you. At first you said don't watch the news cause all it does is breed fear. Then you said that you are afraid and the US is an ultra violent society, and now you're contradicting yourself? I can't take anything you say seriously. You have done nothing to support your claims, but cite a silly movie by a silly person whose facts were altered and falsified to meet his personal beliefs. A bullet proof vest does nothing to protect you from the harm a criminal can do. If he wants to kill you he will. Police know this and aren't that foolish to trade weaponry for a ballistic vest. As I have said the statistics presented in Bowling for Columbine are inaccurate. Every study done concerning violence in first world countries has concluded that per capita, countries with strict gun control laws have higher percentages of violent crime. I have already stated an independent source for this information. The Dutch Ministry of Information. You have cited, Bowling for Columbine, an obvious biased farse. For every 100,000 people in the UK 4.9% will fall victim to violent crime. In the US, 1.9%. You do the math. Bad comparison? Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Utah combined don't reach what the crime is in California. I could add Texas, Florida and afew others. Truth is more guns = less crime. It has been statistically proven countless times. Where there are more guns there is less violent crime. Independent researchers have concluded this. This is why the anti-gun lobbyists no longer pursue that more guns = more crime. They have been proven wrong. They focus more on the "evil" gun and the "if it just saves one life" rather than face logic and fact. I do know more about where illegal guns come from than you. A high percentage does NOT come from guns stolen from homes. Illegal purchases on the street from guns illegally imported into the US account for the majority of guns found in the hands of criminals. Criminals get guns not from law abiding citizens. Again, you need to research your facts before speaking. I don't need to think about anything. I have done the research, read the studies, and know for myself. I think you need to think about it, but that won't help Bowling for Columbine is all the gun fact research you appearantly need. Cowardly weapon? I can clearly see you understand nothing of self-defense. Since when does gaining an advantage over your opponent become cowardly? Cops are cowardly, they use guns. Soldiers are cowardly, they use guns. You are cowardly, cause you use a knife. By your logic any weapon or advantage is cowardly and thus every martial artist who trains in the martial arts is a coward because they have unevened the playing field. You need a reality check. In a life or death situation the winner is the one alive. There is no referree to call "foul" or the cheap shots. When a bad guy pulls a gun and shoots you in the town you're so afraid of, then by all means draw your knife, see where it gets you. Stray bullets? You don't know the statistics behind that comment do you? If you did you'd know the police shoot more people from stray bullets than law-abiding citizens. You'd know that out of the 2.5 million cases where guns saves lives only 0.9% of those times was a shot ever fired. You'd know enough not to speak when you don't know what you're saying, son. I think you watch too many movies and have let Hollywood tell you how gunfights happen, or how guns are used in real life. I don't think you can argue otherwise, everything you've said testifies to the fact that you know nothing about the lawful use of firearms and the facts behind them. INstead, Micheal Moore has been your teacher, and every fact stated in his movie was altered or falsified to fit his agenda. You have proven yourself to be incapable of logical discussion. You also don't seem to read my posts. I clearly stated I don't walk around in fear. I'm not the one who thinks we live in an Ultra violent society and everyone is a psycho just waiting to get a gun and shoot me. You said that. You should re-read your own posts before making asinine comments. Nobody is trying to kill me. But I won't give them an excuse to either, and I'm not going take the chance that they won't try. You can live your life in your little bubble world of a utopia where the world is an ultra violent place, but you will remain immune because you don't carry a cowardly gun and instead an almost useless knife. I will remain in the real world and carry the best tool of self-defense and when somone from your world comes to mine I will simply shoot them. I will not draw a knife against their gun. I will not say to them, Bowling for Columbine will solve the problems of crime. I will expect him not to use a gun, he is a criminal, he will use whatever means is easiest for him to get what he wants. You obviously do not understand that. Instead, you live in a world of contradictions and faulty logic. I have exhausted the use of logic and fact. There is nothing more to say. You will not understand fact and logic, so I will not waste bandwidth explaining anything further. My advice to you is: learn the facts. Do your research from the sources. Buy a gun, oh wait, you live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. The government there doesn't deem you worthy enough of self-protection. You can't carry a gun. You are not that special. You are not rich, a politician, or a famous person with the need to have a bodyguard. You are an expendable sheep in the state of California. You also do not realize this. I feel pity, but that's all. I wish you luck, and I advise you not to make any more comments not founded or based on fact or supportable documentation. I am done with this. It has strayed from topic and further discussion should be opened in a new thread. MA.

Power? Do you like the power that comes from knowing a martial art? It's the same thing. Do you like the power knowing you can defend your family with the best tool available? That power argument is old and bears no truth to the law-abiding citizen carrying for personal protection. If I could choose to live without the threat of criminal activity then I there would be no need to carry a gun. A gun is a tool I carry to serve a purpose. I does nothing more. I means nothing more. It is a hunk of metal that can save my life. I know what you're trying to say about 'power', and it's a weak attack. Do you like the power that comes with carrying a knife? I think you need to reevalutate the human psyche. Law-abiding citizens carrying firearms isn't anarchy. It's peace and order, because they're "LAW"-abding and not criminals. I only need to refer to modern states to prove such. In Vermont anyone can carry a gun concealed without permits or regulation. Every year they rank either last or second to last in crime rates. They are very safe and everyone can carry guns. In California, practically every law-abiding citizen is prohibited from carrying a firearm. As we know California is among the highest in the nation for crime rates, so is EVERY OTHER STATE THAT RESTRICTS FIREARM CARRYING FOR THE LAW-ABIDING. Facts don't lie, my friend. That's not anarchy. It never has been and it never will be. Even in the 1800's when guns were everywhere unrestricted in any means there wasn't anarchy. Cities like Dodge and other famous western towns had murder rates number 5 a year. The bad guys stay away from where they can get hurt. They're into getting what they can in the easiest way possible with the least amount of risk to themselves. Going into a town where law-abiding peace-loving citizens are armed and prepared to defend their town isn't what they do. It isn't what they do today, and it isn't what they'll do in any city that allows the law-adibing to defend themselves. I think you need to stay away from the media for awhile. They're having a bad-effect on you. As for LA, they already have strict gun laws and the only ones packing heat are the criminals. The average law-abiding citizen isn't allowed to carry in the People's Republic of Los Angeles. There are on average 650+ murders a year in LA. Which of the gun laws in LA could have saved their lives? I think it would have at least been humane to give them a fighting chance rather than let them get slaughtered defenseless by criminals who "SURPRISE" aren't following the laws. The facts don't lie police aren't as well-trained as you think. Especially in LA. They have a high turn-over rate. Officers in LA are responsible for more accidental homicides than almost anywhere else. In LA you are likely to be shot for speeding at a routine traffic stop because the cop thinks your cellphone is a gun. You will die. The officer will be justified and nothing wil change. It happens a lot. I'm not making this up. I can cite sources in a PM if you want. Almost everyday something bad happens as a result of poor police judgement. In New York an old lady was killed because the police raided the wrong house. Lots of things like this happen. You can put your trust where you want. That's your choice. I really can't explain it any better. The facts have explained it for me. Thanks for your opinion. MA

I have to agree about the super size. When I lived overseas I never saw a 64oz box of cereal. In fact, I forgot they existed. Drinks come in 8oz sizes to 1 liter. When I came back and went to the grocery store I nearly fainted(ok, not really, but the shock factor was high) everything came in bulk. I mean, BULK. It was worse when I went to Costco, sheesh! America land of the Super Sized everything.

Choreography is a much different subject. I'd have to agree Chan's are much more entertaining.

I won't pursue this any further. Like I said, I'm not preaching. But one final thing, I trust the average citizen more than I do a cop. All people are potentially dangerous. What exempts the police officer or soldier? Yet, somehow you trust them more than the average joe. Let me illuminate something. 70% of all police officers have never even fired a gun before Police Academy. In the Police Academy they will only fire 2,500 rounds and then be placed on the street. Every year or two years, depending on department, they will have to re-qualify at the range. This requalification will not be as extensive as the meager 2,500 rounds during training. Most police officer related shootings happen with rookies. The average responsible gun owner has better training than the average police officer in justifiable firearm use. They almost have to. They're held to a higher standard than the police. When a police officer accidentally shoots someone he gets paid leave. When a citizen does the same he goes to prison. Also, police officers are responsible for getting secondary training throughout their careers. This secondary training isn't done at the academy or department. The police attain their secondary education(in firearms tactics and usage) at civilian gun schools taught by civilian gun instructors. Civilians are more often than not better trained in the judicial and responsible use of firearms than an average police officer. Ak 47? See, you have been influenced by the media. What makes you think you can buy an Ak 47? If you're thinking fully automatic, those guns have been strictly regulated since 1934. A semi-automatic AK47 is almost no differnt from a .306 hunting rifle. The rounds are almost identical. The AK-47 is just "scarrier" to look at. Also machine guns, the ones that are fully automatic, are considered a non-problem by law enforcement agencies because year after year they are used in less than one percent (1%) of crimes across the US. So your neighbor owning puts no risk on you. Statistically you'll die from drowing, suicide, car accident before you'll ever be shot from a full-auto firearm. No, I do think the media has influenced you. You think we live in an ultra violent society filled wth crazed psychos. You've been taught to believe that every person around you is a gun-totin' maniac just waiting to "clear leather" and fill "that scum-bag with lead." Thugs and criminals act like that. Not law-abiding gun owners. Most gun owners are scared to death of using their gun because of the 20,000 gun laws that restrict their usage and little slip up in judicial use will send them to prison no matter how clear cut the situation is. For example, a man shot another man in his house that was trying to rape his daughter. The father is going to prison for illegal possession of a firearm. The "bad guy" didn't die and will be serving a lesser sentence, because the draconian gun laws in D.C. are pro-criminal. Crimes of passion are not reason alone to restrict the use of an object, nor do they make someone a criminal along the lines of serial rapists or murderers. Cars, knives, hammers, scissors are used much more frequently and with much more fatal results than firearms. Again, the media doesn't show the story of the woman murdered by a kitchen knife when it can show the woman killed with a gun by her jealous husband. Crimes of passion can never be resticted. But, a woman with a gun has a 85% better chance of surviving a crime of passion than if she didn't. In fact, she has a 90% chance of surviving that 85% without any injury. Yet, woman who fight back empty-handed, with a knife, stick, or pepperspray usually end up dead. Unfortunately, the media never tells us of the lawful use of firearms. In actuality, of all the weapons used in crimes firearms do not overwhelm. You are more likely to be beat, stabbed, hit with a car, bat, stick, brick, iron rod, or anything else before you'll get shot with a gun from a law-abidng citizen. And then there are more accidental ways to die than anything statistic a firearm a could produce. You see, the citizen isn't the person you should be afraid of. The media has taught you to be afraid of your fellow-man, but most people, in fact, the majority of people are good-hearted people only concerned about their safety and well-being. These people don't have any malicious intent in their hearts towards their neighbors. They just want to walk in peace and safety. It's the criminal, the person who breaks laws for a living that you need to be wary of. No amount of words on a piece of paper will stop this person from being a criminal. None of the 20,000 gun laws in federal books has ever stopped any of the crimes being committed with guns across America. You want to know what does lower crime? Armed citizens. Every city that enacted a concealed carry permit law "shall issue" has seen a decrease in violent crime. Why? Because criminals are just as afraid of armed citizens as you. A survey done among prison inmates said 70% of hardened thugs wouldn't attack someone if they knew that person was armed. 50% wouldn't if they thought that person was armed. And 60% were more afraid of armed citizens than armed police. You see, you have this sad condition, you don't trust anyone. Why? Do think that the next person isn't just as concerned about public safety as you? Do you think that the next person is just waiting, incubating, to become a criminal? You sound like you live in a state of paranoia. I carry a gun because I know criminals have guns. Because I know criminals are bad people. I don't carry a gun because I'm afraid of the guy next door, or the people at the grocery store. In fact, fear has nothing to do with me carrying a gun. Do you carry a knife because you're afraid? No, you do it because it is a tool of self-defense. That's the same reason I carry a gun. And in almost every self-defense situation, whether my assailant has a knife, stick, or other weapon, my gun will win out over their weapon and I will survive safe, my family will survive safe and life goes on. Even against multiple attackers the gun is the best weapon. I don't carry a gun out of paranoia. I carry it because it is the best tool for the job. And 2.5 million cases a year verify that. You say you'd rather be attacked by someone with a hammer than a gun, who wouldn't. But criminals have guns. They get guns despite regulations and laws. That's partly why they're "criminals" and not law-abiding citizens. I study martial arts because it's the best tool for when I don't have a gun. Not because I expect my attacker not to use a gun. But, then again it's a matter of opinion, I suppose. We all have the right to choose how we will go about procuring our personal safety. I choose not to put it into the hands of another. It is my life and therefore my responsibility. Others choose to put their lives in the hands of an agency, in the hopes that the criminal won't use a gun or other weapon. That's the beauty of America, freedom of opinion. I respect your beliefs and I can see you feel strongly about them. I respect a person who is willing to defend their beliefs. It's a good trait. Sadly, we have too many people in this nation who stand idly by and do nothing to defend their beliefs. Lastly, there is no logical argument against law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Every statistic testifies to the opposite. Millions of people a year testify otherwise. The good far outweighs the bad. But that's not the reason. The reason is every person has the right to live a free life. To pursue happiness without the shadow or threat of criminal acts. The best weapon for self-defense is a handgun. Who are we to tell someone their life isn't that important to protect with the best tool for the job? MA ps I don't know why you wish someone would accidentally discharge my firearms. If my children do something stupid with the firearms while they are young it's my fault for not teaching them properly. When they get older it's their fault for being so stupid after all the training I'll give them. One final thing. How many times I have personally used a gun in self-defense has no bearing on how effective the gun is as a defense weapon. In fact, it doesn't change anything. But, you have asked and I shall answer. I have used guns on more occasions than I would like. I have never had to fire on someone. Almost every single use of my gun has been near my house. I live in a very nice neighborhood. I know my neighbors, we socialize often. I know almost everyone living around me. I take afternoon walks almost everyday and have interacted with almost everyone. You see, I don't think we live in a ultra violent society. The media wants you believe that. I believe we live in a society of cowards. A society where people don't care about their neighbors and look the other way when bad things are done. It's a sad thing when they tell you to yell "Fire" when you're being raped rather than help, because people care about burning down, but not about you. I don't think America as a whole is a violent society. I think it's a society plagued by the media telling us how violent we are, plagued by pockets of violence and that's the only thing Americans know about their nation. I have been involved in many altercations, here and in the Philippines, I still don't think the average citizen is a criminal. I still don't think that the average citizen is going to go psycho on me and start shooting everything up. I do think the average citizen is just trying to get by everyday and live a peaceful life. But that's just my opinion.

I don't watch tv. I haven't watched TV in 3 years. No one has fed me anything. As for police and military being the only ones to have guns, that would lead to disaster. Seeing as how police are more likely to accidentally shoot you than an average citizen I don't see your point. First world countries that have banned guns are statistically worse off than the US. In a study done by the Dutch Ministry of Information the UK and Australia ranked #1 and #2 for percentage of violent crime among 17 industrialized nations in the world. The US ranked 4th from last. The thing is if you take guns away from the law-abiding only the criminals will have guns. And that's just silly. I don't see what's paranoid about taking my personal safety as my own responsibility. And since the criminal won't give up his guns, neither shall I. Just so you know, the Police in the US have been declared by the US Supreme Court that they have NO RESPONSIBILITY to save an individual life. It's not their fault if you die, or they fail to protect you. Their responsibility is the general peace of an area, record keeping, criminal apprehension(and you only become a criminal AFTER you commit a crime), and deterrence by presence. So, when you call the Police because some crazed psycho is in your house trying to kill you they can arrive and sit outside and wait untill it's safe for them and then apprehend. Or, they can take an average 18mintues to arrive on scene after which you will most likely be dead. My safety is my own responsibility. I don't put my life/protection in the hands of anyone else. Nor do I do the same for my family. Criminals do bad things with guns, there's no denying that. But the gun is not at fault. No more than the hammer that is used to kill, or the knife, or the box cutter. Criminals do bad things. That's why they're criminals. They break laws, not follow them. Regulating guns would only hurt the law-abiding. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. In all honesty, I think it is you who have been fed a line from the media. Something about how the police will protect you, about how criminals follow gun restriction laws, and about how if you comply with the thug somehow you'll come out alive. In the Dodge city of the 1800's(the city of Wyatt Earp) everyone had guns. Most people might think that there was a lot of violence, that the murder rate was high. Well for them it was. It was 5 (five) murders on average a year. That pales to the murder rates of places like NewYork or Washington D.C. which have the strictest gun control in the US. Their murder rates per year would sicken you. The average citizen in those places cannot own a gun, cannot carry a gun, and if they have one in the house it must be locked and put away. These people are being killed by criminals who don't follow the law. I'm not sure which Utopia the media has convinced you you're living in, but every city that has strict gun control laws has high murder rates. Every city that has "shall issue" concealed carry permits for citizens has low murder rates. Vermont, the state with the most lax gun control laws, has the lowest or second lowest crime rates in the nation every single year. I don't know how you think, but I'm not here to find out. I respect your opinion and think if you want to trust your life to an agency that has no responsibility to save it, then go ahead. I won't. But then again, guns are evil. Guns kill people. Funny, though, I have yet to see a gun kill someone on its own free will. In fact, I have yet to see my pencil write without my hand directing it. Guns aren't dangerous. They're simple safe tools meant for a more responsible mentality. I agree, not everyone should carry guns, but I won't dictate that, because who am I to tell someone else they don't have the right to defend themselves with the best possible tool? Who am I to tell someone else that I don't think they're special enough to protect their family with their own means? Politicians, the rich, and elite have armed bodyguards. Are they any better than the rest of us that they are "allowed" to protect themselves and their families with better means than the rest of us? I, for one, do not think so. Luckily, the US constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms as part of a fundamental right of the US citizen. It's called the second amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" I appreciate your opinion. I really do. I'm not trying to convert you to "pro-gun". Take what I said and do what you will. I respect the individual's right to opinion as much as I do the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. MA.

ps. I didn't answer for Withers, although it seems I did. I merely responded from my point of view to the comments directed to Withers and I just wanted to share some information concerning handgun/firearm use. MA. No offense to anyone intended.

Handgun, best weapon second to brain and good training. Most people don't need brains to use a gun to save their lives or the lives of a loved one. You just have to want to survive and keep loved ones alive. Some people can't afford good martial arts training. A handgun is a cool 300-800 USD and you're through. Point and shoot. In fact, just brandish. 2.5 million crimes a year are prevented in the US by law-abiding citizens carrying a firearm. THat's 550 rapes a day, 1,100 murders, and 5,600 other violent crimes a day. A gun make anyone deadly. A gun isn't designed to kill as much as a hammer is. A gun is a tool of self-defense. It always has been. Whether defending one's land from invasion or one's house from the criminal element. Firearms have always first and foremost been a weapon of defense and freedom in America. A gun only becomes a tool of evil when the person holding it is evil. I have yet to see a gun kill someone. I have yet to see a hunk of metal make a decision of its own, act on its own, and take a life on its own. It is always the person holding the gun that turns it into a tool of death. For me, a gun isn't designed to kill, but protect. I don't have to shoot someone if I don't want to. I can subdue, control, and detain merely with the presence of a gun, without ever firing a gun. And 2.5 million people have done the same thing. Funny thing is, in the 2.5 million cases of lawful gun use in the US only 0.9% of those resulted in the gun actually being discharged. The other 99.1% were prevented by merely 'showing' the gun. Imagine that, the old lady down the street can prevent personal injury to herself by merely showing a gun. She doesn't have to be among the martial 'elite' or the physically capable. She doesn't have to stay indoors for the rest of her life and not enjoy it. She has the freedom to choose how her life will be lead and not be dictated to by the 'threat' of criminal element. I carry a gun. I carry a knife, pepperspray, and sometimes a stick. I also am pretty darn proficient empty-handed. What does all this mean? I haven't limited myself in any means to personal protection. Because I carry a gun doesn't mean it will ever be fired at another person, but I don't take the chance that I will never have to, either. I carry for that very reason. I will not be caught unarmed. I carry a knife for utility purposes, of course, it may find its way into a fight. Pepperspray for alternative force options. A stick, because well the Philippines rubbed off on me. For a note, a neighborhood doesn't have to be bad for bad things to happen. Here, a mother was returning to her house to pick something up she forgot to take to a thanksgiving dinner. Two men got out of the car behind her at a light and walked up to her car and shot her to death. She lived in a pretty affluent neighborhood. Crime doesn't only happen to the impoverished. Anyone can be a victim. Why let it be you? Or your wife/girlfriend, or your child--or someone else's child? For pure simplicity the handgun is the most effective self-defense tool available. Rudimentary training and regular range time can enable most average people to shoot responsibly. Just for fun, police accidentally shoot an innocent person, i.e. the wrong target, in 11% of their shootings. Civilians do it in 2%. Just my 2cents worth of rant. MA.

For me it's both. Martial arts influenced my personal attitude and my personal attitude affected the influence on my martial arts.

Yo.

Yup, I think you mean rattan. Having lived in a bamboo forest before, I don't think there's much for the thin bamboo shoots before they hollow out into bamboo. Rattan, however, is probably what you're thinking of, or waxwood. MA.

Actually, it sounds like your speaking more of japanese food. There really isn't a thing known as traditional oriental diet, because every region is different from the next. Ilocanos eat almost nothing but vegetables, Tagalogs fry everything. Mandarins like things light, Cantonese in Hong Kong eat it rich. Cantonese in the country don't. Fukien eat a mixture. Japanese in Tokyo eat slightly different(a lot more western influence) from Japanese in Osaka or Okinawa. Chinese food and other southeast asian foods do fry alot. Not deep fat fry, but simple pan fry. However, affluent chinese dining has always had very rich and fattening dishes. About not seeing very many fat orientals, I would have to say that's not fully correct. I lived in asia for a few years, been to Japan, Hong Kong, Seoul, and lived permanently in the Philippines. There are plently of fat people there. Of course, I don't mean so huge fitting through a door is a difficulty, but overweight/obese is there. The veggies, rice, fruits, and fish diet is japanese. Only they would eat so zen. I think that most people assume asians are skinny because of their small frames and that's what most people think when they think of asians. The majority are small framed and their metabolism is higher, but go there and you'll see a fair share of overweighters. I had an american friend who thought so, until I showed him otherwise. Also, traditional american food isn't bad for you. I'm talking the food of the pioneers. Everything is grilled or dried. Most things are turned into soups. Anyways, that's been my experience. MA.

An aneecdote: My little brother, he's not young or anything--well, younger than me, went to a thing called Country Thunder(against my better wisdom) and had an encounter. My brother is 5'7" and not very big. Well he bumped into this guy 6'6" and large, muscular. Well, this guy had a problem with it. So he charged my brother. My brother hit him in the face, knocking him out, but from the momentum of the guy's rush still fell on my brother. My brother took him down and rolled him over before hitting the ground and hitting with two elbow-strikes to the side of the head. The guy was out cold. Moral of the story: don't go to stupid places where you know there'll be trouble. Anyways, the point is my brother may not be big but there is no one else I know that can punch as hard he can and as fast. Every single guy he has punched in a fight has been knocked out. I only bring this up because he's not a big guy and has had big tough guys always try to start stuff with him. So, now to the really deep point: train to hit hard and develop power and speed. Everyone is human. Everyone feels pain in some degree or another. And every human body is designed in the same manner. Bones break, blood flow can stop, the central nervous system all functions in a specific manner. If you punch hard enough it will be effective. Unless of course, the target has altered his natural state with drugs-i.e. angel dust or something else. But a broken bone is a broken bone regardless if the person doesn't feel the pain. However, if you can't punch that hard or kick that hard and fast then you will have to do something else. Basically, what I am saying is: big or small if you hit hard enough it doesn't make a difference. Even if you don't knock out in the first punch your punch will be felt. Every man bleeds. Bigger muscles don't immune you to much. You still have nerve endings, you still feel pain, and you can still be injured. I know, I'm not a little guy. MA.

This question has been asked a gazillion times. And has been answered a gazillion times. There are probably a gazillion threads related to high kicks in almost every forum. I recommend doing a search to find more comprehensive answers. If you do that and still don't find what you're looking for I'll answer. But I have written a book already about high kicks and their effectiveness in a fight. MA.

Not a single drop my whole life.

Was in the Philippines, but now the U.S. (p.s. I'm not Filipino, sort of an Ex-Pat doing business in the Philippines for a while.)