bushido_man96

The Martial Arts are an interesting paradigm. When they were originally trained for war, you had several different aspects; armed, and unarmed. You were taught with your weapon against weapons, and then unarmed against weapons. Within the different drills, you would get close and kill or disarm, or throw them to the ground, and dispatch them. Then, hand to hand combat changes. War, as I like to say, has lost its "intimacy." Now, in a war, you shoot someone from across a field. You don't look into their eyes as they expire. When it was hand weapons, such as swords and spears, it was much more intimate. Now that war is not as intimate, the styles of fighting have changed. Since those ranges of combat started to fall by the wayside, certain places began to focus on certain aspects; i.e., striking, or grappling, or clinching and throwing, etc. So now, we come to our broken up "styles." Now, with MMA, we are moving back towards intergration. Kind of interesting, isn't it?

That is a pretty tall order there. About the only way to get out of something like that is to talk your way out, or run. I don't think anyone could survive an altercation like that, if it came to blows. The thing about self-defense is that there are so many variables that you may or may not have to account for. If you train to slap people who attack you on the wrist, they are going to sluff it off, and then do some real damage to you. It is like I mentioned earlier; if you try to fight someone who is trying to kill you, you will most likely be in for a rude awakening.

The problem is, how do you know if they are trained or not? Personally, I would want to fight in such a way that is successful against either the trained or untrained.

Hmm, I had not heard of him. That is interesting. If there is that much negativity, I think that I would be warry. Welcome to the Forums!

Here is an article relating to the cut and thrust, that may help to answer your question better: http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

Here is an article that discusses the actual weights of Medieval European swords. It also discusses where some of the fallacies that exist stem from: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

This is an ARMA member book. This was an excellent book. In this book, the author has studied various medieval fight manuals, and has practiced the various ways of using and defending against the dagger attack as it was done in Medieval Europe. What will be suprising to many is the fact that many of the methods and defenses that can be found in the Medieval manuals are very similar to many things found in the Easter Martial Arts as well. From locks, to throws, to knife hand strikes, you can find them here. The book describes 3 different types of dagger combat: unarmed against dagger, dagger against dagger, and dagger against sword. His research in these areas has been backed up by hours spent in both drill and free play. The author is also not shy about stating the odds when fighting dagger against sword, or unarmed against dagger. He does not say that it is easy, but that it is important to drill properly, to gain the proficiency needed. By comparing the research that he has done with other contemporary writers on knife combat, including W. Hock Hochheim, James LaFond, and Marc MacYoung, you can see that not only were the methods of dagger combat valid in Medieval times, but they are still valid to this day.

Cool.

Here's a video of a katana vs. a .50 caliber machine gun. The katana successfully slices 5 bullets before bullet number 6 destoys it (being destroyed in the process as well). While this feat is certainly impressive the odds of ever pulling it off it nothing more than movie magic. Besides, you'd still have the bullet fragments to contend with. Katana Video This video is kinda cool but (and military guys correct me if I'm wrong) but I think that bullet is designed to break apart as it goes through its target to cause more damage That may be the case. I am no expert, but different rounds are designed to do different things.

I think the important thing is having a fight manager that A) knows your skill level, and B) will schedule fights with those of your skill level. I think it is great that he wants to do that, but you have to go about it the right way.

Great post, and good information! I just finished reading a book on Medieval dagger combat, and you would be surprised at how some of the information you put here relates to it. Well, maybe you wouldn't be surprised, because not much as changed in all the years. The following two parts of your post really jump out at me, and I could probably dig a lot more out of it, if I took the time, that relate to a man named George Silver: and: If you research George Silver, I think you will be in agreement with me. His teaching on time, distance, and place (specifically "true place") ring so true then as they did now. Excellent, and well written. If you get impatient, and have trouble finding info on Silver, or you just want to take the short route , feel free to ask me or PM.

That's cool, ps1. Just like anything, though, do your homework, and look around. You will find the tournament schools out there, and you will find the self-defense oriented schools. Not that one is better than the other; just different goals.

Great video, ps1. Everytime I see something on BJJ, it gives me that itch a little more. There just seems like there is so much to it, that it would be a ball to learn. Thanks for sharing it...that helps to clarify things a lot.

Congrats to you and your friend, James, on a job well done! Its good to see you back.

Ah, its no big deal, really. Welcome to the Forums, by the way!

I see your point, cross.

I don't think a social atmosphere necessarily leads to a McDojo. Neither does it mean it leads to dating. Some people just have different styles.

You could do grip training and forearm training. Those may help you out. When you punch the heavy bag, you should probably wrap your wrists, to keep them from getting injured. Welcome to the Forums!

Mine shows through on the other side. I guess I just never stopped to worry about it. The embroidery is done through the whole belt.

No problem! That is why I threw that out there. I am kind of a patron of the Western Martial Arts, so I like to throw out information when I get the chance. Welcome to the Forums!

I am not talking about people in the old days who studied purely one art. I am talking about these days when most people cross train. Also I don't think you can especially count the Gracies in the early days, as basically the UFC was a vehicle for BJJ back then.This paradigm here can be likened to what is called "brandnaming" in business/marketing. Take the WeedEater, for example. It was the first brand to make the line trimmers that we all call weedeaters. That was everyone's first exposure to it. Then, when Toro made a "line trimmer," everyone just referred to it as a "weedeater." Kleenex has the same kind of relation with "facial tissue." BJJ made its name at the right time in MMA competitions, and therefore, it gets this kind of recognition. Really, you just can't read too much into it. In fact, why couldn't BJJ be considered a "traditional art?"

When I think of "deadly techniques," I think of very debilitating moves, like striking the neck, digging into the eyes, or maybe even using your surroundings (oncoming traffic?) if need be. Breaking limbs could fall under the category as well, I guess. I think that there is a difference between a fight and self-defense. By the word "fight," I picture 2 guys dancing around each other, trying to pick each other apart. By "self-defense," I picture a vicous attack against the (perceived) unprepared, and then trying to survive the situation by any means necessary.

This is where the knowledge of the Use of Force continuum comes into play, and being able to justify your actions as well. It isn't about just training the techniques; it is also about training yourself mentally and emotionally to know if and when it is necessary to use them.

I think that you make some good points. However, there is just one that I would argue...the fact that all styles came from China. There just isn't enough evidence to support that. Chinese style may have had influence on Japanese and Korean styles, but not on styles in Europe or Africa, or in ancient Greece. Otherwise, I can see your points.

I see where you are coming from, but I still don't really agree. If you have questions, I think you should ask. I think it means that you want to be sure. I don't think it means anything negative about the personality of the person, or their lack of ability to perform and learn, in my opinion.