JerryLove

I am certainly not giving a "in this case, do that"; such advice would be silly and unsound. I'm giving a general approach. You wouldn't "snap someone's neck because you think they might kill you", my response is "why the hell not?". No one is advocating that you kill everyone who gets in your face; please try not to prop up straw-man arguments. Don't get near them to begin with. Leave, avoid that side of the street, make a scene and keep space. Self defense is about a great deal more than technique. I've *never* said "just because you can"; I've consistantly said that you should do what you need to be safe. Of course it does; the issue is over the assumptions made around that awareness. If you were aware enough, the conflict likely never started. All situations are unique, and in all cases responses vary (last time I said "hang on, just a sec" and got in my car and drove away while he stood there confused). I assume they are armed weather I see it or not; I assume their friend is nearby; I assume their intention is to cause grevious bodily harm. If I know one of those assumptions is false, then I know it's false and adjust accordingly; but I'm not going to assume it's false. I'll ask you a question, in reagrs to a group with a far higher standard for reciprocity of force than we civillians (who can flee) have. Why, when performing a felony arrest, do the police have their guns drawn even when no weapon is visable on the suspect?

Your error is evident in the fact that you use the word "exchange". I don't "exchange", and I don't recommend anyone else does outside of a ring. I don't hit someone because they pushed me, or because they hit me, or really for any reason of exhange. I initiate violence because I feel unsafe and desire to be safe. Who cares what level of force they exerted? Would you kill a 2-year-old with a knife? Afterall, he came at you with a weapon. Should a woman being approached in a dark alley by a man saying "you're mine now" not shoot him? After all, all he's done is talk. Your answers to those questions should remind you that it's not about how much force is being used; it's about what danger you are in and how you are going to get out of it. Why? What if he hadn't used the weapon on you? Would your respose still have been higher? Why? Because you felt more endangered? What if he had a weapon and you didn't know it? What if the reason he's only hugging you is so his friend behind you can stab you? Do you still think you should be putzing around with minimal responses? How will you know what the guy behind you is doing while you are "shoving back"? An obviously incapable person behaved in an understood manner in a multiple-defender situation. You responsded, not because of the specific attack being "only a punch", but because you didn't feel a high danger level. This is the crux of what I'm trying to get across... it's not (shouldn't be?) about "fighting"... it's about protecting yourself; you should always take the safest acceptable course (usually leaving) and should respond based on percieved danger level, not on what has actually been done.

I'm going to protect myself if I think I'm in danger; and I will use violence to do so if that is what I percieve as my best option. The factor that makes that decision for me may be him swinging, or saying the wrong thing, or getting too close. The reason I have a brain is to tell when it is I need to be fighting. A great way to get killed. It baffles me that I continue to see "if he has a knife, then run away if you can" or this post. ALWAYS LEAVE IF YOU CAN!!!! Always! Every time! Regardless of weather you know he's armed, or weather you think you can take him, or most anything else. There are times you cannot leave (no safe exit, need to defend something you can't take with you, etc): don't leave then; but if you've got the escape, take it.

Realize that 1 is a bit sarcastic, and 2 is something I believe politically, but find a bad martial practice. Really, my answer to all of this is covered in 8. If the fight can be avoided / run away from; then do so. If the fight is neccessairy, then make sure you are safe. I would rather err on the side of overkill than find out his friend behand me has a weapon after I attempted reciprocity.

OK. Someone has to play voice of dissent. 1) My art has no such rule... so I guess I can attack people willy-nilly. 2) Why not? Why don't words carry consequences? What if the provocation was "I'm gonna go get my gun and shoot your family"? Think you might react physically then? 3) Why not? Why would you even wait until he's touched you? What if he's half as good as you are and you are standing around talking when he starts kicking your butt. The fight is functionally over before you react. On-hit knockouts do happen and can be reasonbly reliable as sucker-punches... why are you waiting when a hostile person is in your space? 4) What if you want the fight but are stuck following rules 1,2, and 3? Getting him to swing first seems to give you some legal position (presuming the witnesses did not hear what you called his mother). The biggest problem is the conflict with rule 2. 5) Same problem as 3. He swings at you, you put him down gently, he shoots you with that gun you didn't notice... you should have put him out of commission. 6) Is a non-starter because it depends on 1-5. 7) Is redundant with 1-5. How do you know someone doesn't... I recommend "8" always be your approach... it is always mine. 9) Calm but angry... An aggressive mindset and bruning desire to tear someone's ******* head off will solve many flaws in position or technique.

Since it's a text-book question, I'll cut-n-paste my text-book answer... Light Contact: Light contact sparring is where one spars at full speed but "pulls the punch", that is to say that control is exercised to avoid putting force into the target. This is pretty common in Japanese arts. Advantages include: The ability to use a wide array of techniques in practice without injuring your partner. The ability to move at speed and react to someone moving at speed. Disadvantages include: The limiting of many techniques which cannot, by nature, be pulled. A limit on what and how much resistance an opponent can offer. The lack of an understanding of hitting and being hit. The training of the bad habit "pull the punch" (commiting the wrong actions to muscle memory" Limited Rules Common in the grapplig arts, this strategy allows opponents to go at near-full speed and with power by severely limiting dangerous techniques and relying on a level of control to "stop" when injury is about to occur. Advantages include: The ability to work at near combat levels with resisting opponents. A gravity dynamic (IE how hard it is to stay up or escape) very true-to life. A realistic sense of trying to apply something to someone who doesn't want it applied. The ability to fight in realistic attire. Disadvantages include: The restriction of certain techniques (anything from fish-hooks to knee kicks). The neccessairy de-emphasis of other common techniques (striking). The likely reliance on some level of padding (I've yet to see this done on standard hardwood or concrete floors) Pad up and go In this strategy, the combatitants attempt to armor their more vunerable areas to allow a higher level of striking. Otherwise, it's very similar to Light contact Advantages Include: Ability to work at speed and reasonably power against resisting opponent. Less bad habit of pulling than light contact. Disadvantages include: Unrealistic abilities and inabilities cause by padding. Unrealistic understandings of damage inflicted and recieved due to padding. A limitation of availiable techniques similar to Light Contact[/b] due to teh limitations of padding. Slow motion sparring Slow motion sparring, done most often in Chinese arts, relies on a control of speed. Combatatiants fight, but at a snails pace. Advantages include: An almost unlimited availability of techniques. The ability to work against a resisting opponent. The ability to "think while fighting" to improve on mistakes. The ability to perform a technique as you would in a fight. Disadvantages include: A lack of exposure to the timing and effect of speed. A lower "fear coctail" level than other sparring methods. An unrealistic understanding of one's ability to respond to sudden changes.

So, in a fight, all you are going to do in your art is bloody a face? Or do you have a different definition of "full contact"?

BTW, for those keeping track; the guy on trial for a one-hit kill just got a deadlocked jury and mistrial (5 voted guilty), he will be retired.

Really? I played with little rolled-up booklets as "fake knives" and everyone came out black and blue. Rubber knives can most certainly cut, and yet aren't rigid enough to be realistic. How do you avoid damage when your fake knives hit eyes, throats, ears, noses, etc? Or maybe you and I view "full" differently? Only if you are an idiot who believes what they see in movies. And when you do get that knee that breaks your nose, that "fake knife" in your eye, that bite (you do bite, right?) or that successful break (or do you guys just try for a hold instead of a hyperextension?) faster than you can ssay "oh, this will hurt, I'd better tap"... then what?

You are hacking a straw man... no one (at least recently) has claimed that the bigger guy will always win! The argument is weather size has an impact; and I think it's sillyo to think otherwise. To make an extreme example, would you rather get attacked by a tiger or a housecat?

Same problem occurs with "full contact" sparring. You are, neccessairily, not dealing with many basic scenerios that way (ever do full-contact with knives? I didn't think so). practice makes permenant, and all that.

And yet, that's the exact same "I'm right, now don't respond" attitude that SS is putting out. It's one thing to say "we have different opinions"... it's another to poffer a conflicting one (you are wrong, UFCs are different) and then ask the other guy not to respond.

I agree that a skill advantage can compensate for a size disadvantge. On what do you base the claim that skill makes size irrellevent? Shouldn't I see this translate over into competitive arts as well? Shouldn't I see old, frail, weak, but very skilled people doing well in UFCs?

did you ever tell someone they were too big? Why not? Isn't a bigger, stronger person doing "good solid technique" going to exert more force than a small person doing the same? How do you think one of your 1-year 240lb football types would fare against one fo your 4-year 14-year-old girls? In my own liniage, Victor DeThaures comes to mind. I can't point to a single founder of Systema, but all the top practitioners are quite large. Sao Choi (forgive the spelling) has some well known (and large) practitioners. Sumo. I believe Ba Pak Serak was not a small man. Sure, Norris's art derives heavily from Tang-Soo-Do, which derives from Japanese Karate, which derives from Okinawan Karate, which derives from Chinese arts (probiably Hsing-I or some of the Shaolin arts) which derive from somewhere else... so the *original* founder of the base systems (which is really chasing a red herring) is of bodily demintions which can only be guessed at. You seem to be saying "martial arts are designed by little people becuse I'm only going to count fuonders of a race of people who were shorter than another race of people, and I'll only count their arts). Shall we discuss greek wrestling? Or "behing-the-back" wrestling? Or the various Nubian and European arts? This is irrellevent to the statement. If all other things are equal, it's the differnt thing that is the deciding factor. I don't care what 9-year-old you pick. I'd suggesst the one you consider most similar to your skilled adult. Because it "makes no sense to you". That's an "appeal to ignorance". Can you, or can you not measure skill? If you cannot meausre skill, then you cannot make any claims as to what difference in skill do relative to differences in other things; because you have no unit of measure. RELATIVE TO WHAT? I guy with a 50-year training advantage fights a guy with a 5 lb weight advantage... the skilled guy wins. A guy with 1% training advantage fights a guy with a 100lb weight advantage, the heavy guy wins... what's so hard to udnerstand about the basic concept? Which, if accepted, says that more massive people are more powerful. This is the OPPOSITE of your claim that skill is more important than mass. I'm reasonably a physics person. A bullet (you haven't been specific, but I'll average) carrys about as much force as a baseball bat. F=MV^2 applies to rigid pointal masses striking one another (such as billiard balls), not to fists and faces. A bullet does its damage not through high force, but through relative sharpness (hence why you don't die with the vest takes the bullet) So, how many 90-lb-people hold brick-breaking records? I love the snide ad-hominym.. it's so.. passive-agressive. Did he? How good was the Sumo? Is there a tape? I know stories of Beowulf fighting Grendle's mother underwater for 2 days straight... but I'm reserving accepting that until proof arrives. And what is magically different about fighting? They can learn physics, music, medicine, art.. but fighting is just too cerebrial for them? Do yuo really believe your own words? Would you like me to point you at 15-year-olds with superior degrees to your own? I can. Oh yea, cause in person you'll suddely sprout actual references? If you want to talk about child-like behavior, we can discuss the use of ad-hominyms, veiled threats, passive-aggressive language, unsupported arguments, and your use of the "nanner-nanner I can't hear you" defense... But I doubt you really want to do that.

Apparently your opinion does not include answering questions (what good is an opinion if you aren't going to support it) but does include slinging personal commentary (you've always struck me as someone...) You want an ignore? Just stop responding.. after all, I'm just stating *my* opinion... you don't like it? So?

It's from sanscrit and literally means "wheel". (according to webster)

Yep, interesting to see a TKDist doign qigong healing; I usually see that in internal artists.

Any "iron" qigong is built around the building of resilliance in the body. This can be done both externally (hitting something a lot) or internally. "poison hand" is a technique / classification of hits; "iron palm" is a grouping of ways to harden your hands / increase their power.

Why don;t you take a peek at the various types of jings (Fa, An, Peng) and see if your definition still works when actually applied.

So then what weight does an UNSUPPORTED opinion carry? How is it useful to anyone?

Kicking the M-F trying the wristlock seems to work most times as well.

It means that you have claimed that you cannot know what factor will be most important ["There are so many variables involved in this general of a subject that we'd have to spend a lifetime catagorizing it."] Right after claiming that you do, indeed know which factor is most signifigant ["size matters much less than skill level"]. As to weather I enjoy arguing... that's an ad-hominym logical fallacy and therefore irrellevent. My argumetns are valid or they are invalid. Your claim that [ambiguious advantage] in skill is more effective than [ambiguious advantage] in strength is silly in light of the fact that you refuse to qantify the comment. Further, your examples don't bear out and you refuse to support them... they are anticdotal and, even within that context, unsupported. You've propped up straw-men caractures of my comments (saying I was talking about TKD vs your art, rather than 9-year-old against 29-year-old) and hacked away at them (unsuccessfully I might add). In short, your position (that size is functionally irrellevent among skilled practitioners) is patently false; and you have not offered any real argument to support it.

OK. I'll grant the premise that there are too many variables to categorize... I now refer you back to your previous catigorization of variables where you said: How can you say that and then refuse to quantify it by calling it unquantifiable? You've just argued that you cannot know what you assert to know. What would you like to use as a "unit of skill". If guy A is more skilled than guy B, how can I express how much? So, you assert that two boxers, with 100lbs difference in mass, and fighting each other in a street fight, their size difference would not play an important role? On what do you base this? So a mass difference is less important because power is a function of mass and speed? I don't understand how you reach that conclusion from that premise. What can you offer to establish that they were beating comparatively skilled larger people? Since I've never argued that skill does not matter, what can you offer to show that size is irrellevent? I have never disputed this. I've repeateld asserted that being stronger/more massive is an advantage. I'm not thinking of anyone in particular. There are 9 year old (skilled) singers, painters, musicians, programmers, gymnists, writers, etc. Are you asserting that it is impossable for a 9-year-old to be skilled at a phyical art? I can easily grab an example.

I love apples and oranges (or in this case pounds and hours). So if you have 6-months more practice, but I have 100lbs more muscle, you win? How does on quantify "skill" and how much skill compares to how much mass in what ratio? For the record, many styles were founded by big ******* guys; many of the proponents of "size counts" (such as the BJJ group) first heard it from the scrawny founder. All things being equal, it's the different thing that decides the outcome. Large (muscular) is superior to small. Don't think so? How much challenge is a skilled 9-year-old against you?

Ahh yes, the vast hordes with "nothing to prove", dozens of arts with thousands of practitioners none of whom could be bothered to put their money where their mouth is; even though half these art's claim to fame is some distant guy who "went around defeating everyone"