JerryLove

And yet it was by knockout that Tyson was typically winning (IIRC); so I cannot agree with you here.

So the most powerful boxer always wins because he is more powerful? This must be why Tyson never lost... oh wait, he did to someone with a more effective strategy.

Agreed. If you actually have time to think about their breathing (as in: watch it and consider it), then it's an odd fight.

I tell people online really bad strategic advice so that if I meet them in person I can easily expoit them.

Could it be that they are not used to it as much as they are used to wht you have been doing against them for a long time now?

Try punching a bag while taking sharp inhales... then try it with sharp exhales... now tell me why you'd want to catch your opponent on an inhale?

Depends on the person and (more importantly) their aggression level. A good strike to the diagaphram will "knock the wind out of you". A determined attacker will barely slow down; a kid messing around my indeed drop to the floor.

You've only just baught from them and you've already gotten in a fight and used stuff from the video? Against whom did they work?

Which way is easier to push a car? Six of one, a half-dozen of the other I suppose. As pointed out, the "down" position menas that your elbows protect your body more. I use either depending on which hit is coming out and what angle of attack I'm after.

Yes, there is a technique called a "shadowless kick", yes there was a saying about a guy "his kick was so fast, it did not leave a shadow", and yes, it is just a saying intended to express that he had a really fast kick, no amount of speed actually prevents a shadow.

You do it by not looking at anything... looking at something focuses your vision around what you are looking at; and sacrifices general perception for detail.

You ever tried to pull off Dilman's stuff against a resisting opponent? His student fared poorly in NHB competition.

Take the principles of the Budda (life is suffering, desire causes suffering, etc), add the basic applications of Daoism (live in the now, seek simplicity, etc), and you get zen (live to act without thought, be in this moment, avoid desire or worry about other moments, etc.).

Dao (Tao) in Chinese exists as a word long Buddism came along... and you are again simply ignoring the issue. If you wish to translate "budo" and ask "how long has the warrior path been in existance", then my answer is "millions of years". If you wish to ask how long the Japanese philosophy/system named "Budo" has been in existance, then my answer is "about 500 years". You may agree with these answeres, disagree with these answers (in which case, please specify your disagreement and support) or argue that neither definition of "budo" is the one you believe is appropriate (in which case, again, support). As a Daoist (Taoist), I assure you that the concept of the Dao does not originate in Zen Buddism.

Buddism is about 500 years older than Christianity. Whatever you would like to say Daruma did, it was not create the system of Japanese protocol and schooling known as "Budo". And I challenge you o statistically support your claim that most Buddists are Zen Buddists. I *believe* "zen" comes under Lamaism, which contains only 20 million adherents (as opposed to Theravada which has 124M, and Mahayna which has 185M), but feel free to point to specific information if you have any. And my point is that we do not have a consistant definition of "Budo". If we are strict (and look at the foundation of the activity "budo"), then we find it's 400 years old. If we are general (and consider any fighting philosophy to count), then we can probably assume it's at least as old as Homo Sapiens (2,000,000 years).

And an explosion is the central principle in an internal combustion engine; but they are not the same thing either. Zen is one group of Buddist beliefs (like "reformist" is one group of Christian beliefs). Not all buddists are Zen (it appears to have first formed when Daoists and pure Buddists intermingled. Budo (a word which is entirely Japanese, so let's look to Japan) is the name of a grouping of schools (Budo schools) which began in the 15th-16th century in Japan. How old the elements of Budo are is irrellevent... until they were put together.

I carry both... the big advantages of the knife for the "average person" include the instinctive use and more obvious methods of weapon retention.

And the fact that the conection occured would be a failure of my strength, or my tactic?

There seem to be some completely erronious expectations here. You want a weapon easier to employ at close range than a firearm? OK, a kitchen knife. You think that at contact range pistol vs knife you will survive without training? Think again. You don't think a small child with a knife can kill another small child? You are deluding yourself. A firearm against an opponent out of contact range, but nearby is a relatively simple and very effective weapon... At touching range, so is a knife; and most people are well accustomed to how a knife operates... put it in front of you and stab anything that gets in easy reach.

There is no universal list of "legal" vs "illegal" because it varies by state and local... None of the things you listed are illegal to posess, and I'm unaware of any location where using something legal to posess for self defense is illegal... In some areas, carrying somethings "for the purpose" of using it as a weapon makes it illegal to carry. If you are even in FL, Stop by and I'll show you how to use a basebal bat in close-quarters

I've never managed to follow the logic. How come the guy with no experience with the weapon, and starting at the wrong end of it, is somehow considered likely to be able to take it away from you? This seems pre-facia silly, and I don't believe is borne out by any actual statistic.

Budo literally means "fighting path" and so would be as old as civilization... a quick web-search indicates that organized "Budo" (Japanese schools teaching it as a philsophy) is only about 400 years old. Christianity, we know, began somewhere between 30 and 70 AD. So organized Christianity is older than organized Budo... I'm not sure why this fact would upset anyone.

Rather than try to give you specific solutions from a different art to a rather nebulous set fo conditions... I'd remind you that someone pushing you with their hands is first touching (hitting) you with their hands. I presume your art has a solution for being hit.

I understand your position, but cannot agree. While the necessity for weight divisions in sports like boxing illustrated the importance of size with similarly matched opponenty, there are several UFC bouts that come to mind where a signifigantly smaller opponent has won (and, to refer to the sport everyone equates with size, the Sumo champ is not the biggest compeditor). In regards specifically to strength; a man's strength/weight ratio starts decreasing somewhere in the 200-250lbs range... so the progression, while there, becomes less liniar. Further, I don't think your examples are well-founded. Dogs and Tigers have rather fixed skills, not just sizes... to play with your analogy, a man with a rock could never defeat a man with a gun; but we know that's not true.

No person exists in complete absence of either (can't fight without both). But it's a balancing act, rather than an A or B. The person with superior tactics can loose to the person with sufficient tactics but superior strength. If I had to pick one, it would be tactics; and for two reasons. The first is that the ability to have a better tactic does not reach the diminishing returns problem, the second is that if I reduced the other to the "minimum reasonable", the good but weak fighter will be able to prevent the horrible but strong fighter from applying his strength.