JerryLove

Actually... that's exactly what "orbiting" is.

That's a logical fallacy. not all birds are ducks so not all ducks are birds? You are training a sport if the focus of your training is competition. You are not training a sport if the focus of your training is not on a competition. Something is martial if it is warlike or suitable for a warroir. Some of the oldest known martial arts were intended to keep soilders in fighting shape and were used in copetition (Greek wrestling for example). Something is an art if it cannot be emperically quantified (if it can, it's a science).

Yes, my normal carry is from 1 to 3 knives and a sidearm; though it's situationally effected and you may manage to catch me unarmed as well.

Yep, same a most any other... just move the attacking limb away.

Short distance power (fa-jing) is a matter of mechanics. It ranges between "immedately obvious" and "takes a little practice" to lern. Some backgrounds come to it more naturally than others. Put your hand on someone and try to give them a quick "shove" (as opposed to a slower push) without taking your hand off first... That's the basic energy.

It's in a different thread.

I watched about 5 of the videos... they are grainy and short. Every one compleely ignores the lower body; in about half the practitoner leans bacck / backs up. In pretty much every one all the attacker would need to do is press the attack. Oh, and looks nothing like Xingyi, Tiaji, nor Bagua.

War Path Skill? I know people in all three arts (heck, I study with them). I'm not aware of an easy way to make a single art which is all three.

Not all arts and not all training cirriculum approach the same goal the same way. I have seen 2-day courses (at 10 hours a day) that, if the hard work is put in, wil drastically improve your self defense ability (presuming you are coming from "untrained", the trained artist will get different info than the untrained). I've seen schools where in a year you still don't know what you are doing, even though a 5 years they my be very impressive. Is there something you can take for 2 days and learn to defeat they guy who'se been actively studying for months or years? No. But they are not the considered opponents in a good self-defense course. A self denfese course is about giving you things you can do and retain despite a general lack of practice that will make you more capable... and that can, indeed, be done. Train constantly, and you will be better; stay in good shape and you will be better still; but this does not mean that no training workshops can be useful.

Where can I watch some UFCs done in sneakers and on asphault? I'd like to look at those fights (certainly, fighters don't mind having matches that way, you've already declared it a non-issue).

Never heard of it... sounds concocted.

That's not a function I use it for; like most any qigong, it's a possible result. The short answer is "yes". "Qi" means "breath" and abdominal breathing is moving air (breath) into your dan-tien. It also exchanges more air in your lungs and uses more of your lungs for exchanging oxygen and waste gasses. Deep breathing transfers oxygen to your blood faster... fast breathing transfers CO2 out of your blood faster.

Actually, they do not. On what are you basing this claim?

that oft-repeated "90% of all fights go to the ground" was a statistic by a police department about conflicts involving oficers. This statistic exists specifically beacuse officers are trained to take the fight to the ground. That said, I agree hat there are many situations where going to the ground would be a bad idea.

I'm not the one with the inferred "You don't know what you are talking about because you have nor been in uniform", nor am I the person who just made a post entirely about how rude the other poster is (though I suppose I am now). I've expressed an opinion, and attempted to provide proper support for it. You've expressed an opinion and I've asked that you also provide proper support. I don't believe any of the examples given by the other poster would have a (for example) boxer faring better than a Jujitsu practitioner. I don't believe that the various law enfrcement agencies teach "striking arts" (though they most certainly teach about hitting). I don't believe I have been rude, and that was certainly not my intent. As to why a martial artist might be aggressive... I suppose that's self-evident.

This argument is a straw-man fallacy. All grappling arts teach defenses to strikes. Of course they do, and srikers learn basic grappling/counter grappling (even boxers get some level of this). Doesn't work. If he's striking that means he's been attacked. If he's been attacked by multiple opponents it's reasonably certain he's been grabbed or someone else is after his weapon. he needs to make distance and pull a weapon, and the only major thing stopping him would be people grabbing/tackling/contesting for the weapon. These are basic grappling skills. you put up something you can loose (your off arm) and use it as a lever to keep the animal away (grappling) while you pull your weapon and fire repeatedly. The primary focus of HtH training at the FBI acadamy is grappling and weapon retention. Ditto the US.Marshal service, and every training academy I am familir with in the US. This is not to say that striking does not existin in training; but rather that they two big focuses are weapon retention/use, and subdual (and not through knocking them unconsious). So if we really want an appeal to authoity; let's go look up what the actual police academies with internal training methods teach.

Individual experience is anticdotal. Jumping spinning kicks have connected in bar fights and killed people but are not a good tactic. What use, exactly, would make a strikin art preferrable to a grappling art in general police work? Where would you rather hit your opponent than control him in poilce work? Where whould punching and kicking be preferrable to both grappling and geting yo tour weapon? Don't just make a vague appeal to "I've worked law enforcement" becuase I can think to 20 officers who disagree with you... explain *why*.

You'd have to define "experience" I used to study at a school run by two depudys during a day-class where I was the only non-police officer there. I used to work with the Cape Coral City Police dept (I was MIS), I've trained law enforcement, security, and prison personell at the school I attend. I've had this conversation with many people in law enforcement. I also have some close friends and relatives in law enforcement agencies (CCPD, Monroe County Sheriff, etc) and in millitary police services. Does that qualify as "experienced" with law enforcement?

Option 1: The policeman has been grabbed and needs to grapple. Option 2: The policeman is not grabbed and needs to subdue (grapple). Because these functionally never result in a subdual. Take a look at more than a minute of more than a dozen police with sticks hitting Rodney King over and over and over... notice that for over a minute he continued to get back up. Wonder what one officer with no stick could have done from a striking perspective to keep him down. Then relize the use of force issue you just mentioned, and remember that grappling arts (which, I might add, have a proven record of success over striking arts; and which are obviouly more useful in wrestling for control) inflict less injury when trying to subde. Levering someone into place to cuff hem is preferrable to breaking their collar bone then inflicting enough brain-stem trauma to incapacitate them so you cancuff them. IIRC this is the "complex question fallacy"; like "anyone who loves Jesus will agree that tacos taste bad". We all want them going home at night; we don't all agree with what best accomplishes that goal.

Truem but trying to retain a weapon, trying to get out of a grab to get a weapon, and trying to remove a weapon from an opponent are all grappling techniques. I concur that the focus of a police officer should be on weapon retention, then apprehension; and that both of those are primarily acts of grappling.

Depends on the art... look at the number of well-matched and very skilled competitors in NHB tournaments that had long fights because they were manuvering for position... look at how long a boxing match can last.

Armed and armored, I've repeatedly sided with the knight oer the samurai. Unarmed, I'd have to wonder who we are talking about for Europeans... I can think of erll-trained h-t-h European fighters from the Spartians to the Celts... but I would not wish to venture a guess here on comparitive skill of the "average knight" vs the "average samurai" unarmed.

The points in question require a certain way of striking and a certain energy put into them. I've certainly been made "sick" by playing with such things (sometimes taking me an hour to fix energetically), but I've not seen/felt something I could definately say was fatal... of course, I can't discount the idea either.

People can most certainly be cut with swords.

And my friend injured his ankle jumping off a 4-foot stool. But then again, using anticdotal evidence, 3,600 feet is a safe height: Auckland, New Zealand: In August of 1993, Freemantle's main and reserve parachutes failed to open. He fell 3,600 feet and landed in a shallow duck pond. He walked away with just a small cut over his left eye.