JerryLove

Babies... babies make excellent improvised weapons.

"potent" does mean "poweful"... and most people thing the "most powerful strike" and "best strike" are generally synonymous. If you think that a backfist is the most potent, but for some reason not the best; just say so. Every push a car? Can you do it without your body behind your hands? Can you do it drom a backfist-strike position? I can push a car from positions identical to those I would use for many other hits... but I can't find a backfist position I can push a car with... can't seem to get by body behind the car enough. Which one can you push a car with? You mentioned a straw-man argument? What you just did there is a straw-man argument... I cannot infer that I belief a backfist is impotent, because I have explicitly stated that it is not. A backfist is a good weapon.. I use them a decent amount. It is not as potent a strike as some others for the reasons I have mentioned. This is another usupported premise.. and one I cannot agree on. The fastest hands are not neccessairily the most potent. But will you match it with the resilliane of the knuckles in a backfist. That siad, if you want to play a game where you strike the bottome of my hand with the meaty part of your arm... then I strik the meaty part of your arm with the bottom of my hand... I'm happy to find out which is more resiliant. I want an inprovement over other strikes that can be demonstrated to set the backfist as "most potent" as you have claimed. I've worked with many noted names in several arts. Many like the backfist. I like the backfist. Fair enough... let me make one retraction and one reiteration. I realize (from two posts ago) that I was wrong in saying the backfist was more limited in waist useage than others... I left out one or two backfists in my consideration because of a power-reduction that I now realise stems from the structural connectivity, not waist. I would say that the backfist is "on par" for its ability to use waist movement to drive it. Secondly, I want to reiterate that I am a fan of the backfist and consider it a useful tool. My disagreement is specifically with the claim it is the "most potent" of hand strikes. I can find no compelling reason to place the backfist on such a pedistal; and thing that none has been offered in this thread.

Why do you feel that the groin strike is the ultimate solution to everything?

A little more complicated than simple knee in chest but... http://www.clearsilat.com/silat/gallery.htm

You can also bend and fight from that position (it's not an uncommon one for our Silat style).

"flaming" is putting out a very insulting, derogitory post which lacks substantive arguement. "flame-baiting" then is putting out a post intended to attract "flaming" responses. Taiji is an excellent martial art; though many Tiaji practitioners do not practice the martial art. What *was* the topic anyway?

You said: "A good back fist, properly executed, is the most potent fist strike in your arsenal." - delta1 posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:58 pm If I'm equivocating when I link "most potent" and "best"; then feel freee to correct my generalization.. but it's not a straw-man argument. Not to an extent similar to many other strikes. I never said it was... it is a contributer which can offer a great deal less to a backfist than to many other hits. Compare to a hammer fist on both fronts. I agree that the backfist uses a smaller striking surface than the hammerfist or open palm... but unless you can tie this into a useful effect, this is hardly a claim which supports your position that the backfist is the most potent of all punches. For one centemeter until the rest of your hand connects... While I on't doubt the ability of any given punch on a given time to do that; I do disagree that backfists are generally even as cage-ratteling as many other strikes (hammerfist, open-hand, etc)

Frank is, by all accounts, an excelent martial artist... I keep copies of many of his posts for reference. He's one of a couple people I miss interacting with since leaving usenet.

Either you are now simply flame-baiting (similar to trolling, but more specific); you are being sarcastic (you need those little emoticons to indicate that); or you are far to ignorant to be intelligently commenting on martial arts.

It's not so much "American" as it is a usenet term.

I do agree that there are few problems that cannot be overcome with the massive application of violence... How much would you like to subdue a rabid 12-lb cat?

No, MTF said: "A Tai chi fighter whoops up on me to prove a point!!!!!.Now that's a funny one,considering tai chi doesn't have fighters and is more of an art of relaxation then a martial arts." He made no real argument, nor any metion of combos.

Sparring is often also "play". A sparring match for a boxer differs from a boxing match in that they are "playing" or "practicing" rather than "competing". But as I mentioned, the intent is not to make a specific and accutely accurate definition of "sparring"; but rather to give a gist in terms tah can me understood by a non-native speaker. As to "troll"... "trolling" is the acto fo dragging a line behind a boat in the hopes that a fish will bite it. A 'troll" is someone who "goes trolling"... he places intentionally inflammitory remarks in a thread to find out who will "bite" by responding to his insincere post.

So you assertion: The backfist is better than any other strike. Your support: The backfist is better *because* it has the same characteristics as the strikes it's better than? Forgive me, I thought the obvious support for claiming A was better than B involved contrasting the difference that made it better, not comparing the similaritites. By definition, your body's not behid the hit; the musles involved in delivering (quadracep and back of the forearm) are not the strongest, waist movement is more limited, and the striking surface is less resiliant than in several other hits. I'd love to see you support that claim... disappated force applies evenly over a alrge area, which would attempt to break by over-stressing the whole, as opposed to over-stressing a part. The effect of placking a phone-book over someone then hitting it with a bat is to remove surface trauma and increase internal trauma... this seems to be "penetrating" by definition. Since putting a phone book on a slab makes it easier to break, penitration seems to be the best breaking hit. Further, I find backfists generally superficial in terms of penitration... a backfist to a face tends to do a good deal of damage to the skin and upper skeletal structure while a slap (for example) tends to do very little to teh surface but rattle the brain (the for having penitrated better). .What support can you offer that a backfist represents a particularly penetrating strike?

A rebellion of Chinese martial artists attempted to overthrow the government, believing that their iron-body qigong would make them bullet proof. They were massaccred. Flies just have a better reflex set... they have near 360 vision, so they can pretty much always see you. There are a lot of reasons you might be able to know someone was behind you.. and qi isn't beyond my willingness to consider... I believe in qi because I use and test it... I don't believe in many of the claims about qi I'e been seeing made.

Q: What's the fastest art to get you to SD compitence. MT: Pankration Q: Why? MT: Because it has a huge number of techniques with a huge number of variations. And as we all know, the more stuff there is to learn, the less time it will take you to learn it. trolling, trolling, trollin...

Trollin, trollin, trolling... keep Thai Fighter trollin... boy his head is swollen... raw-hide!

No one asdserted that you made that claim. And all are available to you in pretty much every type of hit.. they are therefore not useful on ctonrasting a backfist with another type of hand strike. That would deal with some element of the problem... as "potent" means "powerful"... but I still see no shining advantage of a backfist over other techniques (as a general statement), while I can see general drawbacks. Pretty rare breaking strike neh? I wonder why? That inferrs a straw-man fallacy by you as I've done no such thing... you may recall my second sentance was: "I like backfists, don't get me wrong"

People don't usually think much mid-fight. It's normal for people who have been cut, shot, or had a limb broken or disloacted to not realize that the even has happened until later. I can personally think of several instnaces, and can point to Department of Justice studies that reiterate them.

Interestingly, that's the title I'd put on anyone making the claim you just did. I like backfists, don't get me wrong, but "most potent"? By definition, your body's not behid the hit; the musles involved in delivering (quadracep and back of the forearm) are not the strongest, waist movement is more limited, and the striking surface is less resiliant than in several other hits. I tend to think of the open hand as the most useful single strike; and probibly the punch as next in line (though I have a fondness for the whip as well).

The US Army teachs a profency for matial arts (including field survival, marksmanship, basic demolitions, basic chemical and biological response, etc) plus MOS training in 6 weeks. I don't know where you get your "years to become proficient" idea from... IME, the people that don't teach their students combative proficiency within a year have general shortage or poor quality of material and are trying to streach out their little knowledge over a long cirriculum. I'm well past proficient, and a truely dedicated student could go from nothing to my skill in under 2 years.

Obviously, I've chosen Sialt.. having access to both... Though it's also worth nothing there i no one art which is "Silat".

Tell me again how those words are easier to translate int Portuageese than "sparring" was to begin with? Or in your rampant frothing to troll did you decide to ignore the actual point of the question?

Gotta hate all those trational Asian arts... like Muay Thai... that's a traditional Asian art.

MTF, Weather or not fighting them would be "stupid" depends entirely on what you reasonably expect the outcome of not fighting would be. We do teach both use of a firearm and defense to a firearm. We do train people who deal with fire-arms as part of their Job (police, bondmen, "security", etc). These people do end up at some point looking down a gun. Freezing is certainly not an unherad of response.. but far from the only one. You also play into several myths.. the first is how often bullets actually find their intended mark... most shots miss. The second is the result of being shot. If you miagine that, like th emoives, you shoot someone and they just fall down; you will find that life is usually quite different. "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth" - http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm citing the US Dept. of Justice For an idea, take a look at casualty numbers vs death numbers for millitary operations... people survive being shot all the time.