JerryLove

message edited.

I'd imagine he's trolling.

LOL. In one breath you disavow the inherent speed difference while asserting an inherent power diffference. Can a kick to the head ever be a viable solution? Did it work? It did? Then it can be a viable solution. Is it a good suggestion to offer a longer-distance technique with a slower limb initiated after said shorter technique has already started? Obviously I (and others) categorically state "no".

hmmm. I had hoped not to make this a critique of technique but you seem interested in discussing this. Presumption 1, your opponent is loading his punch. Presumption 2, your opponent is slower with his haymaker than you are with your (started after him) head-height kick. Presumption 3, your opponent will not respond to your kick The range on any bent-arm strike is going to be shorter than an extended arm strike (usually about knee-elbow range). You can step back? Great, he can also step forward. Again your choice of technique relies on the assumption that your opponent will move like molassas and not reacto to you at all. I believe the concern is that what youhave chosen is a bad general response... not that it will simply sometimes not work. You mean other than the fact that I'm on two legs with both hands in play while you are standing on one leg, blocking your own hands, and with your groin exposed? Other than that, the issue pivots on your relance of an ability to move a 30lb leg a distance of about 8 feet faster than I can move a 10lb arm 3 feet. Like much of your argument and anticdote, you rely on a far superior physical ability (or completely inept ability by your opponent), rather than a better technique. But the problem is not you reliance on you doing the kick right, it's your reliance on your opponent being wrong. Try this as a speed test, dropping your foot to the ground between kicks, work a boxing speed-bag.

I disagree, I think you are looking so detailed (wheels turn, muscles contract) as to make the comparison uninformative. A claymore (or staff) isn't even wielded the same in different modes (half vs quarter for example).

I don't believe anyone is putting down the value of simply hitting your opponent. I believe the concern is with the choice to do as comparitively long and precarious an attack as a kick to the head in response to a short-range punch.

Can you beat a sword unarmed? Yes. Is having a sword superior to not having one? Yes.

I would not presume to try to place up statistics which do not exist. At present, if it can be done by a thrown baseball, then I consider it a "possability" through various forms of unarmed hits (punches, elbows, kneew, feet, whatever). "Your chances of winning the lottery five times in a row are better than your chances of killing someone in this manner." Is just not true, as no one has ever done that, and yet people have been killed by strikes to the throat. (BTW the same search found a couple football impacts which required hospitalization as well)

Agreed; this is why the sword is the weapons of choice for single combat in the pre-firearm era. And yet I can think of no army in history that preferred to carry Sai's or something similar. I would say that you are incorrect and that the sword is simply a better weapon. I can teach sword combatives in relative saftey. I believe that varies greatly by sword and fighting style. Certainly strength is not the defining attribut for an epee, but I wouldn't want to be swinging a hand-and-a-half sword without it.

Your opponent was an idiot and moved with a speed more appropriate to a season of the year than a fighter. He was also too far away.

From "SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTAL BASEBALL PLAYER FATALITIES" http://www.brendangrant.org/trib_5hist_perspective.htm: Philip Forney died in 1910, hit in the throat by a baseball. also http://thedeadballera.crosswinds.net/accidents.html: 1911: ED CERMAK (29)....................HIT IN THE THROAT BY A BASEBALL UMPING IN THE COTTON STATES LEAGUE and "Montreal forward Trent McCleary suffered a career-ending injury on Jan. 29 when he horribly mistimed his attempt to block the shot of of Philadelphia's Chris Therien and was hit in the throat. His windpipe was crushed and he nearly died. He attempted to come back in September but could not overcome a breathing problem. McCleary is 28." - http://www.murraybaron.com/pressvanc.html There are more, but between spinal neck injuries and reports on throat maladies, there's a lot of noise to filter through to find the signil. That said, above proves throat injuries from blunt-force trauma (being hit) can and do kill.

So you think that if I haded a firearm to a 10th century samurai he would instincively know how to use it? How good are you with a clawymore? How about a three-piece staff? How about an M-60? I am not a wheel, I am a person; and while all wheels may roll, a unicycle rides differnt than a car.

Thanks TB

Having not spent much time with Pukulan seperate from a braoder Sialt cirriculum, I can't do an easy compare-contrast.. Obviously, I'd lean towards the Silat.

More to the point, did you ever pick a fight? Cause I'm out there as are others with my mindset (and not all quite so calm and peaceful as I am). There are many agressive, trained martial artists in the world who train to use everything, and will not hesitate to cut, bite, and gouge you while kicking, kneeing, elbowing, and dropping you on your head. You are worried that your opponent might "use these techniques back"? I'm worried that he will use them first. Converse to your question, how many such fights remain unarmed? And why do you assume it started unarmed? Finally, to asnwer your question "as many as the victor wants to".

If we are fighting, I'm trying to kill you because I presume you are trying to kill me. That's why, if we are fighting unarmed, it's cause I didn't have time to get to a weapon.

I fail to see where you have drawn that conclusion from my post. Protracted "streetfights" are quite uncommon. This is not an underestimation of the opponent, I never said you'd win... I just said it won't be very lengthy. Name the street fight (not frendly brawl, I mean the fight where you were trying to put one another in the hospita) that lasted a long time and let me know how long it lasted. I'm sure you can recall one. I'm the one pushing slow-motion sparring and have been posting *against* relying on "full contact" sparring as your primary tool. TJS has been reasonably sided with me here. He merely stated (and quite correctly) that most NHB fighters will do extremely well "on the street".

Real fights are generally quite short; conserving your energy is not a terribly high priority. I think NHB fighers would tend to do well based on the devition / intensity of training, more than a belief that NHB randori is the best rraining option.

No one has argued that those should be the sole of your skill... I certainly have not. Such techniques are just like any other randomly chosen techniques... part of a repituae that, in whole, hopefully lets you survive.

I'm not paranoid... that's just a rumor my enemies spread about me

Why automatically resort to elbows? If that's all you can do you've waisted a lot of time and money on useless training. Ok mr Kent, I think this sums up the fundimental difference in our training right there. Since athletes don't do it that way (wrestling is taught in slow technique as well as free sparring), and since you are not training with a very realistic outlook, I understand why your opinion is so skewed. Under your logic, since I am going to shoot them anyway, martial training at all is wasted effort. And why do you believe I "resort" to things that are a normal part of my repituae. BTW, can you beat 2 people? Can you beat 5? 10? When you hit that threshold, do you think a larget array of techniques *might* move it up another person? Are you sure that no terrorist that wants to blow up your plane, no jealous boyfriend, no serial killer, no annoyed drunk, and no muggers what-so-ever have trained? You fight half-assed if you want, you assume that anyone you fight will be alone, unarmed, and incompitent... I will not.

There is no "bending over" in the martial "cat stance" (though I suppose you could be thinking of the cat pose in Yoga). What I'm aware of fits reasonable with Lee's description; I've usually seen it entirely rear-weighted, but otherwise similar. That is to say, one hand extended at nose level, onf at ehar level pointing at the extended hand's elbow, back stright and reasonably vertical, "sitting" on one leg with the other leg close in and forward.

Didn't bruce like to use a phone book? That's actually cheating... punches do more damage through a phone book than with your hand (not the superficial damage, but try putting a phone book on a patio block before breaking it... *much* easier)

Which one is "full contact"? So then "full contact" is "light contact"? Or do you have a level other than "light" that you like those knees to the groin and nose and neck? What about putting an elbow in front of an oncoming fist? What about biting? What about grabbing of earrings or the like? What about eye jabs? What about throat jabs? What about throws that drop someone on their neck? How common are these "full contact"? Really? Every major martial artist I can think of has made statements indicating that he would disagree with you. I can't think of any art that does not initially teach "step-by-step" and walk through things. From personal experience I know this to be simply wrong. The school I attend has been in-place teaching for more than a decade, and we've certainly had students get in fights. We have never had any difficulty with the effect of speed; nor do we have any difficulty in the occasional "full speed" fights that occur within the school. You are always pulling something... weather it's speed, technique, or power. If you are not pulling anything, and you are not injuring your sparring partent, how do you expect to injure your opponent? It's not weather you pull that is the question, it's what.

I'm gonna amend and back up a little. I spent some of the weekend playing specifically with jamming the staff. The results while not as jammed as you were implying did require me to do a little more manuvering than I have been asserting (IOW, some of the responses I was suggesting I could not readily pull off, though I found others). Some is certainly my lack of skill at half-staff work, but some is error on my part in response to smothering a staff.