Punch Defense

[Martial_Artist]

Think of it like this: a bullet isn't attached to the body sending it. A fist is. Hit the person to whom the fist belongs and the fist doesn't follow it's original path. The analogy is irrelevant. A bullet is nothing like a fist (or any other part of the human body.) Also, just for fun, if in a gunfight you shoot first (assuming of course you hit your target) odds are the other guy won't have his gun where he wants it and the bullet still coming at you won't even be near you.

 

Direct assault w/o blocking. If the attack is so obvious that you see it coming before it has even left the boundaries of your opponent. Attack him directly. It will stunt, bunt, or effectively recess his movement. Even if his punch was almost complete at best it will brush along you or uselessly hit you. Think about it. A man pulls his arm back to punch, you see it coming, it's slow (because he pulls it back so far) and you kick him under the jaw. The fist he is attempting to throw will no more continue along its original course intended as it would had you sat there and blocked it. The difference: efficiency and efficacy. just a thought.

 

ps. I don't know your instructor, but his advice is quite irrelevant. Gunfighting and fistfighting aren't naturally similiar in very many ways. Comparing a punch to a bullet isn't a very effective method of instruction. Perhaps he didn't want you thinking outside the lines of thought he has drawn for you. Free-thinking can be very threatening to some (note I did say SOME and not ALL--to those who would mis-construe my words) instructors. We wouldn't want anyone looking for a new instructor, would we? just another thought.

[Bretty101]

You don't hear the punch that kills you!! :grin:

 

Try the catching a punch in the teeth trick!!

 

Whats wrong with the bullet analogy?!

 

Bretty

 

[ This Message was edited by: Bretty101 on 2002-06-06 12:40 ]

[tsdstud]

OK, martial artist I see your point but... that fist is still going to come. once you hit them, they don't automatically lose momentum, and sometimes you might not even faze them. even if their fist isn't going exactly where it's meant to be, it'll still hit you somewhere and most likely hurt. I guess I'd rather be safe than sorry and make sure that there's no chance of getting hit.

[Martial_Artist]

You've never had it done before have you? I can tell because you're speaking from conjecture and not fact. If their punch follows through after you deliver your attack it won't be enough of anything to worry about. Even if it does hit your face (and this is really stretching it) it won't even faze you. You might not even notice it. If your technique is executed properly. I did mention a straight front kick to his jaw, or even solar plexus, it will stop them. That is, assuming there is power in your strike. Even with a straight jab, you should have power enough to punch hard enough to stop him. Being in so close, with the punch not the kick, his fist will more than likely follow through, but there won't be any room for it to do any damage. And because you attacked when he did his target will be off and not be going where he'd like it. If you punch him and his punch comes in strong, a hit to the shoulder or arm is worth getting the hit to face. Remember I concede to allow their punch to follow through only for conjecture's sake, but if your technique is executed properly you won't get hit.

 

Kick him as he does that and his fist will never get near you. That fist, unless you don't hit hard enough, is not still going to come.

 

Example. True story. Leaving a billiards hall three men approached and decided to 'bleed me' for no other reason than looking in their direction. Three attempted punches. Three solid kicks. On to the solar plexus, one to the area just below the neck on the chest, and one to the side of the neck. End of fight. One unconscious, one unable to breath well, and one screaming in pain. Nothing exaggerated. I'll take tried and proven over conjecture and analogy any day.

[ckdstudent]

The block is simply a good extra security measure. Most of the time a car tyre doesn't blow, but you still carry a spare. That one time when he does dodge your punch, or stop his punch in order to block yours, that block could well stop you getting hit.

 

 

[Withers M.A.A.]

Stuff them with a sidekick to the gut.

 

 

[tsdstud]

well never said it wouldn't work. I just like the security of the block. what style do u study (out of curiousity) cus you can do a lot more from a block. A lot of different locks and sweeps come from your hand positioning. Of course, fighting three people, you don't have time for the sweeps and locks.

[Martial_Artist]

If you read my posts I never said blocking was never an option. The question was posed: what is the best punch defense? I gave an answer. In its purest sense a direct assault on an assailant mid-strike in their attack is the best defense. Most effecient (i.e. least amount of movement and wasted energy) and efficacious (i.e. you get the desired results).

 

 

 

In all of my posts I have never once stated that any fighter should do anything to limit their train of thought or place boundaries around their thinking. I have said precisely the opposite. Blocking is very usefull and highly effective and in certain situations necessary. In a punch defense a block may be more than a good idea, it may be necessary to avoid injury.

 

However, I gave an answer to the posted question, which dealt with a wild, completely telepathed punch. In that case, it would totally inefficient to waste energy and motion blocking the attack. It would be much faster and efficient to simply attack him before contact.

 

None of my statements put down blocking in general. Just for that particular scenario.

 

Also, all the fights I have been in none have been spectacular as in the movies with sweeps and locks. Just simple hit-hit. I have also only allowed 1 fight ever to go to the ground.

 

Each movement opens the door of opportunity. Many things can follow a well executed block, as you said, but so can they follow a well executed attack.

 

Returning to the posted question. My answer has been given for that scenario. Now, keep in mind, I also do not teach that any one 'technique' is to be used always. Just that the best (i.e. efficient and efficacious) movement should always be used.

 

To answer your question, the name of the art I study is called: The Pure Art. That is its 'name', mostly for reference purpose. Read my other posts and you'll see how I feel about style. This just isn't the forum or thread to discuss it in.

 

I hope this information has helped. My style of words(speaking) tends to offend because of the frankness behind it. It's nothing personal.

[ckdstudent]

The most efficient way to deal with Osama Bin Laden would be to nuke Afghanistan and the surrounding countries. It would be quick, it would work, and terrorism overall would probably pretty much vanish. And yet for some reason a lot of people seem to have the sense to realise that sometimes efficiency isn't always the best option and that expending a little more energy (which after all is extremely cheap) to make yourself safe is a good idea.

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

Again, another useless analogy. If you're going to try and use an analogy be sure to save yourself the embarrassment of using a useless and irrelevant one.

 

Global Nuclear Warfare and a simple wide hook are two totally different things. Effectiveness for one does not apply to the other.

 

Now, to answer your post about expending cheap energy read my post just before yours. Blocking to totally viable in such an instance.

 

However, you need to understand that in fighting efficiency is key, in fact, vital. Why do anything else in a fight than that which is most effective? Why place yourself in unnecessary danger and/or expenditure of precious energy? When it's about fighting efficiency is the best option. Especially when the fighting is for your life. And if you don't train to be able to have the ability to defend your life then you're short-changing yourself.

 

Just enact the scenario out in your dojo, or with a friend. There he is, drunk or mad, he comes at you with a wild hook. He pulls his arm back. At that instant make a choice. Let him get close on you or hit him first. Try it. As you see he hand pull back front kick him in the chest (we don't want to injure our friends). See what it does. Use padding if you must, hit him hard. Analyze the results. Now imagine that kick had been beneath the jaw or to his face. That technique is totally unexpected. He will be in so much shock, he ha expected you to back up or assume a defensive or block his attack. Watch what happens when you directly attack instead. Good results.

 

It is beyond me why anyone would want to allow their attacker to move in closer for the sake of performing a block or other fancy technique when it would be perfectly fine to just hit their opponent and not allow him to get close, and achieve the same results.

 

Finally, dropping a nuke on Afganistan and surrounding countries isn't even an effective military option. Here's why: 1. General populace of these nations not enemy. 2. Target: Terrorist Cells, not everyone with a turban. 3. Total nuclear destruction of that area, of any area, would have devestating ecological and environmental consequences affecting the whole globe. 4. It is not usually the business to destroy hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in a fox hunt. 5. It would not end terrorism worldwide. They would just move to countried safe from nuclear attack. Infiltrating modern countries like the US and UK hiding safely from future nuclear attack and continuing their acts of terrorism.

 

Thus, a nuclear offensive against would achieve any desired result. We would give the enemy martyrs to die for, a newfound cause, and better hiding places. A nuclear attack is not the most efficient option. It is far from it.

 

When using analogies please be sure they are relevant.