Beyond the Board Break

[joesteph]

I'm presently reading On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Within his background is that he was an Army Ranger, so his training had to have been unusually intense.

When someone breaks a board with a strike, we know the person has precision and power, a focus on a target that might be 1" pine, certainly something that, if broken, means the individual can break a nose or crack a rib on an opponent. We hold the board and applaud when it's broken, especially if it's part of a test for promotion.

On pp. 131-132 of Grossman's book, he describes ramming a finger into the eye of an opponent, so deep and with a plucking motion, that the penetration described is grotesque. He makes reference to karate on p. 132:

One karate instructor trains his high-level students in this killing technique by having them practice punching their thumbs into oranges held or taped over the eye socket of an opponent. . . .

[T]he process is made even more realistic by having the victim scream, twitch, and jerk . . .

If this were a voluntary exercise offered by your instructor, would you participate?

POLL ABOVE

[tallgeese]

First off, that book is great read and one that I encourage everyone involved with any sort of combat to read. His other books are equally enlightening. On Combat is actually easier to read than On Killing and covers similar ground at times.

I do have some issues with some of the research he cites from ealier eras, but he full well points out the problems with these studies. I do think that he is correct, that we can learn from the numbers despite some methodological errors by others.

Incidentally, most of the other books he cites in On Killings newer editions and On Combat are good reads as well.

Now, the the question at hand. Yes I would, and I think it would be valuable. I do think that one should note the artificailness of the drill in that there is limited "live" aspects to the endeveror (but I'm thinking you could build that in). I'm not sure why I've never persued it. Probibly die to mental rehersals I've done with stuff like this during training. Still, the drill would be a good one.

Too often, we all tend to look away from teh viciousness of what we're supposed to be doing. We make it nice and pretty and praise excellent technique but forget what it's all about. If this occurs, one can be suprised by the actaul reality of violence when it occurs.

At a bare minimum, mental rehersals should be conducted by the practitioner regularly to train the mind of signifigant violent acts. He's got some good sections about how this should be done as well.

[bushido_man96]

I chose the first option. I think that it is a good drill. Many practitioners talk about punching someone in the throat or jamming a finger into their eye, but how many actually try to prepare for what it will feel like, and the screaming and writhing in pain that would be the reaction of the attacker? Not many, I'd guess. The move is performed in a kata, and that is the extent of it. When you hear that scream, you may freeze up, and who knows what happens next?

Incindentally, and I am taking a guess here, but I am willing to guess that the Karate practitioner he is talking about is Loren W. Christensen, whom he had help him with On Combat, and another book recently, I believe. The drill being discussed can be found in Christensen's book Fighter's Fact Book 2, on pages 140 - 142. In case you are interested...

[joesteph]

I went to Christensen's web site at: http://www.lwcbooks.com/

He's got some wicked offerings there.

[sensei8]

I choose the second one. I'd only want the penetration, not the acting. We all practice and practice until the wheels fall off, but, I truely don't care what my attacker will feel as a result of my technique(s). I was attacked, therefore, let "it" do all of the work, let "it" be automatic as my muscle memory kicks in gear. I don't care if my attacker(s) screaming and writhing in pain, and if I freeze up for whatever reason, I submit this, I've might not practiced enough to avoid that!

I believe that the orange will offer the same resistance as the eye itself, therefore, penetrate, and do it fast and unyielding.

http://www.macula.org/images/ana101.jpg

To gouge the eye; the path of your thumb/finger(s) is this...

Cornea: This is the most outer part of the eye, therefore, it covers the front of the eye.

Aqueous: The humor circulates throughout the front part of the eye, maintaining a constant pressure inside the eye.

Iris: The iris is the colored part of the eye. As light conditions change, the iris may dilate to make the pupil bigger or constrict to make the pupil smaller. This allows more or less light into the eye.

Lens: After light travels through the pupil, it must pass through the lens. The lens of the eye acts much like the lens of a camera; focusing in and out.

Vitreous: The eye is filled with a clear, jelly-like substance called the vitreous. The feeling of penetrating this part of the eye who'd be akin to penetrating an ORANGE; kind of a squishy feeling.

What happens after that...curl your thumb/fingers and give it a yank. There will be alot of blood...and your attacker will scream and writhe in pain...possibly go into shock...so be it! Don't think about it...just defend yourself....just do it!

Could you truely do it?

[tallgeese]

I see your point, sensei8. I respectfully disagree, but only by a degree or two.

I think we definatly need to understand the consequences of our actions and accept them, not just train to react (which is important in its own right). This does a couple of things.

First off, it helps us generate responses to a good level of resonable force. Understanding what occurs helps us to gage responses, not just fall into a one size fits all "gouge the eye" reaction, that might not be proportional to the threat.

Reality checks need to occur both ways. First, from the standpoint of being a true "defender". In other words, understanding the moment when you are confronted by sudden, unexpected, violent, aggression and your autoresponses from there. Secondly, from the point of being an "attacker". In other words, if you've survived the inital "defense" point, you'll now become the attacker. Not in legal terms, but in mindset terms. You need to understand what you'll now be doing to this individual with whatever movements you elect to use against him, again, to gage your response to the threat he presented.

Obviously, it's best to sort all this out prior to actaully being confronted with a scenario. That way, you can respond on auto pilot and effecicently defend yourself. Except now you're doing it with a full understanding of all aspects of the combat.

Secondly, having you're head around the effects of weapons you're using in combat, and indeed violent outcomes in general, you'll be less likely to have adverse reactions to what you had to do later. This knowledge and acceptacne can help to stave off (but not completely insulate one) from PTSD.

So, to sum up my feelings, your reactions should be automatic. You should spontaneously react to assult without thought. However, these must be temepered by pre-fight studies in the effects of combat and it's outcomes.

[Scott_LIFE180]

I would take part (preferably without the acting) but also question why we are doing this sort of training. Is it really important to learn how it may feel to gouge someones eye out? There are many other things that one can do instead of gouging out the eye.

Face it, if you have the free hand, the range of motion and the skill to penetrate and possibly pluck out an eye, you have the free hand, the range of motion and the skill to deliver a strike to your opponents throat or the bridge of their nose.

There is something to be said about self control here in my opinion.

I'm no Army Ranger but with my 5 years that I put in with in the Corps we were taught to use an escalation of force. No need to shoot someone when a simple verbal command will suffice.

The level in which you escalate a fight, even if you are the defender should be directly proportional to the threat you are facing. Leathal force for Leathal threats.

It is all about your situation, one could list scenario after senario and debate endlessly.

You will never use a technique like this in a competition, you will never use it in a ring/cage fight, the average person will never be in a situation where their only hope of survival is to pluck out or gouge the eye of their attacker. So why train for it? Instead focus on things that would be applicable to reasonable scenarios.

[tallgeese]

I agree about the levels you elect to use. I think you train it because it's a good tool and you could end up at a place to have to use it.

[ps1]

I think this thread is important in that it addresses just how messy an eye gouge is. I know alot of instructors who don't even bother to teach it to many because they know the person wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to actually execute the technique.

[sensei8]

I think we definatly need to understand the consequences of our actions and accept them, not just train to react (which is important in its own right).

You're absolutely correct. Our humanity must be seen in our actions within the Martial Arts! When that isn't accepted by the will of my attacker...then it's time to just react.