gyaku tsuki, head or body

[brickshooter]

IMO, the head is harder to hit but requires less force to damage. The body is easier to hit but requires more force to damage.

Therefore, the tactic should be to attack the body with 100% effort. And while he's gasping for air and hunched over with his hands aound his stomach or groin, finish him with a head strike.

Gyaku Tsuki to the body.

Then Oi Tsuki to the head.

[sojobo]

IMO, the head is harder to hit but requires less force to damage. The body is easier to hit but requires more force to damage.

Therefore, the tactic should be to attack the body with 100% effort. And while he's gasping for air and hunched over with his hands aound his stomach or groin, finish him with a head strike.

Gyaku Tsuki to the body.

Then Oi Tsuki to the head.

Hhmm,

Personally, if I can walk (or run) away safely - without having to strike someone in the head on multiple occasions to "finish him" as you put it - that would always be my preferred option.

Not sure about the law in the US, but here in the UK, we have something called "reasonable force".

Sojobo

[Slayer2004]

I agree totoally, and even the Uk ruling of reasonable force, as Karateka are we not meant to defend ourselves and walk away as early as possible? In my mind if I can defend myself and not have to do anything back at all then I have achieved what i was trained to do.

That being said a gyak in my mind would be best served to the body due to the skull being one of the strongest bones in the human body and therefore potentially being something that could leave you more injured than they are. Which would defeat the object of your intention. Also the fact that you are more able to repel an attacker with a body blow that could be less damaging to them. We are not there to cause as much damage as possible but to perhaps warn them that their chosen path is not one of advisement and to make them rethink their choice?

You may disgree, but I would love to hear peoples views as I am open minded and happy to listen to another take on this.

[brickshooter]

IMO, the head is harder to hit but requires less force to damage. The body is easier to hit but requires more force to damage.

Therefore, the tactic should be to attack the body with 100% effort. And while he's gasping for air and hunched over with his hands aound his stomach or groin, finish him with a head strike.

Gyaku Tsuki to the body.

Then Oi Tsuki to the head.

Hhmm,

Personally, if I can walk (or run) away safely - without having to strike someone in the head on multiple occasions to "finish him" as you put it - that would always be my preferred option.

Not sure about the law in the US, but here in the UK, we have something called "reasonable force".

Sojobo

If one can run in self-defense, one should run even if it means losing face. But often, one can't run. Rapists and muggers are often noncompliant.

Instead of dumbing down Karate, I prefer full instructions and allow the student to decide for themselves what reasonable force is. Afterall, it's their lives that's on the line when they're attacked on the streets.

But none of this is relevant. The question asked was not what should one do in a self defense nor is what is the legal standard of reasonable force.

The question asked was which is the better strategy, an attack to the body or head.

[sojobo]

If one can run in self-defense, one should run even if it means losing face. But often, one can't run. Rapists and muggers are often noncompliant.

I couldn't agree more - well apart from the losing face thing - why would saving your backside by running away -be looked at as "losing face"? I was simply referring to your earlier post where you commented on someone being doubled over gasping for breath after you had done your bit on them (there is your compliancy right there) and at that point you want to still hit them repeatedly in the head!!!

Instead of dumbing down Karate, I prefer full instructions and allow the student to decide for themselves what reasonable force is. After all, it's their lives that's on the line when they're attacked on the streets.

Teaching students the full implication of their actions is in no way dumbing down Karate (from a technical or moral perspective). In fact it is often teaching the most common sense and efficient approach. What if - whilst you were busy "finishing off" your opponent - his mates turn up.

But none of this is relevant. The question asked was not what should one do in a self defense nor is what is the legal standard of reasonable force.

The question asked was which is the better strategy, an attack to the body or head.

Karate is Karate at the end of the day -there is no differentiation imo.

Sojobo

[brickshooter]

If one can run in self-defense, one should run even if it means losing face. But often, one can't run. Rapists and muggers are often noncompliant.

I couldn't agree more - well apart from the losing face thing - why would saving your backside by running away -be looked at as "losing face"? I was simply referring to your earlier post where you commented on someone being doubled over gasping for breath after you had done your bit on them (there is your compliancy right there) and at that point you want to still hit them repeatedly in the head!!!

Instead of dumbing down Karate, I prefer full instructions and allow the student to decide for themselves what reasonable force is. After all, it's their lives that's on the line when they're attacked on the streets.

Teaching students the full implication of their actions is in no way dumbing down Karate (from a technical or moral perspective). In fact it is often teaching the most common sense and efficient approach. What if - whilst you were busy "finishing off" your opponent - his mates turn up.

But none of this is relevant. The question asked was not what should one do in a self defense nor is what is the legal standard of reasonable force.

The question asked was which is the better strategy, an attack to the body or head.

Karate is Karate at the end of the day -there is no differentiation imo.

Sojobo

If I'm attacked, I'm knocking the attacker out in the least amount of time possible. The first strike pulls his hands down. The second strike finishes him off. If not, then add a third.

You could throw all the theoretical scenarios in there all you want and talk about philosophy and morality, but when threatenned with great bodily harm, I'll take my chances in court rather than 6 feet under.

[sojobo]

Well that depends on whether you need to be hell bent on knocking someone unconscious to stop them - maybe sometimes you do?

This scenario though is different to the earlier one I was replying to - that alludes to repeatedly striking some one in the head after you have knocked the stuffing out of them.

That's gbh (in most peoples book) - arguably attempted murder.

As martial artists isn't our training supposed to better condition us (mentally and physically) and therefore help us avoid falling into this trap?

Sojobo

[brickshooter]

Well that depends on whether you need to be hell bent on knocking someone unconscious to stop them - maybe sometimes you do?

This scenario though is different to the earlier one I was replying to - that alludes to repeatedly striking some one in the head after you have knocked the stuffing out of them.

That's gbh (in most peoples book) - arguably attempted murder.

As martial artists isn't our training supposed to better condition us (mentally and physically) and therefore help us avoid falling into this trap?

Sojobo

You're going to have an extremely difficult time proving that a person punching an attacker in self defense while the attacker is still standing as attempted murder. That's if the DA even decides to prosecute. Had I swept the attacker and stompted him while he lies on the ground, then you may have a case.

But even then, prosecutors will likely skip my case since there are more important cases such as actual murder and robberies to go after. A district attorney who is an elected official in the US isn't going to be re-elected for wasting taxpayer money prosecuting ordinary people using excessive force in their own self defense rather than go after rapists and murderers.

Such is the reality of a limited budget criminal law system. A legal recourse may be brought via the civil sytem. And even then, it is unlikely that the jury will be sympathetic to an attacker. He better look and act like Mother Theresa to have a chance in hell of prevailing.

As a martial artist, I have two modes. Before the swinging starts, I always assume that I'm wrong. I will apologize profusely to the point of embarassing myself. But once I reasonaby feel that my life is in danger. Either the attacker is going down. Or I'm going down.

[sojobo]

Well that depends on whether you need to be hell bent on knocking someone unconscious to stop them - maybe sometimes you do?

This scenario though is different to the earlier one I was replying to - that alludes to repeatedly striking some one in the head after you have knocked the stuffing out of them.

That's gbh (in most peoples book) - arguably attempted murder.

As martial artists isn't our training supposed to better condition us (mentally and physically) and therefore help us avoid falling into this trap?

Sojobo

You're going to have an extremely difficult time proving that a person punching an attacker in self defense while the attacker is still standing as attempted murder. That's if the DA even decides to prosecute. Had I swept the attacker and stompted him while he lies on the ground, then you may have a case.

But even then, prosecutors will likely skip my case since there are more important cases such as actual murder and robberies to go after. A district attorney who is an elected official in the US isn't going to be re-elected for wasting taxpayer money prosecuting ordinary people using excessive force in their own self defense rather than go after rapists and murderers.

Such is the reality of a limited budget criminal law system. A legal recourse may be brought via the civil sytem. And even then, it is unlikely that the jury will be sympathetic to an attacker. He better look and act like Mother Theresa to have a chance in hell of prevailing.

As a martial artist, I have two modes. Before the swinging starts, I always assume that I'm wrong. I will apologize profusely to the point of embarassing myself. But once I reasonaby feel that my life is in danger. Either the attacker is going down. Or I'm going down.

Interesting,

As I understand it - here in the UK at least - if you kick someone in the head when they are on the floor, irrespective of what they have done to you - that "could" be viewed as attempted murder.

But even if the your assailant (in your original scenario) is not fully floored, surely by virtue of the fact you have "incapacitated" him with the preceding body blows - that constitutes a similar intent?

Frankly, I am not that bothered (and I amnot a lawyer), but what you seem to be promoting (whether legal or not) is wrong, not good sd and certainly not Karate as I understand it imo.

But to each their own.

Sojobo

[Benkyou]

I never practise Shotokan Karate but

If Chudan or Jodan is not clarify in Gyaku Tsuki... You can decide ?

In Kyokushinkai, i see in my technique program :

Seiken Jodan Gyaku Tsuki...

Seiken Chudan Gyaku Tsuki...