One punch, one kill?

[thesensei]

Well, I can't seem to find a thread devoted to this subject. I'm interested in hearing opinions from everyone on this. I've recently begun working out with a black belt in tang soo do. He's very good, generates very good power and speed. We come from very different martial arts background, so it produces very good discussion and discovery for both of us. Our recent discussions have been around this idea.

He holds a "one punch, one kill" philosophy - stated in those words. My studies have focused more on striking to get a certain body reaction which sets up for the next strike... I can see certain merits for the idea of "one punch, one kill," but I wonder....

What do you all think about it??

Salute,
Jeremiah

[don bohrer]

Jeremiah,

I believe it simply means to focus for maximum effect in each technique. I also find the thought related to "KIME". I may be wrong through.

KIME
This term means focusing mental and physical power. Kime is a combination of the basics of karate: strong stance, use of hara (the centre of a body), effective movement patterns, relaxation, strength, timing and strong will. If you want to achieve a good kime, you have to give everything that you have, both in your body and mind. It takes several years to find and to develop the inner energy that you need in order to master your kime.

What do you think?


don

[arnisador]

When I studied Isshin-ryu they really emphasized the one punch, one kill philosophy (ikken hisatsu, I believe). I no longer buy it. People move around too much. It may be a good goal to train for--maybe--but I don't believe it'll often happen.

I prefer looking to set things up as you indicate.

Incidentally, I was surprised how much turned up in a Yahoo! search for "one punch one kill (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22one+punch+one+kill%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-top&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt)".

[don bohrer]

The statement is misleading and I doubt the person that coined the phrase meant it the way we take it today. I believe it's more of a training tool.

don

[Shiatsu]

I don't believe it. It is kind of like the no touch knock outs in my book. I would say it is more luck if it does happen.

[SenseiBear]

I also think it is a focusing tool. Hit them hard enough to kill them. Like punching through the target. It can happen, for sure - we aren't 3rd graders rolling around on the playground anymore. As adults, especially those who train to deliver strikes, when you start to hit people, they can die.

For defending yourself, it is a good mindset to have. I plan to kill the b@$t@rd with one hit... Then I hit him one one one one one one, etc.

[Cthulhu]

Ideally, one strike would end the fight. Realistically, you better be prepared for that not happening. :)

I don't find a problem with training with that mindset, as long as 'what if I miss?' is also covered.

Cthulhu

[pknox]

I also think of it is a training tool -- more for motivation than anything else. I was always taught to believe it meant making your strike as effective and damaging as possible, by imagining it is the last one you will have. In other words, don't go at it with half commitment, saving effort for the next strike. If the strike is effective enough, there won't be a need for a second strike. That however, doesn't mean you shouldn't be ready and able to deliver one. I liken it to weightlifting, when someone doesn't go "all out" on a set because he is pacing himself for the next. That's what is trying to be prevented.

As far as practicality, I myself have yet to hit someone once and had a fight end at that, and have rarely seen it happen to others. In cases where it did, usually either the person being hit was intoxicated, there was a very large size and/or ability difference between the two, the "hit" involved an object as opposed to a fist/foot, or the person being hit was surprised by the hit ("sucker punch").

[Cruentus]

It's good to make every technique count; as if that technique will be the one to end the conflict. It would be great if 1 technique is the one to end it. This cannot be relied on, because most likely it will take more then 1 move.

So you must always be prepared to counter, and counter the counter. If your not, then your self defense isn't based on reality.

[arnisador]

Originally posted by don bohrer
The statement is misleading and I doubt the person that coined the phrase meant it the way we take it today. I believe it's more of a training tool.

I'be wondered this myself--but then I've seen people killing/dehorning bulls to show their prowess at it. I wonder what the old-timers really thought?

[Ender]

I think maybe one punch CAN kill, but why take a chance. Hit 'em again.

[kenpo2dabone]

To kill a person with one punch I feel is sort of a myth. It would be very difficult to say the least. However we do hear, from time to time, about teenagers playing that game where you punch your friend in the chest for fun and the next thing you know your friend is dead. I was an aquaintence of someone in highschool that this happened to so I know it is possable. I feel that this type of thing is a fluke. The person who punched the other person got "lucky" or "unlucky" depending on how you look at it. I think the term "One punch, One kill" has better meaning if it is interpreted as "one hit, end of fight". This I feal is more valid though it is not what I practice. However, I have actually ended a fight that I was in with one solid punch to the soloplexis. My attacker dropped to his knees and his friend turned and briskly walked away. So one punch ended a fight potentially against two poeple. I don't feel lucky that I got the punch in solidly but I do feel lucky that the fight ended with that one punch. I think a better question might be...where would you hit someone if you intended to kill them with that strike? My first instinct wold be the temple. So if I were to train to kill with one strike I would only train to strike to the temple. To me it is not realistic enough to be focused on one target in a confrontation. Plus I don't see a need to take a persons life in an empty handed attack against my person. I know plenty of other ways to incapacitate my would be attacker with out taking their life. I don't think my conscience could handle it if I did. If, for some reason, I did feel the need to take the life of my attacker, though I can't really think of anything that would make me feel that way, I would go for a neck break instead and be sure of the outcome rather than rely on a strike that may or may not work.

Just few thought on the subject,

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

[stickarts]

Although the "one punch kill" has not been my approach to training, i have worked with people that had the speed, explosion, and strength to be able to do it. By this I mean the strike would disable, knockout, or kill.
I think many different approaches can work depending upon the skill of the practioner.

[MJS]

In the perfect world, yeah, it might work, but we dont live in that perfect world. Nobody is gonna stand there and let you hit them. If you are moving around, which I'm sure you will be, that in itself will make it hard to hit the person. IMO, in order for that to work, you need to hit them in just the right spot, which, like I said, if you're moving, is going to be difficult.

Mike

[Shiatsu]

Not for the George Dillman groups. They can hit a specific spot any time.;)

[MJS]

Originally posted by Shiatsu
Not for the George Dillman groups. They can hit a specific spot any time.;)

Yup, and thats due to the fact that the guy is standing still!!! Every time you see Dillman doing a KO, the guy is standing there. What is that?? To get the desired results of these points, which are not that big, you need to pretty much be right on target. PP's are going to work best if someone is grabbing you, but you cant tell me that its going to be easy with someone moving around.

Mike

[don bohrer]

I'be wondered this myself--but then I've seen people killing/dehorning bulls to show their prowess at it. I wonder what the old-timers really thought?

I have read stories like this too Arnisador. I also remember stories of swordsmen practicing on prisioners. Executing with a single clean cut! However the realization that the prisioners were restrained doesn't get much attention. I wonder how many details on these stories are left out?


Another thought...

Ok, when we say one hit one kill what do we really mean? The obviously meaning is a blow so penetratingly powerful that it destroys tissue, and bone resulting in instant death. Could it also have represented an attack that caused death many days or weeks later? Lastly a finishing blow might not be the one that killed the fighter but rather one that was the turning point in a fight. The blow that rendered the fighter unable to defend.

don

[don bohrer]

Mike,

Skills like this are brain teasers for sure. To bad people that practice these techniques don't do them in live combat.



don

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
To kill a person with one punch I feel is sort of a myth. It would be very difficult to say the least. However we do hear, from time to time, about teenagers playing that game where you punch your friend in the chest for fun and the next thing you know your friend is dead. I was an aquaintence of someone in highschool that this happened to so I know it is possable. I feel that this type of thing is a fluke. The person who punched the other person got "lucky" or "unlucky" depending on how you look at it. I think the term "One punch, One kill" has better meaning if it is interpreted as "one hit, end of fight". This I feal is more valid though it is not what I practice. However, I have actually ended a fight that I was in with one solid punch to the soloplexis. My attacker dropped to his knees and his friend turned and briskly walked away. So one punch ended a fight potentially against two poeple. I don't feel lucky that I got the punch in solidly but I do feel lucky that the fight ended with that one punch. I think a better question might be...where would you hit someone if you intended to kill them with that strike? My first instinct wold be the temple. So if I were to train to kill with one strike I would only train to strike to the temple. To me it is not realistic enough to be focused on one target in a confrontation. Plus I don't see a need to take a persons life in an empty handed attack against my person. I know plenty of other ways to incapacitate my would be attacker with out taking their life. I don't think my conscience could handle it if I did. If, for some reason, I did feel the need to take the life of my attacker, though I can't really think of anything that would make me feel that way, I would go for a neck break instead and be sure of the outcome rather than rely on a strike that may or may not work.

Just few thought on the subject,

Salute,
Mike Miller UKF

I agree that it is a myth. Striking someone and killing them with one blow would mean someone with the strength of a gorilla and the speed of a striking rattler. You know the kind of guys you see in testosterone filled movies.
If it does happen then chances are the person has a weak heart or by freak timing the blow landed in between beats of the heart and shocked it (the heart) to immobility.
But as (Mike) said why would anyone do that in the first place? As martial artists we all should have the control so that it
doesn't happen. The high ranking Martial Artists on this board surely have enough common sense to know that killing someone when it isn't necessary is a waste of their training and skill. If a person warrants killing then do so but know exactly the situation going on before doing so. Do so when there is no alternative.

In his series Thomas Coveant The Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson wrote something that I found very useful. It's called the oath of peace:

Do not hurt where holding is enough, do not wound where hurting is enough, do not maim where wounding is enough, do not kill where maiming is enough, the greatest warrior is he who does not have to kill.

:asian:

[don bohrer]

In his series Thomas Coveant The Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson wrote something that I found very useful. It's called the oath of peace:

Do not hurt where holding is enough, do not wound where hurting is enough, do not maim where wounding is enough, do not kill where maiming is enough, the greatest warrior is he who does not have to kill.

MACaver
I loved that series... well all but the first 100 pages. Have you read anything else of Donaldson?

Ops not trying to get off topic


don

[kenpo_cory]

No one here has mentioned the fact that certain areas of the body do not need to be hit that hard to result in death. The main target that comes to mind is the throat. I've seen people get caught off guard and punched in the throat a few times, it didn't kill em but it didn't take much to drop em.

[Shinzu]

i think it would depend on where you hit your opponent. the one hit one kill theory is good to train by to focus all your energy into your attack. in reality it should be one hit one knockout. i practice tang soo do myself and it is a saying we have, but then again we really do not want to kill anyone unless we are facing death ourselves.

i guess it depends on how you read into it.

[RanaHarmamelda]

don bohrer

Try his short stories -- I love the Covenant series, but some of his short stories are even better.

By the way, did you know he practices Shotokan Karate? I think he's a 2nd Dan, but I may be wrong on that.

[MJS]

Originally posted by don bohrer
Mike,

Skills like this are brain teasers for sure. To bad people that practice these techniques don't do them in live combat.



don

I agree!!

Mike

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by MJS
Yup, and thats due to the fact that the guy is standing still!!! Every time you see Dillman doing a KO, the guy is standing there. What is that??

Quite right! If the guy is just standing there, then really what we get to see is blunt force trauma applied to a pressure point area.

However where you state
PP's are going to work best if someone is grabbing you, , I would have to say attacking you. It doesn't matter what the attack is, punch, kick, push or grab etc. pressure points work better so long as the intent is there and is manifested in the physical.


To get the desired results of these points, which are not that big, you need to pretty much be right on target.

Whilst this is true to some extent, I would say that in general it is more about the direction of your strike to a certain area than being 100% accurate with the strike. Also to attribute a certain reaction to a specific point, when your strike will most likely make contact with a whole bunch of points at the same time, could be little more than guess work.


but you cant tell me that its going to be easy with someone moving around.

Of course not, that's why you need to train hard consistently. It is like any martial art technique..... If you want to do it effectively, you have to train, train, train.
And it is just like learning any other martial art, in that you will be taught, "If someone does this, we will do such and such".
As a white belt you try to pull the new technique off in real time, but without a willing training partner, it doesn't happen.
So you train hard for years and one day someone attacks you and and when he did "this" you did "such and such" and it worked.
As Goldendragon7 has been heard to say, "SAM TING":D

--Dave

:asian:

[don bohrer]

RanaHarmamelda

I wonder if inspiration for the warriors in the covenant series came from his experiences in martials arts at an early age, or did his writings spark a desire take up an the art.

What were the warriors in his series called?


Mike, the oath is pretty cool.

Now I want to read the books again. Tomarrow it's B&N to pick up the 1st book.

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by don bohrer
RanaHarmamelda
I wonder if inspiration for the warriors in the covenant series came from his experiences in martials arts at an early age, or did his writings spark a desire take up an the art.
What were the warriors in his series called?
Mike, the oath is pretty cool.
Now I want to read the books again. Tomarrow it's B&N to pick up the 1st book.

This is a six part series and Covenant is a man that you'll either pity or hate. The first 100 pages clearly outlines exactly what's going on.
In order the series volume titles are: First series;
1. Lord Foul's Bane, 2. The Illearth War, 3. The Power That Preserves.
Second series; 1. The Wounded Land, 2. The One Tree, 3. White Gold Wielder.

Eoman were the name of a group of 20 warriors and the entire army was called a Warward. The Bloodguard were an entirely seperate group altogether being how they swore eternal fealty to Kevin Landwaster quite literally. They were clearly inspired by Donaldson's exposure to MA's as they use no weapons of any kind (ever) and fought with their bare hands and feet.

A great series... if you enjoyed reading Tolkiens' LOTR saga then you'll fit in nicely with Donaldson's saga of the Leper.

Ralph

[MJS]

Originally posted by D.Cobb
[quote]Quite right! If the guy is just standing there, then really what we get to see is blunt force trauma applied to a pressure point area.

True. I regards to the grabbing, while there is still going to be some moving, his arms are, unless he removes them, committed to that attack, therefore giving you an easier target.


However where you state , I would have to say attacking you. It doesn't matter what the attack is, punch, kick, push or grab etc. pressure points work better so long as the intent is there and is manifested in the physical.

In the Filipino arts, they have limb destruction. The goal is to deaden the arm to slow it down, and to allow you more time to attack. For example, hitting the bicep on the inner part of the arm. You have from the elbow to the armpit, giving you a pretty good size area to hit. With Dillmans theory, IMO, is to get a KO. You need to hit mult. spots in succession to set up the KO.




Of course not, that's why you need to train hard consistently. It is like any martial art technique..... If you want to do it effectively, you have to train, train, train.
And it is just like learning any other martial art, in that you will be taught, "If someone does this, we will do such and such".
As a white belt you try to pull the new technique off in real time, but without a willing training partner, it doesn't happen.
So you train hard for years and one day someone attacks you and and when he did "this" you did "such and such" and it worked.

True. But if you do it over and over again against someone that isnt moving, how is that going to help you?

Mike

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by MJS
True. I regards to the grabbing, while there is still going to be some moving, his arms are, unless he removes them, committed to that attack, therefore giving you an easier target.

Of course, which sets you up to do your thing.


In the Filipino arts, they have limb destruction. The goal is to deaden the arm to slow it down, and to allow you more time to attack. For example, hitting the bicep on the inner part of the arm. You have from the elbow to the armpit, giving you a pretty good size area to hit. With Dillmans theory, IMO, is to get a KO. You need to hit mult. spots in succession to set up the KO.

If the KO is your aim, then yes you do need to strike multiple points, but truthfully, in a self defense situation your aim should be to control the situation and get away with minimal harm to yourself. You can do this by hitting the points that will numb or deaden the arm or whatever.
That's my biggest beef with Mr. Dillman's demos, they always go for the KO. Why not just wobble the guy, then you can choose to hit him again or run away.



True. But if you do it over and over again against someone that isnt moving, how is that going to help you?

Exactly, that's why you need to practise on someone that wants to get in on you. Some one that is trying to take your head off, in the dojo, so that when it happens on the street, you are well prepared to deal with it effectively. Please don't ever think that I would condone what I call static training. If you aren't moving against me, then I'm not learning anything effective.



--Dave

:asian:

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by thesensei
Well, I can't seem to find a thread devoted to this subject. I'm interested in hearing opinions from everyone on this. I've recently begun working out with a black belt in tang soo do. He's very good, generates very good power and speed. We come from very different martial arts background, so it produces very good discussion and discovery for both of us. Our recent discussions have been around this idea.

He holds a "one punch, one kill" philosophy - stated in those words. My studies have focused more on striking to get a certain body reaction which sets up for the next strike... I can see certain merits for the idea of "one punch, one kill," but I wonder....

What do you all think about it??

Salute,
Jeremiah

Surprisingly, and contrary to what most people may think, it is not that hard to train for Killing punch. And you wouldn't sacrifice your fists in the process, as some ill-informed armchair martial stylists may mouth about. Today we have the medical knowledge to train and condition the fists without risking traumatic damage. With this been the internet, any person with any brain cell alive would not be so careless as to post openly about how to train for such deadly skills.

Needless to say, some targets may be quite vulnerable to "one punch one kill" while others may need more than one punch. Nevertheless, a solid blow the head can certainly kill with ease. A lot of people were killed with a lot less force in freak attack incidents and even simple, minor accidental falls.

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by KennethKu
Surprisingly, and contrary to what most people may think, it is not that hard to train for Killing punch. And you wouldn't sacrifice your fists in the process, as some ill-informed armchair martial stylists may mouth about. Today we have the medical knowledge to train and condition the fists without risking traumatic damage. With this been the internet, any person with any brain cell alive would not be so careless as to post openly about how to train for such deadly skills.

Needless to say, some targets may be quite vulnerable to "one punch one kill" while others may need more than one punch. Nevertheless, a solid blow the head can certainly kill with ease. A lot of people were killed with a lot less force in freak attack incidents and even simple, minor accidental falls.

I don't buy it. You never know what could happend. Someone could die when you punch them, or not. It doesn't matter how much "you trained your fists," You could punch someone and they coud die, or they could look at you and laugh also, despite your training. And of course some targets are more vulnerable then others. To think that you have the secret one punch killing technique in your art (I am not saying you think this Kenneth 'per say,' I am speaking more generally here) is a false sense of security, in my opinion.

Now there may be methods of training that will make your strike more effective; more likely to "kill." However, why not explain it online? How is it irresponsible? If some psycho is going to go out and kill, they are going to do so with gun, knife, or whatever, regardless of what we say here on MartialTalk. Also, you can detail every method of training online that you want; but to make it effective, you still have to TRAIN the method, which is not easily done on ones own. So, when someone says "I can't tell you the secret training method online because it is too deadly" I tend to see this as a cop-out.

So...if you have a method that will enhance your striking skill/power that you would like to share, then please do so. If not, then please refrain from alluding that you have some "secret training method" that you can't tell us about. We inferior martial artists without the secrets have fragile ego's, and we can't take that sort of thing! :rolleyes:

Sorry to be a D**k,

PAUL

[MJS]

Originally posted by KennethKu
[quote]Surprisingly, and contrary to what most people may think, it is not that hard to train for Killing punch. And you wouldn't sacrifice your fists in the process, as some ill-informed armchair martial stylists may mouth about. Today we have the medical knowledge to train and condition the fists without risking traumatic damage. With this been the internet, any person with any brain cell alive would not be so careless as to post openly about how to train for such deadly skills.

Gotta disagree with this one. First, hitting the head can injure your hand. Second, not everybody out there conditions their hands by doing iron palm training.

Mike

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by PAUL
I don't buy it. You never know what could happend. Someone could die when you punch them, or not. It doesn't matter how much "you trained your fists," You could punch someone and they coud die, or they could look at you and laugh also, despite your training. And of course some targets are more vulnerable then others. To think that you have the secret one punch killing technique in your art (I am not saying you think this Kenneth 'per say,' I am speaking more generally here) is a false sense of security, in my opinion.

Now there may be methods of training that will make your strike more effective; more likely to "kill." However, why not explain it online? How is it irresponsible? If some psycho is going to go out and kill, they are going to do so with gun, knife, or whatever, regardless of what we say here on MartialTalk. Also, you can detail every method of training online that you want; but to make it effective, you still have to TRAIN the method, which is not easily done on ones own. So, when someone says "I can't tell you the secret training method online because it is too deadly" I tend to see this as a cop-out.

So...if you have a method that will enhance your striking skill/power that you would like to share, then please do so. If not, then please refrain from alluding that you have some "secret training method" that you can't tell us about. We inferior martial artists without the secrets have fragile ego's, and we can't take that sort of thing! :rolleyes:

Sorry to be a D**k,

PAUL

A. There are methods to condition your hands. The result is hardened fists with crushing power. The methods are only "secretive" too those who are not aware of them.

B. I am sorry that my post has been perceived as a cop-out. Nonetheless, my position stands. I am not here to puff my ego, nor to promote anything. I just feel that there is some valuable factual information worth sharing. There is also the need to balance the responsiblity that comes with the territory. Whatever some psycho may want to do, at least it wouldn't be on my conscience as I have not contibuted to the crime. I understand the unpleasant feeling generated by holding back. For that I am sorry.

If it would make you feel better, then the Admin may feel free to delete my previous post .

C. What I have stated in my previous post, is factually correct. You can train your fists to harden them and to increase punching power, so as to deliver bone crushing blows. All without causing trauma to your bones, tendons or joints.

If people disagree, that is fine with me. Couldn't care less. (I don't mean this to be a bad ass attitude. It is just that I simply don't have the time to care.)

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by MJS
Gotta disagree with this one. First, hitting the head can injure your hand. Second, not everybody out there conditions their hands by doing iron palm training.

Mike

That is why you NEED to condition your hands properly so as to harden them gradually. I can assure you that with proper training, your fists would have no problem cracking a head (not that you would want to).

[Cruentus]

If it would make you feel better, then the Admin may feel free to delete my previous post .

No need for that; I am not an Admin 1st of all, and second of all I don't think you were inappropriate or anything like that. I just disagreed w/ you, thats all.

I disagree with the notion that any type of "killing 1st strike" can be relied on, no matter how well you train your hands, body, and skills. I think that this notion is a false sense of power. The nature of the human body is too volitle; it is stronger and more resilient then we think at times, and weaker and more fragile then we think at other times to predict what will occur when you hit a person. Plus, situations and circumstances are too volitle; you don't know what the other guy is going to do, what the circumstance will be, etc., etc.

I also disagree with the notion of stating you know a specialized training method which you attest to being effective w/o being able to give any information regarding that method. I can understand why you might not want to give training details on the net, but I don't have to agree.

Thank you,

PAUL

[arnisador]

I split the discussion on War Atrocities off to a thread in The Study:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10541

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

[rmcrobertson]

"Journal of Asian Martial Arts," just published something on Iron Palm training, too.

But I tend to agree that any single training like this is going to have its limits.

Or to quote somebody I know, "I'll start teaching students to punch through anything when people start running around wearing bamboo armor again."

[MJS]

Originally posted by PAUL
[quote]I disagree with the notion that any type of "killing 1st strike" can be relied on, no matter how well you train your hands, body, and skills. I think that this notion is a false sense of power. The nature of the human body is too volitle; it is stronger and more resilient then we think at times, and weaker and more fragile then we think at other times to predict what will occur when you hit a person. Plus, situations and circumstances are too volitle; you don't know what the other guy is going to do, what the circumstance will be, etc., etc.

I agree! To think that you're gonna be able to drop someone with one shot is something that IMO, a chance that I dont want to take! Yeah, you might get lucky and hit the guy right on the button, but again, the key word here is "LUCK"


I also disagree with the notion of stating you know a specialized training method which you attest to being effective w/o being able to give any information regarding that method. I can understand why you might not want to give training details on the net, but I don't have to agree.

As for the training, I dont think that there is any ancient secret either. Also, not everybody is going to do that, and IMO, I dont think that it is necessary for everybody to do in order to develop that tough fist. If I'm close enough to reach someone, I'd rather use an elbow rather than my fist. Why risk hurting my hand, when I can hit the guy with something harder?

Mike

[kenpo2dabone]

I have had some exposure to Iron Palm. My understanding of it is that you use particular oils or ointments and rub them into your hands. Then you strike a burlap bag of raw beans in a specific order such that you strike using all portions of each hand. After a certain amount of time doing this on regular basis you then use a different type of material to strike that is tougher than the bag of beans and you keep graduating to harder and harder materials to strike. Over the coarse of several hours, days weeks months or even years the skin on your hand is suppose to harden and become very tough. Similar to a giant callus (sorry if i did not spell that correctly). I tried it for a little while and liked it but I felt that I got the same type of feeling from just doing lots of heavy bag work on canvas and leather bags. Therefore, I did not see the benefits to adding another 20 minutes a day to my training regiment. Nor did I feel that it would have enhanced my ability to strike with deadly force. Again I have to point out that my expposure to it was fairly short lived. Being a Kenpo practitioner, I feel that increasing speed and strength and more inportantly striving to strike with correct anatomical alighnment of ones self is really the only way to increase power. Simply toughening the hands will not add power to your stike. However, it will decrease the amount of damage your hand may potentialy sustain as a result of the strike. This may result in having more confidence in striking the harder parts of the human anatomy thus allowing one to strike with their full power not having to worrry about injuring themselves in the process.

On a side note,

MJS,


You mentioned that if you could reach someone you would rather hit them with your elbow rather than your hand. Why risk hurting your hand when you can hit them with something harder.

I would just like to say that just because someone is within your reach does not mean that you they are with in the reach of your elbow. Therefore, the elbow is not alwaysan option. I noticed that Kenpo is one of the arts that you practice so you should be able to understand the four rings principle. The four rings being the four ranges of each of your weapons. When a person is inrange of your foot they are not necessarily in range of your hand. when they are in range of your hand they are not necessarily in range of your knee. When they are inrange of your knee they are not necessarily in range of your elbow. This is just something i thought I would point out.

Salute,

Mike Miller UKF

[MJS]

Originally posted by kenpo2dabone
[quote]On a side note,

MJS,


You mentioned that if you could reach someone you would rather hit them with your elbow rather than your hand. Why risk hurting your hand when you can hit them with something harder.

I would just like to say that just because someone is within your reach does not mean that you they are with in the reach of your elbow. Therefore, the elbow is not alwaysan option. I noticed that Kenpo is one of the arts that you practice so you should be able to understand the four rings principle. The four rings being the four ranges of each of your weapons. When a person is inrange of your foot they are not necessarily in range of your hand. when they are in range of your hand they are not necessarily in range of your knee. When they are inrange of your knee they are not necessarily in range of your elbow. This is just something i thought I would point out.

Very true. I like to kick. I feel confident kicking, so yes, if thats an option, I'll do it. I dont however, want to stand there and box with someone. I feel more comfortable closing the distance, and using close range tools or take the person to the ground.

Mike

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by PAUL
[B]No need for that; I am not an Admin 1st of all, and second of all I don't think you were inappropriate or anything like that. I just disagreed w/ you, thats all.

I disagree with the notion that any type of "killing 1st strike" can be relied on, no matter how well you train your hands, body, and skills. I think that this notion is a false sense of power. The nature of the human body is too volitle; it is stronger and more resilient then we think at times, and weaker and more fragile then we think at other times to predict what will occur when you hit a person. Plus, situations and circumstances are too volitle; you don't know what the other guy is going to do, what the circumstance will be, etc., etc.


It was NOT about relying on executing JUST one single punch to save your ass. Rather, it is about conditioning to achieve such power and hardness that EVEN one SINGLE punch is ENOUGH to KO. That was and is the original intent.

The objective is to train to achieve such attainment that you have the ability to execute One Punch One Kill.




I also disagree with the notion of stating you know a specialized training method which you attest to being effective w/o being able to give any information regarding that method. I can understand why you might not want to give training details on the net, but I don't have to agree.

Thank you,
PAUL

Not a problem. I am not here to present myself as knowing anything. This isn't high school anymore. Back then, you are what other teenagers say you are. In real life, you are what you are, not what others think or say you are.

All I was saying was that there are modern training methods that allow you to train safely to achive One Punch One Kill. It is NOT important that anyone believe I possess such knowledge or not. This is NOT about me.

People are free to continue to assume that One Punch One Kill is impossible and no such training method exists. All the same to me.

[stickarts]

That is the same idea that some folks had that i used to train with. They weren't throwing one punch and stopping! They were quite capable of throwing great combinations. it was just the thought that their first technique was thrown with authority and they trained to develop amazing explosiveness and power.
the course that this thread has taken was not their idea at all.
i remember having huge bruises on my arms because even blocking the techniques caused damage, and that was using control and not using full power!
Their intent was that their first shot was to cause extreme damage but they were quite capable of following up with additional techniques when necessary.
My approach is different, but their approach sure worked! not saying its for everyone!
I have have seen many different approaches to fighting work if the skill of the practitioner was there.

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by KennethKu
It was NOT about relying on executing JUST one single punch to save your ass. Rather, it is about conditioning to achieve such power and hardness that EVEN one SINGLE punch is ENOUGH to KO. That was and is the original intent.


I see. Now that you have clarified further, I better understand. You can train your body to where the possibility better exists that you can KO or Kill w/ one strike; I can agree with this. I thought you were advocating relying on 1 single save your ass punch, which I couldn't agree with.

[SenseiBear]

I did a few years of mild Iron Hand conditioning, just enough to increase the size and density of my primary striking knuckles to the point where I wouldn't have to worry what target I was striking - and did it without any serious traumatic injuries... Though now that I have not been training my hand for several years I sometimes suffer from soft tissue damage when I demonstrate. And while I think hand hardening is a practice you can undertake without serious traumatic damage, I also believe that you risk arthritis later in life any time you encourage bone callousing of a joint. That being said, I'm glad I did it and would do it again (though you may ask me in another 20 years and I may change my mind)

I have several times in my life dropped an opponent with a single blow. It was never my intention, they just collapsed before I got the second strike off (or as I was impacting the second time, but it was clearly the first shot that did it). If you train your hands to be hard, and practice delivering impacts, I think you can increase the chance of dropping someone with a single blow. I would never plan on it, as I said in my earlier post, keep hitting till they're down, but sometimes it happens... And sometimes it can happen that a person will die. MA is a dangerous activity, and sometimes people are killed. If you are fighting bare knuckles and over half contact, it is more likely to happen.

But I don't think you can train so that you are certain that you can kill a person with one punch... Nothing is certain.

[Brother John]

In Kenpo Karate we emphasize the difference between Major and Minor Moves.
The one punch kill? Yes, prefixed by minor moves... suffixed with minor/major moves... leading to more.
It all flows together.
Your Brother
John

[7starmantis]

My only thoughts about the principle of it all, is that if you are focused on one punch- one kill, what happens when you miss that one punch? What if the opponent has some skill and yields and ends up behind you with a nice elbow to the head, what then? I think it can fog your vision of what to do. Sure, we all hope that our first initial move will end the fight, and in reality against a non MA person, it probably would, but it might not. you have to be ready to move from technique to technique simultaneously if one doesn't work.

7sm

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm not going to rely on one punch.

Even in pistolcraft they teach double tap to the heart, one between the running lights if there is a failure to stop.

However, I think the "one punch, one kill" philosophy is just that...a philosophy designed to get you to think efficiently, to draw maximum power out of each technique, and to go for perfection of form...this is good.

It turns BAD when people start posing their technique ala Bruce Lee in "The Chinese Connection", hoping that the opponent will fall down dramatically after being popped. We all know that doesn't happen with the frequency we would like to see (provided WE'RE the ones doing the hitting, and not the receiving). We end up missing, or we end up hitting with less than optimal effect. Don't you hate it when you whack a guy and he just snarls at you?

Regards,

Steve Scott

[Shinzu]

i think it is more of a mindset than a reality.

it's the focus that counts. be prepared to use more than one attack, but have the mentality that you can win with just one hit.

[7starmantis]

In our system, if my first attack knocks you out clean, your still going to get four or five more before your body hits the ground. Its just the way our system works, and its pretty effective.

7sm

[Brother John]

Originally posted by Shinzu
i think it is more of a mindset than a reality.

it's the focus that counts. be prepared to use more than one attack, but have the mentality that you can win with just one hit.
Yes, good point.
But don't you agree that the training (our root in reality) is guided by and is a manifestation of our mindset?
SO: if the mindset isn't in-line with reality... then what?

Your Brother
John

[Touch Of Death]

My instructor has seen two people die from a single punch at tournaments. Both deaths were attributable to the fact that the punchers also had there foot planted on top of their opponents foot while punching. Sucks to be them! Position seems to be the key factor on punching results. Don't ya think?

[arnisador]

It seems like most deaths from a single punch actually occur when the head hist the floor, not when the punch hits the person. Irrelevant to the punchee, of course...

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by arnisador
It seems like most deaths from a single punch actually occur when the head hist the floor, not when the punch hits the person. Irrelevant to the punchee, of course...
That isn't the case with the deaths my instructor witnessed, but I understand your point.

[RanaHarmamelda]

Hmm. Been thinking about this an inordinate amount, recently...mostly because I've started some karate training.

Kinda decided it's a lot more simple than most people seem to be thinking.

Do it right the first time -- you may not get another chance.

Knowing a little about Funakoshi, this sounds like the sort of life lesson he would have tried to sum up in karate terms. Although, not certain if this ever came out of his mouth. *shrug*

At any rate, I think its the fairly simple, broad, do it right the first time idea, only stated in karate terms.

[Brother John]

Originally posted by RanaHarmamelda
Do it right the first time -- you may not get another chance.

At any rate, I think its the fairly simple, broad, do it right the first time idea, only stated in karate terms.

I couldn't agree more that we, as Karateka, must concentrate on making certain of the quality of each and every stroke...
BUT: if you follow the "one punch / one kill" ideology to it's logical conclusion in how it affects your training or the makeup of your techniques themselves... then you have no back-up, or little.

I trained in hard Karate styles for years and am very familiar with the "one punch / one kill" way of thinking... and then I got into a fight and my "one punch" only served to kill my illusion.
I understand what you are talking about, do it right... might not get a second chance...
BUT what about one technique leading/flowing into the next, and then the next.... to run the table just like in a game of pool?
Seems a bit more realistic.

Your Brother
John

[hardheadjarhead]

and then I got into a fight and my "one punch" only served to kill my illusion.

Gee, that was well put. I'm going to have to use that one!



Regards,

Steve

[Brother John]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Gee, that was well put. I'm going to have to use that one!



Regards,

Steve
But it'll cost ya a dalla first...

;)
Your Bro.
John

[RanaHarmamelda]

Yeah -- you have a point. *grin* Truth be told, it's like most other karate philosophical statements -- take it with a big grain of salt. :)

[psi_radar]

Gotta admit I lack the killer instinct. Rather than developing a "killing blow," my goal as a martial artist is to develop the control necessary to ensure I can hurt, incapacitate, and injure at will without resorting to deadly force, yet still protect myself and the ones I care about. Everyone is somebody's baby--even if that person is a total SOB their death will make someone grieve.

Do you guys (and ladies) train to kill or incapacitate?

On a side note, I think our whole society has started to accept death as a natural consequence of altercations, especially when handguns are involved. I remember a day when police tried to "wing" fleeing suspects rather than turning them into swiss cheese. It probably has something to do with the preference of high-capacity automatics over double-action revolvers as well as a cheapening of life in general.

[Brother John]

gotta admit, you made me think.
darn you! :shrug:
Do I train to Kill?
Yes, I guess I do. Some of the techniques that I practice would easily kill a person were I to do them that way on a human.
I'm not a violence oriented person. Seem strange coming from a Knepoist/martial artist? It's not, I don't think. I'd hate to ever have to kill a person. I take human life as sacred, mine... theirs, everyone's (I'm everyone's "Brother"). But if they are trying to take mine or harm some one I care for.... or an inocent.... IF I must kill, I'd want to be good at it.
To me it all comes down to adaptation. In biology we learn that the organism that can adapt to its circumstances/environment... survives, the organism that does it best... thrives.
I want to thrive.
IF I must hurt, I'll hurt well.
IF I must injure, I'll injure well.
IF I must incapacitate or maim, I'll do those well.
IF I Must kill....

You get the point.
I want to train for all the options so that I have a choice.
Your Brother
John

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by psi_radar


Do you guys (and ladies) train to kill or incapacitate?

Actualy yes. Even if I only block a punch, I secretly hope a blood clot will go strait to his brain. :)

[psi_radar]

Actualy yes. Even if I only block a punch, I secretly hope a blood clot will go strait to his brain.

I think you need to drop whatever you're taking and train at Professor Xavier's School for the Unusually Gifted--though I hear sensei Magneto has branched off and formed his own school, and he's the master of blood manipulation.

I get the sarcasm, and I may have miscommunicated--I'm not being holier-than-thou. Just curious as to what people's mindset is when they're training. If I wanted to initiate a rant on the decline of western civilization, I'd talk about last night's Howard Stern show.

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by psi_radar
I think you need to drop whatever you're taking and train at Professor Xavier's School for the Unusually Gifted--though I hear sensei Magneto has branched off and formed his own school, and he's the master of blood manipulation.

I get the sarcasm, and I may have miscommunicated--I'm not being holier-than-thou. Just curious as to what people's mindset is when they're training. If I wanted to initiate a rant on the decline of western civilization, I'd talk about last night's Howard Stern show. In that case, I will admit I train to end the fight by either effecting posture or balance. My balance strategy is more likely to cause a death because of the environment. Stop watching Howard Stern.
Sean

[psi_radar]

Stop watching Howard Stern.

But it's so enticingly...consistent. :D

[hardheadjarhead]

Rather than developing a "killing blow," my goal as a martial artist is to develop the control necessary to ensure I can hurt, incapacitate, and injure at will without resorting to deadly force, yet still protect myself and the ones I care about. Everyone is somebody's baby--even if that person is a total SOB their death will make someone grieve.

Well intentioned, but potentially fatal.

I train for the worst case scenario, and work backward to less serious situations from there. Today, for example, I taught techniques for sexual assault prevention. Once the students had that down THEN I showed them how to water it down for the high school bully scenario (had a lot of teens in the class). I also talk about the ethics of self defense, and provide guidelines for a force continuum....WHEN to use the nasty stuff, and when not to.

Compassion is fine, but sometimes isn't warranted. One might have to be very cold (or hot, perhaps) in dealing with an aggressor.

If I look down my hallway and see a six foot plus, two hundred and something pound man with a crazed look in his eye that tells me perhaps he's on something like "Cat" and he has a buck knife in his hand...and I'm all that is standing between him and my family, I'm going for the deadly force. Right then and there ME AND MY FAMILY are someone's babies. I'm putting him down.


If, however, it is my aged neighbor, and he's having an episode of senile dementia and going at some kids with a garden hoe, I can handle that appropriately and not hurt him.



Regards,


Steve

[Touch Of Death]

I read an article about cat five years or so ago. This is the first mention of it I have heard since. Of course I live in a Crystal Meth Mecca. CAT would have some serious competition in this town. I heard it was made with Easy-off or somthing.:eek:

[theletch1]

Compassion is fine, but sometimes isn't warranted. One might have to be very cold (or hot, perhaps) in dealing with an aggressor While I am almost certain that this phrase is going to draw heat from some here I must say that I back you 100% on this, Steve. There are times when you and yours MUST come first for your very survival. I once worked with a guy who said that under no circumstances should you injure or kill another man. I asked if he meant to say that he would allow himself to die rather than take the life of another human being. He answered in the affirmative...that to take a life in defense of your own made you no better than the man that was trying to kill you. To say the least he and I had many lively debates on this subject. If it's truly a "him or me" scenario I plan on going home that night.

[vincefuess]

I hit very hard, and I know people who hit alot harder than I do. I have hit people very hard and they kept coming, and I have seen people who hit harder than me hit someone and they kept coming. I have also seen people KO'd and sometimes killed by a single punch (take Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini killing Duk Ku Kim in the boxing ring for example).

Is it possible to obtain "one-punch-one-kill"? Absolutely. Is it wise to train with the assumption you will get this feat accomplished every time you get in a scrape? Absolutely not.

We need to have trained to have the optimal power in our strikes, but we also have to bear in mind that the strike may not be perfect and more often than not will require not only proper set-up, but proper follow-up.

What's the old saying... Train Smart- Not Hard?

[hardheadjarhead]

He answered in the affirmative...that to take a life in defense of your own made you no better than the man that was trying to kill you.

Like you, I don't agree with this attitude...but I'll give the guy credit for at least having a solid stance in being a true pacifist. He isn't waffling on some middle ground, or at least doesn't appear to be.

Still, I wonder if someone were holding a knife to his child's throat whether he'd feel the same way? Then too, would he condone another person doing the killing on his behalf were it the same situation? Would he inwardly feel relief if a SWAT sniper popped the guy, but then later revile the sniper to the press?

I run into this all the time, as I'm sure many of you do...the "I want to be able to defend myself but I don't want to hurt anybody" type of attitude. People who say this are well intentioned but truly ignorant of the dynamics of agonism (conflict).

One punch, one kill is possible, but unrealistic as a philosophical approach to self defense. Self defense without hurting the opponent is possible but unrealistic as a philosophical approach to self defense. Either can get a person killed.

Dan Anderson said it best in his book "American Freestyle Karate", the situation dicates the response. THAT, I think, is a realistic philosophical approach to self defense.


Regards,


Steve

[psi_radar]

Dan Anderson said it best in his book "American Freestyle Karate", the situation dicates the response. THAT, I think, is a realistic philosophical approach to self defense.

I suppose this will make me sound like I'm waffling, but I agree with that statement.

Allow me to rephrase what I said initially. I train to develop a level of control so that I can hurt, injure and incapacitate and stop an altercation as quickly as possible. However, situations may warrant deadly force and I'd deal with that if I had to. I wouldn't own 12 guns if that wasn't the case. But that is a last resort.

As the quote says, it depends on the situation, and I'd meet the threat with equal or slightly greater force. If I woke up in bed with a knife to my throat, then you bet I'd throw just about everything I had at them and damn the consequences, once I had an opportunity. If I got mugged by an addict who could barely stand up, I'd definitely be more restrained.

My point was that I train for proficiency and control so that I can inflict the chosen level of damage necessary--which in most cases, falls short of deadly force, in my opinion.

[theletch1]

My point was that I train for proficiency and control so that I can inflict the chosen level of damage necessary--which in most cases, falls short of deadly force, in my opinion I think that most of us train for this level of control. I can't remember any of the members that have been here for any length of time who have had the attitude that they train to kill every assailant. As a general rule each of us trains in the SD aspects of our art to get us home to our families at night with the least amount of damage to ourselves and to anyone who may attack us. It is very telling that you use the words "chosen level of damage". It says to me that you are both intelligent enough to know that the damage done is, generally, up to you to control and responsible enough to make the choice to use a level of technique that will get the job done without unnecessary damage. That doesn't make you come across as waffling at all, rather it makes you come across as a realist. The man I was discussing in my previous post was a genuinely good man. We became good friends and even after a heated debate between the two of us on the merits of our respective believ systems we could still sit down for a beer at the end of the work day.

[hardheadjarhead]

The man I was discussing in my previous post was a genuinely good man. We became good friends and even after a heated debate between the two of us on the merits of our respective believ systems we could still sit down for a beer at the end of the work day.

That's the way it ought to be...everywhere.

I have friends who I don't agree with philosophically, or politically, or theologically...but they're still my friends. They run across a huge spectrum of people from various walks of life. Liberals, conservatives, atheists, ministers, Gays, homophobes.

Sadly, it doesn't always work that way...and many people divide into camps and hunker down to defend their beliefs...viciously, if need be.

Glad you could get along with this guy.


Steve