View Full Version : Stop Comparing Styles, Start COmparing Training Methods?
Shotgun Buddha
09-25-2006, 06:01 PM
Howdy there everyone. I was just wondering if anyone else agreed with me that it would be far more constructive debate wise if people stopped comparing styles, which generally turns into something of drunken hooker worthy cat fight, and instead got down to discussing and debating the training methods those styles use instead?
To my mind, the functionality of a style is determined not by what the base techniques, but instead by how those techniques are trained and drilled.
Im currently in an interesting position, because Im training in a style that my sensei has created, and since we're his first batch of students, I get to see how that style evolves according to the methods used.
The origin of the style was Yoshinkan Aikido, which my Sensei is a 3rd dan in, and has modified to be of more realistic use.
At first, while the technique had been modified to be slightly more realistic, the training methods were essentially the same as Aikido, and it resembled a slightly rougher form of it.
However, as the grading system became a bit more defined, the style altered a bit more throughly.
For our green belt, the randori used works like this: Uke has a band attached to their wrist, Nage has to get that band off them, or force them to submit. This usually results in a grappling and groundfighting.
Due to this, and the practice and training done for this, the style has begun to bear a distinct resemblance to Judo, and BJJ.
Having witnessed how much this altered the style, Im looking forward to seeing how the inclusion of striking for our red belt randori further develops the style.
Have you yourselves noticed this correllation between training method and style functionality, and what are your opinions on it?
Andrew Green
09-25-2006, 06:07 PM
kata vs no kata
Karate vs TKD
MMA vs TMA
Sparring vs No sparring.
All work out about the same in terms of how they get argued ;)
But for what it's worth, I fully agree. And to take it a step further, I think in the end your training methods will dictate what you train.
If I train with sparring under Muay Thai rules as my main piece, no matter what I start with, over time it will look more and more like what all the other Muay Thai fighters do.
Same as the "Sport karate" circuits. Doesn't matter if a person is Karate, TKD, Kung fu or anything else, the forms might look very different, but for the most part, they all fight basically the same.
Same as the "Sport karate" circuits. Doesn't matter if a person is Karate, TKD, Kung fu or anything else, the forms might look very different, but for the most part, they all fight basically the same.
So very true.
Robert Lee
09-25-2006, 09:02 PM
A M/A is a training method. as most relate to one another in what you will learn But it is argued as to which is better and there is just better instructors perhaps. To get good you have to be a good student allways trying to improve yourself. And yes some arts may help in your improved training as to how that art gets to the core of the method. in the end there is no style just you doing what you do. That is where you want to be And look at style or art as foundation for learning nothing more. Who you are how you live and how well you can do what you do its all just about you its not a karate punch gung fu punch and so on its yours
exile
09-25-2006, 11:27 PM
I think in the end your training methods will dictate what you train. If I train with sparring under Muay Thai rules as my main piece, no matter what I start with, over time it will look more and more like what all the other Muay Thai fighters do.
Same as the "Sport karate" circuits. Doesn't matter if a person is Karate, TKD, Kung fu or anything else, the forms might look very different, but for the most part, they all fight basically the same.
I think this is exactly right. Legends of the Hwarang aside, both sport karate and Olympic-style TKD use a much greater variety of high kicks than their katas/hyungs display, and kicks play a much greater role in the sport practice than in the forms. If you're training for sport, you're going to emphasize high kicks and flash, because that's what sports practice dictates, that's how you score points. And if you're training for pavement, then you're going to bring to the foreground a very different set of skills, tactics and approaches to combat. Combat-oriented karate looks very different from sport TKD, but the contrast is probably parallel to that between combat-oriented TKD of the O'Neil variety vs sprort karate. Your choice of uses for your MA determines what you train and what you wind up doing in your MA practice.
But Shotgun Buddha's and Andrew G.'s posts made me start (re)thinking why different martial arts train with the emphasis they do. Why, for example, are there so many dojangs with a sports-TKD-style emphasis? I've tended to put the blame for what I see as the devolution of TKD on the concerted Kukkiwon/WTF pressure in the direction of ring competion-based techniques, but it suddenly occurred to me that this might not be the whole story. Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse... is it instead possible that MA schools wind up emphasizng certain kinds of training primarily because of the economics of the MA business, rather than the media market/sports industry complex? What I'm thinking about in particular is the effect of children's instruction on training orientations in MA. Interest in an MA may well spread from the sports angle, but training future Olympians isn't going to keep the vast majority of MA schools afloat. As a MA becomes more popular, studios which want to take advantage of that popularity to establish a viable business have to go with the demands of the market. And in the MAs, that---from what I've observed about the business side of things---seems to be instructing children. You obviously aren't going to train children the way you would train a class of committed adults. Parents aren't going to mind their children learning a kind of stylized sequence of blocks as the supposed interpretation of a kata/hyung, but you can't teach seven and eight year olds that the sequence can actually be taken to be a series of locks and vital point strikes culminating in a hammerfist blow targetting the attacker's carotid sinus. Itosu knew exactly what he was doing. Unlike things in Itosu's day, however, a lot of dedicated MA studios probably have a clientele primarily made up of children and preteens. That will almost certainly shift the training focus in these schools away from the effective but very nasty applications of MAs to what Master Terry Stoker, in another thread, has referred to as foot tag, of the kind we see in TKD and increasingly in sport karate.
If all this holds any water, it means that the more popular MAs get to maintain their popularity in the marketplace just in case they orient their training to applications suitable for children and young people. In connection with the original thread topic, this would suggest that the more widespread your MA is (and therefore the more likely its client base consists of predominently of children), the less likely you are to find a school whose training orientation is built around `hard' self-defence techniques. Since people are inclined to continue training in the way they've been introduced to the art, the result is that the default training approach for someone in a very widely-practiced MA is likely to be a diluted, sport-oriented style.
I'm just trying to think this through to see if there's a key here to why people tend to follow particular training orientations in different martial arts. It's not that you can't find hard combat training in an art whose commercial viability depends crucially on teaching children, but it is going to be much harder... does any of this make sense??
Before this completely breaks down into another MMA vs. TMA debate, let me say that practice methods and techniques are only partially related. We could practice anything in a sports style in a non-sports context, using only compliant parteners, refusing full speed and full power bouts, eliminating competition etc. I don't know that it would innately change which styles are better or worse. I certainly hope for more hard-core practitioners of arts to come forward, because their take on their arts is ussually more interesting, however, we still have to realize that the art itself is hugely important in how effective we are.
I could get a video blackbelt from Ashida Kim, and it even if I started class with a required 500 consecutive hindu squats, it wouldn't change that what is taught doesn't stand up to pressure and is ineffectual as a fighting method. It would, however, give people thighs of steel.
Andrew Green
09-26-2006, 12:35 AM
I don't think it's a MMA vs TMA case at all, just a simple fact that the rules you train under will dictate to a large degree how you fight. There are of course different people specializing in different things, but for the most part, people training to fight under the same rules will end up using the same techniques given enough time.
To get all zen like about it, all paths up the mountain lead to the same peak. So if everyone is climbing the same mountain / using the same rules we will all eventually get to basically the same spot.
Garth Barnard
09-26-2006, 05:30 AM
To quote Dave Turton's (Self Defence Federation) analogies:
"It doesn't matter what the colour of the cat is, as long as it kills mice!"
and
"It's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog!"
Those two qoutes/analogies pretty much sum it up for me.
Hand Sword
09-26-2006, 06:20 AM
I think This makes sense. Again, no style is better than another, it's the practitioner that matters. We've all heard this and know this, also, no matter the style, the same techniques are used. MMA, Karate, Kung Fu, Kem/npo, doesn't matter, an elbow to the jaw is an elbow to the jaw, a front kick is a front kick,etc.. We ALL do these or versions of these. How better to train them to highest efficiency for self defense makes more sense, IMHO.
Shotgun Buddha
09-26-2006, 07:02 AM
kata vs no kata
Karate vs TKD
MMA vs TMA
Sparring vs No sparring.
All work out about the same in terms of how they get argued ;)
But for what it's worth, I fully agree. And to take it a step further, I think in the end your training methods will dictate what you train.
If I train with sparring under Muay Thai rules as my main piece, no matter what I start with, over time it will look more and more like what all the other Muay Thai fighters do.
Same as the "Sport karate" circuits. Doesn't matter if a person is Karate, TKD, Kung fu or anything else, the forms might look very different, but for the most part, they all fight basically the same.
Thats something I've heard before, and would agree with. As far as I can tell the concept of style exists only because of whatever restrictions are placed in training. The less restrictions there are, the less stylised it becomes.
A good example is what happened with the class Im in. Change it from restricted contact (ie Aikdio randori) to more thoroughy grabbing and grappling, and it starts to resemble judo instead.
And we're still using the same base techniques and all, its just the change in contact meant we had to adapt them.
Hehe I know that people will argue about this anyway. I was just hoping, that maybe, just maybe, people would be willing to debate the merits of specific training methods a little bit more rationally than they would the concept of style.
Im wrong aren't I? :D
A similar quote I heard on the subject is this "There's many paths to the top of the mountain, but as you near the peak they get a whole lot narrower"
Shotgun Buddha
09-26-2006, 07:34 AM
Before this completely breaks down into another MMA vs. TMA debate, let me say that practice methods and techniques are only partially related. We could practice anything in a sports style in a non-sports context, using only compliant parteners, refusing full speed and full power bouts, eliminating competition etc. I don't know that it would innately change which styles are better or worse. I certainly hope for more hard-core practitioners of arts to come forward, because their take on their arts is ussually more interesting, however, we still have to realize that the art itself is hugely important in how effective we are.
I could get a video blackbelt from Ashida Kim, and it even if I started class with a required 500 consecutive hindu squats, it wouldn't change that what is taught doesn't stand up to pressure and is ineffectual as a fighting method. It would, however, give people thighs of steel.
That wouldn't be your training methods for the Ashida techniques though, that would be a seperate training exercise. The training methods would be how those technqiues are practiced.
For example are you practicing on your own in front of a mirror in slinky black silk ninja outfit?
Are you doing them slowly with a compliant uke who rolls gracefully with the move?
Or are you trying the move in free sparring against a muscle and tattoo coated he-hulk who is determined to wear your balls as ear-muffs?
Under the first and second, the style will be obvious. Under the third there will be less obvious style and more basic gross motor skills.
The less restrictions there are and the more pressure there is, the more "styles" begin to resemble each other.
Adept
09-26-2006, 08:50 AM
The less restrictions there are and the more pressure there is, the more "styles" begin to resemble each other.
If you haven't already, read Tao of Jeet Kune Do. This basic philosophy is a definate under-pinning of JKD, MMA and other styles that focus on the end result, and not the 'flash' that all-too-often comes with martial arts.
FearlessFreep
09-26-2006, 09:09 AM
kata vs no kata
Karate vs TKD
MMA vs TMA
Sparring vs No sparring.
All work out about the same in terms of how they get argued ;)
You forgot "breaking vs non-breaking" : )
Shotgun Buddha
09-26-2006, 09:10 AM
If you haven't already, read Tao of Jeet Kune Do. This basic philosophy is a definate under-pinning of JKD, MMA and other styles that focus on the end result, and not the 'flash' that all-too-often comes with martial arts.
Hehe, I have already, was one of first books I read when I began my career as a martial arts nerdling. :ultracool
Go Rin No Sho is pretty interesting too.
Art of War also good study.
Machiavelli's the Prince, always helpful.
Hagakure struck me as a tad silly.
Bubishi was also silly.
Currently on my booklist to track down is On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill In War and Society, by David Grossman I think.
Its meant to be amazing.
Shotgun Buddha
09-26-2006, 09:19 AM
You forgot "breaking vs non-breaking" : )
And eye gouges vs not going to jail for excessive force and forming intimate relationships with a fat man named Bubba.
SFC JeffJ
09-26-2006, 09:37 AM
Hehe, I have already, was one of first books I read when I began my career as a martial arts nerdling. :ultracool
Go Rin No Sho is pretty interesting too.
Art of War also good study.
Machiavelli's the Prince, always helpful.
Hagakure struck me as a tad silly.
Bubishi was also silly.
Currently on my booklist to track down is On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill In War and Society, by David Grossman I think.
Its meant to be amazing.
I can't say enough good things about Grossman's book. It can really change your training methodologies. Hell, it changed how the Army and Marines train even.
Jeff
Howdy there everyone. I was just wondering if anyone else agreed with me that it would be far more constructive debate wise if people stopped comparing styles, which generally turns into something of drunken hooker worthy cat fight, and instead got down to discussing and debating the training methods those styles use instead?
To my mind, the functionality of a style is determined not by what the base techniques, but instead by how those techniques are trained and drilled.
I've said many times, that both a MMA and a TMA can benefit from each other. There is something in every art, that someone can find usefull. I myself, have borrowed ideas, training methods, techniques, etc., from various arts, specifically worked them, and added them to my own training.
Mike
I think this is exactly right. Legends of the Hwarang aside, both sport karate and Olympic-style TKD use a much greater variety of high kicks than their katas/hyungs display, and kicks play a much greater role in the sport practice than in the forms. If you're training for sport, you're going to emphasize high kicks and flash, because that's what sports practice dictates, that's how you score points. And if you're training for pavement, then you're going to bring to the foreground a very different set of skills, tactics and approaches to combat. Combat-oriented karate looks very different from sport TKD, but the contrast is probably parallel to that between combat-oriented TKD of the O'Neil variety vs sprort karate. Your choice of uses for your MA determines what you train and what you wind up doing in your MA practice.
Yes, thats a very good point. Unfortunately, not everyones sees it like that. Someone from a MMA background would look at TKD and think those kicks are never going to work in the ring. What they're forgetting, is that maybe, just maybe, the TKD stylist is not training for MMA. For the 'ring' that the TKD stylist will fight in, those kicks will work.
But Shotgun Buddha's and Andrew G.'s posts made me start (re)thinking why different martial arts train with the emphasis they do. Why, for example, are there so many dojangs with a sports-TKD-style emphasis? I've tended to put the blame for what I see as the devolution of TKD on the concerted Kukkiwon/WTF pressure in the direction of ring competion-based techniques, but it suddenly occurred to me that this might not be the whole story. Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse... is it instead possible that MA schools wind up emphasizng certain kinds of training primarily because of the economics of the MA business, rather than the media market/sports industry complex? What I'm thinking about in particular is the effect of children's instruction on training orientations in MA. Interest in an MA may well spread from the sports angle, but training future Olympians isn't going to keep the vast majority of MA schools afloat. As a MA becomes more popular, studios which want to take advantage of that popularity to establish a viable business have to go with the demands of the market. And in the MAs, that---from what I've observed about the business side of things---seems to be instructing children. You obviously aren't going to train children the way you would train a class of committed adults. Parents aren't going to mind their children learning a kind of stylized sequence of blocks as the supposed interpretation of a kata/hyung, but you can't teach seven and eight year olds that the sequence can actually be taken to be a series of locks and vital point strikes culminating in a hammerfist blow targetting the attacker's carotid sinus. Itosu knew exactly what he was doing. Unlike things in Itosu's day, however, a lot of dedicated MA studios probably have a clientele primarily made up of children and preteens. That will almost certainly shift the training focus in these schools away from the effective but very nasty applications of MAs to what Master Terry Stoker, in another thread, has referred to as foot tag, of the kind we see in TKD and increasingly in sport karate.
Yes, marketing plays a big part IMO. If someone is offering the latest and greatest thing that came out, the business will most likely increase and depending on the age of the people in the class, the training is often geared towards them.
Shotgun Buddha
09-26-2006, 10:04 AM
I've said many times, that both a MMA and a TMA can benefit from each other. There is something in every art, that someone can find usefull. I myself, have borrowed ideas, training methods, techniques, etc., from various arts, specifically worked them, and added them to my own training.
Mike
And thats really what I want to get down to. Discussing different training methods, so we can compare uses, see what works and what doesn't, and instead gear our training towards being effective rather than following style.
Shotgun Buddha
09-26-2006, 10:05 AM
I can't say enough good things about Grossman's book. It can really change your training methodologies. Hell, it changed how the Army and Marines train even.
Jeff
I heard that, everything Ive heard about it has been positive. Im ordering it soon as I get paid.
Any other recommendations?
And thats really what I want to get down to. Discussing different training methods, so we can compare uses, see what works and what doesn't, and instead gear our training towards being effective rather than following style.
I think, in alot of ways, that is what many people want. Some people are interested in a tradition for the sake of the tradition, which is great as long as they don't confuse that with being the most effective simply because its what the tradition says. The rest of us are all looking for what works best.
I think the major division between TMA and MMA is not in our training methods or our arts so much as our outlook on what constitutes working and not working. As you probably well know, MMA only came about in the form we know it today from an attempt to test styles head to head on neutral ground until the best one emerged... and we got a hybrid of four arts, boxing, wrestling, BJJ and muay thai (or equivalent material from other sources) that has served well.
..and we got a hybrid of four arts, boxing, wrestling, BJJ and muay thai (or equivalent material from other sources) that has served well.
But what about all those people who are practicing MMA and those four styles and those methods of training and are LOSING matches?
That, by your standards of proof, proves they are NOT effective.
As of today, there are more people in the UFC who have lost using those very same techniques than all TMAs combined.
It's a double edged sword and it cuts both ways: video tape of losses is as much proof as video tape of victories.
exile
09-26-2006, 04:01 PM
Yes, marketing plays a big part IMO. If someone is offering the latest and greatest thing that came out, the business will most likely increase and depending on the age of the people in the class, the training is often geared towards them.
More and more I find this something to worry about. Shotgun Buddha's point about differences in how you train and what you are aiming at in your training is very important, but the market economy of MA instruction in North America, at least, may mean that even if you want to train a certain way---for realistic combat applications---you could have a very hard time getting to do so. There may very not be a school anywhere near you whose owner is willing to teach that approach. (If this question isn't too off-thread---have you any advice about what one should do in that case, short of moving to a different town or city? I'm lucky not to have this problem personally, but probably a fair number of people do).
So lets get on topic and SHARE training methods, give it a try :)
Where do we start? Hand strikes? Kicking? Grappling?
But what about all those people who are practicing MMA and those four styles and those methods of training and are LOSING matches?
That, by your standards of proof, proves they are NOT effective.
As of today, there are more people in the UFC who have lost using those very same techniques than all TMAs combined.
It's a double edged sword and it cuts both ways: video tape of losses is as much proof as video tape of victories.
Yes, but lost to who? To people doing TMA techniques? Or to people using the same MMA techniques and doing them even better?
This is going to very quickly go south like the other threads if we keep this up, so I'm going to cut my response short and leave it at that.
exile
09-26-2006, 10:24 PM
So lets get on topic and SHARE training methods, give it a try :)
Where do we start? Hand strikes? Kicking? Grappling?
Well, what about hand strikes? I think that's a reasonable place to start...there's a whole family of related martial arts---karate in its Okinawan/Japanese/Korean versions, kempo/kendo (if you consider this separate from karate), and all of the vast variety of Chinese fighting systems---where the lion's share of combat applications take the form of hand strikes. So how do people involved in this thread train hand strikes---punches and open hand techniques? How do you use them to set up finishing moves? Do you punch for power or speed?... and I think most to the point, how do they fit into the overall strategy of your particular (substyle of your) martial art?
exile
09-26-2006, 10:42 PM
PS: I'm not saying that I think the others are unimportant at all! I really want to know how people train---and why they train that way, in terms of strategic use of the techniques involved---at all fighting ranges. I'm really interested in understanding e.g. how Aikido and Hapkido practitioners view throws, what the role(s) of throws might be in their setup, and how they teach students throws in accord with those roles... hand strikes are just somewhere to start...
still learning
09-27-2006, 03:05 AM
Hello, Another way to look at it? ....If the style is so effective....How come everyone is not equal in class (the black belts-same ranks,from the same school)....?
So it is not the style...but the person who makes it his own...a the MA becomes a part of him.
Like in boxing....no two boxers fight the same...even from the same training school. It is the person who makes it works!
It's your training that will make you...train harder than anyone else...you will become better than anyone else. ........sign: Anyone (first name)............Aloha
Shotgun Buddha
09-27-2006, 10:40 AM
But what about all those people who are practicing MMA and those four styles and those methods of training and are LOSING matches?
That, by your standards of proof, proves they are NOT effective.
As of today, there are more people in the UFC who have lost using those very same techniques than all TMAs combined.
It's a double edged sword and it cuts both ways: video tape of losses is as much proof as video tape of victories.
Sorry, but thats not particularly a logical arguement. All that proves is that the individual is also a factor as well as the style.
A factor which everyone was already aware of.
However before any one tries to wander down the old "Its the individual not the style" route, I said its a factor, that doesn't mean the style is negated.
The style is like your amour and weapony, but their is still an individual using them. Both are factors which effect the fight.
So in video evidence of MMA competitors fighting, both are fighting with quality weapons, and the one more skilled at using them wins.
Whereas in the recored evidence of TMA vs MMA, the fighters using MMA as their weapon had something of a winning streak over the ones using TMA.
I have no particular interest in a which is better though, as I said before, Im interersted in discussing trining methods and details.
Shotgun Buddha
09-27-2006, 12:50 PM
Well, what about hand strikes? I think that's a reasonable place to start...there's a whole family of related martial arts---karate in its Okinawan/Japanese/Korean versions, kempo/kendo (if you consider this separate from karate), and all of the vast variety of Chinese fighting systems---where the lion's share of combat applications take the form of hand strikes. So how do people involved in this thread train hand strikes---punches and open hand techniques? How do you use them to set up finishing moves? Do you punch for power or speed?... and I think most to the point, how do they fit into the overall strategy of your particular (substyle of your) martial art?
Hand strikes eh?
Okay here goes. To my mind striking has one of two purposes.
1. Disable the opponent (Primary objective)
2. Re-position the Opponent (Secondary Objective)
Disabling the opponent works on the basis of either shocking the Central Nervous System, or disabling a bodily function. Pain is not a reliable factor for disabling an opponent, so instead our focus should be on what sort of reaction does it cause?
Re-positioning the opponent is the secondary objective, moving them into to position to clinch and throw.
Even when re-positioning the opponent, disabling them takes precedence, so a strike to reposition should always be done in the manner of a strike to disable.
Don't have time to waste on ineffective strikes in a fight.
With regards what types of strikes to use, for self-defence I'd stick with open handed strikes for face, closed handed for the body.
And training them, start off getting the technique right, just doing the strikes slowly in the air, till you're comfortable with it, speed it up a little, just get used to the motion.
Then start doing pad-work, and bag drills, get used to hitting a solid target.
Then light striking drills with a partner practing this technique.
And then full contact free-form sparring where you try to ustilise these techniques.
I don't really like using strikes such as eye gouges, due to the inability to practice them full contact safely.
I think the major division between TMA and MMA is not in our training methods or our arts so much as our outlook on what constitutes working and not working. As you probably well know, MMA only came about in the form we know it today from an attempt to test styles head to head on neutral ground until the best one emerged... and we got a hybrid of four arts, boxing, wrestling, BJJ and muay thai (or equivalent material from other sources) that has served well.
Working and not working in what context? Someone could say that a poke to the eyes would work, but others will say, "Well, if it doesn't work in the ring, it doesn't work period." and that IMHO, is where 99.9% of these out of control arguments lead to. I certainly don't want this thread to go south either, but my point is, in fact that I could very well poke someone in the eye outside of the ring and have good results.
Keep in mind that we're not talking one style vs another, but instead, how a MMAist and a TMAist would train punches, such as the jab, cross, hook and uppercut, as well as the various kicks.
Mike
More and more I find this something to worry about. Shotgun Buddha's point about differences in how you train and what you are aiming at in your training is very important, but the market economy of MA instruction in North America, at least, may mean that even if you want to train a certain way---for realistic combat applications---you could have a very hard time getting to do so. There may very not be a school anywhere near you whose owner is willing to teach that approach. (If this question isn't too off-thread---have you any advice about what one should do in that case, short of moving to a different town or city? I'm lucky not to have this problem personally, but probably a fair number of people do).
Yes, you're correct. I taught for quite a long time, various age groups. I've had more than my share of people cringe at the thought of an eye jab or too much contact. Unfortunately, these are the folks that want their cake and also to be able to eat it. Sorry, ya can't have both. How can someone train for a real SD situation, without that contact? This is what they fail to see. But, the school owners, not wanting to lose business, gear the training to what the public wants and alot seem to want something to do on the side, as they're really not that concerned with SD.
If someone was seeking that hardcore training, but it wasn't something done at that school, nothing says that one couldn't train on their own, with others that were looking for the same thing. I'm not saying create your own art, but getting together outside of the dojo, gearing up and picking up the contact. People do it all the time.
Mike
Well, what about hand strikes? I think that's a reasonable place to start...there's a whole family of related martial arts---karate in its Okinawan/Japanese/Korean versions, kempo/kendo (if you consider this separate from karate), and all of the vast variety of Chinese fighting systems---where the lion's share of combat applications take the form of hand strikes. So how do people involved in this thread train hand strikes---punches and open hand techniques? How do you use them to set up finishing moves? Do you punch for power or speed?... and I think most to the point, how do they fit into the overall strategy of your particular (substyle of your) martial art?
I try to have an equal balance of both. Standing stationary, working on the fine points of proper punching is a good thing, as this'll help with better technique, but I also work the heavy bag as well as focus pads, so I can get the feel for moving, hitting targets in various positions, etc. There are some days when I'll punch slower, working that good form, and other days when I'll pick up the pace. I've taken many ideas from MMA and worked them into my Kenpo training and I've found that they blend very well. :)
Mike
Shotgun Buddha
09-27-2006, 02:53 PM
Working and not working in what context? Someone could say that a poke to the eyes would work, but others will say, "Well, if it doesn't work in the ring, it doesn't work period." and that IMHO, is where 99.9% of these out of control arguments lead to. I certainly don't want this thread to go south either, but my point is, in fact that I could very well poke someone in the eye outside of the ring and have good results.
Keep in mind that we're not talking one style vs another, but instead, how a MMAist and a TMAist would train punches, such as the jab, cross, hook and uppercut, as well as the various kicks.
Mike
Hehe in my case my dislike for eye pokes is not to do with whether they can be used in the ring or not, its with training for them. Since you can't actually spar full contact with them, I don't feel comfortable relying on them.
I don't want to rely on a technique Ive never actually "used" if that makes sense to you?
Hehe in my case my dislike for eye pokes is not to do with whether they can be used in the ring or not, its with training for them. Since you can't actually spar full contact with them, I don't feel comfortable relying on them.
I don't want to rely on a technique Ive never actually "used" if that makes sense to you?
Putting on eye protection should allow for some training for those shots. While some tend to look down on the padded attacker suits on the market, my Kenpo instructor puts one on during my lesson with him, which allows me to work a leg kick, groin kick, and hits to the head.
If we stop and think about it, control has to be exercised with everything we do. When working an armlock, regardless of how fast the match is going, I still need to use control, otherwise, my training partners will start to decrease due to injury.
Shotgun Buddha
09-27-2006, 03:09 PM
If someone was seeking that hardcore training, but it wasn't something done at that school, nothing says that one couldn't train on their own, with others that were looking for the same thing. I'm not saying create your own art, but getting together outside of the dojo, gearing up and picking up the contact. People do it all the time.
Mike
True that. The RBSD movement in Ireland isn't particularly to my liking, I don't like the way they train, so any stuff like that I have to research on my own or practice with a few like-minded friends.
Shotgun Buddha
09-27-2006, 03:25 PM
Putting on eye protection should allow for some training for those shots. While some tend to look down on the padded attacker suits on the market, my Kenpo instructor puts one on during my lesson with him, which allows me to work a leg kick, groin kick, and hits to the head.
If we stop and think about it, control has to be exercised with everything we do. When working an armlock, regardless of how fast the match is going, I still need to use control, otherwise, my training partners will start to decrease due to injury.
Control is important true, but sparring full contact doesn't mean we're not utilising control.
Im weary of the padding not because I don't see it as useful, but because I don't like wearing it myself. If Im wearing body armour I might start making too much use of it, taking shots that the armor can handle, but if I was unprotected would damage me.
Its the same reason I don't wear a cup, I don't want to get too used to having a protected groin. I figure if I get hit there, its my own damn fault for not protecting it better.
On the other hand, I can see the potential use of equipment like goggles for practicing using the attack, but then we have the issue of of how the opponent reacts. If the eye gouge is being used as a diversionary strike, then thats grand because they'll have the same flinch reaction as they would for anything coming at their eyes.
However if its practiced as a disabling strike the goggles nullify that since it won't disable them, and thus makes it unreliable to practice.
Control is important true, but sparring full contact doesn't mean we're not utilising control.
Im weary of the padding not because I don't see it as useful, but because I don't like wearing it myself. If Im wearing body armour I might start making too much use of it, taking shots that the armor can handle, but if I was unprotected would damage me.
Its the same reason I don't wear a cup, I don't want to get too used to having a protected groin. I figure if I get hit there, its my own damn fault for not protecting it better.
On the other hand, I can see the potential use of equipment like goggles for practicing using the attack, but then we have the issue of of how the opponent reacts. If the eye gouge is being used as a diversionary strike, then thats grand because they'll have the same flinch reaction as they would for anything coming at their eyes.
However if its practiced as a disabling strike the goggles nullify that since it won't disable them, and thus makes it unreliable to practice.
Everyone is going to have their own opinions on the use of this equipment. The use of equipment in some cases, is going to be necessary in order to prevent serious injury. Let me ask you this. It seems that your concern is that equipment is not going to give a realistic feeling or take something away. However, when LEO's are training police dogs, a bite sleeve is used during that training, yet I don't see too many people questioning the effectiveness of the dogs bite. If the sleeve was not used, the trainers arm would be pretty messed up by the end of the session. See what I'm saying.
Back to the eye jabs. Speaking for myself, I'm not a big believer in the 1 shot, 1 kill way of thinking. Is it possible to get a KO with one hit? Sure is, but I'm not going to assume that I'll always be able to do it. In the case of the eye jab, I'm not assuming that it'll end the fight, but at the minimum, if it buys me time to escape or follow up with other shots, it served its purpose IMHO.
exile
09-28-2006, 10:08 AM
Yes, you're correct. I taught for quite a long time, various age groups. I've had more than my share of people cringe at the thought of an eye jab or too much contact. Unfortunately, these are the folks that want their cake and also to be able to eat it. Sorry, ya can't have both. How can someone train for a real SD situation, without that contact? This is what they fail to see. But, the school owners, not wanting to lose business, gear the training to what the public wants and alot seem to want something to do on the side, as they're really not that concerned with SD.
Mike---yeah, this resonates a lot with me. One thing I've noticed is that the more you try to get the student close to actual use that MAs were created for, the more squeamish people get. A lot of people's view of MAs is based on the kind of almost `sanitized' view of them that comes across in MA movies. The very highly choreographed routines you see across the whole spectrum of films, from campy B-grade chopsockey movies to the almost ethereal beauty of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, present hand-to-hand fighting as this intricate dance of swift chain punches and perfectly coordinated blocks---no one loses an eye, no one gets a broken clavical or a ruptured larynx or loses teeth. But if you try to teach effective techniques, the down side is that the effect of these moves is very, very ugly. I sometimes think people have this strange unconscious belief that
what the MAs teach is how to defend yourself without any actual violence---maybe that's overstating it, but something like that seems to be at work. And then when they realize what the technique you're asking them to attempt is actually for, it's kind of horrifying for them.
If someone was seeking that hardcore training, but it wasn't something done at that school, nothing says that one couldn't train on their own, with others that were looking for the same thing. I'm not saying create your own art, but getting together outside of the dojo, gearing up and picking up the contact. People do it all the time.
Mike
I agree---the fact is, there really aren't too many other choices. It's like learning any other discipline---at one point, when you've got a grasp of the basics, you have to take responsibility for your own further education. Your instructors can't show you everything, and if you want to explore particular specialization, you have to go out on your own. There are an increasing number of resources for people interested in this approach to the MAs. The trick is finding a few other people who want to do the same thing---you really do need training partners!
Mike---yeah, this resonates a lot with me. One thing I've noticed is that the more you try to get the student close to actual use that MAs were created for, the more squeamish people get. A lot of people's view of MAs is based on the kind of almost `sanitized' view of them that comes across in MA movies. The very highly choreographed routines you see across the whole spectrum of films, from campy B-grade chopsockey movies to the almost ethereal beauty of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, present hand-to-hand fighting as this intricate dance of swift chain punches and perfectly coordinated blocks---no one loses an eye, no one gets a broken clavical or a ruptured larynx or loses teeth. But if you try to teach effective techniques, the down side is that the effect of these moves is very, very ugly. I sometimes think people have this strange unconscious belief that
what the MAs teach is how to defend yourself without any actual violence---maybe that's overstating it, but something like that seems to be at work. And then when they realize what the technique you're asking them to attempt is actually for, it's kind of horrifying for them.
Agreed. Its certainly important to always attempt to defuse the situation verbally, but as we all know, it doesnt always work out that way. I do think that many movies do give that distorted version.
I agree---the fact is, there really aren't too many other choices. It's like learning any other discipline---at one point, when you've got a grasp of the basics, you have to take responsibility for your own further education. Your instructors can't show you everything, and if you want to explore particular specialization, you have to go out on your own. There are an increasing number of resources for people interested in this approach to the MAs. The trick is finding a few other people who want to do the same thing---you really do need training partners!
I've had some of my best training sessions outside of the dojo. I've been lucky to train with others who are also interested in getting together for those types of sessions. I hear what you're saying though...some are happy with what they get and choose to leave it at that.
Mike
So....lets talk about some of the other training methods that are used. Lets move onto some kicks. What are some of the various ways you train as well as the differences that are used between MMA and TMA.
Mike
exile
09-28-2006, 10:26 AM
Control is important true, but sparring full contact doesn't mean we're not utilising control.
Im weary of the padding not because I don't see it as useful, but because I don't like wearing it myself. If Im wearing body armour I might start making too much use of it, taking shots that the armor can handle, but if I was unprotected would damage me.
Its the same reason I don't wear a cup, I don't want to get too used to having a protected groin. I figure if I get hit there, its my own damn fault for not protecting it better.
This reminds me of what Churchill is reputed to have said once: `Play for more than you can afford to lose and you will learn the game'.
On the other hand, I can see the potential use of equipment like goggles for practicing using the attack, but then we have the issue of of how the opponent reacts. If the eye gouge is being used as a diversionary strike, then thats grand because they'll have the same flinch reaction as they would for anything coming at their eyes.
However if its practiced as a disabling strike the goggles nullify that since it won't disable them, and thus makes it unreliable to practice.
There's a couple of other aspects to the protection thing---not exactly on the hand-strike line of the argument, but they seem. important: one, if you're going to be training locks, throws and forcing moves for setting up strikes, there's really not much protection you can put on---body padding isn't going to change leverage facts! And two, if you're wearing gloves---even the relatively thin gloves that the kickboxers use, with very thin padding---you're going to have a lot more trouble repositioning your striking hand for the grip that you want to set up the next strike---like, after your down `block' hits your opponent's upper arm and you want to then grip the arm where you've struck it to position him for a punch with the other fist---the use of muchimi that's part of realistic kata applications.
There must be a way to divide the labor in training so that you can cover all the bases, but I haven't been doing this long enough to have a good sense of what that division is---only a few years. You guys are way ahead of me there...
Shotgun Buddha
09-28-2006, 10:37 AM
Everyone is going to have their own opinions on the use of this equipment. The use of equipment in some cases, is going to be necessary in order to prevent serious injury. Let me ask you this. It seems that your concern is that equipment is not going to give a realistic feeling or take something away. However, when LEO's are training police dogs, a bite sleeve is used during that training, yet I don't see too many people questioning the effectiveness of the dogs bite. If the sleeve was not used, the trainers arm would be pretty messed up by the end of the session. See what I'm saying.
Back to the eye jabs. Speaking for myself, I'm not a big believer in the 1 shot, 1 kill way of thinking. Is it possible to get a KO with one hit? Sure is, but I'm not going to assume that I'll always be able to do it. In the case of the eye jab, I'm not assuming that it'll end the fight, but at the minimum, if it buys me time to escape or follow up with other shots, it served its purpose IMHO.
The dogs bite has a very obvious effect, and one which it has alot of natural practice with.
Whereas the techniques that we are trying to practice are ones that DON'T come naturally to us, so there's alot more reason to question there effectiveness.
Make sense or have I begun cheerfully rambling?
exile
09-28-2006, 11:11 AM
So....lets talk about some of the other training methods that are used. Lets move onto some kicks. What are some of the various ways you train as well as the differences that are used between MMA and TMA.
Mike
So for kicks... I have three approaches: train for balance (kick the air), train for power (kick a bag, preferably a heavy hangin bag), train for accuracy (a partner with focus pads). I think that training for balance comes first, because if you can't stay upright, all the power in the world isn't going to help, and you're not going to be too accurate either!
The good thing about training for balance is, you can do it in a six square foot area in the middle of your basement, without a training partner. I have a severe problem with balance asymmetry---my balance on my right leg to deliver left rear leg side kicks is much worse than my balance on my left leg delivering right leg side kicks (weird, because I'm very right-handed, go figure)---so I try to work extra hard on those side kicks at a range of heights. I try to do a fair number of very high kicks when training for balance, not because I want to use high kicks in a fight situation (touch wood it doesn't come to that) but because, as everyone always says, if you can deliver a very high side kick in good balance you're going to be unbeatable delivering a mid-to-low side kick in an actual fight. I throw around 140 rear leg side kicks on each leg per day, along with an equal number of snap roundhouse kicks (my balance is more symmetrical with these, for some reason) and 150 slide side kicks per each leg.
I try to do bag kicking at least once or twice a week---have to go to our rec center for that---and do the same numbers on the bag that I do for balance at home. I try to keep the roundhouse kicks about waist high---I'm reasonably flexible for my age, but not superstretchable, and anyway, with a roundhouse you really lose power when your strike isn't coing in exactly perpendicular to your target surface. You get much less balance training with a bag, of course, but you can't really train power with air kicks, so...
Accuracy is something I can only train for in class, when our instructor decides that that's something we're going to focus on. It's a good way to play balance and power off against each other---you want to strike as hard as you can without being off balance enough to lose the accuracy you need to hit the target.
I also like to train combinations of kicks---rear leg side kick-->slide side kick of the same leg-->back kick off the other leg-->slide side kick off the leg used in the back kick--.start the cycle again. I think these kinds of drills help with fluidity and being able to move from technique to technique automatically, which you are going to need in any kind of combat situation.
I'd like to do more kick-based breaking, but it's harder to do without having someone always at hand who's willing to hold for you---and oddly enough, there aren't that many people who are happy with the idea around my house...
The dogs bite has a very obvious effect, and one which it has alot of natural practice with.
Whereas the techniques that we are trying to practice are ones that DON'T come naturally to us, so there's alot more reason to question there effectiveness.
Make sense or have I begun cheerfully rambling?
So if something is not 'natural' thats why we train it, over and over, so it becomes natural and we react without having to think. You're disputing the use of gear or certain types of shots because of the useage in the ring. I've always been a bit confused by that line of thought. Because it doesnt work in 'the ring' its useless? Last time I checked, eye shots were not allowed in the ring.
Have you ever had anything in your eye, such as an eyelash or piece of sand? I have and the results were pretty obvious to me.
If using gear or training certain things is something you do not do, thats fine, but I don't think its good to say that something is ineffective just because you don't do it, or if you're having problems making it work.
Mike
Shotgun Buddha
09-28-2006, 12:15 PM
So if something is not 'natural' thats why we train it, over and over, so it becomes natural and we react without having to think. You're disputing the use of gear or certain types of shots because of the useage in the ring. I've always been a bit confused by that line of thought. Because it doesnt work in 'the ring' its useless? Last time I checked, eye shots were not allowed in the ring.
Have you ever had anything in your eye, such as an eyelash or piece of sand? I have and the results were pretty obvious to me.
If using gear or training certain things is something you do not do, thats fine, but I don't think its good to say that something is ineffective just because you don't do it, or if you're having problems making it work.
Mike
When exactly did I mention anything about the ring?
I dislike using techniques that I cannot practice full contact because then I don't know if I can rely on them or not.
And that particular mindset is firmly rooted in self defence, on the basis I've no intention of trusting my life to a technique that Ive never personally tested as it were. And to my mind it needs to be full contact to test it.
Im not saying the attack doesn't work, just that I personally wouldn't rely on it.
Shotgun Buddha
09-28-2006, 12:29 PM
So for kicks... I have three approaches: train for balance (kick the air), train for power (kick a bag, preferably a heavy hangin bag), train for accuracy (a partner with focus pads). I think that training for balance comes first, because if you can't stay upright, all the power in the world isn't going to help, and you're not going to be too accurate either!
I'd agree with that approach for practicing the technique alright, and then for applying it, full contact sparring.
Kick wise I don't actually utilise too many, I consider them slightly too high risk for the most part.
Kick's I'd use -
Shin kick, ramming my shin into theirs
Front Thrust kick if absolutely neccessary (don't like it though)
Thai style round house to outer thigh
Foot stomp
Maybe a side kick
Apart from that I prefer to use knees instead. Lots of pretty pretty knees.
exile
09-28-2006, 12:44 PM
I'd agree with that approach for practicing the technique alright, and then for applying it, full contact sparring.
Kick wise I don't actually utilise too many, I consider them slightly too high risk for the most part.
Kick's I'd use -
Shin kick, ramming my shin into theirs
Front Thrust kick if absolutely neccessary (don't like it though)
Thai style round house to outer thigh
Foot stomp
Maybe a side kick
Apart from that I prefer to use knees instead. Lots of pretty pretty knees.
I see the side kick as kind of the weapon of choice to use in a disabling strike on side of the attackers knee---it's an instantly disabling, probably crippling strike if done hard and accurately.
And yes, re knees---I like 'em too for striking---and interestingly, my instructor has us doing knee strikes as part of self-defense drills (and elbow strikes too---all the good stuff!), even though there's this legend, based on WTF tournament rules, that TKD doesn't use knees as weapons.
Shotgun Buddha
09-28-2006, 01:08 PM
I see the side kick as kind of the weapon of choice to use in a disabling strike on side of the attackers knee---it's an instantly disabling, probably crippling strike if done hard and accurately.
And yes, re knees---I like 'em too for striking---and interestingly, my instructor has us doing knee strikes as part of self-defense drills (and elbow strikes too---all the good stuff!), even though there's this legend, based on WTF tournament rules, that TKD doesn't use knees as weapons.
Side of the knee is good. Im not particularly too interested in the crippling part, but I like the way it does fold the knee.
Knees and elbows are the best striking tools there is for self-defence. Fun too.
So for kicks... I have three approaches: train for balance (kick the air), train for power (kick a bag, preferably a heavy hangin bag), train for accuracy (a partner with focus pads). I think that training for balance comes first, because if you can't stay upright, all the power in the world isn't going to help, and you're not going to be too accurate either!
The good thing about training for balance is, you can do it in a six square foot area in the middle of your basement, without a training partner. I have a severe problem with balance asymmetry---my balance on my right leg to deliver left rear leg side kicks is much worse than my balance on my left leg delivering right leg side kicks (weird, because I'm very right-handed, go figure)---so I try to work extra hard on those side kicks at a range of heights. I try to do a fair number of very high kicks when training for balance, not because I want to use high kicks in a fight situation (touch wood it doesn't come to that) but because, as everyone always says, if you can deliver a very high side kick in good balance you're going to be unbeatable delivering a mid-to-low side kick in an actual fight. I throw around 140 rear leg side kicks on each leg per day, along with an equal number of snap roundhouse kicks (my balance is more symmetrical with these, for some reason) and 150 slide side kicks per each leg.
I try to do bag kicking at least once or twice a week---have to go to our rec center for that---and do the same numbers on the bag that I do for balance at home. I try to keep the roundhouse kicks about waist high---I'm reasonably flexible for my age, but not superstretchable, and anyway, with a roundhouse you really lose power when your strike isn't coing in exactly perpendicular to your target surface. You get much less balance training with a bag, of course, but you can't really train power with air kicks, so...
Accuracy is something I can only train for in class, when our instructor decides that that's something we're going to focus on. It's a good way to play balance and power off against each other---you want to strike as hard as you can without being off balance enough to lose the accuracy you need to hit the target.
I also like to train combinations of kicks---rear leg side kick-->slide side kick of the same leg-->back kick off the other leg-->slide side kick off the leg used in the back kick--.start the cycle again. I think these kinds of drills help with fluidity and being able to move from technique to technique automatically, which you are going to need in any kind of combat situation.
I'd like to do more kick-based breaking, but it's harder to do without having someone always at hand who's willing to hold for you---and oddly enough, there aren't that many people who are happy with the idea around my house...
Excellent post. As soon as I can give you rep again, I will. It certainly sounds like you train your kicks alot. I agree completely with the air, heavy bag and focus pads, although I spend most of my kicking time on the focus pads and probably not as much as I should with the heavy bag. I worry about doing too much air kicks though, as the tendancy to overextend stuff is pretty high and it isn't fun when it happens.
Side of the knee is good. Im not particularly too interested in the crippling part, but I like the way it does fold the knee.
Knees and elbows are the best striking tools there is for self-defence. Fun too.
I've thought of a sidekick as a kick to create space rather than to damage stuff - to the midsection it can push someone away, and to the knee it can force someone to step back to regain footing. It isn;t used much between skilled fighters because for most people, the amount of time it takes to carry out the kick is better spent doing something that causes more damage.
When exactly did I mention anything about the ring?
My appologies. I just figured that was what you were referring to for a few reasons, one being that I was under the impression we were talking about training methods of MMA and TMA and two, because 9 times out of 10, when these debates are taking place, the MMA crowd always refers to that high percentage comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.:asian:
I dislike using techniques that I cannot practice full contact because then I don't know if I can rely on them or not.
That was my reasoning behind the use of gear. Sure its not the same and flesh on flesh, but if we trained like that all the time, we may end up taking more time off to recoop from injuries. Many times, during my lessons, my inst. will pad up which allows me to throw elbows, knees, etc., to him, without the risk of injury, but at the same time, is training me to react off of his attack.
And that particular mindset is firmly rooted in self defence, on the basis I've no intention of trusting my life to a technique that Ive never personally tested as it were. And to my mind it needs to be full contact to test it.
Question: Do you train knife disarms? If so, how do you train them?
Im not saying the attack doesn't work, just that I personally wouldn't rely on it.
And that is perfectly fine. :) Everyone trains differently, and its always good to get feedback from others. :)
Mike
So for kicks... I have three approaches: train for balance (kick the air), train for power (kick a bag, preferably a heavy hangin bag), train for accuracy (a partner with focus pads). I think that training for balance comes first, because if you can't stay upright, all the power in the world isn't going to help, and you're not going to be too accurate either!
The is pretty much my thought as well. :)
The good thing about training for balance is, you can do it in a six square foot area in the middle of your basement, without a training partner. I have a severe problem with balance asymmetry---my balance on my right leg to deliver left rear leg side kicks is much worse than my balance on my left leg delivering right leg side kicks (weird, because I'm very right-handed, go figure)---so I try to work extra hard on those side kicks at a range of heights. I try to do a fair number of very high kicks when training for balance, not because I want to use high kicks in a fight situation (touch wood it doesn't come to that) but because, as everyone always says, if you can deliver a very high side kick in good balance you're going to be unbeatable delivering a mid-to-low side kick in an actual fight. I throw around 140 rear leg side kicks on each leg per day, along with an equal number of snap roundhouse kicks (my balance is more symmetrical with these, for some reason) and 150 slide side kicks per each leg.
I try to do bag kicking at least once or twice a week---have to go to our rec center for that---and do the same numbers on the bag that I do for balance at home. I try to keep the roundhouse kicks about waist high---I'm reasonably flexible for my age, but not superstretchable, and anyway, with a roundhouse you really lose power when your strike isn't coing in exactly perpendicular to your target surface. You get much less balance training with a bag, of course, but you can't really train power with air kicks, so...
Accuracy is something I can only train for in class, when our instructor decides that that's something we're going to focus on. It's a good way to play balance and power off against each other---you want to strike as hard as you can without being off balance enough to lose the accuracy you need to hit the target.
I also like to train combinations of kicks---rear leg side kick-->slide side kick of the same leg-->back kick off the other leg-->slide side kick off the leg used in the back kick--.start the cycle again. I think these kinds of drills help with fluidity and being able to move from technique to technique automatically, which you are going to need in any kind of combat situation.
I'd like to do more kick-based breaking, but it's harder to do without having someone always at hand who's willing to hold for you---and oddly enough, there aren't that many people who are happy with the idea around my house...
We usually mix it up during class. There are times when the focus is more on the accuracy, so the kicks will be done on a partner, not so much hitting them, but using them as a target. We'll also use a heavy bag, Thai pads and smaller focus pads, depending on what the focus of the class happens to be.
Mike
I'd agree with that approach for practicing the technique alright, and then for applying it, full contact sparring.
Kick wise I don't actually utilise too many, I consider them slightly too high risk for the most part.
Kick's I'd use -
Shin kick, ramming my shin into theirs
Front Thrust kick if absolutely neccessary (don't like it though)
Thai style round house to outer thigh
Foot stomp
Maybe a side kick
Apart from that I prefer to use knees instead. Lots of pretty pretty knees.
Good choice of kicks. I prefer low line kicks as well. Not saying that kicking high isn't possible, but there is also more risk the higher you go. Then again, I've seen some nice head kicks in MMA. Setting them up with leg kicks, and then shooting one up for the KO. :)
Mike
I worry about doing too much air kicks though, as the tendancy to overextend stuff is pretty high and it isn't fun when it happens.
Sounds like a comment from an inexperienced kicker to me.
I've been kicking in the air (along with on focus pads, heavy bags, body shields and moving people) for 15 years and have never, ever "overextended" a kick.
Not only that, those who know how to truly train kicks also train something called "control" which is the ability to STOP a kick exactly where and when you want to.
How is this useful? Go watch those clips of Muay Thai fighters breaking their leg at the ankle on the shin of their opponent so their foot flops around at the end of their leg like a rubber chicken.
People lift their shin to block my roundhouse kicks all the time. I stop kick, rechamber, and hit them in the head.
You constantly remind TMAist of how they don't know anything about grappling because they haven't spent enough time doing it.
It is obvious you have not spent enough time kicking to really understand kicking.
Sidekick not used by skilled fighters? You are mistaken again.
Here is something to think about: why do you think WTF taekwondo competitors wear chest protectors while Muay Thai competitors do not?
Answer: because they MUST. Not wearing chest protector when fighting a good kicker means the kicker uses control or ribs and internal organs get damaged.
I've seen half-assed back kicks and side kicks end UFC/Pride fight matches: surely you've seen those clips too?
exile
09-28-2006, 03:37 PM
Excellent post. As soon as I can give you rep again, I will.
Hey Rook---thanks much!
It certainly sounds like you train your kicks alot.
I do, but only because they're much less natural for me (and, according to the usual wisdom, everyone else in the world) than hand techniques. I actually like doing hand techniques more but the legs are such a powerful weapon for a finishing strike, and also for a surprise distracting move (where the hell did that roundhouse come from???) that I figure it pays to keep them sharp---I suspect that they get stale on you, if you neglect them, a lot quicker than hand techniques do. I really count on hand techniques, though, to keep me alive in a bad situation, and I try to train grab-lock-throw-strike type moves as much as I can.
I agree completely with the air, heavy bag and focus pads, although I spend most of my kicking time on the focus pads and probably not as much as I should with the heavy bag. I worry about doing too much air kicks though, as the tendancy to overextend stuff is pretty high and it isn't fun when it happens.
I know, I've done it (when I first started training TKD and didn't realize what can happen if you hyperextend). These days, I make sure that there's still a bit of angle in my leg when I throw a kick, no matter what type it is. I try to stop about 80% of the way, and only go to full extension against a bag.
Here's a question: does anyone on this thread train to get out of the way of an untrained but hard-thrown roundhouse punch---the kind that often follows a grab and that most of the people who for some stupid reason want to hurt you are likely to throw? What I'm picturing is, you stand there square to your partner, who's at fairly close range and who then throws a reasonably hard punch at your head (so you'd be wearing head/face protection) and your goal is just to get outide and positioned to strike from there or move inside to a postion where you can counterstrike while covering yourself from the guy's other arm. Just to develop speed and program yourself on how to move so it becomes reflexive? Anyone do that or some variation of that on a regular basis, either as part of your MA school training program or on your own?
exile
09-28-2006, 03:52 PM
We usually mix it up during class. There are times when the focus is more on the accuracy, so the kicks will be done on a partner, not so much hitting them, but using them as a target. We'll also use a heavy bag, Thai pads and smaller focus pads, depending on what the focus of the class happens to be.
Mike
That's pretty much exactly how we train in class. Our instructor likes to mix it up a fair amount---sometimes a bag, sometimes focus mitts, sometimes kick sequences where you try not to repeat a particular kick for as long as possible (those exercises can get quite exhausting).
One thing I try to do on my own is a sidekick at waist height or higher that I then `freeze' for as long as possible in good form, without relying on a nearby chair or whatever for balance. My record so far is about 11 seconds---not very good! But for the first couple of years I was training I couldn't do it at all. That's both a balance and a leg strength exercise---without question the hardest for me of any of my kick-training exercises. I just cannot believe these guys I see on video, from the Korean demo teams, say, who can do that easily, and for as long as they feel like, apparently.
I've thought of a sidekick as a kick to create space rather than to damage stuff - to the midsection it can push someone away, and to the knee it can force someone to step back to regain footing. It isn;t used much between skilled fighters because for most people, the amount of time it takes to carry out the kick is better spent doing something that causes more damage.
I've seen people use a front kick in a pushing movement with some good results. Personally, I'd prefer that over a sidekick. Not that I haven't had luck with a side kick, but then again, all depends on what your goal is at the time.
Mike
exile
09-28-2006, 04:05 PM
Side of the knee is good. Im not particularly too interested in the crippling part,
Understand, I'm not intending to cripple anyone either---I have my vindictive moments but not to that extent. But the kick---hard side kick out and down to the side of the knee joint---is an inherently very damaging strike. It's very likely that if delivered at full power it will damage ligament and possibly dislocate the knee cap, and ligaments typically don't heal very well even after surgical reattachment.
but I like the way it does fold the knee
---with a vengeance!
Knees and elbows are the best striking tools there is for self-defence. Fun too.
The thing I like about elbows is that, like a closed fist, they give you a very hard striking surface, but unlike a fist, you are very unlikely to break or seriously bruise your elbow in a strike against another hard surface. And because the shoulder is so mobile a joint, you can get tremendous torque in the strike from several angles... at least, people who know what they're doing can...I still feel they're a somewhat neglected part of my own skill set.
Here's a question: does anyone on this thread train to get out of the way of an untrained but hard-thrown roundhouse punch---the kind that often follows a grab and that most of the people who for some stupid reason want to hurt you are likely to throw? What I'm picturing is, you stand there square to your partner, who's at fairly close range and who then throws a reasonably hard punch at your head (so you'd be wearing head/face protection) and your goal is just to get outide and positioned to strike from there or move inside to a postion where you can counterstrike while covering yourself from the guy's other arm. Just to develop speed and program yourself on how to move so it becomes reflexive? Anyone do that or some variation of that on a regular basis, either as part of your MA school training program or on your own?
All the time! :) Once the technique is understood, I expect my 'attacker' to give me a committed attack. That one of my pet peeves in the dojo, when people punch, and they stop is so far from me, that in reality, I don't even have to move because they never would've reached me in the first place. The same with a 2 hand choke. I love a good shoulder massage, but during class time, I'm looking for that choke, not the massage! :)
One thing I try to do on my own is a sidekick at waist height or higher that I then `freeze' for as long as possible in good form, without relying on a nearby chair or whatever for balance. My record so far is about 11 seconds---not very good! But for the first couple of years I was training I couldn't do it at all. That's both a balance and a leg strength exercise---without question the hardest for me of any of my kick-training exercises. I just cannot believe these guys I see on video, from the Korean demo teams, say, who can do that easily, and for as long as they feel like, apparently.
Yes, thats a good drill as it helps with a number of things. I've also had people break down the kick into parts, holding each one. EX: A front kick would be done in this fashion: Chamber, extension, chamber, and replace back on the floor. Anytime I'd teach a new kick, either to kids or adults, I liked to break it down this way, that way I can correct anything wrong, during each part of the kick.
Mike
Yes, thats a good drill as it helps with a number of things. I've also had people break down the kick into parts, holding each one. EX: A front kick would be done in this fashion: Chamber, extension, chamber, and replace back on the floor. Anytime I'd teach a new kick, either to kids or adults, I liked to break it down this way, that way I can correct anything wrong, during each part of the kick.
That is an EXCELLENT way to train kicking to new students. In fact, I spent about 15 mintues running two new HKD students through that exact drill on roundhouse and sidekicks Tuesday night. I call it "four count kicking."
Like you said, great for making sure they are doing each part correctly. Also good, when you have them hold each position for 5 or 10 seconds, for building the muscles needed for effective kicking.
I also use/very much like the training method exile described -- holding kick at its extended position for as long as you can, for the same reasons.
Also: same drill, but hold the CHAMBERED position for as long as you can. Also can do partner stretching with chambered position.
Regarding elbows/knees: I practice them, but I really prefer the extremities (feet and hands) over the joints (elbows, knees) as weapons.
I'm sure that is just a personal preference of mine -- I'm not knocking their use, and they definately are useful for closer ranges.
Here is a drill we use for both hand strikes and kicking:
Partner holds a body shield. Person practicing technique does the strike 10 times "for effect" , i.e., as hard as they can, trying to penetrate the target and move the target holder.
Next round, "for speed." Sometimes just 10 strikes as fast as they can, sometimes as many strikes as they can in 30 seconds.
Moving on to another training area, when training for accuracy, it sometimes helps to use TINY targets. While we use "porkchop" handheld targets often, a great drill is to take a small piece of paper or cardboard -- about 3 inches by 1 inch -- and hold it with fingertips for kicker to hit.
Especially fun with spinning heel kicks :)
"Aim small, miss small."
exile
09-28-2006, 05:05 PM
Guys---this is turning into a fantastic thread---really informative! Everyone has got some really good thoughts on this crucial question of specific training techniques... excellent move getting it started, Shotgun Buddha!
I am going to print out the thread as it's developed so far and paste stuff from it into a little notebook I've started in order to keep track of training/teaching ideas.
I've seen people use a front kick in a pushing movement with some good results. Personally, I'd prefer that over a sidekick. Not that I haven't had luck with a side kick, but then again, all depends on what your goal is at the time.
Mike
I can see the front thrust kick, striking with the heel as a pushing kick too - the Muay Thai guys use this almost exclusively in place of the sidekick. While slower, the sidekick can push upward angled into the opponent and out, which unbalances the opponent more than a front thrust kick (which has to be angled down at least slightly) would. I can see a use for either, and an arguement could easily be made that neither one is really necessary too... this is more an area of personal preferance really.
I can see the front thrust kick, striking with the heel as a pushing kick too - the Muay Thai guys use this almost exclusively in place of the sidekick
Front thrust kick with the heel is a great kick (I prefer it as a strike rather than a push) as it allows you to keep that "boxer" type stance while recruiting a lot of the same muscle groups as a side kick.
As my instructor tells it, however, it did indeed get its start as a "push" kick: specifically, to push an impaled opponent off your sword.
To train this kick, I recommend doing doing so with a huge, exaggerated motion: bring knee all the way up till it touches your shoulder (even bounce it off your chest/shoulder!), thrust kick all the way out, pull knee all the way back.
In actual use the motion may become smaller, but it is better (IMO) to train a larger motions: uses more muscles, trains them over a larger range of motion. More difficult/demanding, better training.
In addition to being great way to stomp in at ribs or solar plexus, is also great for stomping into the hip joint, knee, and instep of the foot.
Also useful in stomping on an opponent as a follow-up following a successful throw or takedown in which you have remained on your feet.
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 01:18 PM
My appologies. I just figured that was what you were referring to for a few reasons, one being that I was under the impression we were talking about training methods of MMA and TMA and two, because 9 times out of 10, when these debates are taking place, the MMA crowd always refers to that high percentage comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.:asian:
Hehe no worries mate. I kinda fall into a mix of all three camps - MMA, TMA, RBSD, rather than any one in particular. And while my focus is self-defence, im interested in all three areas. My big thing, regardless of of the focus, is "How does it work and how could it work better?"
I just love learning I guess.
That was my reasoning behind the use of gear. Sure its not the same and flesh on flesh, but if we trained like that all the time, we may end up taking more time off to recoop from injuries. Many times, during my lessons, my inst. will pad up which allows me to throw elbows, knees, etc., to him, without the risk of injury, but at the same time, is training me to react off of his attack.
I can see the uses of gear alright, but I'd personally use it as an add on measure, rather than my main one. Practice getting the delivery systems down solid using full contact sparring, so that we have a nice solid base for striking, grappling etc
And then for anything that will do too much damage or there's too much risk for practicing without gear, shove on some sort of protective gear.
There's actually very few things I would consider this neccessary for though, main one being the eyes.
I prefer not to train lethal/crippling techniques too thoroughly, due to the trouble in practicing them.
I do ensure I have a firm understanding of how they work, and have gone over them in practice, but its not something I'd do regularly.
Also figure there's way too much legal mess with them too.
Question: Do you train knife disarms? If so, how do you train them?
I do practice them, but to be honest, I don't think anything really prepares you for a knife attack.
My normal methods of pratice work like this.
1. Standard two man drill where we just practice defending against the knife attacks. Important details -
The attacker will either have the knife hidden, or obscured, ie the knife has been palmed.
The attacker will follow no specific attack pattern.
Attacker will not stop until has been disabled.
2. Normal sparring drills, but one of them has training knife hidden on person unknown to the other, will pull it during the course of sparring.
Same details as the first.
3. At some point during training, random attack on student using training knife. Usually break off immediately after initial contact on this one, because one - you normally get stabbed pretty fast
two - Suprise attacks can get out of hand way too easily
Normally for these we start off with rubber knives that have been marked with chalk or paint etc so that cuts will show, and then we move up to marked wooden tanto's so that its more solid.
As I said, I don't think anything prepares you for knife attacks, happened to me before and they're bloody terrifying. However since they're increasingly likely, its best to at least attempt some sort of decent training for them, just in case.
And that is perfectly fine. :) Everyone trains differently, and its always good to get feedback from others. :)
Mike
Hehe not everyone is so reasonable about it, had more than one person say they don't consider me a "true" martial artist.As far as Im concerned so long as someone enjoys what they do, and honest about it, then Ive no right to criticise them.
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 01:37 PM
Here's a question: does anyone on this thread train to get out of the way of an untrained but hard-thrown roundhouse punch---the kind that often follows a grab and that most of the people who for some stupid reason want to hurt you are likely to throw? What I'm picturing is, you stand there square to your partner, who's at fairly close range and who then throws a reasonably hard punch at your head (so you'd be wearing head/face protection) and your goal is just to get outide and positioned to strike from there or move inside to a postion where you can counterstrike while covering yourself from the guy's other arm. Just to develop speed and program yourself on how to move so it becomes reflexive? Anyone do that or some variation of that on a regular basis, either as part of your MA school training program or on your own?
Ah yes, the classic John Wayne'r. Always a fun one to practice against :D
Normally what I'd do instead of trying to move outside, when they grab I close in and clinch, and toss to the ground.
Straight punches I try to move to the outside, hooked ones I move to the inside. If I move inside on a straight, leaves me vunerable to the other arm, if I move outside on a hook, increases the risks of it hitting me.
Whats your thoughts on this?
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 02:07 PM
That's pretty much exactly how we train in class. Our instructor likes to mix it up a fair amount---sometimes a bag, sometimes focus mitts, sometimes kick sequences where you try not to repeat a particular kick for as long as possible (those exercises can get quite exhausting).
Sadistic, I love it :D
That gives me a good question, what do you guys do for your standard warm-up? And then what for outside fitness training etc?
Our is the Bas Rutten workout in class. Thats basically a half hour long, and involves switching repeatdedly between sets of shadow-boxing, push ups, crunches, squats, neck-rolls, lunges, sprawls, and host of other goodies.
The exercises change roughly every 30-60 seconds, and the point of the workout is it forces you to jump between radically different types of exercise and effort. Its a seriously good workout.
Outside of class, Im doing the standard swimming and running, but Im also do training for Free Running, which I love doing. For fitness for that Ive started doing alot of the stuff from Crossfit.com, which ends up being an odd mix between cardio, resistance, and gymnastic training. It leaves you very well rounded.
One thing I try to do on my own is a sidekick at waist height or higher that I then `freeze' for as long as possible in good form, without relying on a nearby chair or whatever for balance. My record so far is about 11 seconds---not very good! But for the first couple of years I was training I couldn't do it at all. That's both a balance and a leg strength exercise---without question the hardest for me of any of my kick-training exercises. I just cannot believe these guys I see on video, from the Korean demo teams, say, who can do that easily, and for as long as they feel like, apparently.
Stuff like that is very useful for control alright, and control is at the heart of what being a good fighter and martial artist is. I've seen alot of people who over-emphasize this type of exercise too much though, and while they can stop a kick beautifully, they might as just be slapping you when they kick you. So I 'd say it needs to be a good balance between bag work and control exercises.
I think over-emphasis on specific aspects is what has cause most of the problems that exist in martial arts today.
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 02:44 PM
Front thrust kick with the heel is a great kick (I prefer it as a strike rather than a push) as it allows you to keep that "boxer" type stance while recruiting a lot of the same muscle groups as a side kick.
As my instructor tells it, however, it did indeed get its start as a "push" kick: specifically, to push an impaled opponent off your sword.
To train this kick, I recommend doing doing so with a huge, exaggerated motion: bring knee all the way up till it touches your shoulder (even bounce it off your chest/shoulder!), thrust kick all the way out, pull knee all the way back.
In actual use the motion may become smaller, but it is better (IMO) to train a larger motions: uses more muscles, trains them over a larger range of motion. More difficult/demanding, better training.
In addition to being great way to stomp in at ribs or solar plexus, is also great for stomping into the hip joint, knee, and instep of the foot.
Also useful in stomping on an opponent as a follow-up following a successful throw or takedown in which you have remained on your feet.
Exaggerated motions are a good place to start showing how a technique works and get them used to it, but once a person understands the motion, I'd focus on getting the motion as small as possible. In my opinion a strike should waste as little motion/energy as possible, because if the other persons any good they'll take advantage of the excess motion.
Whats your own opinion on this?
I don't particularly like the idea if stomping a downed opponent, simply because its too easy for the strike to do lethal damage.
Normally if Ive managed to drop the opponent to the ground, a follow up won't be neccessary, cause I'll be busy running away :)
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 02:50 PM
Good choice of kicks. I prefer low line kicks as well. Not saying that kicking high isn't possible, but there is also more risk the higher you go. Then again, I've seen some nice head kicks in MMA. Setting them up with leg kicks, and then shooting one up for the KO. :)
Mike
Ive seen em done beautifully too, by Mirkov Crocop especially. But way too much that could go wrong doing a headkick in self-defence for my liking. Factors like crowds, multiple attackers, surface etc could really bugger it up.
So cheers to shin bashing instead :EG:
Exaggerated motions are a good place to start showing how a technique works and get them used to it, but once a person understands the motion, I'd focus on getting the motion as small as possible. In my opinion a strike should waste as little motion/energy as possible, because if the other persons any good they'll take advantage of the excess motion.
Whats your own opinion on this?
My opinion is: continue to train large motions, but also train the smaller/faster motions through free-sparring.
Kind of like weight lifting: full range of motion for full development of the muscle group, but in actual use of muscles (lifting an object, pushing something) you may not necessarily USE the full range of motion, but it is there for those times when you might need the full range.
I don't particularly like the idea if stomping a downed opponent, simply because its too easy for the strike to do lethal damage.
Normally if Ive managed to drop the opponent to the ground, a follow up won't be neccessary, cause I'll be busy running away :)
Personal experience: before I started formal training, I had a martial artist friend show me some basics with escrima sticks.
Several months later, I had a conflict with a group of three men. While I should have just home instead of insisting on talking to my wayward girlfriend, I grabbed my sticks and insisted on speaking with her.
The group's leader grabbed a tire tool and decided they would just as soon put me down as let that conversation happen.
One of the two unarmed men rushed me and I laid a combination of about six strikes across his head and shoulders as I sidestepped his "shoot" and it took him all the way to the ground. I backed off and and watched as they helped him to his feet -- and then they immediately ALL rushed me, pulled me to the ground, threw the sticks as far away as the could, and then held me down for a beating. I lost three teeth and they probably would have killed me if not for a bystander who suggested they probably shouldn't.
Now granted, I made a long list of bad decisions in this particular instance. But in addition to being an object lesson in making wise choices, it also shows: there are times when you have to look out for you OWN well being FIRST. If I would have followed up and made sure he was incapicitated, I would have only had TWO attackers to deal with.
"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"
End note: nowadays I would never EVER get myself into such a situation exactly like that one. In addition to being better trained to defend myself, martial arts has helped me grow as a person and make better decisions about what kind of people I associate with as well as avoiding conflict: some conversations with wayward girlfriends just aren't worth having.
Ive seen em done beautifully too, by Mirkov Crocop especially. But way too much that could go wrong doing a headkick in self-defence for my liking. Factors like crowds, multiple attackers, surface etc could really bugger it up.
So cheers to shin bashing instead :EG:
I completely agree that low-line kicks are almost always a better choice than head kicks.
On the other hand, if the moment is just right, one well-timed, well-placed headkick could make the rest of the multiple attackers start watching out for THEIR heads -- which then makes it easier to plant the low-line kicks.
Or, just being in a small town like I am, everybody simply knowing I have this capability gives potential attackers a lot of uncertainty about what to expect from me, something for them to watch out for, making the use of other more practical tools much easier.
exile
09-29-2006, 03:20 PM
Ah yes, the classic John Wayne'r. Always a fun one to practice against :D
Normally what I'd do instead of trying to move outside, when they grab I close in and clinch, and toss to the ground.
Straight punches I try to move to the outside, hooked ones I move to the inside. If I move inside on a straight, leaves me vunerable to the other arm, if I move outside on a hook, increases the risks of it hitting me.
Whats your thoughts on this?
I tend to want to move to the outside---always a little edgy about that other arm of theirs. I think that a lot of handling this sort of punch involves watching for the giveaway for a classic untrained curving-in punch---the shoulder, which is rotating toward the target a lot faster than the arm that's attached to it. I haven't done this systematically, but at one point I plan to experiment with my response time against a training partner who I've asked to throw roundhouse punches at me as fast as hard as possible, where what I'm trying to do is develop my response and timing on the basis of how fast his shoulder is torquing in towards me. In any kind of dicey situation, I want my arms out there in the plane of my centerline, and if I can be quick enough, I want to go outside and deflect his hard strike inward, letting me step in with various counters. The classic kata/poomsae `down block', starting with an upward chambering move, is perfect for this, because you can actually break that `chambering' move down into an elbow strike against their punching arm and then a little bit of extra up motion; the `chamber' is followed by a forearm strike down and across to the throat. If you can trap the punching arm and pull it into you (another `chambering' motion), so much the better. But this scenario depends on you being able to get far enough outside them as the strike comes in that your `up-chamber' is able to strike them from the outside in. So I guess what I'm saying is, I have set of responses that I'm trying to develop---applications of the supposedly defensive hyung/kata moves which are I think best interpreted as strikes, ideally in conjunction with locks---which will work just in case I can get outside quickly enough. And that means I need to develop the right reactions based on the giveaway movement of the shoulder (this is actually an idea of Mark MacYoung's).
But I can also see going inside, because it doesn't require you to cover quite so much ground at the beginning. As you say, you have the problem of vulnerability to a followup strike from their other side. But it's also true that if you can turn inside the punch, they're wide open, even briefly. Ideally, you should be able to inflict enough damage from that position to end the attack before they can get the other arm into play---elbow strike to the face (counterclockwise, if you use the right arm), with your other arm raised in a `chambering' position, elbow out and forearm parallel to the ground, palm side of hand up, to block any move from their other side. Follow up the elbow strike with a knife-hand strike---using the hand of the elbow-striking arm--to the neck (clockwise)... nothing fancy, but fairly discouraging to your assailant.
I've experimented with training partners doing both. Ultimately I'd like to get to the point where I can do either reflexively depending on small cues that tell me which is more likely to work. I know what you're saying about the straight punch, but I don't usually train for it as a SD thing, since it's overwhelmingly MAists who use straight punches and I tend to assume that a MAist won't be the guy who attacks you... of course, there is all that disturbing stuff on the `redemption' thread, so maybe I should rethink that last bit!
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 03:50 PM
I tend to want to move to the outside---always a little edgy about that other arm of theirs. I think that a lot of handling this sort of punch involves watching for the giveaway for a classic untrained curving-in punch---the shoulder, which is rotating toward the target a lot faster than the arm that's attached to it. I haven't done this systematically, but at one point I plan to experiment with my response time against a training partner who I've asked to throw roundhouse punches at me as fast as hard as possible, where what I'm trying to do is develop my response and timing on the basis of how fast his shoulder is torquing in towards me. In any kind of dicey situation, I want my arms out there in the plane of my centerline, and if I can be quick enough, I want to go outside and deflect his hard strike inward, letting me step in with various counters. The classic kata/poomsae `down block', starting with an upward chambering move, is perfect for this, because you can actually break that `chambering' move down into an elbow strike against their punching arm and then a little bit of extra up motion; the `chamber' is followed by a forearm strike down and across to the throat. If you can trap the punching arm and pull it into you (another `chambering' motion), so much the better. But this scenario depends on you being able to get far enough outside them as the strike comes in that your `up-chamber' is able to strike them from the outside in. So I guess what I'm saying is, I have set of responses that I'm trying to develop---applications of the supposedly defensive hyung/kata moves which are I think best interpreted as strikes, ideally in conjunction with locks---which will work just in case I can get outside quickly enough. And that means I need to develop the right reactions based on the giveaway movement of the shoulder (this is actually an idea of Mark MacYoung's).
But I can also see going inside, because it doesn't require you to cover quite so much ground at the beginning. As you say, you have the problem of vulnerability to a followup strike from their other side. But it's also true that if you can turn inside the punch, they're wide open, even briefly. Ideally, you should be able to inflict enough damage from that position to end the attack before they can get the other arm into play---elbow strike to the face (counterclockwise, if you use the right arm), with your other arm raised in a `chambering' position, elbow out and forearm parallel to the ground, palm side of hand up, to block any move from their other side. Follow up the elbow strike with a knife-hand strike---using the hand of the elbow-striking arm--to the neck (clockwise)... nothing fancy, but fairly discouraging to your assailant.
I've experimented with training partners doing both. Ultimately I'd like to get to the point where I can do either reflexively depending on small cues that tell me which is more likely to work. I know what you're saying about the straight punch, but I don't usually train for it as a SD thing, since it's overwhelmingly MAists who use straight punches and I tend to assume that a MAist won't be the guy who attacks you... of course, there is all that disturbing stuff on the `redemption' thread, so maybe I should rethink that last bit!
The straight punch is more of a likelyhood than most people realize. The sort of person who's likely to attack you is probably going to have had a fair bit of practice at it, and those looping haymakers are one of the first things to go.
With regards someone throwing that type of hooking punch, they're most likely going to sucker punch you. Usually that places you too close to them to move to the outside properly, I personally would close and grab, negating the punch, and elbow their face happily.
From what Ive researched on they type of reaction your trying to create, your better off creating a more generalised "flinch repsonse" than any type of specific movement reaction. The body can only remember so many reactions under pressure, if you try to build too many reactions into it, then it will either freeze up or slow your reaction speed dramatically.
Its referred to as Hicks Law, the more reactions your body has to choose from, the longer it will take to pick which one to use.
Shotgun Buddha
09-29-2006, 04:19 PM
My opinion is: continue to train large motions, but also train the smaller/faster motions through free-sparring.
Kind of like weight lifting: full range of motion for full development of the muscle group, but in actual use of muscles (lifting an object, pushing something) you may not necessarily USE the full range of motion, but it is there for those times when you might need the full range.
That makes sense, its using the smaller motions in sparring that will cement them as your reaction anyway, so the larger motions for training would be beneficial
Personal experience: before I started formal training, I had a martial artist friend show me some basics with escrima sticks.
Several months later, I had a conflict with a group of three men. While I should have just home instead of insisting on talking to my wayward girlfriend, I grabbed my sticks and insisted on speaking with her.
The group's leader grabbed a tire tool and decided they would just as soon put me down as let that conversation happen.
One of the two unarmed men rushed me and I laid a combination of about six strikes across his head and shoulders as I sidestepped his "shoot" and it took him all the way to the ground. I backed off and and watched as they helped him to his feet -- and then they immediately ALL rushed me, pulled me to the ground, threw the sticks as far away as the could, and then held me down for a beating. I lost three teeth and they probably would have killed me if not for a bystander who suggested they probably shouldn't.
Now granted, I made a long list of bad decisions in this particular instance. But in addition to being an object lesson in making wise choices, it also shows: there are times when you have to look out for you OWN well being FIRST. If I would have followed up and made sure he was incapicitated, I would have only had TWO attackers to deal with.
"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"
End note: nowadays I would never EVER get myself into such a situation exactly like that one. In addition to being better trained to defend myself, martial arts has helped me grow as a person and make better decisions about what kind of people I associate with as well as avoiding conflict: some conversations with wayward girlfriends just aren't worth having.
Iif I ever wind up in a situation where I feel my life is under serious threat, I will do what I have to survive. Especially running. Im very good at that, and stuff like Free Running can be a very useful skill sometime. But if thats not possible, I'll do what I have to.
However sitations where Im under that much threat are less than likely, because I prefer to avoid trouble, and when trouble happens its usually easy enough to handle, unless I do something stupid to escalate the situation.
exile
09-29-2006, 04:34 PM
they immediately ALL rushed me, pulled me to the ground, threw the sticks as far away as the could, and then held me down for a beating. I lost three teeth and they probably would have killed me if not for a bystander who suggested they probably shouldn't.
Ouch. That was a close one, amigo. Three vs. one is bad and a tire iron is in general really bad (unless you're the one holding it); the two together are way worse than really bad. What's strange is that they paid any attention to what the bystander you mentioned was telling them---people in that situation aren't usually amenable to the argument that, look, do you want to spend the rest of your life in max security?
Now granted, I made a long list of bad decisions in this particular instance. But in addition to being an object lesson in making wise choices, it also shows: there are times when you have to look out for you OWN well being FIRST. If I would have followed up and made sure he was incapicitated, I would have only had TWO attackers to deal with.
You're right---there are times when the guy on the ground needs to stay there for a bit, and one of those times is when he has pals with who has the same mindset he has.
"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"
If it's one guy against multiple attackers, the consensus among lawyers who've written stuff I've seen on martial arts case law is that you have much greater lattitude to use incapacitating force than if it's one on one---for exactly the reason you've given.
End note: nowadays I would never EVER get myself into such a situation exactly like that one. In addition to being better trained to defend myself, martial arts has helped me grow as a person and make better decisions about what kind of people I associate with as well as avoiding conflict: some conversations with wayward girlfriends just aren't worth having.
That's one great thing about MAs: if your head is screwed on right to start with, they can help you develop a perspective that will keep you out of trouble that other guys, with serious insecurities and toxic aggressiveness, get into---often way over their heads. A lot of us have probably done unbelievably reckless, impulsive things before we got things worked out. I guess we're among the lucky ones; the unlucky ones wouldn't be walking around much these day.
I've got a bunch of stuff I gotta get done but will come back later this evening and try to pick up on some of the earlier great posts you guys are sending out today...
exile
09-30-2006, 02:27 AM
With regards someone throwing that type of hooking punch, they're most likely going to sucker punch you. Usually that places you too close to them to move to the outside properly
It's true: once the distance has been closed in a major way, you're kind of stuck inside, aren't you. I think that the outside move is probably viable when they're going after you before they've moved into the close-quarters fighting range, but after that, yes, you'd probably better make up your mind you're stuck inside.
I personally would close and grab, negating the punch, and elbow their face happily.
That's the great thing about them punching first---if you can simply step in with the punch going past you and rotate your torso to bring your crooked elbow in front of their body, you have a whole bunch of stuff you can do up close which they can't do anything about because they're committed to the punch. Any martial art that's lasted this long is going to provide resources for you to use to exploit this situation.
I've had punches thrown at me on a couple of occasions in the fairly distant past, but none of them were straight punches. On the other hand, my assailants weren't seasoned streetfighters either. So you could be right about straight punches being more common than we would expect given the usual story we MA types like to tell each other about the universality of the untrained-drunk-jerk-in-the-bar-roundhouse and how that's what we have to prepare for when we're training self-defense.
From what Ive researched on they type of reaction your trying to create, your better off creating a more generalised "flinch repsonse" than any type of specific movement reaction. The body can only remember so many reactions under pressure, if you try to build too many reactions into it, then it will either freeze up or slow your reaction speed dramatically.
Its referred to as Hicks Law, the more reactions your body has to choose from, the longer it will take to pick which one to use.
Yeah, I've seen references to Hick's Law---increase in choices is related to increase in reaction time in some nonlinear fashion---logorithmic? Or something dramatic like that. It's the basic idea of the old Greek epigram that the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing, and usually does better at staying alive in a tight situation. It makes perfect sense. But will it not be a different story if you train to condition one type of move at one range, say, and a different one at a closer range at another---will you still be running into the Hicks Law problem?
I've been coming across a lot of references lately to this idea that you should work with the instinctive flinch response. Simon O'Neil has written a bit about this in his work on bunkai for TKD poomsae, and Kane and Wilder talk a lot about it in their stuff on bunkai interpretation. There seems to be a consensus that you do need a really stripped-down toolkit for typical nasty street encounters. K&W make the interesting observation that this fact is consistent with the well-known specialization of many early elite karateka to practice only one or two kata over many years---Funikoshi is supposed to have studied, and trained, Naihanchi almost exclusively for nine years. He knew that particular kata inside and out and also knew the `hard' bukai for it and trained these over a decade till the fighting responses became conditioned reflexes. If we want our MAs to be practical, I guess we have to do the same. It's just another sign of how far the MAs have come from their practical combat origins that people are required to know in excess of ten forms to pass their first dan tests...
It's just another sign of how far the MAs have come from their practical combat origins that people are required to know in excess of ten forms to pass their first dan tests...
On the other hand, there is a lot of duplication of techniques throughout those forms. For example, basic punch is used several times in just about all the forms.
And if you limit your responses too much, you are too easily countered.
Shotgun Buddha
10-02-2006, 06:03 AM
On the other hand, there is a lot of duplication of techniques throughout those forms. For example, basic punch is used several times in just about all the forms.
And if you limit your responses too much, you are too easily countered.
That only counts in a sparring/duelling scenario.
Average self-defence situation lasts between 10-30 seconds, and is usually constant attack by one party, normally the one who wins.
Thats hardly much time to assess someone beyond the fact that either they're hitting you or you're hitting them.
Hehe no worries mate. I kinda fall into a mix of all three camps - MMA, TMA, RBSD, rather than any one in particular. And while my focus is self-defence, im interested in all three areas. My big thing, regardless of of the focus, is "How does it work and how could it work better?"
I just love learning I guess.
Looks like we have a few things in common. :)
I can see the uses of gear alright, but I'd personally use it as an add on measure, rather than my main one. Practice getting the delivery systems down solid using full contact sparring, so that we have a nice solid base for striking, grappling etc
And then for anything that will do too much damage or there's too much risk for practicing without gear, shove on some sort of protective gear.
There's actually very few things I would consider this neccessary for though, main one being the eyes.
I prefer not to train lethal/crippling techniques too thoroughly, due to the trouble in practicing them.
I do ensure I have a firm understanding of how they work, and have gone over them in practice, but its not something I'd do regularly.
Also figure there's way too much legal mess with them too.
I think its good to have a balance of techniques, as every situation is going to be different. As for the gear, I think its good to train with and without. I train techniques without it, but for that extra contact, we do put it on.
I do practice them, but to be honest, I don't think anything really prepares you for a knife attack.
My normal methods of pratice work like this.
1. Standard two man drill where we just practice defending against the knife attacks. Important details -
The attacker will either have the knife hidden, or obscured, ie the knife has been palmed.
The attacker will follow no specific attack pattern.
Attacker will not stop until has been disabled.
2. Normal sparring drills, but one of them has training knife hidden on person unknown to the other, will pull it during the course of sparring.
Same details as the first.
3. At some point during training, random attack on student using training knife. Usually break off immediately after initial contact on this one, because one - you normally get stabbed pretty fast
two - Suprise attacks can get out of hand way too easily
Normally for these we start off with rubber knives that have been marked with chalk or paint etc so that cuts will show, and then we move up to marked wooden tanto's so that its more solid.
As I said, I don't think anything prepares you for knife attacks, happened to me before and they're bloody terrifying. However since they're increasingly likely, its best to at least attempt some sort of decent training for them, just in case.
Blade work certainly isn't easy, but I do feel that there have been some pretty good defenses discussed on here in other threads. I personally like to use something on the edge, as it'll give a more realistic feel, as we can see when we make a mistake.
Hehe not everyone is so reasonable about it, had more than one person say they don't consider me a "true" martial artist.As far as Im concerned so long as someone enjoys what they do, and honest about it, then Ive no right to criticise them.
:) Thanks for a great discussion! There has been alot of great info in this thread.
Mike
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.