Can a martial art kills?

[Dirty Dog]

Maybe your are thinking of the thought that if you had chicken pox, you were less likely to get measles. I don't think that is entirely true either, but it used to be an accepted belief.

Different pathogen entirely. I don't think there is any actual science behind this, though you're right that it was a widespread belief (as was "cats will suck the life out of a baby" and "you can't get pregnant if you're nursing" etc...).

So is the shingles vaccination the same as the chicken pox vaccination? I had chicken pox as a kid, as did a lot of kids, but thankfully have not had shingles. Yet. I hope I never do.

They have some similarity, but they're not the same.
I hope you never do either.

You have my sympathies! Three outbreaks, wow.

Sadly, that's not uncommon for immune compromised people. Chemo is gonna get you no matter what...

Oatmeal baths I have heard of. I don't remember how my mother treated me other than keeping a very close watch on me so she could keep me from scratching. Wow I hated that! I wanted to scratch so bad! But oatmeal wasn't a treatment back then.

Socks on the hands to prevent scratching was also popular. Big thick ones.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unless they get hit and cannot compose themselves in time to be able to use that training. Then it is not really a fight based on martial arts ability.

That doesn't mean they didn't get any benefit from it. You could say exactly the same thing about someone who actually sparred, but never got hit hard until that moment (sparring too soft or they are simply better than their partners). They are still better prepared than if they didn't do the bag work. You're arguing an absolute position, DB.

 

[oftheherd1]

Different pathogen entirely. I don't think there is any actual science behind this, though you're right that it was a widespread belief (as was "cats will suck the life out of a baby" and "you can't get pregnant if you're nursing" etc...).

I used to think that was totally superstition as well. Then I noticed some photos with a cat sitting on a baby's chest, or curled up there. It occurred to me that a cat might be lured there by the smell of milk on the baby's face/lips. If large enough or the baby not yet sufficiently strong, I thought it possible the cat might have enough weight to inhibit the baby's breathing to the point of suffocation. It probably wouldn't happen often, but it wouldn't have to for a superstition to take hold in less enlightened times.

The only one I could find with a quick search: I have seen photos where the cat was perched entirely on a baby's chest, and leaned forward.

What would you think, other than cats for some reason sitting on a baby's chest after sensing a SIDS condition?

They have some similarity, but they're not the same.
I hope you never do either.



Sadly, that's not uncommon for immune compromised people. Chemo is gonna get you no matter what...



Socks on the hands to prevent scratching was also popular. Big thick ones.

I have heard Chemo can be a bear. My prostate cancer was caught soon enough to use radiation only, and that was debilitating enough. Either way you are killing good cells with the bad, and your body must deal with that.

On yeah, you are right. I had forgotten about thick socks. But my dim recollection as probably a 3 or 4 year old, was that nothing available then would have prevented me from pitting my face like the moon, except my mother's stern watchfulness.

 

[drop bear]

That doesn't mean they didn't get any benefit from it. You could say exactly the same thing about someone who actually sparred, but never got hit hard until that moment (sparring too soft or they are simply better than their partners). They are still better prepared than if they didn't do the bag work. You're arguing an absolute position, DB.

There are elements that have a large increase in a gross capacity to fight. And there are elements that have a finer increase.

Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.

This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.

please tell me what advantage these guys training gave them.

Ok a bit of cardio mabye.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.

What is the evidence that this is absolute? That's where your argument is weak. I'd agree if you said without the gross development, you are less likely to get benefit from the finer development. And the video just muddies the issue.

 

[Touch Of Death]

There are elements that have a large increase in a gross capacity to fight. And there are elements that have a finer increase.

Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.

This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.

please tell me what advantage these guys training gave them.

Ok a bit of cardio mabye.

I would say they were evenly matched, but not everybody was Bruce Lee.

 

[drop bear]

I would say they were evenly matched, but not everybody was Bruce Lee.

It is not about being Bruce Lee. It is about developing a tool set with no delivery system.

 

[drop bear]

What is the evidence that this is absolute? That's where your argument is weak. I'd agree if you said without the gross development, you are less likely to get benefit from the finer development. And the video just muddies the issue.

Sorry. In my experience. It is a trend I have noticed and a concern for a lot of fighters starting out.

And what you generally get is what happens on that Chinese masters video. Which is flailing.

 

[DaveB]

There are elements that have a large increase in a gross capacity to fight. And there are elements that have a finer increase.

Without the gross development you cannot employ the finer development.

This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.

please tell me what advantage these guys training gave them.

Ok a bit of cardio mabye.

All this still ignores the fact that the OP never said anything about having never sparred, making Martial D's comment just another attempt at derailing a discussion with his and your one single unchanging monotonous repetitive issue.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry. In my experience. It is a trend I have noticed and a concern for a lot of fighters starting out.

And what you generally get is what happens on that Chinese masters video. Which is flailing.

I find that surprising, if they've spent time on a bag. They might not have great control, but I'd expect them to be able to throw a decent punch with decent power. My biggest issue with what was in the video was they seemed unable to deliver power. They made hits, but the hits weren't anything the other guy couldn't walk through.

 

[drop bear]

All this still ignores the fact that the OP never said anything about having never sparred, making Martial D's comment just another attempt at derailing a discussion with his and your one single unchanging monotonous repetitive issue.

No it doesn't. The point I am trying to make doesn't hinge on OP having sparred or not. Just there are transitional elemnts that are important making a person able to use their martial arts for fighting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No it doesn't. The point I am trying to make doesn't hinge on OP having sparred or not. Just there are transitional elemnts that are important making a person able to use their martial arts for fighting.

And that statement I agree with.

 

[JR 137]

This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.

Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
~ Mike Tyson

The ability to take a solid hit and keep going is at least as important as being able to dish one out. To be honest, I’d say it’s more important, as seldomly will a person be defending themselves against a weaker person, and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.

If you can’t take a hit, it doesn’t much matter what you know and/or do; it’s lights out. Tap-tap sparring doesn’t teach that. You don’t need to get hit day in and day out, but you need to get hit consistently and get hit hard every now and then. Light, and certainly non-contact will only teach you so much; hard contact will teach you what you really need to know about yourself.

 

[Paul_D]

and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.

If you can't escape, and you can't deescalate, you strike preemptively. Yes things don't always go according to plan, but to say it is seldom you won't get hit by an attacker, no I wouldn't say that's right at all. I would say the opposite, if you are doing SD properly, then to get hit first there are quite a few things have to go wrong in order for that to happen.

 

[drop bear]

If you can't escape, and you can't deescalate, you strike preemptively. Yes things don't always go according to plan, but to say it is seldom you won't get hit by an attacker, no I wouldn't say that's right at all. I would say the opposite, if you are doing SD properly, then to get hit first there are quite a few things have to go wrong in order for that to happen.

Not really. You are confusing the reality of self defence with what you get told about self defence.

Ultimately there is a bad guy who wants to do bad, and is employing tactics in which to do so.

And there is you employing tactics to prevent that. So you can still do everything right and still get caught.

 

[JR 137]

This is the old martial arts issue. People train all this cool stuf, get hit and loose their capacity to employ their training. The outcome goes to the tougher or luckier individual.

Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
~ Mike Tyson

The ability to take a solid hit and keep going is at least as important as being able to dish one out. To be honest, I’d say it’s more important, as seldomly will a person be defending themselves against a weaker person, and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.

If you can’t take a hit, it doesn’t much matter what you know and/or do; it’s lights out. Tap-tap sparring doesn’t teach that. You don’t need to get hit day in and day out, but you need to get hit consistently and get hit hard every now and then. Light, and certainly non-contact will only teach you so much; hard contact will teach you what you really need to know about you

If you can't escape, and you can't deescalate, you strike preemptively. Yes things don't always go according to plan, but to say it is seldom you won't get hit by an attacker, no I wouldn't say that's right at all. I would say the opposite, if you are doing SD properly, then to get hit first there are quite a few things have to go wrong in order for that to happen.

How come everyone gets the same tirade on SD? Why do you assume I didn’t consider the things you said?

Taking all of those things into account, and pre-emptively striking your attacker, and the chances he/she’ll hit back are still very high. I’m no Mas Oyama who allegedly (strong emphasis on allegedly) killed several bulls with one punch nor can I make power lines sway by punching telephone poles like he allegedly (again the emphasis) did. Very, very few people are. And often enough, hitting and running as fast as you can isn’t an option nor a realistic scenario. Turning your back on an attacker in an SD situation could have quite dire consequences in many scenarios.

I can hit pretty damn hard. Just ask people I train with and people I’ve hit. But far more often than not, people have hit me back - sparring bare knuckle, street/bar fighting, and actual SD (although I’m sure you know my personal SD situations better than I do and will say they weren’t true SD).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
~ Mike Tyson

This is not always true. Even if a boxer almost punches a wrestler to death, that wrestler will still look down on the boxer's leg and tries to take that boxer down. That wrestle has no other plan. Will that wrestler start to swing punches toward the boxer? That won't be smart.

IMO, "plan" is what you can do the best. In CMA, it's called "door guarding skills".

 

[Paul_D]

How come everyone gets the same tirade on SD?

That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you. You said that most people will get hit by their attacker. Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.

Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake. They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it. They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.

Why do you assume I didn’t consider the things you said?

Because you said in most cases you will get hit first.

Taking all of those things into account, and preemptively striking your attacker, and the chances he/she’ll hit back are still very high.
I’m no Mas Oyama who allegedly (strong emphasis on allegedly) killed several bulls with one punch nor can I make power lines sway by punching telephone poles like he allegedly (again the emphasis) did.

This is part of your problem. You are thinking in terms of exchange blows with people, as you do in a fight/sparring/sporting contest. You don't hit someone preemptively in SD and then stop so he can have a turn hitting you and keep taking it in turns until there is a winner.

Striking preemptively means you hit them, and do not stop hitting them until they are no longer a threat, then you escape. That may in some cases be one blow yes, but in other cases it may take more. Either way he does not get a go. I get a go, then another go and another go until I don't need anymore goes. That is why you are incorrect. If done correctly, in more case than not you will not get hit by your attacker is you are doing SD correctly. It's not 100% of the time, but I never said it was.

I have no idea where you are getting this idea that you only hit once, but clearly the fact you have this idea (and the idea that you will get hit more times than not) shows you don't understand how SD is supposed to work when done correctly. You are thinking in terms of fighting (exchanging blows). You are giving not only bad advice but also dangerous advice by telling them they will get hit more often than not, and are only allowed to preemptively strike once, and then have to let the other guy hit them back.

And often enough, hitting and running as fast as you can isn’t an option nor a realistic scenario.

That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.

Turning your back on an attacker in an SD situation could have quite dire consequences in many scenarios.

That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.

I can hit pretty damn hard. Just ask people I train with and people I’ve hit. But far more often than not, people have hit me back - sparring bare knuckle, street/bar fighting,

Because you are hitting fighters. Again, you are thinking in terms of SD as one martial artists trying to out fight another martial artist. Muggers, sexual predators, killers etc are not looking to fight you. A mugger will ask you the time, then if you are daft enough to take your phone out of your pocket to see the time, they'll sucker punch your and steal your phone. Did Ted Bundy challenge his victims to three five minutes rounds, or did he put his arm in a sling and ask his victims to help him load shopping into a car?

They do not want to fight you, they want the easiest way to take what they want. Hence, they don't get into fights, because a) they are very good at victim selection, and b) they will use the four D's (Deception, Dialogue, Distraction, Destruction) to take you out of the game before you even knew you were in it. They won't give you "a go" at hitting back, because that lessens their chances of success.

You are hitting trained MAs who are used to being hit, and hit hard every week, because they are the people you train with. Dojos up and down the country are not full of muggers and sexual predators stepping into the ring to learn how to take a hard shot.

(although I’m sure you know my personal SD situations better than I do and will say they weren’t true SD).

No I don't. But I can only go on the information in your post, which was suggesting that more often than not you will get hit, and and talking in terms of single preemptive strike.

That was also an explanation btw, not a tirade. The tirade would usually come after you continue to argue with this post, but there is clearly little hope if you are going to argue with "if you are doing SD correctly you don't get hit more often than not".

Over and out x x

 

[drop bear]

That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you. You said that most people will get hit by their attacker. Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.

Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake. They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it. They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.


Because you said in most cases you will get hit first.


This is part of your problem. You are thinking in terms of exchange blows with people, as you do in a fight/sparring/sporting contest. You don't hit someone preemptively in SD and then stop so he can have a turn hitting you and keep taking it in turns until there is a winner.

Striking preemptively means you hit them, and do not stop hitting them until they are no longer a threat, then you escape. That may in some cases be one blow yes, but in other cases it may take more. Either way he does not get a go. I get a go, then another go and another go until I don't need anymore goes. That is why you are incorrect. If done correctly, in more case than not you will not get hit by your attacker is you are doing SD correctly. It's not 100% of the time, but I never said it was.

I have no idea where you are getting this idea that you only hit once, but clearly the fact you have this idea (and the idea that you will get hit more times than not) shows you don't understand how SD is supposed to work when done correctly. You are thinking in terms of fighting (exchanging blows). You are giving not only bad advice but also dangerous advice by telling them they will get hit more often than not, and are only allowed to preemptively strike once, and then have to let the other guy hit them back.


That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.


That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.


Because you are hitting fighters. Again, you are thinking in terms of SD as one martial artists trying to out fight another martial artist. Muggers, sexual predators, killers etc are not looking to fight you. A mugger will ask you the time, then if you are daft enough to take your phone out of your pocket to see the time, they'll sucker punch your and steal your phone. Did Ted Bundy challenge his victims to three five minutes rounds, or did he put his arm in a sling and ask his victims to help him load shopping into a car?

They do not want to fight you, they want the easiest way to take what they want. Hence, they don't get into fights, because a) they are very good at victim selection, and b) they will use the four D's (Deception, Dialogue, Distraction, Destruction) to take you out of the game before you even knew you were in it. They won't give you "a go" at hitting back, because that lessens their chances of success.

You are hitting trained MAs who are used to being hit, and hit hard every week, because they are the people you train with. Dojos up and down the country are not full of muggers and sexual predators stepping into the ring to learn how to take a hard shot.


No I don't. But I can only go on the information in your post, which was suggesting that more often than not you will get hit, and and talking in terms of single preemptive strike.

That was also an explanation btw, not a tirade. The tirade would usually come after you continue to argue with this post, but there is clearly little hope if you are going to argue with "if you are doing SD correctly you don't get hit more often than not".

Over and out x x

You are relying on a compilation of truth, half truth and fantasy.

Which is my basic issue with self defence instruction. And how guys can get so messed up by it.

 

[JR 137]

That's not a tirade, that's 2-3 sentences disagreeing with you. You said that most people will get hit by their attacker. Yes, you will if you are not doing SD correctly, however for the average citizen protecting themselves from non consensual criminal violence if you are doing SD correctly that's not true, more often than not you won't get hit first.

Although to answer your question, most people get the same tirade because most people make the same mistake. They give people advice on SD when they don't understand it. They are only able to see SD in terms of men getting into bar fights, and refuse to accept that any other scenario that exists can be classed as SD.


Because you said in most cases you will get hit first.


This is part of your problem. You are thinking in terms of exchange blows with people, as you do in a fight/sparring/sporting contest. You don't hit someone preemptively in SD and then stop so he can have a turn hitting you and keep taking it in turns until there is a winner.

Striking preemptively means you hit them, and do not stop hitting them until they are no longer a threat, then you escape. That may in some cases be one blow yes, but in other cases it may take more. Either way he does not get a go. I get a go, then another go and another go until I don't need anymore goes. That is why you are incorrect. If done correctly, in more case than not you will not get hit by your attacker is you are doing SD correctly. It's not 100% of the time, but I never said it was.

I have no idea where you are getting this idea that you only hit once, but clearly the fact you have this idea (and the idea that you will get hit more times than not) shows you don't understand how SD is supposed to work when done correctly. You are thinking in terms of fighting (exchanging blows). You are giving not only bad advice but also dangerous advice by telling them they will get hit more often than not, and are only allowed to preemptively strike once, and then have to let the other guy hit them back.


That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.


That's true, but clearly that comment was not aimed at those scenarios.


Because you are hitting fighters. Again, you are thinking in terms of SD as one martial artists trying to out fight another martial artist. Muggers, sexual predators, killers etc are not looking to fight you. A mugger will ask you the time, then if you are daft enough to take your phone out of your pocket to see the time, they'll sucker punch your and steal your phone. Did Ted Bundy challenge his victims to three five minutes rounds, or did he put his arm in a sling and ask his victims to help him load shopping into a car?

They do not want to fight you, they want the easiest way to take what they want. Hence, they don't get into fights, because a) they are very good at victim selection, and b) they will use the four D's (Deception, Dialogue, Distraction, Destruction) to take you out of the game before you even knew you were in it. They won't give you "a go" at hitting back, because that lessens their chances of success.

You are hitting trained MAs who are used to being hit, and hit hard every week, because they are the people you train with. Dojos up and down the country are not full of muggers and sexual predators stepping into the ring to learn how to take a hard shot.


No I don't. But I can only go on the information in your post, which was suggesting that more often than not you will get hit, and and talking in terms of single preemptive strike.

That was also an explanation btw, not a tirade. The tirade would usually come after you continue to argue with this post, but there is clearly little hope if you are going to argue with "if you are doing SD correctly you don't get hit more often than not".

Over and out x x

Please show where I said someone will more often than not get hit FIRST...

Everyone’s got a plan, until they get punched in the face.
~ Mike Tyson

The ability to take a solid hit and keep going is at least as important as being able to dish one out. To be honest, I’d say it’s more important, as seldomly will a person be defending themselves against a weaker person, and even seldomly-ier (is that a word?) will a person not get hit by said attacker.

If you can’t take a hit, it doesn’t much matter what you know and/or do; it’s lights out. Tap-tap sparring doesn’t teach that. You don’t need to get hit day in and day out, but you need to get hit consistently and get hit hard every now and then. Light, and certainly non-contact will only teach you so much; hard contact will teach you what you really need to know about yourself.

As I’ve said, I’ve hit plenty plenty of people inside and OUTSIDE the dojo. You seem to be so focused on my dojo experience and lesser so, although still focused on my bar fighting. You somehow missed the part of me hitting people outside of those scenarios. I’ve had to do that more than I ever wanted to.

Outside of dojo and consensual fighting, I’ve preemptively hit several people and have been hit first several times. I can tell you that one punch (including throwing several in a combo) doesn’t always cut it. My first strike(s) and my attacker’s.

Why did I call it yet another tirade? Because you seem to throw out your SD definition EVERY SINGLE TIME. And it goes on for pages EVERY SINGLE TIME. And it’s started by and continued by you JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE TIME. It gets quite old.

While your definition of SD is close to mine and most other regulars here, you’re off just a bit. No one can talk about any physical part of defending oneself without you trying to school everyone in your definition of SD.

Again, you have no idea of what I was referring to, even though I said in non-consensual fighting. And it’s not just this thread. And it’s not just me. If you’re the resident expert on what is and is not true SD, please elaborate on your experience and credentials. If you have none other than “I’ve gotten myself out of a lot of situations” you should stop preaching. And as I’ve asked in other threads, in those times you allegedly avoided having to defend yourself, how do you truly know you would’ve had to? Did you have someone around the corner with a polygraph machine administer a survey? All you’ve told us is you’ve avoided physical attacks. We all have.

Maybe I’m not using an appropriate definition of tirade, but when someone keeps going on about the same thing ad neuseam every chance one gets, and continually derails every thread with it for pages on end, I’d call that a tirade.

As for my all caps lines, I’m on an iPhone and can’t italicize easily.