After contemplation, scratching is a real legit move

[KangTsai]

I think that scratching somebody's face in is a working move in fighting. I theorised what you can actually do with it.
-you can make opponent close eyes, this goes for slapping as well = tactical benefit and windows for more powerful strikes/techniques without risk of missing
-if they don't close eyes = blindness ensured for complete control
-it really really hurts, and you are not passing it off with adrenaline = pain reaction garuanteed
-if opponent grabs wrist in attempt to stop scratching = elbow to face. Remember that post?
-extra three inches to attack reach
-open wounds = biological warfare: enjoy infections

Seriously though, scratching is viable as supplementary techniques in a fight. I respect tiger claw kung fu a lot more now.

 

[Paul_D]

I think people probably figured this out 1000s of years ago.

 

[jobo]

I think that scratching somebody's face in is a working move in fighting. I theorised what you can actually do with it.
-you can make opponent close eyes, this goes for slapping as well = tactical benefit and windows for more powerful strikes/techniques without risk of missing
-if they don't close eyes = blindness ensured for complete control
-it really really hurts, and you are not passing it off with adrenaline = pain reaction garuanteed
-if opponent grabs wrist in attempt to stop scratching = elbow to face. Remember that post?
-extra three inches to attack reach
-open wounds = biological warfare: enjoy infections

Seriously though, scratching is viable as supplementary techniques in a fight. I respect tiger claw kung fu a lot more now.

don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option

 

[Juany118]

don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option

With enough force no you don't. You need to think of it not simply as "scratching" but also thrusting into the surface at the same time. I did that once in desperation at work hanging onto the back of a weight lifter who outwieghed me literally by over 100 lbs (when I started on the job I would be as light as 150 at the end of a racing season) trying to get him off my partner. When we got the suspect to the hospital he not only had the dislocated wrist (that happened when I took him down after the rake) but deep scratches on his face and serious petechiae within one eye, the petechiae also being a result of the rake. If I had gone all out and wasn't just looking for that rake to get him off my partner and off balance I could realistically have blinded him in that eye.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Empty hands are tools, tools are weapons. The way they can be used is nearly limitless.

I have seen single knuckle strikes, open hand strikes, slaps, fingertip strikes, strikes with the base of the thumb, etc, etc. All work when done right.

One would suppose that an analysis of weak points on the body would reveal the eyes as a vulnerable target. They are required for fighting for most of us. Our instincts tell us to protect our eyes at all times. This makes the eyes a good target for feints as well as actual attacks.

My training teaches me to use the back fist for this purpose. You get good power and extention and can deliver it from a side stance. However, I can see where the two techniques could complement each other.

 

[jobo]

With enough force no you don't. You need to think of it not simply as "scratching" but also thrusting into the surface at the same time. I did that once in desperation at work hanging onto the back of a weight lifter who outwieghed me literally by over 100 lbs (when I started on the job I would be as light as 150 at the end of a racing season) trying to get him off my partner. When we got the suspect to the hospital he not only had the dislocated wrist (that happened when I took him down after the rake) but deep scratches on his face and serious petechiae within one eye, the petechiae also being a result of the rake. If I had gone all out and wasn't just looking for that rake to get him off my partner and off balance I could realistically have blinded him in that eye.

you've just admitted it was in desperation, which is what I said. Im not sure i would try to blind someone unless I was truly and deeply desperate. But we are taking about raking someone's eye not scratching them was the ops point.
I've finish any number of fights, to find myself covered in scratches, that I was completely obvious to at the time

 

[Danny T]

Excellent for collecting DNA.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Seriously though, scratching is viable as supplementary techniques in a fight. I respect tiger claw kung fu a lot more now.

The tiger technique is widely misunderstood. The technique doesn't use scratching it uses grabbing, the scratching occurs as the opponent is trying to escape from the technique. For example. With grab from tiger, I'm trying to grab your face and use your eye sockets the same way that I put my fingers into a bowling ball. The fingers are bent the way that they are because it increased the possibility that my fingers will hook into your eye sockets. If you look at the picture below each finger is like a tiny meat hook. This rakes across your face in hopes that it will catch your eye sockets or hook into the loose skin of your face (basically grabbing a hand full of facial tissue and pulling). If the person escapes from the technique or the technique misses then it causes scratching. In reality martial artist shouldn't have long finger nails as it interferes with the ability to create a proper fist. If you look at hand conditioning and training requirements for the "Tiger Claw" you will see that there is no scratching involved. All of of the training is designed so that the finger can hold the position while grabbing and hooking. The Tiger claw is also use for striking, this is where the fingers are pulled back towards the palm

Self-defense classes for women usually screw up the purpose of the Tiger Claw and they use it to scratch the face

 

[JowGaWolf]

strikes with the base of the thumb

I recently did this about a month ago and it dazed my opponent . I wasn't intentionally trying to strike with my opponent, but the way we make fist in Jow Ga caused the thumb to create a point. The point from my thumb was significant enough for it to be felt through boxing gloves (what I was wearing at the time). When my thumb struck you could hear it pop. I was happy that I didn't break it because I don't train or condition to hit with my thumb.

raking someone's eye not scratching them

Yeah there's a big difference between Raking and Scratching. Scratching is going to cause surface damage while Raking is going to dig deeper and actually destroy tissue and muscle below the surface.

 

[JP3]

I think people probably figured this out 1000s of years ago.

I know ladies did, thus the social acceptability of the fashion of having long, painted yet still pointy, fingernails.

 

[DanT]

I have dozens of scars from being scratched when fighting or sparring. I didn't feel a single one until showering after. The tiger claw technique is for "pawing" (palm striking) the person, usually 45 degrees downward or horizontally like a hook. It's not a scratching motion, although the fingers can be raked over the eyes after palming the face. If you can scratch, you can punch or palm strike.

 

[Headhunter]

You only just realised that?

 

[drop bear]

don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option

Depends where you are. I wouldn't scratch if i can throw an elbow for example.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

2 of the most devastating moves in our system are the "Tiger Swipe" and "Tiger Strike" that use the traditional Tiger Claw to tear down an opponent's face, gouging out the eyes and ripping the skin from the face. Tiger style practitioners condition their fingers by repeatedly striking hard objects to make their strikes even more powerful. They also train their grip so that when they grab something, it isn't escaping.

skip to 7:16 to see the tiger grip in action.

 

[JP3]

skip to 7:16 to see the tiger grip in action.

Don't you guys owe G.I. Joe some royalty kick-backs? I mean, he had the Kung Fu Grip copyrighted way back in 1974 and all...

Well, maybe Tiger Grip existed before that, but you have to do your paperwork.

 

[oftheherd1]

don't you need long nails to cause any significant scratching, imho is no more than an annoyance to the oppoinent, certainly going for the eyes is a reasonable techneque , but not scratching at them, unless you have no where else to go, its a desperate last throw of the dice, if that's your best option

No.

Put a soft piece of cloth on one of your fingers and run it over one of your eyes. Then come back and let us the effect. And then consider a well trimmed fingernail which isn't soft at all.

In the Hapkido I studied, we have moves that rake the eyes. One would be a simple front bear hug with the arms free. Slip an arm to the small of the small of the opponent's back. With the other hand strike up under the chin. As you do so, you fingers should fall into the opponent's eyes. Defense against the hand is difficult due to the pain in the neck. I used to tell students to see how much eye matter they could collect under their fingernails. If the opponent can't see, he can't fight.

 

[JP3]

As you do so, you fingers should fall into the opponent's eyes. Defense against the hand is difficult due to the pain in the neck. I used to tell students to see how much eye matter they could collect under their fingernails. If the opponent can't see, he can't fight.

Hapkido people are mean.

 

[Juany118]

you've just admitted it was in desperation, which is what I said. Im not sure i would try to blind someone unless I was truly and deeply desperate. But we are taking about raking someone's eye not scratching them was the ops point.
I've finish any number of fights, to find myself covered in scratches, that I was completely obvious to at the time

I only said "in desperation" because typically that manuver would be an "unnecessary use of force". I not only hit a red zone but I did so in a manner that easily could have permanently maimed the suspect. Police, in theory, have training and tools that should make such a technique rare if ever used.

On the other hand, in an unarmed self defense situation a civilian, imo, would have more wiggle room. The standard for self defense is that the force used is reasonable based on the defenders training and, more importantly, experience. I regrettably have a lot of experience with violence so it is easier for someone to argue that I used a level of force that one may call "overkill". On the other hand a civilian being assaulted for the first time would be able to argue that they had never faced violence before and so such a technique could be found reasonable in more varied circumstances.

 

[Paul_D]

The standard for self defense is that the force used is reasonable based on the defenders training and, more importantly, experience.

Not every country has the same laws, so it's far from 'standard'.

 

[Juany118]

Not every country has the same laws, so it's far from 'standard'.

Well that's what the Crown Prosecutor's Web site says (UK).

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken

Heck the Law Commission went so far as to say that such a standard is necessary otherwise a battered woman or abused child using excessive force because they are physically at a disadvantage and not under imminent attack, would be denied a defence. Further, an occupant not sure if violence to defend their property against invasion is reasonable, may feel forced to do nothing.

Australia says it has to be an objectively reasonable response to the circumstances as subjectively perceived them.

And the US obviously has this standard. So it seems the Nations most of the contributors live in here are largely on the same page. Not surprising since the self defense laws in all three are grounded in English Common Law.