I thought the K-Sys, ROSS and Systema people might find this thread of interest.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=10352
Arthur
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=10352
Arthur
martialtalk thread of interest to RMA people
- Thread starter Arthur
- Start date
T
TAZ
Guest
Arthur,
interesting article..thanks for bringing it to my attention...funny how most people see everything in black and white...all or nothing..this way or that...stranger when we are talking about reality...in a world that is built on shades of grey...
One mans reality is another mans un:rofl:
regards
Dave
interesting article..thanks for bringing it to my attention...funny how most people see everything in black and white...all or nothing..this way or that...stranger when we are talking about reality...in a world that is built on shades of grey...
One mans reality is another mans un:rofl:
regards
Dave
Mildly interesting if somewhat narrowed minded thread/article. Thanks for bringing it up Arthur. I will keep my eye on it to see what if anything developes. One major problem I see is that the author clearly limits his thinking of appropriate space to arms distance +. If that is where he feels comfortable, great. Frankly I am not as enthused about that distance as the author. I prefer to be up close and personal, for me it makes it much easier to feel and read the potential threat, as well as deal with the threat when/if it becomes physical. At a close range I don't need to enter, I am already there.
Likewise the article only looks at distance and nothing about relative angles. A prefered distance is all relative to the relative angle of the two combatants. Furthermore, by changing the relative angles one can exhibit some degree of control over anothers reactions as they struggle to maintain their prefered relative angle. All of this is an interesting topic but it can't be as easily summed up as the author would like.
The intense focus on the hands likewise seems to be narrow minded. If you don't want to get hit move your feet! Moving the body is far faster and far more affective than hand/arm work in my opinion. Plus the body movement to avoid naturely creates my counter attack at the 'SAME' time as my avoidance, i.e. move and counter attack similtaneously. Ah, yet another concept not considered in the article.
And then there is the psychology of always raising the hands. It instantly tells the aggressor that you view him as a threat and that you are prepared to defend youself. He is now more aware of the potential counter threat, he is more prepared to defend himself. He is more aware that he will need to work harder and be prepared for counter actions by his target. I don't always want to give him all of this information and insight.
None of this is to say raising the hands is bad or wrong, for surely it is not. The point is the article takes a hard line stance on what the author believes is absolutely correct and name calls anyone else with a different opinion. As mentioned above the world is shades of grey, not black and white.
mark
Likewise the article only looks at distance and nothing about relative angles. A prefered distance is all relative to the relative angle of the two combatants. Furthermore, by changing the relative angles one can exhibit some degree of control over anothers reactions as they struggle to maintain their prefered relative angle. All of this is an interesting topic but it can't be as easily summed up as the author would like.
The intense focus on the hands likewise seems to be narrow minded. If you don't want to get hit move your feet! Moving the body is far faster and far more affective than hand/arm work in my opinion. Plus the body movement to avoid naturely creates my counter attack at the 'SAME' time as my avoidance, i.e. move and counter attack similtaneously. Ah, yet another concept not considered in the article.
And then there is the psychology of always raising the hands. It instantly tells the aggressor that you view him as a threat and that you are prepared to defend youself. He is now more aware of the potential counter threat, he is more prepared to defend himself. He is more aware that he will need to work harder and be prepared for counter actions by his target. I don't always want to give him all of this information and insight.
None of this is to say raising the hands is bad or wrong, for surely it is not. The point is the article takes a hard line stance on what the author believes is absolutely correct and name calls anyone else with a different opinion. As mentioned above the world is shades of grey, not black and white.
mark
Mark is correct, I agree with his assessment of the article and point of view.
The last time I had time to bring up my hands against an aggressor the ref had asked us if we were ready.
And I'll go as far as saying that the author is a keyboard warrior himself.
(Boy I've got big ones
)
The last time I had time to bring up my hands against an aggressor the ref had asked us if we were ready.
And I'll go as far as saying that the author is a keyboard warrior himself.
(Boy I've got big ones
)NoSuchChick
Yellow Belt
I know... I'll bring my hands up to maintain my "personal space" so that someone can either break them or punch me! Yeah, great thinking! But being based in reality, an aggressor will respect my "personal space" (because my hands are up) and not do that to me...
I don't know what reality YOU live in...
Jennifer
I don't know what reality YOU live in...
Jennifer
Furtry, thanks for the vote of confidence. Good point Jen. But then the three of us are just martialtalk 'yellow belts' so what do we know. 
mark
When is the orange belt testing scheduled? Darn if sensei didn't have it out for me I would be a mauve belt by now! Or at least a teal belt with 2 eggshell strips. Damn I hate politics!
mark
When is the orange belt testing scheduled? Darn if sensei didn't have it out for me I would be a mauve belt by now! Or at least a teal belt with 2 eggshell strips. Damn I hate politics!
W
woda
Guest
When dealing with anyone at my jobs whom I may consider to be hostile (even if it's unlikely), I'll keep my hands up in the manner one of the other respondents to the article mentioned: the prayer position. Or "casual conversation stance." The hands are very close to the body and you look relaxed, no signals given to the subject at all imo.
The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel and also ,imo, it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such) and brings your elbows into play much sooner - also an advantage at a close distance.
As far as the "fencing" position the author states, anyone who's deterred by that isn't very serious to begin with and could be similarly disuaded from aggression through any number of other means.
Also, I have seen moves from several different systems that show how to take advantage of such a situation. I remember one guy, for example, who recommended cops to never take that position when they had their guns drawn (hand with gun held back in a "chambered" position near the torso while the free hand is extended straight ahead).
The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel and also ,imo, it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such) and brings your elbows into play much sooner - also an advantage at a close distance.
As far as the "fencing" position the author states, anyone who's deterred by that isn't very serious to begin with and could be similarly disuaded from aggression through any number of other means.
Also, I have seen moves from several different systems that show how to take advantage of such a situation. I remember one guy, for example, who recommended cops to never take that position when they had their guns drawn (hand with gun held back in a "chambered" position near the torso while the free hand is extended straight ahead).
When standing close to a potentially violent individual, I have had my hands both in a 'casual' and down...and many spots in between. The situation depends on so many factors.
I have seen where others on the job have put their hands up - something like the fencing position - and it brought out a violent reaction that might not have happened otherwise.
Arnisador - many times we will also just 'move' from where we are. Particualrly when doing an exercise that has more than one attacking partner. Anyone whos been to Club Vlad in Toronto may find themself subject to a playful attack at any time - not just on the training floor. Thank God the bathroom has a lock on it!
I have seen where others on the job have put their hands up - something like the fencing position - and it brought out a violent reaction that might not have happened otherwise.
Arnisador - many times we will also just 'move' from where we are. Particualrly when doing an exercise that has more than one attacking partner. Anyone whos been to Club Vlad in Toronto may find themself subject to a playful attack at any time - not just on the training floor. Thank God the bathroom has a lock on it!
Sergi said that you shouldnt have your hands in any position - except by your sides - he said that if u want to have your hands anywhere keep them near your flies or around your nose --
Last week at Mikhails seminar this point was sort of reiterrated with Floyd (and a whip) - He was in a boxers stance until M told him the error of his ways - after he finished he came to me and smiled and said "ahhh now i know what he means " -
P
Last week at Mikhails seminar this point was sort of reiterrated with Floyd (and a whip) - He was in a boxers stance until M told him the error of his ways - after he finished he came to me and smiled and said "ahhh now i know what he means " -
P
Arnisador,
I agree keeping your hands up is good 'general advice'. However, the author wasn't giving general advice. He made a definitive statement about what is absolutely the best way to handle all situations. Then he goes on to ridicule anyone who disagrees with his position. Hardly an open minded chap.
The problem with general advice is just that it is general. You can't really draw any specific conclusions to specific events. Plus it tends to be very elementary in nature so the 'general' public can understand and use the 'general' advice. I believe this topic to be the perfect example, always keeiping your hands up is decent advice for the average Joe that doesn't train, doesn't have any interest in training and is unlikely to be in a physical confrontation.
But then the average person can get by in life only knowing how to add and subtract, they don't need to learn how to multiply, divide, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. I don't mean addition and subtraction are wrong, only that there are more efficient methods to handle many complex problems, plus new ways of viewing those problems. But the author draws a line in the sand at addition and subtraction and states everything else is a waste and it is wrong. Sorry but to me that reeks of close mindedness brought on by fear.
Woda wrote: "The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel and also ,imo, it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such) and brings your elbows into play much sooner - also an advantage at a close distance."
Woda I am not saying that raising your hands is wrong and I like the prayer or thoughtful type stance. However I believe your statement in the quoted paragraph over states the position. My desire is not to nit-pick but discuss an interesting topic.
Let's start towards the end of your paragraph. You write "....it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such)...." Perhaps we are discussing two different things when we both use the term angles. The only way I can see to use your arms to create a different angle would be to physically push, pull or rotate your opponent. Not very efficient. If they are attacking you could use your arms to misdirect their attack with a visual bearer or false target. This is better but perhaps not in the scope of the discussion.
When I talk about changine angles I am talking about moving around the opponent. Not staying squared up and directly infront of the opponent, i.e. moving my entire body. The best (perhaps only) way I know to do this is to use my feet. By moving the feet I can easily change the range and relative angle.....continuously if I want. 'Look mom no hands.' Plus avoiding or deflecting a blow by moving the entire body is far faster than arm motion. Moving the body to safety while keeping structural integrity is a better option than the typical arm flailing seen in most confrontations. As an added bonus as I move to safety I can use my arms to counter attack simultaneously. Heck it's only motion, why not do both at the same time. You mentioned faster, that is faster imo.
Now back to the first part of the the statement, You wrote 'The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel ...'
First you state you can react faster because your hands are up. I disagree with this. Your hands are up so you are creating tension and counter tension in numerous muscle groups. This pre-existing tension slows your reaction time and reduces the speed of your movement as you fight the tension throughout your motion.
At a seminar this summer, Sonny P. gave a demonstration on this very point. He stood directly infront of a student at a little closer than arms length. He then told the student exactly where he was going to strike them (center of the chest). He then had the student move his hand a few inches from the point of impact. Sonny stood with arms at his side and continuously pounded the student. Even though the student knew where the strike was going, had his hands near and knew roughly when the strike was coming he was far to slow to react. This was demonstrated on several people all with the same affect.
The basic math comment is a frequent one in these discussions but it really overstates reality. The basic math comment holds true if one is using the fence stance, then the hands are closer. However in the prayer or thinker stance this is not really the case. Stand up and place your hands at your side in a very natural position. The hands are roughly on the forward most vertical plane of the body, the feet and big noses pierce this plane but generally everything else is on or behind the plane. Now stand in the prayer or thinker stance and note the relationship of the hands to the plane. Generally (there's that word again) the hands are still on the plane although the front part of the hands maybe slightly forward of the plane. Hence you really haven't gained any distance or so slight a distance that it doesn't come close to making up for the increased tension in my body from those stances.
The problem in looking at this situation is that most of us don't realize how close we actually are to our opponent because we focus on one or a limited portion of the opponents body, to the exclusion of the rest of the body. Instead of placing the plane vertical to the body running floor to ceiling we tend to make it horizontal and we feel that by raising our hands we are closer to their body. In actuality we are closer to their head and shoulders (our focus point) but not really any closer to their body.
To often we get caught up in the belief that our strikes have to be to the head or chest when there is a perfectly juice stomach, ribs, pelvis, etc to strike. With the hands hanging at the sides I am just (or almost) as close to these targets as someone in the prayer/thinker stance is to the opponents head. They have simply told the wary attacker their intentions and created tension in the body that slows them down.
As I understand it the big difference in philosophy is that one group feels the arms are used for defense, then offense. The other group believes the feet/body are used for defense through movement and simultaneously employs their offense through the arms (or another body part), i.e. move to safety and counter attack in the SAME motion, not one then the other. One important note is that what one group considers safety (safe range) is probably not what the other considers safety and vis versa. The ranges are vastly different in my camp then the authors. Safety to me means my belly is generally touching the opponent at an odd angle.
I don't understand your comment about being able to employ the elbows faster when the arms are raised. Unless you are head hunting, this doesn't hold true. Perhaps this has to do with range again. I like to use my elbows immediately and in conjunction with my initial movement, great for striking the rib cage.
Sorry to A be so long winded and B have to cut this short due to a time contraint. I am sure others can flesh this out better than I. Take care.
mark
I agree keeping your hands up is good 'general advice'. However, the author wasn't giving general advice. He made a definitive statement about what is absolutely the best way to handle all situations. Then he goes on to ridicule anyone who disagrees with his position. Hardly an open minded chap.
The problem with general advice is just that it is general. You can't really draw any specific conclusions to specific events. Plus it tends to be very elementary in nature so the 'general' public can understand and use the 'general' advice. I believe this topic to be the perfect example, always keeiping your hands up is decent advice for the average Joe that doesn't train, doesn't have any interest in training and is unlikely to be in a physical confrontation.
But then the average person can get by in life only knowing how to add and subtract, they don't need to learn how to multiply, divide, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. I don't mean addition and subtraction are wrong, only that there are more efficient methods to handle many complex problems, plus new ways of viewing those problems. But the author draws a line in the sand at addition and subtraction and states everything else is a waste and it is wrong. Sorry but to me that reeks of close mindedness brought on by fear.
Woda wrote: "The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel and also ,imo, it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such) and brings your elbows into play much sooner - also an advantage at a close distance."
Woda I am not saying that raising your hands is wrong and I like the prayer or thoughtful type stance. However I believe your statement in the quoted paragraph over states the position. My desire is not to nit-pick but discuss an interesting topic.
Let's start towards the end of your paragraph. You write "....it gives you more options on how to move (different angles and such)...." Perhaps we are discussing two different things when we both use the term angles. The only way I can see to use your arms to create a different angle would be to physically push, pull or rotate your opponent. Not very efficient. If they are attacking you could use your arms to misdirect their attack with a visual bearer or false target. This is better but perhaps not in the scope of the discussion.
When I talk about changine angles I am talking about moving around the opponent. Not staying squared up and directly infront of the opponent, i.e. moving my entire body. The best (perhaps only) way I know to do this is to use my feet. By moving the feet I can easily change the range and relative angle.....continuously if I want. 'Look mom no hands.' Plus avoiding or deflecting a blow by moving the entire body is far faster than arm motion. Moving the body to safety while keeping structural integrity is a better option than the typical arm flailing seen in most confrontations. As an added bonus as I move to safety I can use my arms to counter attack simultaneously. Heck it's only motion, why not do both at the same time. You mentioned faster, that is faster imo.
Now back to the first part of the the statement, You wrote 'The reason I do this is because your face-to-face in these situations and you can react faster. It's basic math. If the subject makes a move, your hands have a shorter distnace to travel ...'
First you state you can react faster because your hands are up. I disagree with this. Your hands are up so you are creating tension and counter tension in numerous muscle groups. This pre-existing tension slows your reaction time and reduces the speed of your movement as you fight the tension throughout your motion.
At a seminar this summer, Sonny P. gave a demonstration on this very point. He stood directly infront of a student at a little closer than arms length. He then told the student exactly where he was going to strike them (center of the chest). He then had the student move his hand a few inches from the point of impact. Sonny stood with arms at his side and continuously pounded the student. Even though the student knew where the strike was going, had his hands near and knew roughly when the strike was coming he was far to slow to react. This was demonstrated on several people all with the same affect.
The basic math comment is a frequent one in these discussions but it really overstates reality. The basic math comment holds true if one is using the fence stance, then the hands are closer. However in the prayer or thinker stance this is not really the case. Stand up and place your hands at your side in a very natural position. The hands are roughly on the forward most vertical plane of the body, the feet and big noses pierce this plane but generally everything else is on or behind the plane. Now stand in the prayer or thinker stance and note the relationship of the hands to the plane. Generally (there's that word again) the hands are still on the plane although the front part of the hands maybe slightly forward of the plane. Hence you really haven't gained any distance or so slight a distance that it doesn't come close to making up for the increased tension in my body from those stances.
The problem in looking at this situation is that most of us don't realize how close we actually are to our opponent because we focus on one or a limited portion of the opponents body, to the exclusion of the rest of the body. Instead of placing the plane vertical to the body running floor to ceiling we tend to make it horizontal and we feel that by raising our hands we are closer to their body. In actuality we are closer to their head and shoulders (our focus point) but not really any closer to their body.
To often we get caught up in the belief that our strikes have to be to the head or chest when there is a perfectly juice stomach, ribs, pelvis, etc to strike. With the hands hanging at the sides I am just (or almost) as close to these targets as someone in the prayer/thinker stance is to the opponents head. They have simply told the wary attacker their intentions and created tension in the body that slows them down.
As I understand it the big difference in philosophy is that one group feels the arms are used for defense, then offense. The other group believes the feet/body are used for defense through movement and simultaneously employs their offense through the arms (or another body part), i.e. move to safety and counter attack in the SAME motion, not one then the other. One important note is that what one group considers safety (safe range) is probably not what the other considers safety and vis versa. The ranges are vastly different in my camp then the authors. Safety to me means my belly is generally touching the opponent at an odd angle.
I don't understand your comment about being able to employ the elbows faster when the arms are raised. Unless you are head hunting, this doesn't hold true. Perhaps this has to do with range again. I like to use my elbows immediately and in conjunction with my initial movement, great for striking the rib cage.
Sorry to A be so long winded and B have to cut this short due to a time contraint. I am sure others can flesh this out better than I. Take care.
mark
It is difficult for someone who is based in a method that is loaded with muscle tension to understand how useful relaxation/lack of tension is in responding to an attackers movement.
When you 'stance' - particualrly when the position includes 'pre-loading' a muscular contraction in the limbs or tilt the body out of alignment - it actually slows down free reaction time. Makes the body suseptable to easy off-balancing and the tension of the trunk really retains the pain when struck.
Mark- good post. I also prefer to 'work' extremly close to an attacker.
When you 'stance' - particualrly when the position includes 'pre-loading' a muscular contraction in the limbs or tilt the body out of alignment - it actually slows down free reaction time. Makes the body suseptable to easy off-balancing and the tension of the trunk really retains the pain when struck.
Mark- good post. I also prefer to 'work' extremly close to an attacker.
I like to be up close and personal to my opponent, but my instructors are always telling me to back up! For stickwork it makes sense of course to use the length of the weapon, but it's the same in open hand. I like to be able to reach out and grab my opponent!
Whenever anyone gives me that "fence" stance I find it's easy to break his or her fingers. (Learned that trick at club Vlad
)
Second thing is this: "Relax, you'll live longer" Being relaxed makes it easier to shift/move out of the line of fire.
I think we all agree on that one:shrug:
)Second thing is this: "Relax, you'll live longer" Being relaxed makes it easier to shift/move out of the line of fire.
I think we all agree on that one:shrug:
Klondike93
Master Black Belt
Originally posted by Furtry
Whenever anyone gives me that "fence" stance I find it's easy to break his or her fingers. (Learned that trick at club Vlad
Been there and done that
Brad is always getting my fingers when I try to do that 
It was a good post Mark
M
mpowell
Guest
Same here....
Anyone dumb enough to put their hands low and out like that is gonna get their fingers split open.
Any kid on the street is gonna go high, right over the 'fence'.
I see it everyday due to my profession...I watch real street fights everyday from thugs and gang members, crack addicts, homeless people...all fighting to get away.
I once had a student who had trained in Wing Chun for around 13-14 years. He left it, saying it was not street practical, and examples like the 'fence' were why. He kept assuming his stance, and kept getting hit from high angles outisde of where he expected.
In the Russian styles, we use whole body movement to address situations, not just our hands or our feet, and use waves and absorbtion to address impacts, not yells and screams.
RMA is different in our approach...that's why we all like it.
I don't generally take anyone talking 'reality' seriouslly if they run around with samurai swords. As David James of Vee Arnis Jitsu said, and I paraphrase, "When was the last time you turned on the news and saw someone in the street got killed with a samurai sword? It doesn't happen, so why train for it all the time?"
There's this neat 'I wanna look tough' image that apparently knives, swords, mean looks, and AK-47's give you in websites. Save the theatrics for the theatre.
Lastly, I quote the article:
The why think or assume that just one stance is the answer?
Kinda like guns did to samurai swords...like real street clothes did to Ninja booties...So, I like to train in reality with guns, and in street clothes and be ready for anything anytime.
I take my training and combative expression more serious than I do my writing and my pictures.
M
Anyone dumb enough to put their hands low and out like that is gonna get their fingers split open.
Any kid on the street is gonna go high, right over the 'fence'.
I see it everyday due to my profession...I watch real street fights everyday from thugs and gang members, crack addicts, homeless people...all fighting to get away.
I once had a student who had trained in Wing Chun for around 13-14 years. He left it, saying it was not street practical, and examples like the 'fence' were why. He kept assuming his stance, and kept getting hit from high angles outisde of where he expected.
In the Russian styles, we use whole body movement to address situations, not just our hands or our feet, and use waves and absorbtion to address impacts, not yells and screams.
RMA is different in our approach...that's why we all like it.
I don't generally take anyone talking 'reality' seriouslly if they run around with samurai swords. As David James of Vee Arnis Jitsu said, and I paraphrase, "When was the last time you turned on the news and saw someone in the street got killed with a samurai sword? It doesn't happen, so why train for it all the time?"
There's this neat 'I wanna look tough' image that apparently knives, swords, mean looks, and AK-47's give you in websites. Save the theatrics for the theatre.
Lastly, I quote the article:
The why think or assume that just one stance is the answer?
Kinda like guns did to samurai swords...like real street clothes did to Ninja booties...So, I like to train in reality with guns, and in street clothes and be ready for anything anytime.
I take my training and combative expression more serious than I do my writing and my pictures.
M
While I agree with most of what has been said here, I'm having a problem with the following --
Many different reasons. There is an idea of timing, distance and movement within sword work. That same concept transfers to unarmed just fine.
Why is Jujutsu taught to people that study sword? Same reasons. There is a feeling that needs to be learned and understood before a blade is in one's hands. There was a reason after the Edo period that bujutsu schools studied multiple weapons, though battlefield fighting had ended....and it wasn't just for tradition sake.
In answer to the question...people in the news get killed by katana about once every six months for the last few years. He must not read newspapers very often.
Many different reasons. There is an idea of timing, distance and movement within sword work. That same concept transfers to unarmed just fine.
Why is Jujutsu taught to people that study sword? Same reasons. There is a feeling that needs to be learned and understood before a blade is in one's hands. There was a reason after the Edo period that bujutsu schools studied multiple weapons, though battlefield fighting had ended....and it wasn't just for tradition sake.
In answer to the question...people in the news get killed by katana about once every six months for the last few years. He must not read newspapers very often.
M
mpowell
Guest
That's like saying so many people die of drowning in the tub each year we should all learn to swim in a tub and there should be important classes about it.
So everyone in the nation should train to fight against a katana?
Is being attacked by a katana more reality than being tackled?
Is being hit with a highspinning kick reality? Sorry, it isn't. Most of us probably have more of a chance dieing from a big mousetrap than someone running up on the street with a katana.
It's all about what you training for...and what you are telling the people who train under you.
The point is, if you are doing 'reality'...why train for non-reality 'all the time'? You can train in it, fine, but to the detriment of other skills? Or, thinking that fighting with a katana is 'reality'. I'll call it like I see it...Reality is the actuality and perception of what you will face in an real-world scenario were you to be attacked today, and you train for it. Police have one thing, military has another thing, civilians have another, etc.
In K-Sys, we work with swords, for the exploration of various principles. The principles of fencing figure into our mechanics and use of physics. But, we don't run around with shaska's all the time....everything has it's place.
But, if people come to a site, and see 'REALITY' and the guy is teaching how to kill with throwing stars, is that really fair? Reality is the big buzz word to sell something nowadays to the people in our society who need it most:
Women.
Since Oprah got the craze going, women (houseiwves, soccer moms, single women, etc) look for the 'reality' stamp of approval. And our industry is allowing people to LIE to them. Our industry is allowing people to make women think that reality is Charlie's Angel's and kickboxing will ward off a 220 lb determined rapist, and you are a 100 pound girl.
In general, and to no one in particular, if you have a 'reality' fighting site, and have things that aren't reality, it's should be justified. If I had the time, which I don't because I have a job and things to do, I would create a wonderful 'reality' satire site.
This is my opinion on the matter...reality is what you perceive and what you would actually face in a street fight. Unless you live in feudal Japan, a katana is not reality. I think about one thing when it comes to 'reality' fighting for civilians: Could my 95 pound girlfriend use that to defend herself against a rapist.
If it's not feasible, it's not reality. I would rather my girlfriend learn to kick groins, hit throats, gouge eyes, remove equilibrium, or used improvised weapons than do the crane kick or slice someone with a katana she will never have in the street.
M
So everyone in the nation should train to fight against a katana?
Is being attacked by a katana more reality than being tackled?
Is being hit with a highspinning kick reality? Sorry, it isn't. Most of us probably have more of a chance dieing from a big mousetrap than someone running up on the street with a katana.
It's all about what you training for...and what you are telling the people who train under you.
The point is, if you are doing 'reality'...why train for non-reality 'all the time'? You can train in it, fine, but to the detriment of other skills? Or, thinking that fighting with a katana is 'reality'. I'll call it like I see it...Reality is the actuality and perception of what you will face in an real-world scenario were you to be attacked today, and you train for it. Police have one thing, military has another thing, civilians have another, etc.
In K-Sys, we work with swords, for the exploration of various principles. The principles of fencing figure into our mechanics and use of physics. But, we don't run around with shaska's all the time....everything has it's place.
But, if people come to a site, and see 'REALITY' and the guy is teaching how to kill with throwing stars, is that really fair? Reality is the big buzz word to sell something nowadays to the people in our society who need it most:
Women.
Since Oprah got the craze going, women (houseiwves, soccer moms, single women, etc) look for the 'reality' stamp of approval. And our industry is allowing people to LIE to them. Our industry is allowing people to make women think that reality is Charlie's Angel's and kickboxing will ward off a 220 lb determined rapist, and you are a 100 pound girl.
In general, and to no one in particular, if you have a 'reality' fighting site, and have things that aren't reality, it's should be justified. If I had the time, which I don't because I have a job and things to do, I would create a wonderful 'reality' satire site.
This is my opinion on the matter...reality is what you perceive and what you would actually face in a street fight. Unless you live in feudal Japan, a katana is not reality. I think about one thing when it comes to 'reality' fighting for civilians: Could my 95 pound girlfriend use that to defend herself against a rapist.
If it's not feasible, it's not reality. I would rather my girlfriend learn to kick groins, hit throats, gouge eyes, remove equilibrium, or used improvised weapons than do the crane kick or slice someone with a katana she will never have in the street.
M
Nope...didn't say that. I was simply replying to the inaccurate comment that you posted by the gentleman about katana.
Nope...didn't say that either.
For the people that have been hit by one, it sure as hell is.
Which is exactly what I explained, was it not? No one said anything about wearing a katana everywhere they go.
By the people in their graves due to some looney in New York killing people with one, it sure as hell is(was) reality.
If she was trained to use one, yes.
Reality is not just what is defined by one's own experiances and understanding. It has to be willing to go further then that.
