The Body's Natural Weapons

[Tez3]

That's adorable and kind of hilarious.

Isn't it though. made me smile. It does show how quick and agile gorillas can be, I know they are strong but they also seem to think about what they are doing. I imagine the big silverback if he were to really attack would be formidable.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Isn't it though. made me smile. It does show how quick and agile gorillas can be, I know they are strong but they also seem to think about what they are doing. I imagine the big silverback if he were to really attack would be formidable.

I was thinking about that too. It was surprisingly smart. You can really see that they are mindful about what they're trying to do.
That big silverback.... the might he could dish out is beyond my fathoming.

 

[K-man]

Here's a 'vicious', hand to hand fight between gorillas...well until the silverback decides they are disturbing his peace lol. Kids eh. shows some good skills and you've got to love the little one.

Not a problem!

"Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you. I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that."

I wonder if thus opinion has changed?

 

[K-man]

Isn't it though. made me smile. It does show how quick and agile gorillas can be, I know they are strong but they also seem to think about what they are doing. I imagine the big silverback if he were to really attack would be formidable.

Actually, if you look at the movement it is quite clear that they have had Systema training. They are going with the flow.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Not a problem!

"Even you were to get terribly injured, I think you could still get a big dog to leave you alone. Not so much "defeat" the dog. Just....get him to quit biting you. I don't think they would be an easy fight by any means. Thai kick a leg. Anything on any part of the face. Just grab a foot and yank/twist it left or right. They're easy to hurt. They're just tenacious, strong, and full of teeth. Daunting, but I think it's do-able. I'm not saying I wouldn't get horribly injured or anything. Getting knocked down would suck though. Not much around that."

I wonder if thus opinion has changed?

It has. I still think it's possible to fend off even big dog's like German Shephards, but only by a slim margin. It would be immensely harder than I initially thought. It would be game over if it got a hold of you. Even owing a knife, it looks like it would be really hard to even reach the dog when it's yanking backwards like that. Even, "theoretically", knowing what to do, chances of success are low. Their vulnerabilities remain the same, but acting on them, particularly if they get a running start, would be extremely difficult.
We are talking about dogs right? Not silverbacks?

 

[Tez3]

Actually, if you look at the movement it is quite clear that they have had Systema training. They are going with the flow

I was actually impressed with the way they were 'fighting', it did remind me of martial arts perhaps a CMA? Certainly it did flow!

Dogs such as the traditional 'fighting' dogs have a bite that locks on and it is extremely hard to make them let go. I've heard stories from police and military dog handlers that even when injured their dogs will continue the attack, they aren't distracted by being stabbed or shot unless it's fatal. I believe that actually causing the dog pain makes it more ferocious rather than making it let go. You just make things worse.

I'd quite like a silverback for a pet but will make do with my Rockape.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Whaat?! I assume you mean no swords...as much as I like my fists holding a sword looks much more menacing

What are peoples natural weapon... crazy... you dont know what he/she is going to do... run in there and scratch someone or punch, bite, kick

Joking aside, humans have thumbs and knoledge.

Here's a great example of what I'm looking for.

 

[Tez3]

"They don't like it up em you know Mr. Mainwaring"

An English joke.

 

[hoshin1600]

I think the entire premise of man fighting preditory animals is something that probably happened so rarely that it wouldn't have had any evolutionary significance. In the case that humans were attacked by let's say a tiger, we know cats hunt at night and use ambush attacks. They target the week and young. There Is no way a human can fight against a large cat. The tribe would wake up in the morning to find out little Timmy had disappeared. So in all probability any evolutionary developments would be based on human to human conflict and the need for dominance and procreation rights.
Human defense against predators in all likelihood would not be much different than other apes. Live in tribes or groups, make a lot of noise, throw rocks and mourn for the one that was taken from the tribe.

 

[BMhadoken]

Here's a great example of what I'm looking for.

In my belief, that default overhand swing is a holdover from our monkey days and, in the absence of a weapon, geared towards social violence and establishing the pecking order. You can see how it's used in fights between children or "chick fights," where typically the only damage is to egos and feelings. Even other animals like cats, when engaged in a dominance match, will spend a lot of time slapping each other around in a fight that bears no resemblance to such an animal taking down prey. Basically, humans have some deeply ingrained behaviors for dealing with conflict within the tribe and determining who's the baddest ape, but those behaviors don't really work well for actually injuring or killing.

I also don't buy into the idea that the human hand somehow "evolved" the way it did because it was the most effective punching platform. I think some very clever people took a look at what we had and searched for ways to maximize the damage dealt with the tools available, but if punching was a natural attack that we evolved to perform, then A. we wouldn't need to be taught how to do it without injuring ourselves, and B. the attack wouldn't have such a high rate of self-injury even amongst the trained.

 

[K-man]

"They don't like it up em you know Mr. Mainwaring"

An English joke.

Understood and appreciated by colonials .

 

[Buka]

I'm loving this thread. Great conversation, man's natural weapons, good dogs, silverbacks... loving it.

 

[Orange Lightning]

In my belief, that default overhand swing is a holdover from our monkey days and, in the absence of a weapon, geared towards social violence and establishing the pecking order. You can see how it's used in fights between children or "chick fights," where typically the only damage is to egos and feelings. Even other animals like cats, when engaged in a dominance match, will spend a lot of time slapping each other around in a fight that bears no resemblance to such an animal taking down prey. Basically, humans have some deeply ingrained behaviors for dealing with conflict within the tribe and determining who's the baddest ape, but those behaviors don't really work well for actually injuring or killing.

I also don't buy into the idea that the human hand somehow "evolved" the way it did because it was the most effective punching platform. I think some very clever people took a look at what we had and searched for ways to maximize the damage dealt with the tools available, but if punching was a natural attack that we evolved to perform, then A. we wouldn't need to be taught how to do it without injuring ourselves, and B. the attack wouldn't have such a high rate of self-injury even amongst the trained.

Interesting point in the first paragraph.
I think the human body is better designed for creating force downward than in any other direction. And in the case of proving your might over the next person, slamming and stomping and swinging, is usually inclined downward. All good stuff for non lethally proving your dominance.

Initially, I had the exact same position on the fist as you did. It wouldn't hurt our hand as much, less injuries, and their would be a better instinctual understanding for it. Our knuckles would be better reinforced.
But those scientists' hypothesis put me on the fence. By way of comparison, the shins and feet seem very sturdy to me. The arch is one of the strongest shapes in nature for supporting weight. Mostly, that just means our feet can support a lot of pressure for a long time from the way we run, and a springiness to our stride. The ball, heel are durable. The top of the foot is serviceable. Our shins, again, by comparison, are extremely sturdy and reinforced on the inside line of whichever leg. Unlike the elbow, which, despite being really hard and potent to hit with, can't take as much punishment before it hurts you.

 

[BMhadoken]

I think the human body is better designed for creating force downward than in any other direction

Think I have to disagree. Look at just about any striking art and the attacks you see bear no resemblance to those aggressive "look how tough I am" overhead slams. They're slow, widely telegraphed, and don't remotely utilize the rest of the body for effective generation of force. But again, that's the point. These sorts of attacks are only meant to be used against an uppity tribesman who wants your spot in the pecking order. They're not supposed to be generating tons of force or do any real damage, because such extreme social violence would negatively affect the success of the tribe as a whole.

Initially, I had the exact same position on the fist as you did. It wouldn't hurt our hand as much, less injuries, and their would be a better instinctual understanding for it. Our knuckles would be better reinforced.

Essentially, yes. A goat doesn't really "learn" how to headbutt. Their body alignment and bone structure naturally lends itself to such a maneuver. A properly aligned fist is more difficult to maintain through repeated blows, there's not that much muscle strength helping support the wrist, and the wrists and hands themselves are built of several dozen small, loosely arranged bones that are just soooo easy to pulverize if you're off alignment. The design is great for fine motor manipulation and dexterity, but terrible for delivering and absorbing force.

By way of comparison, the shins and feet seem very sturdy to me. The arch is one of the strongest shapes in nature for supporting weight. Mostly, that just means our feet can support a lot of pressure for a long time from the way we run, and a springiness to our stride. The ball, heel are durable. The top of the foot is serviceable. Our shins, again, by comparison, are extremely sturdy and reinforced on the inside line of whichever leg. Unlike the elbow, which, despite being really hard and potent to hit with, can't take as much punishment before it hurts you.

Yes, our legs are built to withstand significant amounts of force, because they have to be. Even in four-legged animals, the hind legs generate most of the power for running, jumping, etc. Thicker, denser bones, and much greater muscle mass do let you deliver more force in a kick than you ever could with a punch. But on that regard I'll echo what someone else said about most kicks being a very unnatural form of attack unless you're on your back. It destroys your stability and throws off your point of balance. There are some animals that will use devastating kicks as a sort of last-ditch defense against predators, I think mostly the large flightless birds like Ostriches and Emus, but 1. They have some really huge, vicious claws as well as muscle strength, and 2. They only do it when running like hell hasn't been working.

 

[LibbyW]

man vs gorilla....not how I thought it would end, especially at around 10 seconds, I thought the guy was done for sure.
He must have a serious set of baoding balls hidden somewhere

 

[Orange Lightning]

Think I have to disagree. Look at just about any striking art and the attacks you see bear no resemblance to those aggressive "look how tough I am" overhead slams. They're slow, widely telegraphed, and don't remotely utilize the rest of the body for effective generation of force. But again, that's the point. These sorts of attacks are only meant to be used against an uppity tribesman who wants your spot in the pecking order. They're not supposed to be generating tons of force or do any real damage, because such extreme social violence would negatively affect the success of the tribe as a whole.

Essentially, yes. A goat doesn't really "learn" how to headbutt. Their body alignment and bone structure naturally lends itself to such a maneuver. A properly aligned fist is more difficult to maintain through repeated blows, there's not that much muscle strength helping support the wrist, and the wrists and hands themselves are built of several dozen small, loosely arranged bones that are just soooo easy to pulverize if you're off alignment. The design is great for fine motor manipulation and dexterity, but terrible for delivering and absorbing force.

Yes, our legs are built to withstand significant amounts of force, because they have to be. Even in four-legged animals, the hind legs generate most of the power for running, jumping, etc. Thicker, denser bones, and much greater muscle mass do let you deliver more force in a kick than you ever could with a punch. But on that regard I'll echo what someone else said about most kicks being a very unnatural form of attack unless you're on your back. It destroys your stability and throws off your point of balance. There are some animals that will use devastating kicks as a sort of last-ditch defense against predators, I think mostly the large flightless birds like Ostriches and Emus, but 1. They have some really huge, vicious claws as well as muscle strength, and 2. They only do it when running like hell hasn't been working.

Top post- Purely for the greatest possible force generation, you can usually generate more force going downward. Hitting something that force is another matter. Take the axe kick or the hammer fist. They can both generate massive force. How the force can diffuse into the target is different. For the sake of argument, let's say that whatever part of your body you're hitting with is literally made out of a perfect spherical rock. An axe kick or hammer fist, for example, would have monstrous damage capabilities compared even to other strong moves like crosses or side kicks.
Or picture swinging an a weapon. For this example, an axe. You can get more force swing downward than any other direction. Of course, connecting with these sorts of attacks is a different story.

Bottom post - I don't understand this "unnatural" aspect of that point of view. We can certainly kick in various ways at many ranges using well reinforced body parts to devastating effect against any target. I don't see how it's any less natural than punching. I also don't think fact that other animals don't do a lot of kicking is evidence that it couldn't be effective in a given scenario. Not a lot of animals change colors or shoot ink or have thumbs or break their own bones to impale targets with.
But It's pretty effective for the animals that do those things.

I understand the other point though. You totally sacrifice stability for a ranged attack. But...that applies to fighting people too. In fairness, we aren't going to try front kicking a charging wildebeest. It would be applied as needed, in conjunction with whatever other tools we have. Not for every move. Like high kicks. Assuming we're unarmed for some reason.
When I picture it, I can't help but feel like our legs are the best chance we have to do serious damage unarmed to any other kind of animal. Both heavy and light. I'm going to try kicking a badger before it get's near me. Incoming coyote? I'm probably not going to try punching it first. Rabid cow or horse? I'm almost certainly going to die or get seriously injured, but I see my best bet being breaking a leg or kicking/punching the sensitive face bits. In that situation, my hands are for when my opponent has gotten past my feet. Outside of, you know, picking up a rock or a stick. With a kick, you're almost always going to be able to hit it before it hits you. Hands, to me, would be the rough and tumble range.

I wonder if some of us have different instincts for fighting? Especially in that sort of situation? It could be argued that differentiating instincts could have played a part in making different styles. I'm not vouching for that though. I don't have the data for it.

 

[BMhadoken]

An axe kick or hammer fist, for example, would have monstrous damage capabilities compared even to other strong moves like crosses or side kicks.

An axe kick as about as far from a natural body movement as you can get without destroying connective tissue.

And you are way too hung up on the idea of early Hominids "fighting." When would a human even WANT to fight, from an evolutionary/survival standpoint? Tribesmen might "fight" each other, but it's designed to be all about intimidation without much damage to either party, because otherwise a tribes strongest males would be constantly too injured to hunt or flee from predators.

Fighting a predator that's already got you? Running has already failed, you're on the ground, you have limited mobility and anywhere you go in the short term is going to lead you into a nasty set of teeth. Your only real prayers are that you can push it off just long enough to make another dash for it, or that you were popular enough for your tribe to come roaring back to save you. Watch some wildlife documentaries, particularly with apes, chimps and any of the big predators on the Serengeti, you'll see the dynamics at work. Predators do not "fight" their quarry. They ambush it, they run it down, they take it to the ground, they rip it apart.

"Fighting," as you seem to think of it, did not evolve as a natural behavior. Apes could not create any martial art or combat system because apes have no need for such a thing. The habit of various peoples to devise ways of killing each other with their bare hands developed to serve a different set of needs entirely.

Edit for sidenote:
World s oldest stone tools discovered in Kenya Science AAAS News
Crafted stone tools, and possibly weapons, may be older than we think. Maybe even predating the entire Homo genus. Additional support for this idea is that modern chimps have been observed stripping down straight branches, chewing the end to a point, and using their primitive spear to hunt bush babies.

 

[Tez3]

but it's designed to be all about intimidation without much damage to either party, because otherwise a tribes strongest males would be constantly too injured to hunt or flee from predators

I think that is shown very well by the gorillas, it's all about intimidation with them, showing what they could do rather than doing it. it would do the species no good at all if they killed each other when they could just warn each other off instead. I can't see early humans being any different, they needed, still do I believe, each other to survive.

 

[donald1]

man vs gorilla....not how I thought it would end, especially at around 10 seconds, I thought the guy was done for sure.
He must have a serious set of baoding balls hidden somewhere

If he was smart he would have done what any rational person would do. Cover his face! if he cant see the ape the ape cannot see him (makes perfect sense!) When the ape gets tired of looking for him proceed to yelling making loud noise then super tiger-dragon ultimate 360 round house kick

 

[Gwaredydd]

I think the greatest weapon is relaxation. Whatever body part you use, if you can't relax; you have no power in its delivery. It is the greatest paradox in the martial arts; it works well when we are tired, there is no process of tension, the impact is where the body weapon is formed, it is not even carried through. A brick in your hand is hard and sharp, in the air it is soft as a cotton ball, on impact - it is hard and sharp again.