I was reading an article in the Mar. 2010 issue of Black Belt recently. It was written by a martial artist from California, named Stephen Tyler. His article was focusing on hitting the eyes. Of course, for the sake of this discussion, any target, ie: face, groin, etc., could be put in, in place of the eyes.
He bases his defense/set up, off of the fence, meaning that his hands are up, in a non-threatening manner, and then he fires off a shot to the eyes, which is usually followed up with other strikes. Now, in every scenario that he shows, he's not necessarily hitting the eyes, per se, but momentarily imparing the vision, to set up other strikes. For example, in one setting, again, from the fence position, he fires off a left palm strike followed by a right cross.
So, upon reading this article, I thought it was pretty interesting, and made sense. So, this brings me to the purpose of this thread. The author is talking about disrupting the vision of the bad guy, either by actually striking the eyes, or by throwing a hit towards the eyes to set up something else, and he makes it seem pretty simple. On the flip side, you have people who say that hitting something such as the eyes, isn't as easy as people claim and its not a fight ender.
IMO, I dont think its as hard as some make it out to be, because if you can hit the face with a punch, it shouldn't take much to target the eyes. In the cases listed, the defense is taking place in a pre-emptive fashion, or before the fight actually starts. Additionally, I will agree with the detractors of the eye shots, in saying that I too, cringe, when I hear people talk about a particular shot, whatever it may be, as a fight ender. Now, I'm not saying that 1 hit KOs dont happen, because we all know they do. However, I'm not going to put all my money on me definately being able to take the guy out with 1 hit. Instead, I use the distraction, hit, etc, to set up other shots. I like to use a series of hits, not just one, to take out the attacker.
I'm interested in hearing other opinions as well.
He bases his defense/set up, off of the fence, meaning that his hands are up, in a non-threatening manner, and then he fires off a shot to the eyes, which is usually followed up with other strikes. Now, in every scenario that he shows, he's not necessarily hitting the eyes, per se, but momentarily imparing the vision, to set up other strikes. For example, in one setting, again, from the fence position, he fires off a left palm strike followed by a right cross.
So, upon reading this article, I thought it was pretty interesting, and made sense. So, this brings me to the purpose of this thread. The author is talking about disrupting the vision of the bad guy, either by actually striking the eyes, or by throwing a hit towards the eyes to set up something else, and he makes it seem pretty simple. On the flip side, you have people who say that hitting something such as the eyes, isn't as easy as people claim and its not a fight ender.
IMO, I dont think its as hard as some make it out to be, because if you can hit the face with a punch, it shouldn't take much to target the eyes. In the cases listed, the defense is taking place in a pre-emptive fashion, or before the fight actually starts. Additionally, I will agree with the detractors of the eye shots, in saying that I too, cringe, when I hear people talk about a particular shot, whatever it may be, as a fight ender. Now, I'm not saying that 1 hit KOs dont happen, because we all know they do. However, I'm not going to put all my money on me definately being able to take the guy out with 1 hit. Instead, I use the distraction, hit, etc, to set up other shots. I like to use a series of hits, not just one, to take out the attacker.
I'm interested in hearing other opinions as well.

Last edited: