Biting? A technique or a girly move??

[thescottishdude]

Is biting a martial arts technique?

I can see it being used in desperation in wrestling, as you're close enough to bite. But in karate most fights take place at a arm length distance, so there's less oppertunity.

I discussed it in my blog - http://www.learnmartialartsonline.net/blog/

But what do you all think? Even if you had to sue it, where would you bite? Anywhere there's no muscle???

[bigred389]

Head on over to urban combatives or look up "kino mutai"...some actually DO teach it as a technique. I also hear some Krav Maga teaches biting as well.

[Thai Bri]

But in karate most fights take place at a arm length distance, so there's less oppertunity.

Maybe so, when both combatants are Karate-ka. But what about when one of them isn't?

[Hikage]

I don't like to loose..... I cheat.

-Hikage

[bjjp]

we dont teach a right way just bite like some of the kids in my filipenio class do not take bjj,and you dont know no ground work and some fat fat guy in on you we tell us bite him as a hard as you can,that will get him up.lol.

[akio123]

if im in street fight i will use bite or biting in order to live.....if u want to live what will u do if ur arms and feet are locked or useless definitely ur going to bite so that u will live...

[stabbychick]

.............................

[thescottishdude]

Yeah, I think at a push you'll use biting if you have to. But i also think you'd be more likly to use other moves rather than biting if given the option.

"Hopefully you won't have to bite the HIV infected crackhead..." - stabby check ( what a nice name for a girl! lol )

I've noticed that when talking about fighting alot of toher martial artists actually show preference for not breaking the skin when fighting a anyone who looks like a crackhead, the HIV thing obviously. But i wonder if when in a fight they would actually stick to it?

[Hikage]

There is nothing really more beastial than combat between two humans. Normally, when you see two animals in the wilderness fighting, typically one will run away after only a short time in the fight. There is a self-preservation prevalent in these animals. They know that if they fight to the death one of them might not live through the winter. Humans aren't always like that. We can be more calous than even some of the wildest animals.

That being said, in order to compete under viscious attack, I become as an animal, especially if we have progressed to ground fighting. I snarl, drool, oink (really), bukaw like a chicken, and what's more is that I'll take on the traits of some of those animals. If I need to bite, I will. If I need to peck at you, I will. If I need to dig my chin into your ribs/shoulder blades like a pig searching for truffles, I will.

As I said earlier, I don't like to lose, I'll cheat and I think anyone who tells you otherwise has either never been in that situation or lost every time.

-Hikage

[Maxx]

Calling things like biting and eye gouging a girly move is in my opinion a strategic move by the enemy to prevent you from resorting to ruthless tactics during a fight. Personally, I have found that in many cases it takes a certain amount of strength of will to use such techniques, either from fear of maiming the opponent to a fear of the opponent elevating the situation even more and using even worse tactics. Regardless, resorting to such tactics is definitely something that one should consider carefully... just make sure it's not in the middle of a life threatening situation when you choose to think about it. It'll be too late.

The filipino martial arts make heavy use of biting and eye gouging and pinching in their combative methods, but it's not random. There is a strategy behind such moves. As an example, if I were on the ground in someone else's mount, that would not be a good time to bite for several reasons: 1: you are not in a position of leverage so you couldn't do a sustained bite. 2: Even a hard bite from that position will probably not make the guy jump off of you. In times of high stress, highly trained combative athletes revert to their comfort zones. A guy who only knows how to grapple is not gonna jump off. He'll shift position. And 3: You have just elevated the situation. If the bit failed to create enough space for you to escape you will not only still be in th grappler's mount, but he'll be pissed off and will likely bite back... from a postion of leverage where he can perform a sustained bite... or worse. Don't expect to be able to tap your way out of a fight with the guy if you've bitten him... he'll want blood.

I don't want to come off as trying to discourage the use of such tactics in a self defense situation, but I definitely suggest doing some research on the application of such tactics before using them.

[Hikage]

Have you ever tried this or are you talking out your butt? You're only thinking one dimensionally. Even if your opponent shifts, isn't this an advantage? Additionally, you can direct your bite to direct where he'll go. If you bite and direct up, he'll go up, or left, or right, etc. A bite is not going to win a fight, it's only designed to create space.

-Hikage

[aseepish]

Kino Mutai (biting/eyegouging)

Is also being discussed here: http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/s...ad.php?t=20726

[stabbychick]

.............................

[treelizard]

Don't expect to be able to tap your way out of a SD situation..... period.

Exactly. I've heard that argument used against every possible move in a SD situation. Don't do xyz, because you'll "escalate it." I wonder how many people who give that advice have ever been in a real fight, a serious one, because it's often already "escalated" at that point.

I like the rule they give at Tracker School which they use for (non-SD) survival situations. The rule is "what's gonna kill you first?" It's a judgement call, whether you are more concerned about "things escalating" or are willing to risk escalation b/c you're already in a bad position that can't get much worse.

[aseepish]

During the Cold War, something that people in strategic studies talked about was escalation dominance. Of course they were talking about escalation from limited war up through the use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. The US doctrine was to ensure that it was they who would make the decision to escalate, as to maintain a strategic advantage (In comparison with China, who had a(n OFFICIAL) policy of "no first use" of nuclear weapons).

To translate this into self-defense terms, the advantage lies with the person who can control the escalation of a situation. Pre-emptive striking is a good example. Being the first person to use so-called dirty tactics can be decisive. However, doing so from a disadvantageous position can be equally decisive if the other party is in the position to reply in kind.