Invincible

[kingoftheforest]

this thread is just idiotic.....

That's one opinion.

[Tant01]

Whaaaa?

I agree the type of punch boxers use would not work well with a stick in your hand.

However if you train a punch such as hammer fist the even if you have a stick in your hand you can use the same attack angles.

Monkey trapped KOTF? A stick in your hand becomes a fist load. Works great IMHO.

But I'm not a boxer... or a stick fighter... What the hell do I know?

[kingoftheforest]

Monkey trapped KOTF? A stick in your hand becomes a fist load. Works great IMHO.

But I'm not a boxer... or a stick fighter... What the hell do I know?

100% correct Sir. I really don't condone fist loads because of the potential for hand breakage. Therefore that didn't cross my mind. It is correct though.

Age (lots of it) and expierence help a lot. :smile:

[jubaji]

Is there anyone so confident about their weapons skills that they do not feel the need to develop unarmed physical skills to the same degree that other MAs generally do?


Is there anyone so sure that they will never find themselves in a hostile confrontation without a weapon that they do not feel the need to develop unarmed physical skills?


Is there anyone so sure that they can 'improvise' a weapon at any time and in any scenario that they do not feel the need to develop unarmed physical skills to the same degree that other MAs generally do?

Good questions!

[Uke]

Good questions!

Even better answers!

Notice the lack of contribution on your part which made this a teaching session rather than a discussion?

If you know that you know nothing about a thing you should occasionally keep your mouth shut and learn something.

[jubaji]

Even better answers!
.

What were your answers again?

[Clubber Lang]

Guys, this is actually a good thread, lets try just for 5 seconds not to let it slide into Uke vs Jubs.

I grew up in an art that asked me to take on faith that lots of fancy patterns, drills and movements with weapons would increase my empty hand skills, and that all the empty hands come from the weapons.

My own truth, and thats all it is, is that when I left that art and started in Boxing and Muay Thai, my empty hand improved beyond measure. If you want good empty hand skills then train in good empty hand arts, its just logical, and beware some of the hocus pocus people will want you to buy into in order to perpetuate their style.

That said, there are good weapons systems which avoid the superficial and just teach solid competency with different forms of weapons. I do see slight relations to empty hand skills, but for me why train in slight relations, why not just train in the real thing.

Train weapons for weapons, train empty hand for empty hand. I'm sure you may find a cross over along the way, but don't set out looking for that to be the solution.

[Uke]

Guys, this is actually a good thread, lets try just for 5 seconds not to let it slide into Uke vs Jubs.

Don't worry. You've decided to talk about things deeper than spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. You won't hear anything from jubaji by way of discussion about self defense, weapons or combat.

[Uke]

Guys, this is actually a good thread, lets try just for 5 seconds not to let it slide into Uke vs Jubs.

I grew up in an art that asked me to take on faith that lots of fancy patterns, drills and movements with weapons would increase my empty hand skills, and that all the empty hands come from the weapons.

My own truth, and thats all it is, is that when I left that art and started in Boxing and Muay Thai, my empty hand improved beyond measure. If you want good empty hand skills then train in good empty hand arts, its just logical, and beware some of the hocus pocus people will want you to buy into in order to perpetuate their style.

That said, there are good weapons systems which avoid the superficial and just teach solid competency with different forms of weapons. I do see slight relations to empty hand skills, but for me why train in slight relations, why not just train in the real thing.

Train weapons for weapons, train empty hand for empty hand. I'm sure you may find a cross over along the way, but don't set out looking for that to be the solution.

Why would you ever differentiate the empty hand from the weapon? Why not just master the motion so that everything in your hand becomes a weapon????

I do understand what you're saying though. Much of FMA is made up of fancy patterns and flourishes that resemble dances rather than real combat. There are WC schools that focus more on form than execution, and execution is what combat boils down to.

Imagine this:

You are on a battlefield. There are two armies on each side, and in 10 seconds they both will converge to meet in the middle. Once they charge and approach the middle, they begin to slow down. Each soldier from each army pairs up with an enemy soldier and begins circling, while swinging their swords to "feel out" the enemy, and throwing low kicks to dissuade the enemy from closing the distance.

That's ridiculous. Battle is not and has never been a series of 100 boxing matches simultaneously happening on the field. Soldiers/warriors didn't run up, pick a guy and then box it out with him while his comrades did the same. There isn't time to circle or probe when the shit hits the fan, and when you look at all combat like this scenario you see that.

Most times than not, one army was larger than the other which meant that there were two or more warriors to one. Real combat is and always has been making quick work of an opponent to be ready for what comes next. Combat is not pretty with good form because most attacks with a weapon involve stepping in and executing. Standing your ground to advance and retreat is a fencing match, not combat. Combat is about overwhelming, not dancing. Throughout history warriors on the field knew that their first attack better be their best attack because one may not get another chance.

Even in sword duels, the matches only usually lasted 3-5 strokes. They weren't the swashbuckling clanking of swords that Zorro movies make it out to be. Hell, even old time boxing matches didn't last very long before the Marquees of Queensbury rules were instated. All types of dirty shit was allowed.

You can thank Marquees of Queensbury and Kano's randori for successfully "gentlemen-alizing" combat and forming the current popular perception and ideas about what real combat is. Most people see putting their dukes up and going at it as combat. That's actually an illusion created by the confines of mutually agreed upon rules that allows people to think that dueling and sparring work. Most people in street fights put up their hands and go at it. They agreed to fight that way without so much as uttering a word because they stand there, moving their hands, circling each other until one man attacks and then they swing away. Boxing has brainwashed people into thinking that this is effective until they meet someone who has a weapon and then all their preconceived notions leave them unprepared.

You can even look at how soldiers were taught to use their bayonets. It was not a dueling affair. It was block, parry, strike/stab. There is no fancy quartering, or prodding as with jabs or front kicks/low roundhouse kicks. The method is to step in and kill. If the enemy moves first then its step in, defend then kill. There's no bullshit that makes it into a match or bout.

Good empty hand skills ARE good weapon skills, and its only once that you begin separating them that you lose the basis for all combat. Weapons are nothing but extensions of your own hand and arm. If you examine the art of Aikido, you'll learn that the movements and concepts are based on the Japanese sword. If you examine FMA, you'll see that in many of the systems the empty hand techniques are based off of the blade.

If you can successfully end a fight with a weapon using a particular method, why would you change that method when using empty hand? That doesn't make any sense. If the method works, then obviously its now only a matter of a lack of fight ending power that the weapon itself provides. This can be substituted with unrelenting attrition and overkill.

The method of using the weapon only provides the means to create an opening to strike and end it. The method itself isn't the tool in which you end it with. That's what some people here just can't understand and why they need to cling to sportive ideas. Their line of reasoning on this subject is predicated on the goals of sportive bouts. They're seek to achieve a knockdown in the case of boxing/thaiboxing, or a take down in the case of wrestling/BJJ. At least in BJJ they seek to force an end with a submission or choke.

People will argue these points back and forth, citing the fact that boxers seek to knock people out but .... MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER KNOCKED ANYONE OUT!!!!! Why predicate your practice on something you've never been capable of doing even during sparring or practice???? And even for those who have knocked someone out, they cannot do it with any regularity and their record shows it! They aspire to be like men like Crocop and Vanderlei Silva, who were known for knocking men out, but the truth is that the majority of people practicing MMA, boxing or muay thai will NEVER have that kind of power or be able to end fights based on power alone. People who think that MMA, boxing or MT will work in real violent confrontations HOPE to be able to perform like the men they aspire to be like, but often times they don't even perform as well in the ring!

If it takes you 12 three-minute rounds to beat a man in your best shape using muay thai, boxing or MMA ... what makes any of you think that you're going to be able to stop an armed man in 10 seconds or less with those methods who may have friends? Do any of you even train to do such things? And if so, how much focus do you put on that training? Are your results reproducible? Do you achieve those results with regularity?

I tell people not to rely on being able to handle situations that you haven't trained to prepare for. If you have no confidence in your ability because you haven't earned that confidence through training then you will hesitate ... and you will fall back to what it is that you have trained for: kicking and punching bouts that basically amount to tae-bo unless you are one of those blessed individuals that have natural knockout power and you have been able to KO nearly everyone you've been in the ring with.

Its not men who practice self defense and combatives that think they are invincible. In fact we are very aware or our own mortality. We are just prepared by training for combat and violence. Just like police who go through an academy to learn tactics and protocol for what they will face on the streets, self defense/combatives practitioners do the same with the focus on self preservation.

It seems to me that people who think that they are going to punch, kick and wrassle their way out of violent attacks involving weapons and groups of men think they are invincible. They have no training to deal with the physical aspect of weapons, no training to deal with the mental aspect of fear, and no idea of how to fight aside from circle and prodding with jabs, front kicks and low roundhouses. If they abandon this approach, then their approach shifts to seeking the take down, which involves another aspect that they have no idea of how to do: closing the distance for a take down without exposing themselves to a weapon.

In MMA, its fine to close the distance because the likelihood of getting caught with something fight-ending is slim. It's worth it in the ring to take those chances. In violent situations, getting caught with a knife, a brick, a bottle, a pair of knuckles, a metal pipe, a blackjack, a sap, etc means you're fcuked up. There's no tapping out. There's no ref. There's no help coming for you.

So go ahead an train in whatever you like, but once you begin thinking that you've found something that works outside of the parameters that it was engineered for then YOU become the one that's lulled into a sense of invincibility.

[jubaji]

Don't worry. You've decided to talk about things deeper than spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. You won't hear anything from jubaji by way of discussion about self defense, weapons or combat.

I'd like to hear your personal experiences of both armed and unarmed conflict that illustrates what you are trying to say (over and over and over again).

[Uke]

I'd like to hear your personal experiences of both armed and unarmed conflict that illustrates what you are trying to say (over and over and over again).

Wouldn't you though? Wouldn't you really?

Keep begging, mongrel. Beg for it.

[Uke]

Don't worry. You've decided to talk about things deeper than spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. You won't hear anything from jubaji by way of discussion about self defense, weapons or combat.

Didn't I tell you, Clubber Lang?

Jubaji is a one trick pony that can't stop even if he wanted to.

[Tant01]

We all need a nemeses, eh?

Didn't I tell you, Clubber Lang?

Jubaji is a one trick pony that can't stop even if he wanted to.

And you.... ? Have NOTHING better to do than walk the dog...?

Give it a rest already.

[jubaji]

Wouldn't you though? Wouldn't you really?

Yeah, that might make it seem like you were more than empty talk about 'theories.'

So go ahead. Don't worry, I won't obsess over your personal experiences for years and years. Honest.

[Sagacious Lu]

Wouldn't you though? Wouldn't you really?

Not only do you refuse to discuss your training practices in detail, you also refuse to discuss your personal experiences. Obviously you don't have the confidence to discuss either of them. If you're too chickenshit to have a candid discussion about your training methods how do you expect them to stand up if you ever do find yourself in a situation where you have to defend yourself?