|
|
Post by steelwire1 on Nov 22, 2005 13:35:53 GMT
Great info PA Smith. That sounds a bit like the blood sand palm from my beloved Chow Ga...really shakes them up around the head, so to speak. Crystal.
My pre-emptive strike of choice is a short ginger fist into phoenix eye. I like to strike the neck, just to be sure, if you know what I mean, haha
clear as crystal.
Steve
'Chow Gar Mantis family student wef: 1985'
|
|
|
|
Post by random on Nov 22, 2005 22:46:38 GMT
I know we have been down this path somewhere else and it is a little off topic but what do we mean by pre-emptive striking, if the strike is pre-emptive then we may be second-guessing the attack. We have to start with the attack and decide at which point we have actually been attacked, this could be a look, body movement, gesture, in this case we are responding to an aggressive move and therefore the strike is actually a defensive one.
|
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Nov 23, 2005 10:23:40 GMT
Again I've never had to do this for real...but I see the employment of a pre-emptive strike happening when you have been unable to talk your way or escape out of a situation BUT you are still being confronted by an aggressive individual/s and are in imminent danger of being attacked. IMHO confronting someone and making hem fear for their safety IS an attack (and I believe is classed as "common assault" in law). Obviously this will be different for every situation but you most certainly do not wait for an attack to happen before doing it. That's why it's pre-emptive. A couple of pointers though... Someone saying that they don't want to fight but is still moving towards you or trying to touch you needs hitting quick smart. People that don't want to fight move AWAY from you. People that want to lay one on you move in. If he touches your fence more than twice. Hit him because he clearly wants to hit you. It could be that the person has made their intentions very clear and you don't want to comply with them. You might as well hit them right off the bat. If someone wants your wallet but it contains your life savings and you don't want to give it to them...line them up...ask them why they want it...then whack em. They have already made their position known. Your hit on them clarifies your position.  That's the way I see it anyway. I'd rather whack someone that wasn't going to really attack me than be whacked by someone that was. |
|
|
|
Post by random on Nov 23, 2005 11:00:30 GMT
Obviously this will be different for every situation but you most certainly do not wait for an attack to happen before doing it. That's why it's pre-emptive. I'd rather whack someone that wasn't going to really attack me than be whacked by someone that was. That is my point, we have to be clear what we mean by an attack, to be honest if someone is being aggressive and gets close enough to hit you, then you have missed the point. It is a difficult area, we have to perceive the intentions of someone we may not know, do they really want to fight or are they just posturing. But be clear what an attack is, and how you are to respond, like I said it could be a word, a look, a step forward, or touching your fence twice. I think what I am trying to say, without writing a paper on it…it isn’t so much how we respond but what we respond to. Some things are obvious some aren’t. No two situations are the same…but if an attack is felt to be taking place, and again it may not have yet got physical, then respond, therefore the strike is responsive, and a response to something is a much better defence. |
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Nov 23, 2005 11:52:42 GMT
Agreed.
When to use a pre-emptive strike can only be decided by the person that has to do it. Not an easy decision at all. Especially when in the throws of adrenal dump.
The more confrontations you are in the better you get at judging this stuff. But who wants to get into multiple confrontations on a daily basis (excluding Ploice guys, door staff etc)?
|
|
|
|
Post by maskedman on Nov 23, 2005 21:55:23 GMT
Ah joint locks........a form of SD close to my heart!!  Well here is my say........ Joint locks like all forms of SD are a "power" technique, and need to be set up effectievely! Sort of like a jab, before the uppercut. Joint locks can be used in any situation, with almost as much sucess as a strike, true a strike will land more times, but you may have to hit a person 5 times before he/she goes down, you only need to lock once to control him/her!! Breaking a joint is the second most effective way to stop a fight, killing being the first. Like a strike, a lock needs to be understood, each motion having "checkpoints", it needs to be studied and analysed, then studied and analysed somemore. Locks also give you more power over the enemy, I chose to apply locks rather than dancing and striking and if you train hard enough are easy to apply. If you understand the body mechanics of locks, it takes longer to learn than striking, but is much more efficient, gives you greater options, with how much damage you can inflict....and if you chose to it can inflict alot more damage than a strike ever will! Boxing is one of the easiest arts to learn, karate, TKD and other arts, the striking aspects are easy to learn, a kick is a kick, a punch is a punch after all, but a lock is a thing of beauty, it must be respected, and learnt well...it takes longer but when you master it, whoa boy, time a flurry of strikes...and whoa boy. I have seen many people unable to pull off locks, it is because of hesitation, the inbuilt reflex to strike first, because of a lack of power in the hands, and fear that it will not work. Commitment, is the key, move in and go for the "kill!" If he resists once you grab his hand, rake his eyes, spear hand to the armpits, force him to do what you want!! If you strike a poerson, you cannot control whether he gets knocked out, you cannot control how he falls, you cannot control if he lives or dies from that fall!! Locks allow you to always maintain that control!! *bows respectfully* HAPKI |
|
|
|
Post by random on Nov 23, 2005 23:52:29 GMT
The Sensei at my mother club was a whiz with this kind of stuff, he enlightened me to the fact that size and strength sometimes counts for nothing, I was always twice his size and strength.
What I find today is that the trust from a partner that you will not follow the technique through to a break/dislocate is not there. People panic and grab or lash out and as this is not a ‘real’ situation (whatever that is) the technique isn’t really applied, after all we have to go to work tomorrow, therefore people disregard this subtle part of our art because they never see, feel, or put them on well.
BTW I apologise for generalisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkstar on Nov 24, 2005 8:03:15 GMT
Agree with PaSmith on this.
open handstrike to the side of the jaw the second you see that flash in their eyes that telegraphs their attack about to happen. i have done this, and it does work. it's not always a complete show stopper, but generally enough to allow you to either press on and finish him or disengage.
as for the law, IME survive first, worry about that later. ...mostly they'll turn up and arrest the person who's been beaten up anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Nov 24, 2005 10:22:06 GMT
"Breaking a joint is the second most effective way to stop a fight, killing being the first."
Surely making someone unconscious is the second most effective way of stopping a fight?
Many people have continued fighting with broken wrists and fingers, even broken arms. Maybe not a busted knee perhaps but a broken joint in no way ends a fight 100% of the time.
A guy called Jacare won a division of a recent BJJ comp against Roger Gracie despite having his elbow straightened about 30 degrees more than it should have gone. He fought through the pain, escaped and then stalled for the rest of the match. I know thats not a real fight but it shows what people are willing to fight through.
Nobody has continued fighting after being rendered inconscious.
|
|
|
|
Post by maskedman on Nov 24, 2005 21:19:06 GMT
"Breaking a joint is the second most effective way to stop a fight, killing being the first."
Surely making someone unconscious is the second most effective way of stopping a fight?
Many people have continued fighting with broken wrists and fingers, even broken arms. Maybe not a busted knee perhaps but a broken joint in no way ends a fight 100% of the time.
I agree that people have fought with broken limbs and won, if fingers are broken...they always have elbows, if atms are broken they have another one. But you want to also look at the flip side, you can strike and strike people that will not knock out, and alot more fights are ended in a non lethal fashion by breaking bones, than the few warriors that you speak of!
In HKD, you dont break single joints you break limbs, not just an elbow, but an elbow wrist and shoulder. This is a horse of a different color! The people you speak of are trained combatants, I refer of course to Mr joe public! In real life scenarios, a broken limb gives you or your assailant time/reason to flee! Plus it is easier to accidently kill when striking!
A guy called Jacare won a division of a recent BJJ comp against Roger Gracie despite having his elbow straightened about 30 degrees more than it should have gone. He fought through the pain, escaped and then stalled for the rest of the match. I know thats not a real fight but it shows what people are willing to fight through.
Then jacare is indead a MA warrior and embodies the never say die spirit! But as you say he stalled for time...you cant do that in real life, stall for time=death!!
I understand what you are saying, and I respect it...I just dont agree with it! In terms of control and ending your assailants ability to attack you further, breakages and joint locks are far superior to strikes! It is my opininon, I train in Judo, Hkd, and have done boxing and some TKD, I have also had many challange matches and was a bouncer for four years, this is what I base my opinions on, but they are only my opinions.
Remember what works and what one prefers will always be different! This is the beauty of MA!
Nobody has continued fighting after being rendered inconscious
True but this takes alot more energy, and gives your assailant alot more chances, than breaking his power arm, it is alos easier to strike him after he has broken a limb!
*bows respectfully*
|
|
bob
KR Orange Belt
Posts: 28
|
Post by bob on Dec 12, 2005 0:56:52 GMT
locks and strikes are 2 completely different animals. you use a lock if you do not want to hurt your opponent, and if he is alone or you have reliable help. strikes need to be used when you must injure your opponent. if there are more than one or if they are armed then you cant waste time immobilising them and waiting for the cops. each technique has its own application that it was developed for. they were all developed for a specific situation that other techniques couldnt handle for some reason. one example of this is jumping techniques. in this day and age we tend to think of them as flamboyant and inneffective however they were developed in china as a way of fighting mounted opponents. when your opponent is on horseback then you have to jump to reach them and also their lack of mobility means that jumping techniques can be effective. most lock and takedowns were developed for military use and therefore you had lots of soldiers around to watch your back while you were holding someone down. no technique is effective in every situation and no technique is effective in none.
|
|
|
|
Post by AngelaG on Jan 5, 2006 13:40:20 GMT
most lock and takedowns were developed for military use and therefore you had lots of soldiers around to watch your back while you were holding someone down. This is interesting, as I think that locking someone up is definitely a better scenario if your back is covered, either by collegues or because it's against a wall or something. I think this is why I don't get on with thh idea of BJJ as they train to deliberately take a fight to the ground and deal with it down there, whereas I prefer the ethos that we try to remain on our feet, and if the worst happens and we get taken down we train methods to get back on our feet ASAP (with or without the opponent ) |
|
|
|
Post by Shorin Ryu Sensei on Jan 16, 2006 21:05:29 GMT
A joint lock isn't generally used as a primary "tool" or weapon of choice in a fight, but more of a "Hey, look at that open, unprotected wrist/arm/whatever...I think I'll joint lock it!" sort of technique.
They are most effective in a grappling or close quarters encounter rather than a "punches/kicks are flying furiously!" encounter.
|
|
|
|
Post by maskedman on Jan 17, 2006 0:04:02 GMT
A joint lock isn't generally used as a primary "tool" or weapon of choice in a fight, but more of a "Hey, look at that open, unprotected wrist/arm/whatever...I think I'll joint lock it!" sort of technique. They are most effective in a grappling or close quarters encounter rather than a "punches/kicks are flying furiously!" encounter. I will have to disagree...coming from an art where the staple is jointlocking..I will say that when the hand flys the hand breaks..that is how we train to make it work...I think that it comes down to the type of art...like say a TKDer is a better kicker than a karateka...A judoka is a better grappler than TKD....HKD is better at joint locking than Karateks...each to his own! *bows respectfully* |
|
|
|
Post by Shorin Ryu Sensei on Jan 18, 2006 14:39:30 GMT
I will have to disagree...coming from an art where the staple is jointlocking..I will say that when the hand flys the hand breaks..that is how we train to make it work... When the hand flys the hand breaks? Can you explain that please? My turn to disagree. A TKD will have flashier kicks certainly, but IMHO they tend to be telegraphed much more than a properly executed karate-type kick, not to mention that they leave the TKD-er much more exposed to a counter attack because of the flashiness of the kick, the telegraph, the hands lowered, etc. of course, not all TKDers are this way, but in my experience, the majoity of them kick in this manner. Agreed. This depends a lot on what system of karate you're talking about here. My experiences with Shotokan gave me the impression that they are quite limited in their locking techniques, so yes, I'd agree with you on that system, but Shorin Ryu, and many other forms of karate, are quite proficient in locking techniques. |
|
