If Attacked where do you strike

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by tai-gip, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. robertmap

    robertmap Valued Member

    No doubt it's already been said (I haven't read every post in this thread) but where you hit is dependent on what your attacker gives you - corny but true - every attack has a weakness and the point of training is so that your body and mind respond to an attack in such a way as to optimally access that weakness.
     
  2. gasolino

    gasolino Valued Member

    Once you feel the threat could get physical surely you need to see where they are open and most vunerable. decide early and be ready
     
  3. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    I'm of the mindset that I'm going to hit my opponent wherever he/she/it allows me to.
     
  4. Emil

    Emil Valued Member

    yeah, that's the problem with these kind of questions. There is no way to pre-emptively determine how you are going to defend yourself against a particular attack, in my opinion. We need instead to look at how to capitalise on openings left by an attacker.
     
  5. Kibbles

    Kibbles The Iron Bucket

    If Attacked where do you strike?

    At the attacker?
    Where it hurts?
    ... At the attacker where it hurts?
     
  6. Gerlock

    Gerlock Valued Member

    In the groin...every chance I get...hard!! Na not really
     
  7. RhadeConstantin

    RhadeConstantin King of Badasses

    Sure, you could, you could also be shot or run over by a punk in a car. You can do your best to avoid tripping by being alert but if you do. it's still just luck. beside's training how to stay off the ground is important IMO and plus I've never seen Cung Le or any other of the sprawl and brawl type fighters tripping and falling down and needing groundwork as a result of it.

    I've seen several where people do intervene and I personally would not risk a "foot-my head-concrete" sandwich on the assumption that no one is going to interfere prepare for the worst I say.
    From what I've seen of most untrained fighters fighting, they tend to pull their head back really far and just use weak haymaker style punches that don't use body weight and have terrible technique that usually don't need to be countered since they'd usually just bounce off your guard Most untrained fighters are as useless at stand up striking as they are at groundwork and besides as I've said before ground fighting still has numerous drawbacks
    To the best of my knowledge groundfighting was used by the Samurai for whom striking would be completely pointless due to the armor they wore which was made to withstand sword attacks.If striking were for some reason to be completely ineffective then yes groundwork would be great but what is valid then may not necessarily work in 21st Century beside's the main aim of self defense is to run away as soon as possible. going to ground lengthens the confrontation reduces your mobility and chances to escape. Also if you're opponent has a knife or some such weapon you have a small chance of actually being able to disarm, or evade him long enough to run away. but if you go to the ground with an armed opponent you really can't create distance and hence the fight continues till someone is knifed.

    Thank you. As I've said before this is just my opinion. I admit that the styles I've trained in touch upon groundwork very lightly yet I feel that my points are logically sound. I'm not trying to put groundwork down by any means. I know a skilled grappler can literally tear off his opponent's joins or kill him or break his neck with ease but I still feel that primarily striking is on the whole better for self defense. Undoubtedly groundwork has advantages too, which you've just outlined but on the whole I still believe that striking is a better choice.
    regards.
     
  8. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    1. How many times have you watched them fight on a well lit perfectly even surface of a size and shape which they are tottaly familiar with?

    2. How often in these cases has it been in a secluded enviroment with no one around, it goes to the ground, and out of no-where 3 minutes in someone emerges from the shadows and joins in?

    3. Check the HAOV in your area, I can garauntee it will consist predominatly of stricking, at which anyone you have to engage with will be expecting stricking and in some cases, very comfortable with stricking. Not so much when locks and chockes come into play, both physicaly, strategicaly and psychologicaly.

    4. Many pins found in eastern grappling arts, are there so that someone or yourself can help knife the other guy. Grappling on the battlefield has the similar issues as today, in feudal japan, someone could always run up while you were grappling and get a blade lodged in a gap in the armor.

    Outside of that the samuria are not the only military personal to embrace grappling, wrestling was a staple of the training of greek foot soldiers, I believe romans also. Outside of that there are other military cultures that have used wrestling as part of their military culture.

    5. I don't deny, that given the choice I'd rather be standing, I'm just wanting to point out that falling down, or deciding to risk it and deliberatly take someone to the ground, is, depending on context, not neccessarily the end of the world.
     
  9. GojuKJoe

    GojuKJoe Valued Member

    I strike for the soul. A man without soul is just a chump.
     
  10. RhadeConstantin

    RhadeConstantin King of Badasses

    You do realize that having a perfectly even and smooth surface is one of the prerequisites of ground fighting not stand up striking right? Additionally, in what way does a detailed knowledge of the shape of the area in which your confrontation takes place, help you

    I just recently read an article in The Times the other day about a student who was accosted by in quite a secluded environment and then stabbed around 17 times in the stomach, Like i've said before, I'm not going to automatically assume that the guy in front of me is all alone.I've seen too may fights where two drunk individuals start a fight in the bar which is soon joined by friends from either side who cause significant damage in spite of the bouncers there ready to break up any kind of trouble.

    In my experience most untrained fighters usually pull their head really really really back and flail at you with weak haymaker style punches that usually don't even have the knuckles come in contact with you,use no bodyweight whatsoever and leave their entire face wide open. If that can be considered striking in any way, then the way most untrained assailants would try to choke their opponents or twist their arms can be considered grappling. Seriously, to call some guy flailing away striking in a martial art sense is an insult to striking based martial arts

    Yes, but the point still remains that they used grappling because striking would was practically useless due to the heavy armor they wore, to suggest that if heavily armored men prefer grappling due to the fact that their armor negates striking is somehow a plus point in favor of grappling for self defense is illogical unless you and your opponents are similarly invulnerable to striking.

    Yes, and for the battle field they primarily trained with weapons such as the Short sword the spear the Legionnaire's gladius etc, there is no indication of grappling having been used on the battle field or outside of a sporting context, I think the Greek grappling style you're referring to, Pankration, was recreated based on carvings and drawings found on ancient pottery and those too show grappling being used in a sporting context, not the battle field and besides, you aren't a roman legionaire or Spartan hoplite on the battle field. They really aren't a self defense benchmark in anyway, and besides if a style having grappling in it is somehow a sign that grappling is good for self defense then I can point to Striking based Styles Karate, TKD,Muay Thai,Kalaripayattu,Kick Boxing,Boxing,Vovinam and a dozen other styles to support stand up fighting.

    See now, falling down is something that you really have no control over, but to deliberately take it to the ground and thereby limit your mobility, limit your ability to deal with multiples,limit your chances of escape,increase your chances of risk of getting injured (in the fights that i've seen that have gone to the ground, the concrete has left more vicious cuts that the opponent), you're limiting your ability to deal with weapons,landing awkwardly could injure you if it's concrete, landing on your opponent could cause serious damage to him that you would have a tough time explaining in a Court of Law,also Several ground fighting techniques are hugely inapplicable to self defense, lets take any joint lock for instance? are you going to hold an armbar till that person taps and is ready to get up and maybe attack you again, or are you going to break his arm? which would get you hauled up in court since that is considered excessive by most Countries and violates the reasonable use of force that is considered legal. In light of this I don't think ground fighting is a viable option for self defense.
     
  11. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    1. Ground does not need to be even or flat for ground fighting. Can ground fight stuck between a couch and a wall, on a 0.5 gradient slope and on concrete.. Screwing around with friends teaches you alot about that kind of thing.

    2. "I read an article" - Also read an article where a man was attacked with a katana, plus the sutdent was stabbed, not fighting one guy in a barren wasteland before his hidden ninja re-inforcements arrived.

    You risk alot assuming and not assuming different things, but we are fighting here. You take a risk the second you throw that punch and hope he doesn't know how to box, the second you draw your hand gun on an aggravated armed robber in a store, in the hope he doesn't have friends outside ready for just this occasion. When you decide to use that bottle on top of the bin as a weapon against your assailant, you hope that the police come round the corner.

    The assumption that he has/doesn't have an accomplice is another assumption each choice concerning that linked with it's own risks and rewards.

    The rewards of assuming he has friends, do not negate the rewards of assuming he hasn't got friends. Which path you take is dependant on the situation and what that calls for.

    3. An untrained assailant still knows your going to punch him, he's going to punch you. To defend himself he has to move away from your punches, to attack he has to move in.

    On the ground, the whole scenario is very alien not just in technique, but in mindset and mechanics, "step back to get out of the way of the kick" is grasped by many, "pull your arm to touch your leg defend from the kimura" is not, in fact most wont even recognise an attempt at a kimura.

    4. Again, samurai are not the only soldiers to use grappling, plenty of other less armoured foot soldiers saw wrestling as a useful tool.

    The fact that the Samurai were quite happy to grapple even though there was a risk that someone else could join in and stick them shows that even in the samurai's experiences such instances were not as common as you seem to imply they were/are.

    5. My point about these other soldiers has nothing to do with "grappling is awesome stricking is nothing"... I am a stricker I have far more experience with hitting people than wrestling them, I think stricking is where people should start when it comes to learning self defence.

    These soldiers training themselves in grappling arts show that grappling had it's applications outside of sport, I'm not an archeologist, so I cannot hand you the evidence for grappling in war, hell I wouldn't know what it would look like! But I can say, it wouldn't be practised by so many warrior cultures if it all it was was ritual activity.
     
  12. RhadeConstantin

    RhadeConstantin King of Badasses

    Rolling on concrete will leave large cuts on you. I would strongly advise you against it

    Actually, initially he was only confronted by one person, the ninja reinforcements arrived later.

    I would not attack someone unless I'm pretty sure they're going to attack me, and since the choice is between standing there and letting him rough you up, or defending yourself I'd rather defend myself. To compare the risks you take when forced to defend yourself to anything else is illogical. If he attacks me, self defense is the obvious course of action
    I wouldn't
    And this compares to taking pointless risks..as?
    Assuming he doesn't have friends with him has no rewards, you're just taking more risks to do something on the ground that you could do standing up.

    Again assuming he has no friends is just an added risk, prepare for the worst, If i assume he has friends and I'm wrong, I'm still safe, If I assume he doesn't have friends and I'm wrong I'm probably dead or seriously injured. Which path are you going to take now?

    As i've stated countless times before, the untrained assailant is going to suck at striking just as bad as grappling, step back out of the way is all very good theory, but unless mr attacker has extensive training and great reflexes he isn't going to be able to dodge a kick thrown at him.So you don't need to risk people playing football with your head to get that advantage

    point is, if samurai were forced to fight unarmed they had no other choice, they could either grapple despite the risks or scream yo mama jokes at each other. They grappled because they had no choice, if they continued to fight they grappled if they didn't they went home. If I ever get into a fight with someone whilst wearing heavy samurai armor and that person is wearing armor too that completely negates striking I would try grappling, however finding myself in such a position is unlikely.

    Look I'l give you the evidence you need. the Greek grappling you're talking about, pankration is reconstructed from whatever has been seen on pottery and other ancient sources, nothing has indicated that grappling was used out of a sporting context in a battle. When armies fight they use weapons. thats it

    Seriously I don't see whats the problem here, your average chump is as bad at striking as he is at ground grappling. You do not need to take all the assorted risks that ground grappling brings to get the unfamiliarity advantage, Assuming he's got friends is always the safe choice, if you're wrong no harm done. BUT if you assume he's alone and you're wrong you're going to be in a world of pain. Most ground grappling techniques too are not amenable to self defense since you're legally required to use a reasonable amount of force and most joint locks will end up completely destroying the joint. Very bad, legally speaking. Also Samurai used grappling despite the risks because THEY HAD NO CHOICE.You do.
     
  13. RhadeConstantin

    RhadeConstantin King of Badasses

    Look Giacomo let me summarize this in as small a space as possible.

    groundfighting leaves you vulnerable to attack from multiples, it greatly reduces your mobility, it reduces your chances of escape, it places you in a bad position legally and concrete usually causes deep cuts.


    Now
    The average street thug knows as little about striking as he does about grappling, so you don't need to take the fight to the floor to get the "unfamiliar style advantage" saying the average thug knows he's supposed to get out the way of a strike is like me saying he knows he's not supposed to let you bend his joints.

    Assuming he's got buddies waiting to help out is always the safe option, if you're wrong, no harm done. Assuming he's alone, and being wrong results in the "foot-head-concrete" sandwich very harmful.

    Assuming you do end up on the ground, most joint locks will end up leaving you in a very bad position, break the joint and you've violated the reasonable use of force decree in almost any country out there. let go when he taps and he may attack you all over again. besides

    There is no point taking such huge risks just to do on the floor what you can do while standing up.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfLlGHV1dG4&has_verified=1"]Pimp Gets Knocked Out By Karate Instructor - YouTube[/ame]

    I'm pretty sure the guy who got one hit KO'ed knew he was supposed to get out of the way.Additionally the guy wasn't a random ****ed off stranger, he was a pimp and a local gangster I'm sure he'd gotten into scraps before too.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU"]Boxer Vs. 4 attackers! Awesome street fight - YouTube[/ame]
    I'm also equally sure that the four people the boxer took on knew they were supposed to get out the way. In neither case did you need to go the ground to get an advantage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011
  14. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    1. Again, rolled on concrete before due to screwing about, not for long admittedly and got a scraped knee in the bargain, though most people aren't going to last more a brief couple of seconds against someone who knows hat they are doing. Like-wise for stricking.

    2. Could you post up the article?

    3. In the same way you wouldn't attack unless you were sure he was going to attack, our hypothetical fighter probably isn't going to grapple either unless he was sure no-one else could intervene in the next 3-5 seconds.

    4. Assuming he doesn't have friends means you can focus on your attack and less on watching out for his friends.

    5. Even with your arguments for being as bad at striking as grapling, these arguments will only apply to the physical mechanics. But you have to consider what form of attack to people have the most exposure to, and there-fore the most knowledge of how to execute properly?

    6. Grappling as a last resort was because Samuria fought with weapons, not because grappling was but an impracitcal sport.

    7. I may as well ask "what's your problem?", with admitting that grappling works, admittedly it's scope of use is narrower and it's risks higher, but that is not negating that it works!

    Edit: Not sure why you are showing me videos of striking working in a SD context. I fully agree with you on striking, I AM A STRIKER. There is no need to convince me of strikings effectiveness over grappling in a large number of contexts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2011
  15. Kurtka Jerker

    Kurtka Jerker Valued Member

    Striker, G, striker.
     
  16. Happy Feet Cotton Tail

    Happy Feet Cotton Tail Valued Member

    Thanks for flagging that one up, just looked over the origonal post and winced several times.
     
  17. RhadeConstantin

    RhadeConstantin King of Badasses

    Look I don't know how what I'm saying is too complicated, or why you keep repeating your arguments ignoring mine. Let me put it simple

    Taking someone down on concrete can hurt both either you or them a lot.

    Why on earth would you want to assume that he's alone? Why would you want to risk having your head kicked in? If you assume he's not alone, whether right or wrong, you'd be safe. If you assume he's not alone, and you're wrong you're going to be in a world of pain.

    Basically, you're risking a lot and for what? reduced mobility? reduced ability to take on multiples? and increased risk from weapons due to having closed the distance?. Techniques that are less practical for self defense in any country with Reasonable use of force for self defense decree's?

    I'm not exactly sure what this means but let me reiterate, Samurai grappled because they had no choice, their heavy armor negated striking, in most warrior cultures where they weren't encumbered with heavy armor that negated striking they didn't go for grappling

    Also the article was in a newspaper, if I find it I'l scan it and put it up.

    That's like saying watching UFC makes you a skilled mixed martial artist, I've already posted a couple of video's which have show that despite people's "exposure" to striking they suck at defending themselves from as much as humanly possible. A karate instructor KO's a local gangster cum Pimp with a single blow so hard he's out could for several minutes and keep's falling down even after recovering partially, I'm pretty sure his exposure didn't help him.

    (Bold Mine)
    I am not denying that it works,Infact I've already stated several times that a skilled grappler could probably tear limbs off his opponent. what I'm questioning is how practical is it, if it's scope is narrower, rests on assumptions that can kill you if they're wrong and is generally much riskier whats the point of learning it? If you dedicate enough time to even XMA I'm sure you could land a inverted triple spin hook kick, that doesn't mean it's practical does it? If striking is less risky, has a wider scope and is generally safer and more effective why grapple?
    Think about it this way, if you have two investment schemes which require an equal amount of time but one is less risky and pays a higher dividend which one would you choose?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011

Share This Page