Seriously, do you really think joint locks and kung fu movements are fast? [Archive]

jon

04-27-2002, 12:36 AM

"I'm just wondering, do you really believe doing joint locks and kung fu blocking is actually fast enough to stop a fast Kick Boxer without bobing and weaving."
* No problem, we just turn on matrix mode and kill them with six dim mak strikes before they even manage to get out a punch!!! By the time the guy has hit the ground we are sitting peacefully miles away drinking chinese tea and telling our story.

"It's an honest question to be asked. "
* possibly but your a cheap git so no bickies for you, just more troll bait im afraid :(

"AND do you martial artist out there who have taken other martial arts other than kung fu (oohhh, lets say something like Karate) really believe in it's effectiveness. "
* Yes actualy :) Infact taking other martial arts lets you see all the many strengths and weakness of your art. Its a big nasty world out there and there is more than one way to sharpen a knife, let alone fashion one ;)

"Before you answer. "
* Be aware your only precious moments of your life on a troll, whoops!

"Take a look at the U.F.C. it looks alot like karate/kickboxing and grappling "
* Yes well maybe becouse thats what the majority of the practioners in UFC practice? Have you ever considered that basic punching kicking and grappling is commen to all arts as 'the basics' these movements are considered 'the basics' basicaly becouse dum dum dum, they work!!!
Hence get a bunch of guys who are actualy trying to hurt each other what do they do? Resort back to basics, punch kick grab.
Have a contact fight sometime, might open your eyes. Or shut one of them for about a week :p

"Back to speed"
* Man dont do it! Please i cant handle you hurting yourself like that. Think of the loss to the community! Think of all of your friends who will miss you!
Yeah ok just stick the needle in your arm and get it over with!

"I really don't see how a kung fu technique can be called fast when a kickboxer can throw lightning fast punches at you before you can even think of a kung fu technique."
* Who's thinking about kf technique? Come danial san you have much to learn. Its like a finger pointing away to the moon :rolleyes:

"Just my point of view"
* PLEASE PLEASE post again, you people are one of the many reasons this board makes me smile :D
Just please dont hurt me, i only know kung fu and may get hurt:(

BTW stop saying Ballet Fu, you stole that from me!
You called it ballet, i called it ballet fu and i tm that phrase and everything about it.
Only i can practice and teach Ballet Fu and you may NOT use its proud name again for your own evil ends!

Ok stand back everyone, you need fire or acid to actualy finish one of these things off. Im turned on the flamethrower and given him a good hose. Now we just hope to examine the charcoled remains for signs of life :)

ged

04-27-2002, 03:26 AM

dont know if this guys a troll or not, but ive definitely had the same doubts. then i figured out it doesnt work like in jet lee movies, standing and blocking 10000 punches with 100% accuracy... like ppl have said, its about seeing the body as a whole, setting up the opponent, and sticking. bah, other ppl have done and will explain it with more accuracy than me.... but yeah. ive had those doubts, but kung fu works. so long as you train realistically.

Tinman

04-27-2002, 04:52 AM

Ged thanks alot
Thats about the only real reply we have here.

Stacy
Tiger claw a flury of punches? What majical world do you live in.Remember, I said seriously.If you people believe that, then I can see why kung fu was never in N.H.B or U.F.C.

Jon
yeah, I know you must be kidding. Dimmak, get Real man.

Even if you people don't have to think of a technique, it's still no way faster than a strait punch, many punches.
you truely think you can grab one of those punches with a kung fu technique/jointlock?Get real.

Red fist, what can I say
you believe it's just fast enough,thats what is really sad.I never said anything about strength,in fact karate is almost all skill.

in closeing
You simply can't be in U.F.C. or N.H.B. Because kung fu is just not practical
In the spur of the moment you can't depend on kung fu,you need something more direct

your not going to CATCH a dammm punch,simple as that.
If they could do all those techniques you would see it more in reality fighting.and the reason they don't fight in U.F.C,,Well don't give me that, "because of honor of the style B.S." It's really because it just wouldn't work.

lim

04-27-2002, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Tinman I feel that joint locks within kung fu are fast once the technique is practiced and taken in. I do feel that it is the effectivness of the technique and not always the speed.
cya.
Ged thanks alot
Thats about the only real reply we have here.

Stacy
Tiger claw a flury of punches? What majical world do you live in.Remember, I said seriously.If you people believe that, then I can see why kung fu was never in N.H.B or U.F.C.

Jon
yeah, I know you must be kidding. Dimmak, get Real man.

Even if you people don't have to think of a technique, it's still no way faster than a strait punch, many punches.
you truely think you can grab one of those punches with a kung fu technique/jointlock?Get real.

Red fist, what can I say
you believe it's just fast enough,thats what is really sad.I never said anything about strength,in fact karate is almost all skill.

in closeing
You simply can't be in U.F.C. or N.H.B. Because kung fu is just not practical
In the spur of the moment you can't depend on kung fu,you need something more direct

your not going to CATCH a dammm punch,simple as that.

red_fists

04-27-2002, 05:03 AM

Hey Tinman.

I believe you after I have seen you use your Kara-Te to beat multiple Opponents in UFC, NHB and similar.

Until than you are just wasting Bandwidth, plus I suggest you rereaed my Post again with your Brain switched on.

Very nice mis-reading of what is written there.

Seeya.

AndyM

04-27-2002, 05:05 AM

I must point out here that we are actually all next to a minor rift in the space time continuum. Tinmans posts actually make some sense on the forum he is actually posting them on, which is in a parallel universe, on a planet far, far away!

I reccomend no response to these posts, as he probably can't see them anyway!

AndyM

lim

04-27-2002, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by lim
if you people are so down on kung fu could you perhaps enlighten others as to why? oh and also while your at that could you also try to understand that unless you have ever experienced anything you never really know....mmm bye.

David Jamieson

04-27-2002, 05:17 AM

Hey, this is actually a pretty good question.

Do traps and locks work against a consumate striker.
In short, yes they do.

If you have a Kung Fu man and a Kickboxer, both have trained diligently and both are good at what they do then it is inevitable that eventually the Kung fu man will lock up, trap or break the kick boxer. The kick boxer, by virtue of being a kickboxer has little training in dealing with traps or the striking blocks of Kung Fu.

I've been both, I've practiced hard at both, I've trained both. Kung fu when trained properly will destroy the kickboxer.

Add Kung fu to your kickboxing and you'll be winning some tournaments gauranteed. Add Kickboxing to your kung fu and you gain nothing.

something to think about is how you can further develop your Kung Fu to incorporate it's traps, locks and breaks. These are great close range tools for any fighter.

peace

Royal Dragon

04-27-2002, 05:30 AM

You simply can't be in U.F.C. or N.H.B. Because kung fu is just not practical
In the spur of the moment you can't depend on kung fu,you need something more direct

Reply]
UFC turned to C R A P before the Kung Fu world really even noticed it, so your not going to see us there. We have Kuo Shou and San Shou. If the MMA's were so tough, why don't you see them there??

Also, Kung Fu IS direct. we have fast short attacks too, but we also have great setups, locks, throws, dislocations and breaks too. Can we catch a Jab, YES, I've done it. Infact Wednessday, I was working with a Kempo guy I know on just that very thing.

If you engage the opponent in sticky hands, you are already in contact with the jabbing hand, and any agresive movment it makes can easily be nullified the instant it is initiated.

Kick boxers don't even have sticky hands, so they see jabs as this super fast unstopable thing that one should be afraid of because they must rely on hand eye cordination, which is quite slow by comparisen.

Is a grappeler afraid of a Jab?? I don't think so. Why you ask? Because of all the time they spend engaed in close quarters contact builds their sensitivity pretty much the same way as "Sticky Hands" does for us. Kick Boxers don't even think about that stuff.

Tinman

04-27-2002, 05:34 AM

alright Kung Lek
you have a point and well taken.
But, the question is do you really think you will have that chanch when 12 punches were already thrown at your head and the fights over before you even decide what to do?

David Jamieson

04-27-2002, 05:42 AM

There is only a wall of will holding you back. Yours or your opponents. If the kickboxer has more hunger to win, then he just might. If the Kung fu fighter has the hunger to win or the need to prevail then he will win.

The Kung fu fighter is likely not just going to stand there with his hands at his side withstanding the punches of the other fighter.

He will likely be looking for his openings as well. But once inside with the ability to grab, hold and dump the kickboxer, what will the kickboxer do to change the situation in his favour? Keep hitting? How do you keep hitting when your legs are being taken out from under you, you have an arm pinned and inside uppercuts are raining on ya?

it really depends on the fighters in the end. THe one with more tools trained effectively should by the odds win the match. The one who has studied the opponent and worked out counters to the favourite moves of the opponent will have even more of an advantage.

To many variables in a realistic fight to say "who" will win. But usually the bigger stick defeats the twig.

peace

Chang Style Novice

04-27-2002, 05:51 AM

Scarecrow -

Do you really have 12 hands? That's the only way I can think of for you to throw 12 jabs at once.

Anyway, the way it would work is like this: A jab is thrown, and intercepted by it's target. Then the target keeps his hand on the jabbing hand as it returns to the 'chambered' position. This is the 'sticking' that has been referred to throughout the thread. Once a hand is 'stuck' in this fashion, it becomes much more difficult to throw a punch with it, because the target of the punch is already in contact and can use that contact to alter the powerr or direction of any movement the 'jabbing' hand makes. It is at THIS point, NOT when the first jab is thrown that qinna (joint lock) techniques come into play.

But what about my other hand? You may ask. Well, what about it? I still have a hand free, too, and can use it to counterpunch while my sticking hand jams up your lead hand, or to deflect/stick to punches your other hand may throw.

This silly business of 12 punches is just a way of saying 'oo, I'm so fast you have no chance,' but that's a matter of personal attributes, not stylistic attributes and thus has no place in this discussion.

Royal Dragon

04-27-2002, 06:07 AM

I've actually been intiating contact first. As soon as their Gaurd goes up, I use a Bagua step to circle to the outside, and closer to the opponenet. This allows my lead hand to engage the lead hand of the Kick Boxer (Kempo buddy in this case) BEFORE he even attempts anything. I'm to his outside, with my center line facing his shoulder, so "I" have full use of both arms, but he has one already tied up by my single palm change postion, and the other is held out of range due to the fact that my body position is to the outside of him. Because of my use of "Sticking", when he tries to turn to face me, I feel it in his arm first before I see it, and I just Bagua walk around thus remaining one step ahead of him wile raining down attacks with my free hand, or jamming and Chin Na"ing" him with my "Sticking" hand. We won't even get into the really cool ways you can take his structure away from that postion, and Kick Boxer types are SOOOOOOO suseptable to that kind of footwork and positioning it ain't even funny.

In all honesty, it's about all I do when I fight now, as it is so effective.

NorthernMantis

04-27-2002, 06:39 AM

Thanks Xebs but Ralek is a no show. Looks like Ralek is afraid of the awesome power of Tinman's karaady.

Anyways Tinman. Your such a fool . Wether your trolling or not you're really showing how stupid you are. One of my close friends is a Muay Thai boxer, not the sissy kickboxing stuff with gloves and when we sparred he said I was too fast. So nah. Believe it or not I don't care. I'm just waiting for Ralek to come here and lay the smack down on you.

Merryprankster

04-27-2002, 07:07 AM

Tinman--"Holy bright lights! Look up there! The Troll Signal!"
Ralek--"Quick Tinman!! To the Trollmobile!"

Royal--KF has Kuo Shou and San Shou huh? And Pride and the UFC are crap...OOooooook. Normally, you have really good comments, but this time, I do believe you are talking out of your sphincter.

Has it occurred to you that both of these venues are basically MMA events without the groundwork and submissions (Including standing ones, mind you)? Never mind that sacrifice throws such as ippon seoi nage--perfectly legit throws--are not scored because your knees hit the ground first. Are you even allowed to get behind your opponent and beat on him in a "shou" event? Or is it like boxing or kickboxing where if that happens, they break it up (assuming that a back arch throw isn't immediately on the way)?

Are you just grumpy that there is groundwork in MMA events or not like the fighters, or what?

If it's a rules issue, the irony is that the rules of San Shou and Kuo Shou are more restrictive than MMA events.

Both sets are excellent venues, but to argue one is crap and the other isn't...I'm not sure how your assumptions play out here....

Royal Dragon

04-27-2002, 07:42 AM

They are both C R A P, so why would we go from our circutes whith restrictive rules, to another with restrictive rules geared for ground fighting wrestlers?? Our Idea of Ground fighting, is the throw the guy, and come crashing down on his rips with one of our knees after he's been knocked unconcios by landing on his head. I don't think we can do that in our circutes, we can't do that in the UFC (because we are not striking wile WE are on the ground too), so why bother moving out of our element??

The UFC was good when it was
No biteing,
No Fish Hooking
And No Throat strikes (?is that right, been so long now)

As far as "I' am concerned, the UFC turned to C R A P when they added all those rules and geared it for ground huggers. Now it's no different than any other fight game.

Stacey

04-27-2002, 07:53 AM

Kung fu never in UFC?

I don't think so.

UFC 6 and 7, Joel Sutton fought and won as an alternate...later he broke off from 8 step and left his winning streak with him.

Other fighters in 8 step have won in local NHB competitions.

BJJ takes out kickboxers by getting them in unfamiliar ranges, using positioning and techniques that they don't know. We do the same, but on the ground and in close. The positioning is the stance work and footwork, like RD mentioned.

I agree with him on only needing the ba gua footwork after initially engaging them. You can also engage, mantis pull and close line their neck for a choke or throw while rotating around them ba gua like.

Even with pure striking, there are a lot of subtelties that they don't know. Even thai kickboxers don't know.

Archangel

04-27-2002, 09:35 AM

"They are both C R A P, so why would we go from our circutes whith restrictive rules, to another with restrictive rules geared for ground fighting wrestlers??"

Can you explain this more to me? How are MMA events geared toward ground grapplers when you can fight in any range you want.

Stacy,

Joel Sutton beat 2 inexperienced rookies in his alternate fights in the UFC. The reason he started losing was because the caliber of his opponents went up. If he didn't cross train and just stuck to Mantis he wouldn't have even won his first 2.

dre

04-27-2002, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Scarecrow -

Do you really have 12 hands? That's the only way I can think of for you to throw 12 jabs at once.
.

Moral of the story : Don't ever fight Vishnu of India.

Royal Dragon

04-27-2002, 12:07 PM

But isn't there a rule in the UFC that states if an opponent is on the ground, you must also be on the ground to hit him??

I remeber a guy in one of the UFC's just lay down and wait for his opponent to lay down and wrestle him.

If it was NOT set up sepcifically for ground huggers, then the Kung Fu guy would be able to cage him and pound him in the head with out having to lay down and play the grapeller's game.

THIS tells me they only want Ground Huggers.

Ever since I saw THAT one, I've been down on the UFC. It's not what it's made out to be anymore. If it ever goes back to the original 3 basic rules, I'll give it some thought, but untill then I see no need to pay any attention to it when there are plenty of good Kou Shuo or San Shou fights to watch.

Am I wrong here?

DelicateSound

04-27-2002, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Am I wrong here?

No. You are correct. And I'm a Judo guy.

Archangel

04-27-2002, 12:41 PM

No, you are allowed to kick your opponent while he's down, not just when he's on all 4's. I admit this is a dumb rule but they were pressured by the sports commission. If the grappler is just laying there though, the striker can ask that he be stood back up which is a definate advantage to the striker. I think the rules are evenly distributed though. You have rounds which favors strikers, standups which favors strikers, taped fists with small gloves that favor strikers and a nice soft mat to land on that favors strikers (strikers would most likely be on the bottom of a takedown).

If you truly want an event thats closer to the original UFC there's IVC in Brazil, it has only 2 rules, no biting or eye attacks; The event is dominated by primarily grapplers with not that many traditionalists doing well. There's also Pride Japan which is alot closer to the original UFC, it has the biggest paycheck and still no traditionalists.

So there....

Black Jack

04-27-2002, 01:36 PM

I have heard the IVC has a lot fewer rules, what are the paychecks like with that tourney and are any of them on tape to buy?

Royal Dragon

04-27-2002, 01:51 PM

OK, Cool

Ryu

04-27-2002, 02:25 PM

Real fights are usually won by sucker punching from the encroachment. You'd all be better off learning about how people react in the encroachment, pushing matches, blindside attacks, etc.
Doesn't matter what martial art you study, if you're street stupid.

The tools to fight are grappling skills, punching skills, close-quarter skills.

Use them how you see fit.
These threads are boring even me.

Ryu

Chang Style Novice

04-27-2002, 02:32 PM

RD -

Thanks for pointing out that 'sticking' can be part of an aggressive strategy as well as a part of a reactive one. Of course, my post was intended to reply to the Scarecrow's scenario of 'how would you respond to a flurry of quick punches?'

Braden

04-27-2002, 03:01 PM

"you are allowed to kick your opponent while he's down, not just when he's on all 4's."

This must be a new rule.

"If the grappler is just laying there though, the striker can ask that he be stood back up"

This must also be new. Or inconsistently enforced. I'm sure that anyone who has been watching them can think of a half dozen examples off hand of someone with a stronger ground game waiting in the guard for the standing person to come to them, while the standing person stares confusedly and then is warned to be more aggressive. There's some good examples from Sak's fights in another venue of what happens when this rule isn't in place.

"which is a definate advantage to the striker."

Interesting viewpoint. I'd say it's more (assuming it's being enforced now) to create even the slightest semblance of realism. A martial art which advocates lying on your back on the ground and waiting for someone to come to is of extremely limited worth outside the ring, even if you can consistently win in the ring with that strategy.

"You have rounds which favors strikers"

Or, again, realism. For example, it's always amused me when BJJ proponents assert the realism of their arts in the same paragraph they talk about a certain 3 hour long (!?) match.

"standups which favors strikers"

Allready addressed.

"taped fists with small gloves that favor strikers"

Another interesting viewpoint. Padding strikes (ie. decreasing the power of strikes) favors strikers? Hrmm...

"a nice soft mat to land on that favors strikers"

And yet another interesting viewpoint. Decreasing the damage you take from rolling on the ground favors people who are trying not to do that? I wonder how quick people would pull mid-range guard or go for many of the popular guard and flying submissions if the back side of their head was near something hard, let alone curb-like.

Please don't confuse any of this for a standup vs ground, striking vs grappling, or traditional vs modern argument. Simply commenting specifically on statements that were made.

Braden

04-27-2002, 03:11 PM

MerryPrankster is correct in noting the absence of groundwork in koushu and sanshou; but only correct regarding sanshou in his comments concerning standing submission and positioning constraints.

For whatever it's worth, regarding self-defense I agree completely with what Ryu said.

Paul

04-27-2002, 03:22 PM

Tank Abbot Rules!

This is just idle curiousity, but how many of you who go on and on and on about the UFC and all these other competitions actually fight? Must be great to live vicariously through others.

For those of you who think it's so easy to just stick to someones jab and shut them down, sounds nonsensical to me. The first assumption you are making is that you outclass this other fighter. How does that saying go? oh yeah "everyone has a plan until they get hit."

Tinman

04-27-2002, 03:43 PM

Those LONG stories that should be a book you write, thats whats boring. You my man are simply boring.
How dare you call me boring, Your the fu(king king of boring.
You ramble on about crap.
When do you even train, your always here.
BROWN BELT, come back when you devote enough time to become a black.
Go on home Home Boy!!

Archangel

04-27-2002, 04:00 PM

Some of those rules mentioned a pretty new but they have been around for a couple of UFC's. I've seen numerous fights where these rules were utilized: Ricardo Almeida vs. Semenov, there were numerous standups when Almeida was down in his guard and Semenov was standing.

I do agree with you though that laying on your back and just waiting is one of the silliest tactics around. We call it butt scooting and I really believe it has no place in this kind of fighting. Coming from a wrestling background I always hated it.

"Another interesting viewpoint. Padding strikes (ie. decreasing the power of strikes) favors strikers? Hrmm..."

I really thought this was obvious here....???? In the early UFC's numerous strikers were breaking their hands whenever they struck their opponents head; that isn't the case nowadays. Now you can reinforce your hands with wraps and tape. This adds a couple of lbs. to your fists and undeniably makes them feel like cement. Have you ever gotten hit with a taped fist Braden? it's not fun. The glove provides less than an inch of padding and are really there to stop cuts and soften the blow to your hands.

"I wonder how quick people would pull mid-range guard or go for many of the popular guard and flying submissions if the back side of their head was near something hard, let alone curb-like."

You' re definately right there, there would have to be an adaptation and alot of the flashier moves would have to be removed. However I do stand by my argument. Most pure strikers do not know how to breakfall, defend a takedown or any basic ground positions. They would find themselves on the bottom, with only conrete underneath them. Can you imagine what would happen if a Greco Roman specialist or Judoka connected with a high amplitude throw on concrete; they'd have to scrape that guy off with a spatula.

Paul,

I just had to say. The reason why so many of us use MMA as an example is because it can be verified. It's on video tape and everyone can view it. Would you prefer it if we used personal anecdotes as examples. I could easily say that I beat up 20 Kung Fu masters single handedly... would it be true?? no one knows because it's unverifiable.

Ryu

04-27-2002, 04:14 PM

I didn't call you boring. I called these threads boring.

It doesn't even pay to be objective in these types of threads. ;)

Bottom line is that grappling and striking are reality in fighting.

The way you perform any of these depends on the training you do in reality.

UFC and MMA try their best not to favor either striker of grappler.

The champions of MMA are well versed in BOTH grappling and striking.

Grappling on concrete does not equal hellish torture and death. ( :rolleyes: )

Having tiny gloves does not decrease punching power. ( :rolleyes: )

Not all fights go to the ground.

A lot of fights do go to the ground.

Many real fights can be (and are) finished with a sucker punch and flurry of strikes.

When you go to the ground in a streetfight you need to get dominant position and hit uninterrupted. KO's and concussions are much easier to get with uninterrupted ground and pound.

Uninterrupted ground and pound is not always possible.

Striking is not always possible.

Winning ....is not always possible.

......oh and Karate (Tinman's version at least) can't win in UFC or the Street :D

Ryu

Braden

04-27-2002, 04:22 PM

AA - I haven't watched any of the recent ones, so I have to admit I'm probably "behind the times." I realize that padded hands and padded floor offer considerable benefit to striking-oriented fighters; I just believe they also offer considerable (but different) benefits to more grappling-oriented fighters. So I did not mean to imply that these rules favored grapplers, only that they didn't favor strikers.

As for your other comments, I'd have to agree.

Daredevil

04-27-2002, 04:26 PM

Chang Style Novice said:

But what about my other hand? You may ask. Well, what about it? I still have a hand free, too, and can use it to counterpunch while my sticking hand jams up your lead hand, or to deflect/stick to punches your other hand may throw.

Good description of the sticking principle, but I'd like to add a viewpoint. If you really properly control the other one's arm/hand, as in actual qinna, you don't much need to worry about the other hand. Dominating the opponent's one hand enables you to control their entire body. It's your body vs. their hand -- you do the math.

That said, "sticking" and qinna is rather hard to do, yeah. That's "kung fu" for you.

I'm not going to comment on the "kung fu" vs MMA stuff too much, but I do think the conversation should be shelved unless we keep it constructive. Why try to convince the other side with words, when the stuff we do is about actions.

You wanna prove kung fu works -- step up. Otherwise -- put up.

NorthernMantis

04-27-2002, 04:41 PM

lol @ MP

Stacey had some good points as well.

Tinman

04-27-2002, 04:41 PM

Nicely done Ryu and Well said.
I've got to give you credit for that.

O.K. Good point.
Now
I like how you spaced all your pharases apart.(it kept my attention;) )And
You are a very good writer. That was well writen,I guess when your on line all day and not Training you become a good writer because I know you have had plenty of experiance here.

Go get some training in.

fightfan

04-27-2002, 05:37 PM

Ryu is correct!

Chang Style Novice

04-27-2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Paul

For those of you who think it's so easy to just stick to someones jab and shut them down, sounds nonsensical to me. The first assumption you are making is that you outclass this other fighter. How does that saying go? oh yeah "everyone has a plan until they get hit."

Quite so, Paul. If I implied that it would be 'so easy,' that is indeed nonsensical. Nothing is 'so easy' against a resisting, skilled opponent with a reasonable idea about your game plan. Not even throwing a flurry of punches. That's pretty much my point, along with the fact that every technique has a countertechnique.

Ryu

04-27-2002, 06:32 PM

LOL
Ah it's clear to me now Tinman. Okay, I'll make sure to get some "training" in. ;)

LOL

Ryu

Braden

04-27-2002, 07:14 PM

Ryu - I'm not sure if that post was directed at me. In case it was:

"Grappling on concrete does not equal hellish torture and death."

I never claimed nor implied such a thing.

"Having tiny gloves does not decrease punching power."

I was clumsy with terminology. Replace power with effect.

I'm sure none of the other statements were directed at me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

African Tiger

04-27-2002, 07:27 PM

Quick, somebody post that Erik Estrada "You're a ****" photo...
:cool:

African Tiger

04-27-2002, 07:29 PM

that was ho-mo btw.

Because this entire worn out ass topic is gay like a Elton John/George Michael/Boy George concert, with a dance number by Richard Simmons and a beyond the grave performance by Liberace.

Sharky

04-27-2002, 07:35 PM

in spandex.

Ryu

04-27-2002, 07:36 PM

Braden, I wasn't aiming those at you, sorry. :)
Just lots of stuff I hear a lot from lots of people. Nothing directly at you at all.

Ryu

Braden

04-27-2002, 07:42 PM

It's all good dude. Just checking. I actually agreed with everything you said. I can be a bit of a dunce sometimes to overstate my argument. ;) But I didn't want it to sound like I thought the situation was pro-grappler, or that I was anti-grappler as neither is the case.

Paul

04-28-2002, 02:49 AM

Archangle,

I still don't see how this validates what YOU are doing?

So what? some (or many) pro figher(s) can make it work. Great for them. That stuff IS cool to watch and I take nothing away from their accomplishments.

How does it validate what YOU are doing? Are you a pro fighter? Are you at that level?

DelicateSound

04-28-2002, 04:35 AM

Surely this grappling VS striking bullsh!t can merely be sorted by the theory of knowing yourself AND your opponent?

By having enough experience in your style to make it work - to know what it can and can't do, and keeping yourself in the "zone" that it works in.

By having enough experience of other arts [grappling if you're a striker] to know what you opponant can do, and to keep the fight in the "zone" where his skills are void.

No? I think it's called common sense. You don't even have to "cross-train" as long as you use you head.

Sharky

04-28-2002, 05:14 AM

Oh how i wish i had saved my rickety bridge line for this thread.

DelicateSound

04-28-2002, 05:34 AM

Hideous isn't it...

logic

04-28-2002, 07:42 AM

Tinman
Are you under the impression that I gave up on, or don't like karate anymore?I don't ever recall impling that.
I still train my karate along with my other martial arts.

Yes, Kung Fu has been a great asset to my training.
The balance is great and the movement is fast and combative.(at least in my style)I like karate but I don't ever recall working on an Iron dummy and conditioning my body this way in karate.Don't get me wrong,shorin ryu is very tough.

You should open your mind a little more.Theres alot of other stuff out there.

Don't get mad, I'm just stating my point of view.

No_Know

04-28-2002, 07:51 AM

"Back to speed
I really don't see how a kung fu technique can be called fast when a kickboxer can throw lightning fast punches at you before you can even think of a kung fu technique.

Just my point of view."

Form suggests a sensible order to connecting techniques. Practicing Form develops endurance. Repetition develops Speed. One cannot do 10,000 of the same cut incorrectly (possiblly a saying in Japan). A tenet of Kung-Fu seems to be to learn the Form then (way later), forget all the techniques. ~ I thought that it was a reference to better than second-nature. One retrains one's movements so that the complex/involved Kung-Fu movements become natural coordination--You can do those movement eventually, not just as a reaction. But as a higher level of coordination.

"Even if you people don't have to think of a technique, it's still no way faster than a strait punch, many punches.
you truely think you can grab one of those punches with a kung fu technique/jointlock?Get real. "

Karate people get good griping from at least holding their hands in fists so much. Hands are-up. A straight punch could be covered. One would have to have a very strong grip and is faster and has sharp perceptions. But these are trainable. Kung-Fu allows for doing such things.

"But, the question is do you really think you will have that chanch when 12 punches were already thrown at your head and the fights over before you even decide what to do?"

The theory is more that as a Kung-Fu practitioner one would be aware of impending threat and anticipate the punch(es). Kung-Fu incorporates avoidance and yielding and beating the adversary to the puch (speed) (effectiveness to hurt is also present from the Kung-Fu practitioner (when far enough along)).

"in closeing
You simply can't be in U.F.C. or N.H.B. Because kung fu is just not practical
In the spur of the moment you can't depend on kung fu,you need something more direct "

I wonder what you have in your thinking as what makes-up Kung-Fu. What Kung-Fu practitioners look like to you, when they do Kung-Fu?

"your not going to CATCH a dammm punch,simple as that.
If they could do all those techniques you would see it more in reality fighting.and the reason they don't fight in U.F.C,,Well don't give me that, "because of honor of the style B.S." It's really because it just wouldn't work."

Deflecting is better than catching. Chin-Na happens at the joint. Chin-na might deflect then lean-in or step-in during the punch and Chin-na the shoulder or the elbow. The Kung-Fu person is not restricted to using the hands to execute Chin-na on those strong hard Japanese Karate punches that seem nearly locked-out.

Japanese Karate punch goes in, the other side of the body punch is going out. Mai-ai (?)--distance-timing. This is used in Taijitsu and theoretically Kenjitsu and is an integral part of at least a few Japanese Martial Arts. If not every interaction that has a physical component in this multiverse. In at least, Taijitsu and Kenjitsu of Japnese Martial Arts, there is something called, intent.

Perhaps The Chinese Kung-Fu practitioner has developed to sense Intent and can read the distance and timing of one of your Jaspanese strong hard punches in the barrage-ish of punches (12~ intended punches), and could start to be where it seems to be going, before it retracts or when it's empty (at least a Taijitsu concept, perhaps). The Chinese Kung-Fu practitioner, anticipating correctly might have a palm anticipatorily closng on a punch that misses its mark because of yielding or absorbing.

In order for something to be going in one direction, then go along the same line in the opposite direction, its velocity approaches zero. So (needle-and-thread), no matter how fast a punch might be, there is a point at which the punch is virtually still. And perhaps you, one-called, Tinman, can concede that a still thing can be perceiveablly grabable. And a grab in motion (torque primer) hapening, beats an extended arm standing still. ~

Kung-Fu is for doing livelyhood work better and raising a family. Being a kind person. Respectful of Life. It is understanding to be Happy and live and be a part of Life. Beating people-up/Showing off-for the world/making money (there are So! many different ways) by hurting, seems trivial perhaps. And not worth while.

Some don't feel a need to prove themselves. Self-confidence and being happy with one's Self. This is perhaps the reason for Kung-Fu. That there are different ways people go about this, or that there are many applications, oh, well! :-) Whatever whatever. Kung-Fu Can be used in all sorts of fighting, but Kung-Fu; however, applied is for improved living.

Some might say perhaps some-such, very whatever very good.

KC Elbows

04-28-2002, 09:28 AM

-I think bjj is cool

-I occassionally watch UFC, as well as sanshou footage, any of them, really, its nice to see fighters working their arts, be they eclectic arts or not.

-I really don't care about this argument, although it does evoke thought on our styles, and I suppose make us always assess how we train.

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST

-When NHB fighters start beating kung fu guys in chainwhip fights, maybe I'll consider learning their styles, but until then, I'm sticking with kung fu. Our arts are just as realistic, and are a different type art than bjj. BJJ is heavily influenced by the japanese in that it is a focused art, working the ground, whereas kung fu styles are often geared towards a broader range of scenarios. This doesn't make one better than the other, it just means they have a different focus. If the logic is to be victories=quality, kenjutsu guys with live steel will kill us all, so we all need to study kenjutsu, or, better yet, nuclear fu, which is superior.

Archangel

04-28-2002, 02:32 PM

Well I guess we're just going to have to disagree on those 2 points. I am trying to see your viewpoint but I just can't seem to budge on the glove issue. When you say that the "effect" is reduced when you tape your fists and wear grappling gloves what do you mean. The only thing I can think of off hand are cuts and abbrasions caused by the knuckles. If your talking about force, i'd definately disagree with you.

DelicateSound

04-28-2002, 02:55 PM

Archangel. OK, glove one hand, and not the other. Rest both on your face, so that the middle knuckle presses into the cheekbone - fingers pointing "down" in a fist.

Now - punch yourself in the face 5 times with each, alternating. Any power, as long as its equal.

Which hurts more? That's right the ungloved one.

Now you can talk about how superficial power does not knock someone out blah de blah........ but *shock* the ungloved hand dishes out more pain. It is more effective at breaking ****.

And properly conditioned will not break.

Archangel

04-28-2002, 03:16 PM

Paul,

I have never stated that MMA victories have validated what I am doing (please don't put words in my mouth). The only things that UFC/PRIDE/IVC etc. can provide are good verifiable examples of some theories. Nothing more.

Well to answer your questions on my background; I'm starting to box again; Muay Thai was just too hard on the body. I find that it compliments my wrestling background really nicely

Delicate Sound,

The pain that is felt with a bare knuckle punch is greater than wrapped/tapped and glove hand, I agree but that is not what's being debated here; we are discussing effectiveness. A wrapped/tapped hand is heavier than a bare fist and harder (it really feels like cement). I'm sure you've taken Physics before:

F=MA

With the glove on it has a greater surface area and will deliver a greater concussion force than a bare hand. You ask any boxer, muay thai, savate, San Shou fighter what they'd rather get hit with. I'll bet you they'd choose the bare hand rather than the wrapped/taped hand with a grappling glove.

Braden

04-28-2002, 08:43 PM

AA - "Well I guess we're just going to have to disagree on those 2 points."

What's the other point - other than the glove stuff?

"A wrapped/tapped hand is heavier than a bare fist and harder (it really feels like cement)."

I'm not sure how you can claim taping hands adds pounds to their weight. I imagine you mean, it feels to you as if one had added pounds to their hands when they tape them, in which case I am in no position to argue about your subjective experience.

"F=MA"

I assume you use this to indicate the increase in force one will find in increasing the mass but maintaining the acceleration of a body. In terms of the model, the increase in force of putting on a glove and tape. To which I would respond: first, that the weight is neglible, which is to say, magnitudes smaller than the baseline. Second, that any increase in weight will result in a decrease in acceleration given the same input (ie. muscular movement). Look up equations for energy (rather than force, which is less appropriate) to determine the relative contribution of acceleration to determine the effect (of course, this if you maintain that the mass difference ISN'T negligible). And thirdly, that beyond changing mass and acceleration, taping/padding changes the KINETICS of the interaction in more subtle ways. Specifically that destruction potential of a transmission of energy is inversely propotional to the time it takes for the energy to transmit. This effect is very strong. Padding something specifically makes energy transmit slower (by introducing a high resilience surface in between the two bodies in question - which takes up time in deforming before energy can be transmitted... and of course this deformation also "costs" energy itself).

"With the glove on it has a greater surface area and will deliver a greater concussion force"

Which is not indicated by the formula you gave, if that is what you meant to imply.

However, it is also incorrect, adding surface area does not generate more force. For instance, imagine two bodies of equal volume and mass travelling with equal speed through a gravitationless vacuum; A and B. B has twice the surface area of A. From these facts alone, we can NOT conclude B has more kinetic energy. You might argue that if they were not in a vacuum, that friction due to air resistance on B would be twice that of A; ie. on a certain surface, B is associated with more force due to more surface area. However, this would be an error of logic. Their movement in the first place would be due to an input of energy Y. If B is associated with more force due to it's surface area, it would require a proportionally larger Y to achieve the same kinetic energy state as A. Which is a thorough way of saying: surface area doesn't generate more force, when it seems to be doing this, it is due entirely to a hidden variable: the input of a larger energy in the first place. With respect to our model, the gloves on your hands don't generate energy of their own.

Moreover, the conclusion to be drawn from any discussion of surface area in our model would be the opposite of what you have drawn. If body A has the ability to transmit kinetic energy X to body B, the effect of this transfer will be inversely proportional to the surface area over which it occurs. For instance, if body B is required to absorb X over one square inch, it will have a greater effect than over forty square inches. It has to do with body B's resilience: it's ability to adapt within the constraints of it's normal structure to incoming force by normal-range deformation and movement (as opposed to damage to it's structure). With more surface area, there is simply more "stuff" of B in order to be resiliant. This is the exact mechanism for sharpness, and for the vulnerability of small isolated bodies, such as teeth and small bones. You might conclude anecdotally that a hammer has a different sort of 'damage' potential than a knife. However, the important thing to remember to avoid this conclusion is again that the hammer has more energy in the first place (due to it's increased weight), and it is from this that it's damage potential comes. Of course, taping and gloving adds weight, but not pounds as you assert. Although in another way, the hammer strike's kinetics are different: something like a knife's damage potential could be so high that it damages the body it contacts very quickly, whereas with a hammer strike, the tissue it strikes has "time" to pass some of the energy onto adjacent tissues for more wide-spread resilience (the idea behind a bullet proof vest - or the difference between being hit in the arm with a small and high caliber/velocity round; the former will knock you back, the latter will rip your arm off). However, this line of reasoning isn't appropriate for our model, as neither glove nor ungloved conditions change surface area conditions as dramatically as knife vs. hammer.

Now, I don't really like physical modelling of strikes, because it's entirely inadequate. But you started. ;) And I tried to keep things in terms of general principles so it would have meaning.

"You ask any boxer, muay thai, savate, San Shou fighter what they'd rather get hit with."

Maybe because they're used to being hit with less force by ungloved/untaped hands and/or by people who train/are used to striking with gloved/taped rather than ungloves/untaped hands.

However, if you believe your line of reasoning, what would you think of this:

I show up at your house with a pair of identical aluminum bats and a spool of "less than an inch" thick medium-density foam. We cover one of the bats with the foam and give it to you. Then we take turns hitting each other with the bats.

Braden

04-28-2002, 09:03 PM

All that said... with respect to my argument, I do not need to defend a particularly strong position. I never claimed that the situation in general relatively impairs striking-oriented fighters, only that (contrary to what you asserted) that it did not relatively benefit them. So really I'm defending a position stronger than the one that needs to stand for my argument.

In other words, I'll gladly admit that the situation presents striking-oriented fighters certain advantages, just as it creates certain disadvantages. And the same for grappling-oriented fighters.

As a general, but I think highly related, comment, one of the downsides of obtaining your striking training/knowledge from sports-based striking-arts is that you will have little to no exposure to tools that one WOULD use to maximize your ability to strike various parts of your opponent's body with bare hands. In a way, it's not surprising that someone whose exposure is limited in this fashion would hold strong views that padding of the hands benefits the striker.

Archangel

04-28-2002, 11:05 PM

LOL, you've been debating with Merry Prankster too ong... Here we go.

"What's the other point - other than the glove stuff?"

The other point was about the soft padded mats, we can discuss that too if you like.

"I'm not sure how you can claim taping hands adds pounds to their weight. I imagine you mean, it feels to you as if one had added pounds to their hands when they tape them, in which case I am in no position to argue about your subjective experience."

It's not only mass thats added to your fist, wrapping the hands and then taping them will greatly strengthen the hands structure and foundation. Making them feel DENSER (better word) and alot more solid. If you look the structure of the hand, it was not designed for great impact. The knuckles are only held together by cartlidge wich easily seperate, break and dissipate energy. When the hand hits the skull you'll agree that an equal force is reacted back to the hand. Alot of the energy will be dissipated through the seperation and compression of the knuckles. If the hand is reinforced, you will have no compression or seperation and the hand will more likely go through the target.

"first, that the weight is neglible, which is to say, magnitudes smaller than the baseline. Second, that any increase in weight will result in a decrease in acceleration given the same input (ie. muscular movement"

I disagree the weight is not neglible. The mass of a typical hand is about 1-3 kg the mass of wraps + tape + grappling glove is about maybe half a kilogram. A 25% increase in mass is not neglible. What is negligible is the decrease in acceleration, in my experience of course; They are not propotional.

"However, it is also incorrect, adding surface area does not generate more force"

I stated that more surface area along with mass (sorry I left that out) creates more CONCUSSION force - rattling the brain.

"I show up at your house with a pair of identical aluminum bats and a spool of "less than an inch" thick medium-density foam. We cover one of the bats with the foam and give it to you. Then we take turns hitting each other with the bats."

LOL Braden, this model is extremely flawed. Lets first take the two objects being impacted. The fist and the baseball bat are completely different in terms of design and impact absorbtion. The hand is made up of several smaller objects held together by cartlidge. The baseball bat is a single solid object, hardly comparable.

"In a way, it's not surprising that someone whose exposure is limited in this fashion would hold strong views that padding of the hands benefits the striker."

First of all it's not just padding, it's reinforcing and thickening of the hand as well. And please Braden don't patronize me.

Unmatchable

04-28-2002, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Archangel
If you truly want an event thats closer to the original UFC there's IVC in Brazil, it has only 2 rules, no biting or eye attacks; The event is dominated by primarily grapplers with not that many traditionalists doing well. There's also Pride Japan which is alot closer to the original UFC, it has the biggest paycheck and still no traditionalists.

So there....

Why do you keep reffering to Brazil? Of course Vale Tudo and tournaments in Brazil are going to be dominated by Brazillian grapplers. That's the native fighting system of the country (ever Gracie modified traditional Judo/Japanese Jiu Jitsu). I asked some CMA posters from Brazil (even ask Xebsball) and they say they have no knowledge of real Gong Fu competing in Brazilian tournaments, or much of real Gong Fu in Brazil anyways. Same thing in U.S.A. If you want to test skill of real Gong Fu and fight them go to Taiwan or old Hong Kong.

Braden

04-28-2002, 11:53 PM

"LOL, you've been debating with Merry Prankster too ong... "

Heh. I just like to disagree. ;p

"The other point was about the soft padded mats, we can discuss that too if you like."

I'm not sure what point that is. Maybe you misread my post. I was quoting things Ryu said and then replying to them, as I incorrectly thought they were directed at me. A few posts ago you agreed with everything I said regarding mats.

"wrapping the hands and then taping them will greatly strengthen the hands structure and foundation"

That's what I assumed you meant, like I said. I don't have a problem with that.

"If you look the structure of the hand, it was not designed for great impact."

Well, you can use your hand alot of different ways. Certainly if we're talking about curling all our fingers and tensing them up then slamming them into something like the skull; yes that seems like a silly idea.

"The mass of a typical hand is about 1-3 kg"

Sure. But surely the people we're talking about are using a good portion of the rest of their mass when they strike.

"I stated that more surface area along with mass (sorry I left that out) creates more CONCUSSION force - rattling the brain."

More mass certainly does.

"this model is extremely flawed"

It was modelled to address the idea that that you put forth that adding the wrapping increased power. As a model of this, it is flawed, but not extremely. If you're saying now (or meant to say all along) that the wrapping acts like "artificial conditioning" to permit people to strike with full force without fear of damaging themselves, then yes it's a useless model. I'd even agree with that assertion (and never suggested otherwise).

"And please Braden don't patronize me."

Dude, I wasn't patronizing you and I am honestly sorry that you got that impression. I understand my writing can seem confrontational. Bad habit from training in philosophy and science I guess. My intention is only to address points that are made one by one, provide examples, and try to anticipate possible responses and reply to them before they are made. I haven't the tiniest bit of nefarious intent towards anyone here (frankly if we're going to get all mushy, I think you're alot more fun to talk to than almost everyone else - evidenced by how my only post in a month is a reply to you). I just come here (like most people, I imagine) to get a mental breather periodically from work, and talk **** with whoever happens to be around. Appearances to the contrary maybe, I'm about as un-"take things personally" as you can get.

To reiterate - I was responding to the idea that padding itself increases power. (That is, after all, what you said). If you MEANT padding allows someone to strike with full power, then obviously my response isn't particularly appropriate. But this gets right back to the comment about training (see, it was made for a point, not as an insult :) ). If people train constantly to strike with gloves on, it's not a big surprise their tools, targets, and methodology are based around the idea of having gloves on. If your training is glove-based, and you then look at gloveless, applications issues like this are going to come up.

There are plenty of ways to strike the head full force using bare hands with minimal risk of damaging yourself. The older army close quarter combatatives manual that was posted here awhile ago (and, curiously enough, criticized by many for being outdated by boxing methods) contains several great examples.

Merryprankster

04-29-2002, 07:42 AM

Ugh,

I always drag myself into these.

You know... I haven't ever seen anybody tape their hands in MMA up to that almost cast like effect you see in boxing or thai-boxing. I'd have to say this is because of the necessity of grabbing.

So the structure of the fist still has to be correct. In fact, I was noticing that the other day. I got new fight gloves and I was lightly playing with them, and I had to be very concious of striking properly or I'd hurt my fingers. As I got more confident in my new gloves I went at it a bit harder. It was very satisfying :)

MMA fight gloves really don't protect the structure of the hand at all. You take the palm bar out of the darn things so you can grapple properly, so if you don't strike correctly (see above) it can be unpleasant at best, and handbreaking at worst. The padding is minimal--enough to stop abrasions, not enough to lessen the impact.

I found that the best fist structure wasn't what I thought it was, and had to "fix it." I realized it's because from boxing I was used to the palm bar that forces the hand to be in the right position.

In fact, I'd say that fight gloves probably DO protect the hand from breaking "somewhat," meaning that if you don't have proper fist structure it's still going to break on a full on shot, but I bet when you land a glancing shot at a funny angle, THAT'S when their protective value comes in (pure speculation--it just seems to me that the wierd angles take away some of the protective value of the structure of the fist,) and they protect from abrasion and cuts a lot.

I don't think this really backs anybody's points up. These were just my observations from playing around with my new toys.

Merryprankster

04-29-2002, 07:48 AM

Unmatchable-

What Archangel is trying to say is that if rules are truly the biggest issue about a Kung Fu man not being able to compete because they are too restrictive to allow the full complement of techniques, then Brazil and Russia offer very nice alternatives.

In other words, if a KF guy REALLY wants to compete in these events, then rules are not an excuse--you can find venues that are practically rule-less (no eyegouging, no biting--that's IT), and still preserves the "challenge to find out who's better," format--unlike a streetfight which might involve other people.

Archangel

04-29-2002, 09:02 AM

LOL, I was just busting your balls a little with that last comment, I know that you weren't trying to patronize me. Anywhoo

"It was modelled to address the idea that that you put forth that adding the wrapping increased power"

"To reiterate - I was responding to the idea that padding itself increases power. (That is, after all, what you said)."

Braden I looked back at my posts (just to make sure), I never once said that wrapping the hands increase power. I said that it increases FORCE. At the moment of impact an unprotected hand will absorb a lot of energy and compress or even break. A reinforced hand will not, all of the energy being directed will be transfered to the skull.

So looking back at my statement, i guess that it too is slightly incorrect. Let me rephrase, a taped hand with a grappling glove will have a greater mass and a reinforced structure; it will allow the force generated by the punch to be transfered to the target more effeciently than an empty hand.

There I hope that made sense ;)

Braden

04-29-2002, 09:41 AM

apoweyn

04-29-2002, 10:23 AM

hmm... if by "Seriously, do you really think joint locks and kung fu movements are fast?" you ACTUALLY mean "tinman is kind of an arsehead", then yes i really think that.

stuart b.

Kymus

04-29-2002, 09:20 PM

Lets take a small example. Lets say someone throws a right cross to my head. The simplest lock I could do would to move my weight to the right, dodge the cross as it comes in and take hold of the wrist, twist it so that it is facing palm up, and then drop down and make sure the wrist comes with me. This would cause, if nothing else, a loss of balance, which would allow a quick, and easy, strike of some sort. Of course there is always the what ifs or I would do this. I could get hit in the head as I droped them down, but I'll tell ya what, that's nothing compared to the situation I have them in. I can easily strike them or manipulate their joints and cause them to move to numerous positions. What makes me think that I can do this? Quite simple really. The fact that I've practiced it at life like speeds over and over. It's second nature. Just like with any other art. It's not so much the technique that makes them good, but how much and how well they have practiced it.

omegapoint

04-30-2002, 02:10 AM

One more boring post, please! Same ole' same ole! Back of the neck speaking is getting old- YAWWWWWWWWWN, snort, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

SifuAbel

04-30-2002, 08:17 AM

:o Does this stupid troll thread actually merit 80 posts?

Royal Dragon

04-30-2002, 08:35 AM

Since you posted, It's 81....no sorry, my post makes 82

shaolinboxer

04-30-2002, 10:25 AM

Joint lock...is that when you smoke too much and your brain just won't process anything?

Julien

04-30-2002, 01:42 PM

hmmm... i think some people should lay-off a bit on Tinman... i think he's learned his lesson

about the gloved fist v bare fist thing

hmmm... i think a bare fist would hurt much more

there are basically two types of pain a punch delivers that i can see

the sharp, 'i-want-to-scream-cuz-it-hurts' pain (bare-fist)

and the dull, 'where-am-i' pain (gloved)

i would rather have the dull one because it definently makes me feel less uncomfortable

this is why hockey players drop their gloves when they fight

...why brass knuckles are made of brass and not cotton

...why BKB (bare-knuckle boxing) is an illegal sport. (not illegal to learn though... i have heard it is very useful)

-----------------------------

from what i've seen, a person in 'kung-fu' would probably have a sufficient amount of training to catch that all-powerful nuclear-missile of a jab that these kickboxers launch at us.

personally, i would fear the regular boxer's jab much more since they basically only focus on their upper-body. (yes, footwork is a factor too... but not as much)

kickboxers also have to worry about if they should launch a kick, hence the name.

i would not like any kind of boxing since whenever you hear 'boxing', you just picture any sport that has no grappling. it's kinda like a video game. (Dead or Alive) it is just striking

i like striking but joint-locks are awesome and so are throws. i want the meat, potatoes and the gravy. :D

Kapow,
Julien

apoweyn

04-30-2002, 01:52 PM

julien,

you may want to explore a bit before you start condemning people for being to harsh on tinman. i think you'll find that he deserves it and more.

but if you doubt, go ahead and share with him your intention to study kung fu. he'll have lots of delightfully insightful things to say. and most of them will be about as useful as a rainslick in a meteor shower.

stuart b.

Julien

04-30-2002, 01:59 PM

hehe, i bet he does deserve to get b!tched at to some degree but i think it has been overdone (however funny and satisfying it is :D)

i bet he would also annoy the hell out of me but we've all been that 'other man' before so we know how it feels...(but it is fun when we all gang on someone hehe)

so... Tinman is a kickboxer, correct? (i read the whole thread yesterday... a little fuzzy)

apoweyn

04-30-2002, 02:23 PM

nah, tinman claims to be a karateka, if i'm not mistaken.

Tigerstyle

04-30-2002, 02:40 PM

I think getting slapped hurts more than getting punched. That doesn't automatically mean slapping does more damage than punching.

The padding of the gloves benefits both people, but I feel it allows people to strike with more of their potential power due to the hand protection it allows. The "What hurts more?" question that some people here are using seems to only deal with the "damage" felt on the surface (where the nerves endings are). Gloved hands let you punch to the head more, which is normally a no-no because of the risk of breaking your hand. Gloved hands let you deliver that penetrating force to the head (to rattle the brain) with a punch.

Average "traditional" MA person:
"Well I train to use palm strikes to the head, so I would never want to develop that bad habit." That's great for you! The gloves used in MMA generally have absolutely NO padding in the palms. Palm strike away, if you're concerned with the "damage" reduction of padded fists.

Since gloves have become standard equipment, the average number of hand injuries has gone down. There are still plenty of punchin' KOs, though. John Lewis even had his jaw broken from one.

BTW, I like the glove/no glove debate here. Really good input from both sides! :)

Julien

04-30-2002, 02:49 PM

hmmm... i still think being punched hurts more
it feels like being stabbed in the face or something

a backhand kinda hurts, but doesn't do the damage a punch does

with gloves, i think most people are more likely to get knocked out from their brain hitting the side of their skull

without gloves, more likely to get knocked out in shock from the pain

taped hands = iron fists heh

Tigerstyle

04-30-2002, 03:49 PM

"i still think being punched hurts more
it feels like being stabbed in the face or something"

LOL! I know what you mean. :D

"with gloves, i think most people are more likely to get knocked out from their brain hitting the side of their skull

without gloves, more likely to get knocked out in shock from the pain"

Actually, I think most KOs in general involve either the movement of your brain tearing blood vessels, or getting the wind knocked out of you. Neither of which rely on shock from the pain. :)

Julien

04-30-2002, 06:58 PM

ok... you are more likely to die from the shock of pain then hehe

(i would still rather be hit with a gloved hand than a taped hand)

do people tape their feet?

Oso

04-30-2002, 07:01 PM

Or did I miss something?

Connect with the first jab and ride it in (sticky hands)

evade the second jab (bob and weave, it's just semantics ;)
even if you take a grazing blow from the second jab, it's
just a jab, I don't care how strong you are, if you haven't
learned to take a punch you shouldn't have taken your
running shoes off to begin with.

jam the first jab

when he goes to throw it again he will find his balance is
totally screwed as his body reacts to the jam

proceed to show him what short , inside power is really all about

matt

wow, this must be my ****iest post yet:D

SifuAbel

05-01-2002, 02:44 AM

:o Does this stupid troll thread actually merit 90 posts?

scotty1

05-01-2002, 02:55 AM

I think it merits 91.

Whenever I spar with gloves on I am aware of the fact that they let me strike in places that I could not if I was ungloved. With that in mind I am trying not to get into the habit of whacking someone (gloved) in the side of the head/skull, instead, even though I am able to strike that area I will go for somewhere that is effective with or without gloves (chin/nose etc.) to build good habits.

Its all about intelligence, y'see? :p

apoweyn

05-01-2002, 06:44 AM

sifuabel,

it isn't a troll thread if some good information comes out of it. i think it's actually the best possible thing to do with tinman's threads, aside from perhaps ignore them entirely (and for some reason, we at KFO seem constitutionally unable to do that; hell, you yourself took the time to bump this troll thread back up to the top).

stuart b.

BrentCarey

05-06-2002, 12:54 PM

Uggh. <sigh>

As I said somewhere else today, rule #1 of self-defense is to be where the attack is not. Standard procedure for many styles such as kickboxing is to be where the attack is, but block or absorb it with a part of the body that doesn't hurt so badly.

Before I let my students spar, we do months of distance training and footwork. Blocking is very much a last resort. That's why we have locks, traps, etc. - to prevent future attacks and control the opponent so you don't have to block.

I tell all of my students that if you play the blocking game, eventually you will lose. That is, if you want go toe-to-toe with an opponent blocking repeated attacks, eventually you will get hit.

Never play on a level field. By that, I mean that a conflict should never be my speed against your speed. My students can beat faster martial artists because they have better positioning and more control over their opponent.

So, my response is that it should never be an issue.

Peace,

- B. A. Carey

Merryprankster

05-06-2002, 01:12 PM

Hey, you're right... I've NEVER learned to use footwork or evasion tactics of any kind or to cover my movement with a jab or a kick so I don't get hit while I'm trying to control the distance.

Hell, usually, we just stand there and hit each other as hard as we can until somebody drops.

Wow! Where can I get me some of that Kung Fu stuff??!

apoweyn

05-06-2002, 01:35 PM

brentcarey,

[sigh] you've just stepped in pet peeve #1 these days.

how about not making unnecessary and inaccurate generalizations about other styles than your own?

what's frustrating about this is that once you get past the condescending opening 'sentence' and the ludicrous caricature of real kickboxing theory, you make some really solid points.

standard procedure in kickboxing is a little more intricate than you give credit. absorbing shots is a fairly complex tactic. either cutting off the angle of an attack to snuff its force or rolling with it to dissipate its force is a way of not being where the attack is. the apex of the attack is one place. good position would be to put yourself where the attack 'isn't yet' or where the attack 'isn't anymore.' absorption is a good way to use positioning without giving up ground.

i agree wholeheartedly that blocking multiple attacks is a losing game. eventually, they're going to start getting through and hitting you. but that's the whole point of absorption. continue to close distance and create a solution to the problem (a good combination at close-->medium range). maintaining one range and trying to block everything is a fool's errand. covering up and weathering a couple in order to put yourself in range for a decisive counter is the essence of positioning.

stuart b.

apoweyn

05-07-2002, 07:22 AM

ttt

BrentCarey

05-07-2002, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by apoweyn
brentcarey,

standard procedure in kickboxing is a little more intricate than you give credit. absorbing shots is a fairly complex tactic. either cutting off the angle of an attack to snuff its force or rolling with it to dissipate its force is a way of not being where the attack is. the apex of the attack is one place. good position would be to put yourself where the attack 'isn't yet' or where the attack 'isn't anymore.' absorption is a good way to use positioning without giving up ground.

stuart b.

Of course it was a generalization, which, by the nature of a generalization is inaccurate. I'm sorry if it offended anyone. I was simply responding to the original issue raised and contrasting two different approaches. One approach (used in kickboxing, etc) is to rely more on blocks (including redirection), another approach is to rely more on movement.

You are of course correct that there is both movement and blocking in kickboxing. I simply meant to contrast its blocking-intensive approach with other style's movement-intensive approach.

By "standard procedure", I meant, "commonly accepted." It is commonly accepted in kickboxing (for example) to block extensively without repositioning. While this may be for strategic reasons, it still contrasts with other styles. This was my point.

No condescension was intended.

Peace,

- B. A. Carey