"Deadly Moves" and Competition

[Ravenshaw]

I've heard the argument a few times over why many kung fu men fare poorly in many fighting tournaments. One side tends to hold that kung fu fighters rely on forms alone to teach them fighting abilities and thus have none. The other side says that kung fu does not adjust well to sport fighting because most of its techniques are too dangerous to use in the ring/octagon.

This got me thinking:

Are not these same deadly techniques inappropriate for many street situations as well? The most that one is allowed to do in self defense (legally and ethically speaking) is only as much as is necessary for the encounter. For example, it would be wrong and illegal to stomp on somebody's knee and break it in a common barfight (unless weapons or lethal force were used against you). It would be similarly irresponsible to gouge a man's eyes out for grabbing your wife's purse. Obviously, if there is a serious threat to your health or life you are entitled to do everything in your power to defend yourself. But this may not be the case for every situation.

So why should we rely so much on deadly and debilitating maneuvers when they are not always warranted (especially if you are a male)? And how much extra training does it take to learn to kick a guy's knee in when you've been training kicking to other areas already? The same thing goes for a chop to the throat.

This thread isn't meant to antagonize or to argue one point over another. I'm just playing devil's advocate so I can understand the reasoning here. Ideally, I'd like to have a good discussion and not a savage argument. I guess we'll learn shortly how feasible that is.

[Ravenshaw]

...I will answer my own devil's advocate argument with a counter-argument:

Not all banned techniques are innapropriate for realistic confrontations. Groin strikes, for example, can stun an opponent effectively with moderate force and small chance of permanent damage.

[Merryprankster]

The truth is that these "deadly moves," are fallaciously named. They CAN be deadly, but most often are not. Rugby players, wrestlers, judoka, boxers, kickboxers, Kyokushin competitors, lacrosse players, hockey (field and ice) players should be dropping like flies, by sheer accident, if the human body were as fragile as people would like it to be. It is surprisingly resiliant. Wrestlers are consistently thrown with tremendous force on their heads and necks as are Judoka. Limbs, including the head and neck are constantly manipulated at full speed and power. The people here who say "Yeah, but they aren't TRYING to rip your head off," have clearly never been in a Judo tournament or a wrestling match. I can guarentee you that yes, your opponent DOES frequently try to rip your head off.

Rhadi Ferguson gives a little "The other guy's face/head/neck, is his problem, not yours" speech. Put simply, it's not my responsibility not to hurt you, provided I do so within the rules.

Secondly, there is the issue of training deadly moves. You don't. I don't. Anybody who says they are REALLY practicing these is lying to you. What they are practicing is awareness that these things are out there (valuable) and some movement groving (also valuable). They are absolutely NOT practicing these movements in full contact sparring. It's hard to keep training partners when you're breaking necks and gouging eyes out.

Doing these things just isn't as simple as it sounds. Think about how many shots in a boxing match ACTUALLY land flush....

[BentMonk]

I agree with the Prankster as far as truly practicing "deadly" strikes. Having been in real confrontations both before and after my MA training, the only thing I can say for sure is that full contact hurts, and adrenaline is a marvelous thing. MA training can prepare you for the eventuality of combat, can sharpen your reflexes, and train your body to certain movements. However the most important thing I've found that MA training did for me was help me to control the adrenaline rush. Losing your focus in a confrontation is what will cause you to either get your butt kicked, or go overboard and seriously hurt someone. Being trained in any fighting style is like carrying a loaded gun. Don't pull it out unless you intend to use it, and make sure you can cover your azz legally if and when you do use it. Judges and lawyers will have a field day with your wallet when they find out you're a "trained fighter". Peace, love and happy training to all.

[apoweyn]

Nothing to add at the moment, except to give props to Ravenshaw for a really good observation. Wish I'd thought of it.

[Judge Pen]

Nice post. You are right, I only train in the awarness of "deadly techniques" Sure they are in my forms, but forms are full of moves most of us will never attempt in a confrontation.

The only banned techniques that I do routinely train to some degree are groin kicks (not deadly but they are not banned in our class/tournaments) and knee kicks (and this is done by kicking poles etc and not on a resisting opponent.)

[MasterKiller]

The only banned techniques that I do routinely train to some degree are groin kicks (not deadly but they are not banned in our class/tournaments) and knee kicks (and this is done by kicking poles etc and not on a resisting opponent.)

JP,
Do you not train forearm and elbow strikes? These, IMO, are potentially more dangerous than kicks to the knees because they are strong blows aimed primarily at the head, neck, and throat.

[Judge Pen]

Yes I do. I work these on heavy bags etc., and my forms are full of these strikes. I also condition my forearms by striking wood with them. I guess what I was inarticulately trying to say is that I don't really train them against a resisting partner (with the exception of groin kicks) We have two man sets and drills that use these techniques, but I know what technique they will throw so its not the same thing.

Certain hand and kick techniques which are legal should be performed with enough force to be potentially deadly anyway.

[old jong]

The fact is that very few Kung Fu (Or most traditional martial arts) people are interrested in fighting before an audience. Most train for their own reasons.
This "deadly moves" excuse probably comes from frustrated "Kung Fu" guys who's school probably teaches a collection of dirty tricks and fake chinese forms as a Martial art.
Real Kung Fu trains a practitioner to hit very hard and those blows should be effective on any ordinary targets like the nose or the jaw or the ribs,whatever.

As I said before: Take a good Kung Fu man from any serious style and train him properly for endurance/ stamina for six weeks and you have a very potent "sport fighter"!...
I could add: Take the majority of BJJ players who train only for pleasure,without any strikes and starting from the knees. Now,put them in a MMA fight .Would they do better?...

MMA means training like a pro fighter first.Technique and (or) personal style come second (IMO).
Ordinary kwoon training for self-defense or whatever the reason is not sufficient in that case.

[MaFuYee]

ravenshaw;

many "kung fu men" fare poorly in fighting tournaments because they don't train for fighting tournaments. - plain and simple.

i would say that a good percentage of ppl who take tcma are not in it for fighting tournaments. many just practice and learn for the sake of enjoyment.

then, there is the other side of the coin, where in today's age of 'lawyers' (said without any atempt to hide the tone of absoulte disgust) and sue happy ppl, ma schools have to be very careful about the safety of their students. - also, one must not forget that ultimately, oftentimes, it is a business first. (as is evidenced by the fact that kids make up the majority of student enrollment in many schools.)

it is just sad when ppl delude themselves as to the actual level of their abilities due to grandiose imaginings. (very common) - that is when you'll hear excuses such as, "i got beat because i couldn't use my killing techniques."

[Kristoffer]

You guys give good examples so I won't write so much..
Just something I thought when reading the original post is:

So why should we rely so much on deadly and debilitating maneuvers when they are not always warranted?

The answer to that is that if you are doing a traditional martial art it means your 'art' was molded to be used in WAR. (more likely than a modern day self defence scenario). You had large family clans fighting for example. In those days you would be interested in the 'more deadly stuff'. The only reason that we practise these moves today is of tradition and that they with ease can be modified. You don't HAVE to elbow your oponent in the back of the head or jump on his spine..

[old jong]

I think they had a complete arsenal of knifes,swords,arrows and maces to do "war"!...
Sure ,it is possible to kill with your bare hands but it is not essential to use Kung Fu or any other martial art to do this. How many times we read or heard about the poor guy who was killed by one punch in a bar fight or whatever?...99.9% of the times, the hitter was an untrained person with no killing intentions.He just happened to hit harder than necessary or the victim had some kind of brain malformation or something.

My point is: Kung Fu (in the old days) was more a way to be able to properly beat the **** out of somebody and have him walk around with two black eyes and a broken nose than,killing him.But,legends and tales made their ways to our days and many do take these stories litteraly.

[MasterKiller]

My point is: Kung Fu (in the old days) was more a way to be able to properly beat the **** out of somebody and have him walk around with two black eyes and a broken nose than,killing him.But,legends and tales made their ways to our days and many do take these stories litteraly.

I disagree. Bandits, thieves, soldiers, and bodyguards were the first practicioners, and they had little use for allowing someone to remain living after an encounter.

[Ford Prefect]

And you think these bandits, bodyguards, and soldiers fought with fists or practiced fist fighting anywhere near as regularly as they practiced fighting with weapons?

[old jong]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I disagree. Bandits, thieves, soldiers, and bodyguards were the first practicioners, and they had little use for allowing someone to remain living after an encounter.

As seen in the movies!...But I agree that there was some of this also.