The danger of fists

[Shawn.L]

Full article at link
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/07/22/the-danger-of-fists/

Of course, in Zimmerman’s case it wasn’t one punch. It was several. Eye witness testimony said that Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman in a “mount”. This essentially means that he was on his knees, straddling Zimmerman’s torso. This has the effect of pinning Zimmerman to the ground. If you watch the first video you’ll note that after the police officer is knocked to the ground, her attacker immediately “mounts” her and begins raining blows down on her head. This is the most disadvantaged position you can be in. It is possible to get out of a mount if you have some skill…but even a skilled fighter can’t always escape a mount:

[eyecanshoot]

Being on your back is more dangerous not just because your trapped but because of physics. If your trying to get up your head will raised up off the ground. You not only take the punch(initial impact) but your head also hits the ground(secondary impact). If you are not trying to get up and your head is flat against the ground there is no give. You head is trapped between an anvil(the ground) and a hammer(the fist).

[Shodan]

You don't want the first time that you're on your back to be a real fight. Even a little bit of grappling/BJJ/etc. training may keep you from freaking out if and when it happens.

[scruff]

Massad Ayoob talks about the same thing. Anyone who downplays the attack doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 2: THE “UNARMED TEEN”
Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 by Mas | 87 Comments »
It seems that the verdict of a sworn jury in our criminal justice system means little to the haters, who are still screaming that George Zimmerman killed “an unarmed seventeen-year-old.” Given that seventeen is old enough to enlist in the Marine Corps and to be tried as an adult – the Gainesville Sun recently headlined that a “sixteen-year-old man” was to be charged with murder in the selfsame Florida criminal justice system – the age issue doesn’t hold a lot of water when seen through a clear glass.

“Unarmed?” Actually, NO. The history of adjudicating deadly force actions shows that Trayvon Martin was “armed” two or three times over.

First, the haters (like the prosecution) assiduously ignored George Zimmerman’s statement that while Martin was “ground-and-pounding” him, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster, told Zimmerman that he was going to die tonight, and reached for his victim’s pistol.

If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand. If I announce my intent to murder you and reach for a gun, I’m bought and paid for right there. And it doesn’t matter whether the gun I’m reaching for is in my holster, or yours. That’s why every year in America, when thugs try to grab a policeman’s gun and are shot, the shootings are ruled justifiable.

Even before Martin’s reach for Zimmerman’s still-holstered pistol, the circumstances that were proven to the satisfaction of the jury showed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting his attacker. Remember when defense attorney Don West said in the defense’s opening statement that Martin was armed with the sidewalk? That sounded ludicrous to lay people, and I would have phrased it differently myself, but professionals understood exactly what he was talking about.

The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.

Position of disadvantage means that the opponent has full range and freedom of movement, and you don’t. You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…or you are down and helpless in a martial arts “mount” while your opponent pounds you at will.

Finally, we have the clearly proven element of Martin smashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. If I picked up a chunk of concrete or cement and tried to smash your skull with it, you would certainly realize that you were about to die or be horribly brain-damaged if you didn’t stop me. It would be what the statutes call “a deadly weapon, to wit a bludgeon.” There just isn’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between cement being smashed into head, and head being smashed into cement.

Clearly, Trayvon Martin possessed the power to kill or cripple Zimmerman. That is why, under law, Zimmerman was justified in defending himself with a per se deadly weapon.

The jury got it. Too bad the haters didn’t understand…or didn’t want to understand.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

[Hawk]

You'd be surprised as to how resilient the human body really is to punching (ask me how I know). You'd also be surprised how easily your hand can be broken when hitting someone (wrong) with your fist (ask me how I know).

Prior to the Gracie family coming to the U.S. and the promotion of the UFC, not many people here in the U.S. beyond Wrestlers and Judoka knew much about ground fighting. The Gracie family really opened a lot of peoples eyes as to the value of ground fighting skills.

However, IMHO ground fighting skills offers limited value beyond the mat unless you are willing to heavily invest in the training. In addition, if you only practice the techniques without actually testing them in a match against other practitioners, your are fooling yourself as to your capability to rise to the occasion, if you ever need to defend yourself.

The best practitioners have a "willingness to fight". Without that mind set your likelihood to come out on top in a real fight is severely hampered.

[Shawn.L]

You'd be surprised as to how resilient the human body really is to punching (ask me how I know). You'd also be surprised how easily your hand can be broken when hitting someone (wrong) with your fist (ask me how I know).

Prior to the Gracie family coming to the U.S. and the promotion of the UFC, not many people here in the U.S. beyond Wrestlers and Judoka knew much about ground fighting. The Gracie family really opened a lot of peoples eyes as to the value of ground fighting skills.

However, IMHO ground fighting skills offers limited value beyond the mat unless you are willing to heavily invest in the training. In addition, if you only practice the techniques without actually testing them in a match against other practitioners, your are fooling yourself as to your capability to rise to the occasion, if you ever need to defend yourself.

The best practitioners have a "willingness to fight". Without that mind set your likelihood to come out on top in a real fight is severely hampered.

I would argue that the deeper lessons of learning about posture, position, and pressure that are integral to BJJ teach the student A LOT more than just about fighting on the ground. The ability to function under the pressure of a guy's crushing weight on your diaphragm while he tries to remove your arm from your body or cut the flow of blood to your brain is key.

Further, BJJ is a "live art", which means we train fully resistant opponents EVERY time we train. There is no "kata" or promotion based upon ability to do a prescribed set of dance moves unhindered by a guy trying to crush you.

What MMA has taught us is how to layer those lessons in with effective striking arts, stand up grappling, and a pressure tested approach to martial arts that has revolutionized fighting styles.

The judoka have it right with randori. Other styles would do well to learn those lessons.

[Hawk]

I would argue that the deeper lessons of learning about posture, position, and pressure that are integral to BJJ teach the student A LOT more than just about fighting on the ground. The ability to function under the pressure of a guy's crushing weight on your diaphragm while he tries to remove your arm from your body or cut the flow of blood to your brain is key.

Further, BJJ is a "live art", which means we train fully resistant opponents EVERY time we train. There is no "kata" or promotion based upon ability to do a prescribed set of dance moves unhindered by a guy trying to crush you.

Understood and agree to a certain extent.

Lessons taken away from the training really depends on the school/instructor providing the training and the students innate abilities to absorb and apply that training effectively.

Just for the sake of some of the readers of this thread. BJJ training and MMA training are not the same thing. Today's MMA training includes BJJ techniques but the MMA training isn't exclusively BJJ techniques. Just want to be clear that the goals and techniques of MMA don't always equate to traditional BJJ.

When I trained in BJJ with Relson and Royce Gracie back in the mid 90's, and with Ryer MA in a few years back, the technical training at the lower levels included only about 10% randori practice. A separate "randori" session after the technical class was for those who had enough training time in to develop their skills further at full force. With any training you can't run until you walk. This is why I stated that unless you are willing to commit to training (at least a year's worth), what you learn in the early stages will be of limited value for self-defense applications. Yes you can learn as a beginner how to block the application of rear naked choke. However, later on you learn how to avoid ever being put into that position in the first place.

The judoka have it right with randori. Other styles would do well to learn those lessons.

Agreed, unfortunately not all styles of MA can be applied safely at full speed and resistance.

I've learned over the years that every mainstream "school" that utilizes randori has a major weakness build in...rules! Specifically, what you are not allowed to do. Unfortunately, these "excluded" techniques are some of the most effective for self-defense. These techniques are unsafe and potentially debilitating for the students to practice at real speeds and force, hence the exclusion from randori or competition.

I love discussing this stuff. I don't get to do it much anymore.

[Shawn.L]

Agreed, unfortunately not all styles of MA can be applied safely at full speed and resistance.

I've learned over the years that every mainstream "school" that utilizes randori has a major weakness build in...rules! Specifically, what you are not allowed to do. Unfortunately, these "excluded" techniques are some of the most effective for self-defense. These techniques are unsafe and potentially debilitating for the students to practice at real speeds and force, hence the exclusion from randori or competition.

I love discussing this stuff. I don't get to do it much anymore.

Im not a proponent of expecting one to be able to perform anything in a life and death struggle that they have not done in training under pressure. While some techniques may truly be dangerous, many others just are foolish and the "too deadly to train" mumbo jumbo clouds that over. I know how someone responds to being struck in the jaw, or what it feels like to cut the flow of blood off to someones brain, I have therefore developed an amount of confidence in these techniques under pressure and know what to expect from them.

Solid points on the BJJ. To further expand though, for the discussion on application of martial arts in a weapons based environment BJJ is an amazing tool to learn positional dominance and having an overall fight strategy. From that template we can layer in various tools and drive towards desired end states depending on circumstance.

We live train the last portion of class in our Fundamentals program just as we do in our other classes. Live training in the fundamentals (re: beginners) program is limited to positional sparring. For those unfamiliar that means if we are currently working on escapes from mount you will start in mount and work to pull off an escape youve been practicinf while your opponent tries to hold you down. If you escape we stop and reset. This limited and focused sort of live training allows up to drill under pressure whatever specific skill we are learning without the new guy getting lost in the endless possibilities and also the focus builds VERY strong escapes for one side and stability on the other.
www.stouttrainpitt.com

[Keith A]

I've learned over the years that every mainstream "school" that utilizes randori has a major weakness build in...rules! Specifically, what you are not allowed to do. Unfortunately, these "excluded" techniques are some of the most effective for self-defense. These techniques are unsafe and potentially debilitating for the students to practice at real speeds and force, hence the exclusion from randori or competition.



Is there an example of which techniques you are referring to? Most of the "debilitating" techniques people speak of ( eye gouging, etc.) can't be used effectively without positional dominance or basic competence in striking. Even the schools that teach these techniques have "rules", the rules being that you can't apply the techniques against a resisting opponent without some sort of safety equipment, like a face shield, being used. Any technique that can't be used at full or nearly full force against a resisting opponent (with minimal use of protective gear) has to be dismissed as having only theoretical effectiveness. I have no issues with eye gouges as a distraction technique, but not as a fight stopper. One example I can offer is the fight between Yuki Nakai and Gerard Gordeau. Nakai was struck in they eye with enough force to blind him, but continued to fight the remainder of the fight. In other combat sports like boxing and MMA, fighters are struck in the eyes all the time. Although the rules allow for a "time out" when it happens, I have never seen a situation where the one who was struck was rendered completely useless.
You may not have been referring to eye strikes, which is why the first question was asked. It is just every time I see the topic of rules brought up, the topic of "eye gouges" shortly follows.

[Hawk]

I've learned over the years that every mainstream "school" that utilizes randori has a major weakness build in...rules! Specifically, what you are not allowed to do. Unfortunately, these "excluded" techniques are some of the most effective for self-defense. These techniques are unsafe and potentially debilitating for the students to practice at real speeds and force, hence the exclusion from randori or competition.



Is there an example of which techniques you are referring to? Most of the "debilitating" techniques people speak of ( eye gouging, etc.) can't be used effectively without positional dominance or basic competence in striking. Even the schools that teach these techniques have "rules", the rules being that you can't apply the techniques against a resisting opponent without some sort of safety equipment, like a face shield, being used. Any technique that can't be used at full or nearly full force against a resisting opponent (with minimal use of protective gear) has to be dismissed as having only theoretical effectiveness. I have no issues with eye gouges as a distraction technique, but not as a fight stopper. One example I can offer is the fight between Yuki Nakai and Gerard Gordeau. Nakai was struck in they eye with enough force to blind him, but continued to fight the remainder of the fight. In other combat sports like boxing and MMA, fighters are struck in the eyes all the time. Although the rules allow for a "time out" when it happens, I have never seen a situation where the one who was struck was rendered completely useless.
You may not have been referring to eye strikes, which is why the first question was asked. It is just every time I see the topic of rules brought up, the topic of "eye gouges" shortly follows.

No technique I know of is guaranteed a "fight stopper" unless it renders the opponent dead or unconscious.

What I was speaking too are techniques that are not permitted by most schools who engage in full force practice because they may cause sever injury or death. Purposely gouging the eyes with your thumbs is a perfectly acceptable technique for self defense, but is definitely frowned upon in a match or at a full speed practice. Striking the throat or neck area, striking, crushing, or grabbing the testicles, purposely striking the collar bone area, elbow strikes to the neck, and of course biting, are all typically prohibited and not even taught in many full contact schools.

All of the traditional bone breaking joint locks and throat crushing chokes are turned way down because taking them to their extreme is way to dangerous to the voluntary participants. Many of the Japanese throws and take downs used originally in battle have been softened to make them safer to practice as a civilian sport. One time, I accidentally held on a little to long on a "sutemi" (sacrifice) throw. I drove my partner into the ground so hard they didn't get back up. I was concerned I hurt them real bad. Eventually they got up and walked it off.

Training full force on the mat is great for applications in self-defense, but I hope that those who train realize that to end a fight on the street goes beyond the guy "tapping out"