PDA

View Full Version : If worried about defense of self and others, how much time martial arts training?


Socrates
January 21, 2008, 03:24 PM
Here's a question for the CCW holders here: If you are really worried about defense of self and others, how much time do you spend on physical fitness and martial arts training? Situations which justify use of limited force are much more common that those which justify deadly force. And I'd hate to think that people in the forum would choose to draw a weapon because it's their only viable option for a physical intervention.

This question came up. Previously, I spent at least 3-5 days in the gym, 2-3 hours a day. I also used to shoot 3 days a week 2-3 hours a day, on a vacant police range.

Location changes have changed that. Now for work, I run up and down a basketball floor, and, work full-time as a teacher. Doesn't leave much time for other stuff. Post basketball season, I plan to go back to 3-4 days a week, probably 3, due to the gym schedule and location, and get back in the gym, hitting bags, kicking and stretching.

I'm thinking I need to do 3-4 months of running, 3-4 months of boxing/martial arts, 3-4 months of swimming, each year, as time permits.

Rifleman 173
January 21, 2008, 03:46 PM
Cops will tell you that trying to grapple with somebody is the very LAST thing that you should do. Check the internet out with a google search. All too often there will be a martial arts cop who is an expert in hand-to-hand combat who runs up against a skinny doper. The doper, who has to have bricks tied to his ankles to keep him from being blown away by wind gusts, will pull a blade and carve up Mr. Macho like a filet steak. I've seen it time and again. If your presence is a threat to me or if I perceive you as a possible threat, the gun comes out and I wait for your stupidity or reason to kick into place. If you walk away, no harm done. If you launch yourself at me, you've had a bad day. Never take unneccessary risks if you want to live. There are times that being nice can be an unneeded risk. I don't think that one should always point a gun at another person BUT there will be a time where discussion ends and a needed form of action will have to occur. Be ready to take action at any time or die.

Perldog007
January 21, 2008, 03:48 PM
Interesting point to ponder. I play with kettlebells and deadlifts. Not so much to get buff, but because I am overwieght and want to stay as healthy as I can.

A mangled leg has kept me from martial arts training for seven years, but I do work on strikes and low kicks infrequently.

As an armed civilian I try to avoid all conflicts. Very wary of getting into physical confrontation while armed as this could place a gun in the attacker's hands.

But your point is valid. So for me the answer is "not enough" time training in physical training.

I am trying to get my leg to where I can run (don't laugh - walking was an accomplishment after my traffic accident).

When I can do that a Judo class or two is in order.


If I can get back to training, doubt that I will take more than one class a week. When in my twenties I could do one or two brutal full contact classes per week. Some decades later one spirited Judo class per week seems a lofty goal.

Socrates
January 21, 2008, 04:06 PM
If not for the brain, and face damage, I think boxing is one of the best martial arts skills of all. Shooting, and dealing with the stress, is very difficult. It's almost as hard as being relaxed, and fast, when someone very large is trying to rip your head off.

I've been in two, or three, what I would call serious situations. One, three very large, drunk and high black guys decided they would beat me up, due to the bowling alley manager kicking them out, and, they thinking, since I had to be nice to the guy, he was my friend. One hit me over the head with a Walther PPKS, but, in the situation, I was ready to try and kill them, and die that day. I think this screwed up their 'wired' perception, and spoiled their fun. They took off, and left me alive. I was able to take the blow to the head, requiring 15 stiches or so, without it affecting my ability to respond. Oddly enough, in the situation, I was waiting for the barrel to start to be pointed at me. If that had happened, I was ready to do as much damage as I could, before I died.

Three guys were never caught...

Creature
January 21, 2008, 04:39 PM
That quote in the OP sounds like a guy who is secretly looking for a fight just to prove that he is some kind of a martial master. But as some wise man once said, there is always someone bigger, stronger and faster. I am not willing to take that gamble with my, or anyone else's, life or well being.

But then he forgets that Mr. Colt came along and made everyone equal. The implication that only those who work out and train in a martial art deserve to be secure in their person is, in my opinion, elitist and disgusting. It is obvious that he hates "to think" at all.

jabotinsky
January 21, 2008, 05:08 PM
It is better morally and legally to have as wide a range of options as possible short of drawing a gun. Are you going to shoot your neighbor's autistic son or a drunk friend because you can't defend yourself without a gun? There are many violent encounters that do not require or justify lethal force or firearms.

bestbod85
January 21, 2008, 05:14 PM
I spend 3 days a week working out for about an hour, with the heavy bag and calisthetics and 30 mins every other day working the ground with a 60lb heavy bag, its a work out alright! i go to the range 3 days a week for at least 1 hour...... i've been doing full contact MMA for a long time and been in plenty of "bad situations" working security at a few local night spots and there is one thing i can say about training- it's always there when you need it- you never leave it at home, I DON"T TRAIN BECAUSE I"M ON A MACHO TRIP :barf::barf::barf: or because i need to prove somthing, but because it is necessary ask around to any leo, find out if it's unnecessary to train in hand to hand just because he/she carries a gun.

Socrates
January 21, 2008, 05:37 PM
I feel more and more vulnerable, as I'm getting towards 55-60. I'm loosing flexibility, so that normal tasks can cause muscle pain, or nerve pain, and slight pulls.

I wish I could find a doctor that would perscribe steroids, like Bobby Bonds had, that would improve my vision, and, allow me a brief 3-4 month training period with weights that might heal the damage caused by blood clots in my leg, and lungs, and reduce my fat content, increase my muscle mass, and allow me to eat a little bit.

I guess as one gets older the adrenal rush you get from fighting is something that you don't want to go to. Still, being able to move, and handle yourself in such situations is vital.

Irony is my Always carry is pepper spray, directional version, yet I've never used the stuff. Hear it works but never had to spray it at anything.

I have no intention of ever getting in a fight with anyone, at this point of my life, but, being prepared for any situation, and never having to use it is just what martial arts are for.

A good teacher would say the original starting point is lost, and, the goal becomes well being, health, and safety.

benny27
January 21, 2008, 05:50 PM
Well, martial arts and Karate are fine and all but it really comes down to the size of the person as well. If you're outsized to a sufficient amount it's really not going to matter how well trained you are, it's just fact. Some say a person's hands are not deadly weapons, but I gaurantee you I've seen guys that could literally kill you with their bare hands especially if they were mad enough or drunk, so it really depends. People can get killed in fights as well as with weapons, my grandmothers brother went to prison for 11 years for killing a guy in a bar fight, no weapons involved. If you feel you can defend yourself physically you should, but if it's obivious you're going to come out on the losing end you should protect yourself with whatever means necessary to do so.

Socrates
January 21, 2008, 06:25 PM
Training, weight lifting, physical size and appearance make you less likely to be a random target for the sharks that attack and rob people, looking for easy victims.

Covert Mission
January 21, 2008, 08:16 PM
Socrates,

In LE it's called the "use of force continuum". Same concept applies for non- LEs...you apply the type and quantity of force appropriate for the threat. Of course, sometimes if not most of the time, you have to adjust that "on the fly." You're trying to stop the threat (key words) once you can't disengage.

Here's a simple example of continuum:
Disengage threat (get away) > verbal commands (Get back!) > empty hands defensive (push back) > less than lethal (OC, taser) > non-lethal offensive (punch/kick/martial arts/grappling/impact weapon) > display of lethal when warranted (draw pistol and issue command to cease and comply...be careful that you're not unjustifiably brandishing, a chargeable offense) > lethal force to protect life and stop threat

As an instructor friend says, "You have to have more than one tool in your toolbox." I carry a Surefire, a knife, a cellphone, and often, a Glock. As a civilian (non-LE most of the time, when not a reserve cop), I have a plan: be a good witness, avoid and/or disengage the threat, or escalate my reaction appropriate to the threat, bearing in mind lots of enderemployed lawyers and do-gooders who will try and hang you out to dry upon use of lethal force. That's always the last option.

Having about 4 yrs of mixed martial arts under my belt makes me realize the limitations of MA. I can handle certain situations, and simple joint locks and holds, and some defensive or even offensive maneuvers, are great when the drunk at the bar gets grabby, etc. But you never know who you're going against and what their intentions are, or how they are armed or trained. There are a lot of bad dudes out there, and even a lot of black belts have gotten their butts kicked by multiple assailants or a good street fighter, especially if armed. In Brazil, they had a rash of bouncers, all skilled martial artists, killed by BGs outside nightclubs. I always disengage when possible. You also have the liability: you tear into someone with your MA training, he falls and hits head and dies or goes into a coma after, or even just gets the losing end...who's gonna get arrested and/or charged, at least initially, when the cops come (and all his friends swear you started it!). Fighting is a last resort, at least now that I am older and wiser! And bear in mind that a big percentage of fights end up on the ground, and the guy who grapples best often wins. This is also a time when you might find yourself fighting to retain your CCW pistol when the BG realizes you have it, and he goes for it. Now he's armed when he wasn't before....dohhhhhhhh!

As an older guy myself (50), I realize the value of something I studied a bit under my Jujutsu sensei: combat cane. He taught the cane much like a short staff, and the hardwood canes (which you can carry anywhere, usually, iirc) are a formidable weapon in the right hands. The strikes, hooks, joint locks, throws, etc are amazing. I definitely want to study it again. (I wish we could legally carry ASPs). BTW, I am pretty fit, but I'm not 30 anymore to my dismay. :)

FWIW...random thoughts. Cheers.

grymster2007
January 21, 2008, 10:27 PM
Boxing is not a bad method of SD, but one of my brothers tried out for and didn’t quite make the ‘92 Olympic freestyle wrestling team (he tipped the scales at 185 lbs. and I was 220-230 then). He’s one bad Josepe and while my boxing skills are superior to his, he can whup me every time. Simply takes me to the mat and works his magic. As for martial arts, I’ve put away a number of black belts and have lost to a few. Seems to me one can buy an advanced belt in a couple of years. Those guys usually fall to someone who knows how to hurt people, exploits opportunities and keeps their head. From my experience, far more effective are the people that started with martial arts at a young age and spent 6, 8, 10 years gaining the skills to really prevail in hand-to-hand combat.

In general, I’ve found iron-pumper folks to be rather bound-up and a little too focused on their bodies to be any good at street fighting. Nothing wrong with keeping toned, but I’d avoid anything that builds bulk. Doesn’t seem to be any more effective than the “fat” bulk I carry.:)

+1 to the skinny doper guy slicing you up. Avoid hand-to-hand whenever possible.

Covert Mission
January 22, 2008, 01:06 AM
One thing I forgot, and it's a biggie: situational awareness. Stay in "yellow" when out and about, be aware of who's around you and in your space, and have a plan. So many people walk around oblivious, and I don't care if you're Jet Li, Rob Leatham, or a SEAL, if someone gets the drop on you because you weren't paying attention, you're behind the power curve. Doesn't mean being paranoid...just aware. IMHO.

RF11
January 22, 2008, 08:10 AM
I have 2 hours of 1 on 1 hand to hand combat training a week. The techniques I have been taught were taken from BJJ, Muay thai, Kali (Escrima), it is similar to Krav Maga and Marine Martial Arts. Plus have Bodyguard and restraint training.

I also workout about 3 other times a week; strength, cardio, etc...

What I have learned through all of this is that you are still not prepared to be attacked. The difference between a fight and an attack is that an attack is usually when you the victim has no idea force is coming and the attacker has planned for this event it will be quick and unless you know what you are going to do you will get hurt... severely.

A fight is one where you are facing your opponent and know why there is a problem and you can decide whether to fight, run or reason. I will always try and reason.

Now for you that hold a CCW I belive that you should always defend yourself if attacked but avoiding a fight where possible is your best option.

RF11

Perldog007
January 22, 2008, 08:32 AM
There are many violent encounters that do not require or justify lethal force or firearms.

If LEO or Security perhaps. Not so sure as a civilian. Here is the thing I am pondering. If I am not in fear of serious injury, why fight?

The last time (over twenty years ago) a drunk punched me in a bar I tipped the bar tender and left. If the guy did not injure me with a sucker punch why fight him?

Have been in well over a hundred scraps doing security work in D.C.. When you have to remove somebody or take them into custody there may well be a situation where lethal force in unjustified buy you still must exercise some control.


Thinking out loud here as it were, if an opponent has means intent and ability to do you grave bodily harm or fatal injury, or to another then deadly force is justified.

If they can't seriously injure you, leave. If they prevent you from leaving that goes to intent. If they are much stronger or skilled in fighting than you are we have a disparity of force.

Don't get me wrong, I think having some skills are great. Mostly I am a wrestler and that stood me in good stead against street toughs resisting arrest.

The whole point of armed civilians is that the gun is an equalizer. It allows the weak and old to defend themselves against the young and the strong. It allows the individual a means of resisting a gang or mob.

In my case, physical trauma precludes me from training in a gym or dojo. I still do what I can but my chances of kicking vanilla ice cream are bleak right now. Does that mean I should not do security work right now?

Yes it does. I don't and I won't return unless i rehabilitate my injuries to the point where I can use the whole continuum of force.

Does it mean I should not keep/carry a gun for defense? Don't think so.

Too many elderly, non-athletic, and infirm folks have defended themselves with firearms for me to even jokingly advocate that those without physical skills not carry.

OTOH while being able to scrap is a good skill sometimes, as an armed civilian you should try to avoid this. If some punk shoves you, I say let it go. Walk away with confidence. If they try to stop you it's a different game.

So to me as a civilian a confrontation that does not put me in fear of life or limb is schoolyard stuff I don't need to be involved in. Since a blow to the head can be lethal and I can't run away it would be bad if somebody would not let me walk (hobble) away.

Lurper
January 22, 2008, 09:44 AM
Situations which justify use of limited force are much more common that those which justify deadly force.
If you are carrying and a situation doesn't justify lethal force, you should not get involved.

There are many violent encounters that do not require or justify lethal force or firearms.
Such as? If it's violent and an attack on you, it justifies lethal force.

In LE it's called the "use of force continuum". Same concept applies for non- LEs...you apply the type and quantity of force appropriate for the threat.
Actually, in many if not most states the use of force continuum is not applied to civilians. Most states only hold the "reasonable person" test. What would a reasonable person expect to do at the given time with the same knowledge you had.

Know your state's laws!!

Creature
January 22, 2008, 02:09 PM
Thank you, Lurper! You summed it up nicely.

macsr01
January 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
Lurper already posted pretty much what I was going to. Average Civilian, avoid the confrontation if possible. A lot of states still have a duty to retreat law before you can use deadly force. Thankfully, I dont (God bless Texas). Know your states laws befrore you carry and be familiar where you can and cant carry and how you are allowed to use you weapon.

threegun
January 22, 2008, 03:41 PM
You could be Chuck Ladell and still get KO's by a lucky punch. Its best not to go hand to hand especially if you are armed.

I posess KO power in both arms..........wupty doo. Many guys do.

Samurai
January 22, 2008, 03:58 PM
Personally? I'm training now about 6 hours a week, which is WAAAYYY down from what I used to train. Last year, I was averaging 10-15 hours per week in the dojo (er... in multiple dojos).

That old saying, "You can never train too much"? Well, I tested that theory...

Covert Mission
January 22, 2008, 05:12 PM
Lurper:

Actually, in many if not most states the use of force continuum is not applied to civilians. Most states only hold the "reasonable person" test. What would a reasonable person expect to do at the given time with the same knowledge you had.

We're debating semantics I think. Of course, you must know your local laws. In TX (iirc) you can shoot to protect personal property. Doing that in many states will get you indicted. I agree with you but stand by what I said: whatever you want to call it-- use of force continuum or reasonable person test-- the theory is the same, though it may be applied differently. Is the use of force appropriate to the threat? Being LE presumes a certain level of training and preparedness, though there are many non-LEs who are well trained and capable, certainly in empty-hand combat. Most cops aren't martial artists. Each scenario is different, and that is why being aware, and having played the "what if" game with yourself sufficiently, means you'll be as prepared as you can be for an encounter and how to respond. Again, if you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I know what you're getting at though. If someone wallops you from behind with a 2x4 (and you're still conscious), you know that another shot could be lethal, and if in fear for your life or serious bodily harm, deadly force may be appropriate. But if some jerk at the bar clocks you with a roundhouse, of course you could die or be severly injured with just the perfect circumstances, but that may not warrant deadly force. One always must try to match the proper response with the threat, but that's very subjective and must usually be decided on the fly. If you're 70 and use a walker, you're obviously at a bigger disadvantage than someone half your age, and may have to respond differently. Knowing of course, that the DA or grand jury/jury could get the last say sometimes as to whether you made a good choice, but that's the chance we take isn't it?

Cheers.

Lurper
January 22, 2008, 09:11 PM
. . . the theory is the same . . .
It's not so much semantics as concepts. But the theory is different. Some states literally require that you meet force with like force. Others like AZ and WA for example only require that you be in "fear of death or serious bodily injury or the THREAT of death or serious bodily injury."
What I have issue with is that every time this question comes up, someone wants to try to tell others that they can't shoot their assailant if he is unarmed. Or, that the law in essence requires them to take a punch, kick etc. before they can defend themselves. It varies from state to state. They typically use it to justify why civilians should carry o/c or other LTL weapons. In my professional opinion, although I cover them as options I advise against civilians carrying LTL. Just as I would advise them not to get in a scuffle or fist fight. What is paramount for them to understand is that when you carry, every confrontation is potentially lethal or justification for the use of lethal force. Therefore, the best course of action is to avoid confrontation at all cost. Because even when fully justified, your life will be different from the moment you pull the trigger on. Just as we teach that retreat is the best option even though not required by our state (AZ) law. We advise that if it is an attack on you or a loved one, use lethal force if not then dial 911 and be a good witness. Even though there are specific crimes that justify lethal force (arson of an occupied structure for example). This doesn't mean that you stand by and watch someone get beaten to death, it means that you call 911 and tell the assailant that the police are on the way. It is too easy to get into trouble when you don't know all of the circumstances of an event. We use several true stories to illustrate that, like the guy who thought he saw a sexual assault in a city park when it was really two consenting adults playing out their sexual fantasy. He chose to get involved and ended up being criminally charged.

You are correct that the standard is applied differently by gender, age, experience etc., but is has to be that way to work. It is imperative to not only know your state's laws, but case law as well.

rantingredneck
January 22, 2008, 09:27 PM
To answer the question of how much time.........not enough anymore.

In my junior high and highschool years I competed and spent 9-12 hours a week in 2 dojos. I kept that pace up for about 8 years. After that it was a few hours a week training, some teaching. In college we had an ad hoc group of martial artists from a variety of disciplines that formed a loose "club" and did some cross training together. After college I had less and less time. Old injuries (left knee hyperextension, lower back pinched nerve, dislocated right shoulder) came back to haunt me. I became certified in PIC then CPI and later NCI for work and was an instructor for a couple of years. Then promotions took me beyond where it made sense for me to keep teaching for the company. Someone else has that joy now. Then we had kids and some of you know how that goes. Never enough hours in the day.

Now I'm recovering from a second back injury, this time a break with surgery. I doubt I'll ever at this stage in my life get back in the shape I was in high school and early college. Now I'm older and slower. I'm still handy with my fists and pain compliance/controls but I keep my feet planted firmly on the ground these days. If I had to rely on empty hands or a knife I hope I could still be effective. Hopefully I'll never have to worry about it. Hopefully I'll never have to use my CCW either.

Socrates
January 23, 2008, 01:07 AM
To roundly address some of these points:
Had dinner with Ed Parker, Kenpo co-founder from Hawaii, along with Tino Temescululo, Clinton Mosley, Charles Halliday, his brother, a 7th degree Kempo and Si Lum specialist, another 5th black who loved to break bricks in Wing Chun exhibitions in China town, and, spent some really fun time in the ring with a guy about my size, who was undefeated world heavyweight full contact champ, and fought in Hawaii. Can't remember his name, because 15 round with him did serious brain damage, ;) not kidding really, Dennis Alexio. Used to beat up Phillipino pro boxers for fun in Hawaii, at Kalakaua gym.

All that said, being able to take a punch makes the bar much higher as to what situation constitutes a threat to your life. If some Hawaiian 6'3" prison guard, who weighs 220, hooks you in the jaw twice, and you pretty much laugh it off, and, you don't go down, well, you aren't in fear for your life. Couldn't do that now.

The gym I box and train in is run by the Gracies, so I have no illusion about the merits of martial arts, vs. wrestling. In fact, I consider wrestling, the right kind, pretty near the ultimate martial art.
As far as the top of the list for guys I'd never want to fight:
Alexander Karelin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Karelin

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Karelin_3.jpg

Strength is paramount in Greco-Roman wrestling, which doesn't allow a competitor to take down an opponent by attacking his legs. That places a premium on lifts and throws. Such tactics are common in lighter weight classes, but Karelin--"King Kong" or "The Experiment" to fellow wrestlers--is the only super heavyweight with the strength to hoist a 290-lb. foe and fling him to the mat, in a maneuver the Russian calls a "reverse body lift." To execute it, Karelin locks his arms around the waist of an opponent, then lifts the wrestler like a sack of potatoes and, arching his back, heaves the hapless fellow, feet first, over his head.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997892,00.html

Combine the toughest genetics on the planet, 15 pound baby, maybe the best training ever, some steroids, and a will that is truly scary, and 4% body fat, not to mention being as strong, or stronger, then the current World Olympic super heavyweight weightlifter, and he's a guy I would not want touching me.

To quote Ron Morris, of Power Unlimited:
"I've only been in one fight. The guy broke into the gym, stole some stuff, and tried to run over me, to escape. I grabbed on, with both hands, squeezed, and, only let go when he quit trying to escape, and, quit screaming."

Ron, a lightweight at 275 pounds at the time, could dead lift around 700 pounds. Nice to have hands that strong squeezing your arms...

threegun
January 23, 2008, 06:17 AM
All that said, being able to take a punch makes the bar much higher as to what situation constitutes a threat to your life.

If you can take 2 hooks to the head from a 220 pound man either you have a brick with ears for a head or that guy just doesn't know how to punch. The finest boxers in the world have trouble taking a single clean landing hook from an equally weighted foe. I submit that you are a rarity in both training and damage absorbing ability.

My sisters neighbor got his butt whipped by a midget (I'm dead serious). A fellow neighbor had to beat the midget off his helpless body. The moral of the story is don't get into hand to hand unless you have no other option. You just never know. From a lucky shot to running into someone who's head is as hard as yours and experience better.

Get some pepper spray if you need a less than lethal means of SD.

Covert Mission
January 23, 2008, 03:35 PM
Socrates:

Funny stuff! A mere mortal like me would no doubt HAVE to shoot someone like that who was on a rampage. I have a friend who, in his day, was 6'5" 305 and about 5% bodyfat, and was benching over 500#. He was stronger than all the Chicago Bears, with whom he worked out, except one, he says. He used to go on "'roid rages", one time pulling the door off a guy's car after the guy cut him off in traffic. I told him it was a miracle someone didn't shoot him, out of sheer terror!

Lurper: What is paramount for them to understand is that when you carry, every confrontation is potentially lethal or justification for the use of lethal force. Therefore, the best course of action is to avoid confrontation at all cost. Because even when fully justified, your life will be different from the moment you pull the trigger on.

I agree on most of your points here and above. We're on the same side, just making different specific points. The speed that a hard look can graduate to verbal exchange, physical intimidation, blows exchanged, weapons produced, and then man down can be exceedingly quick. All it takes is the right (wrong) catalyst. Avoid, avoid, avoid if at all possible, though sometimes we know it's not.

As the Scots proverb says: "Many a man's mouth has broken his own nose." Or worse, gotten him shot, stabbed, beaten, all in the name of macho posturing or reaction.

Socrates
January 23, 2008, 06:12 PM
Ahh, the old days. Yes, I had a VERY good jaw. Had a shot at the 80 Olympic team, if we'd gone. Worked out with the number one middleweight non-pro, 253-2 at the time, Amilio Amantine, another lightweight 76-3 or so, and a heavyweight that was like Ali, Mike Dixon, who was 35-0-5 at the time.
17 years later Alexio retired me. He went after, and busted up his sparring partners. I weighed 175 at the time, and, he stuck his head in the middle of a very hard, very fast, 7 punch combination. Didn't knock him down. From there out, for 14 rounds, he was trying to hit my
heart, and, he was also trying to knock me out. He did hit me hard enough so part of my memory kind of went. People I'd worked with for 5 years, I couldn't remember their names for two-three weeks after that. Scared me enough to stop it, even boxing the Phillipino pro lightweights, I decided that was enough. If we'd been kicking, I'd either be dead, or crippled. He was very rare in that he could land full power kicks, with no pads on his shins, and, it didn't bother him. He did manage to hit the end of a rib next to my heart so hard it had a minor break/fracture.

Alexio was something like 55-1 and World Heavyweight full contact champion of the world at the time. He was very fast, and, his kicks were incredibly powerful. The Gracies might have got to his legs, or might not. If they got hit coming in, it would likely be dead wrestler, he kicked so hard.

As for the Hawaiian prison guard, he could hit, but, I saw them coming, and, rolled with them, easily. He also had a bad leg, so I easily stayed out of range after that. His uncle told me I should of worked him over, good. But, he beat him up pretty good for me, and, considering his uncle was the police officer who took my report when I called HPD after the assault, I'm glad I didn't break the guards' legs...

I was very lucky, since I had fantastic martial arts teachers
teaching me how to punch, and kick, and, NOT in the standard ways. I remember hitting bags next to Milton McCrory, former Welterweight world champ, when the Kronk gym guys came to Kalakaua gym.
We were hitting heavy bags next to each other, and he was hitting the bag next to me. I hit MUCH harder, and nearly as fast. Then Thomas Hearns stepped in, and, I quickly decided if he wanted a sparring partner, it wasn't going to be me. That guy could punch. Got together with the old timers after the Kronk guys left. We started talking about punchers, and, they said by FAR the hardest hitting guy in the gym ever was George Foreman. In particular his uppercuts sent the bags flying like, well like Mike Tyson flew when George hit him with one...

I said all that to point out that there is a tremendous difference between a highly trained, or committed, fighter, vs. someone who trains for a job situation, part time. The prison guard could hit, but, was not a trained pro or amateur fighter. He would have been pretty easy to tear up. Anybody stupid enough to try and jump someone when he had an injured knee probably should have been given a severe beating, and his uncle gave him that. However, in the back of my mind is always the thought of ending up on the ground, trying to wrestle a VERY strong guy, who outweighs you by 45 pounds. That's always enough to keep me out of a serious fight, period.

By the way, the guard was pretty impressed with my ability to take punches as well. He called me up and asked me to train him the next day. :rolleyes: Hawaii, what a place....

MLeake
January 23, 2008, 07:44 PM
Creature said: "That quote in the OP sounds like a guy who is secretly looking for a fight just to prove that he is some kind of a martial master. But as some wise man once said, there is always someone bigger, stronger and faster. I am not willing to take that gamble with my, or anyone else's, life or well being.

But then he forgets that Mr. Colt came along and made everyone equal. The implication that only those who work out and train in a martial art deserve to be secure in their person is, in my opinion, elitist and disgusting. It is obvious that he hates "to think" at all."

This is interesting. I think Creature only read the quote taken out of context. The original post was about a fight where the winner was on top of an unconscious opponent, continuing to pound on him. Question was, would any of the CCW holders intervene, and if so, how?

I made no implication whatsoever that only martial arts buffs deserve to be secure. I did point out that relying solely on a firearm would severely limit the ability to respond to a wide range of potential problems. For instance:

How do you handle your drunken cousin who insists he can drive? Let him drive off, then call the cops, hoping he doesn't kill himself or somebody else? Shoot him? Hmmm, maybe there are other options in between... How do you deal with the high school bully who is beating up your kid? Draw down on him? Or just let him beat your kid until help arrives?

For Lurper, I agree that in many situations, the best option is to leave. That isn't always an option, unfortunately. For instance, in the scenario that started all this, the unconscious guy may get beaten to death if you leave.

As far as Lurper's contention that CCW carriers should stay out of conflicts, I did indicate in my original post that I would not be happy about having a weapon in that scenario, since it would add the complicating factor of "What if I intervene physically, and the guy goes for my gun?" I also said that I really, really don't want to have to shoot anybody. So in general, I agree with Lurper, but would stipulate that sometimes leaving or remaining uninvolved are just not viable options.

Back to Creature: I don't feel any need to prove myself as a martial arts master or tough guy. I'm not a master, and I'm not particularly tough. However, I have intervened in a couple of instances in the past; one of them actually reflected the fight winner scenario to a near T, only the loser wasn't unconscious, just outweighed by 120lbs. Bigger guy was just starting to pound littler guy's head into the pavement when I decided I couldn't wait it out any longer. The other case was one I initially mistook for a mugging, but which turned out to be a domestic fight between a homeless couple. Lucky I didn't get stabbed by the wife when I turned my back on her to confront the dude, but it turned out sort of ok. At least, he was no longer kicking or punching her when they left; she refused to be taken to a shelter, and I had no cell phone with which to call the cops.

I've also swum out into a lake to retrieve a girl who swam after her dog. Of course, she ran into some trouble, and yelled for help. I dove in, although I'm not a great swimmer by any means, and frankly thought she might drown both of us. But nobody else was doing anything, aside from pointing and yelling and generally not helping. Luckily, just having another person in the water with her calmed her down enough that she could swim in under her own power, with me alongside. Her idiot boyfriend just sat on the lakeshore and watched. I thought he couldn't swim, but it just turned otu he was a jerk. The girl's dog swam in on its own, thinking it was all a great game.

I've stopped to render aid at a vehicle rollover until EMS arrived, too, although I am not an EMT. Not proving anything, just noting that some of us actually can't look at our own reflections if we don't try to help. It has nothing to do with being bigger and badder, just has to do with a feeling of social and ethical responsibility. Some of us were raised to not turn a blind eye on people in trouble.

End of soapbox speech.

MLeake
January 23, 2008, 08:08 PM
In retrospect, there were some other points I raised in the original scenario that were not addressed in this thread, when my quote was taken out of context.

First, I advocated calling 911, and letting assailant know that police were on the way. (This was suggested in the current thread by Lurper, as well)

Second, I also advocated trying to get help from other witnesses, if possible, if use of physical force seemed necessary.

I think I made it pretty clear that entering into a one on one engagement would not be my preferred option, especially due to the added complications inherent in having a weapon on hand.

Please, please, please do not pull quotes out of context, and do not attack people based on a partial reading of a post. Thank you.

Erik
January 24, 2008, 09:52 AM
Being able to defend yourself means just that, and there are more instances where that means going hands on instead of going to guns. Remember, it is not always your choice. So that said, I advocate that those capable of doing so seek training to be able to defend themselves without the weapons they might not be justified to use or might not be able to use even when they are.

Time? As much as you can. A little a week is better than none.

The Tourist
January 24, 2008, 12:41 PM
Training, weight lifting, physical size and appearance make you less likely to be a random target for the sharks that attack and rob people, looking for easy victims.

I believe this to be true. I have been lifting heavier during the last six months and I was astounded to find I now weigh 275 pounds. Frankly, I'm glad I enhanced the engine on my bike with new cams in the re-build this winter. I hope it can haul me around.

I got blind-sided on this issue since I just had a physical and I wear the same pants. But the comment that Socrates made helps me in ways that might not be apparent at face value. It's the old case of how do you prove a "negative" in a debate?

In other words, how many times did a potential mugger decide not to act when I returned to my truck in a dark parking lot? How many times did an aggressive panhandler decide it wasn't safe to block my path?

As for MA in the true, real world sense, I tried never to use it in saloon dust ups. For one reason, you never know just how good a stranger is having never seen him fight. He could be a fourth-degree Korean champ and yet weigh only 110 pounds.

With some chagrine I must admit I am a practioneer of the lost art of furn-fu. That is, if threatened, I use all of my resources to keep you from touching me. I use "found objects," like a barstool and other bits of furniture--hence the name "furn-fu."

I don't care if you're Chuck Norris incarnate, when six or eight very angry men descend on you with barstools, pool cues and huge cut-glass ashtrays you're going to end up an ink spot.

To quote Duke Nukem, "That's going to leave a scar."

Scorch
January 24, 2008, 01:36 PM
Here's a question for the CCW holders here: If you are really worried about defense of self and others, how much time do you spend on physical fitness and martial arts training? Situations which justify use of limited force are much more common that those which justify deadly force. And I'd hate to think that people in the forum would choose to draw a weapon because it's their only viable option for a physical intervention. Sounds like typical stuff you hear from someone who has never been in a confrontation and stiill believes in a "fair fight". First, it's not like you can go to the local Y one day and become a martial artist, it takes a lot of time to become proficient (I know this for a fact, I am a 2nd degree black belt). Second, even a well-trained martial artist can be taken out by a knife or a gun used by someone who has never stepped into a dojo. Third, the whole idea of matching force with your opponent is ridiculous. "Oh, you don't have a gun, so I'll put mine away". Be serious. The idea in a confrontation is to end it without being injured. If he has a stick, I want a gun. Being a martial artist in a barroom brawl is like the old "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" saying. You fight to win, and win quickly.

Lurper
January 24, 2008, 02:50 PM
. . . there are more instances where that means going hands on instead of going to guns.
Again, such as?

markj
January 24, 2008, 04:16 PM
if I perceive you as a possible threat, the gun comes out

In central Ill? :) :)

markj
January 24, 2008, 04:22 PM
and stiill believes in a "fair fight

I broke up a fight, guy had his thumb in the others nose, tore his face up a bit. Saw another bite a guys hand, guy grabbed inside of lip and tore it off. Fair fight? only in a ring with a ref.

Some guys can fight some cant. Simple fact. Just try to steer clear of problem areas and keep yer testosteron levels low in other words wear a thick skin and let it roll off yer back....

Erik
January 24, 2008, 04:33 PM
Such as? Such as when the fight is on before you know it. Such as when your attention is devided. Such as when you do not have a safe back drop to fire. Such as when you do not have weapons. Such as when you have to retain your weapons. Such as the fight is with someone who doesn't merit lethal force. Such as you have to figt prior to deploying the guns. Such as firearms enthusiasts are not imune to the statistical likelihood of their invlvement in arious types of assaults. (Anyone here live where shooting outnuber fights?) Such as, such as, such as...

Firearms are tools. Great tools I wouldn't care to be without when the time to use them arises. That doesn't mean they are the only tools all the time, the best ones for every situation, or the ones you will be allowed to use first.

So be prepared for physical confrontations. That's all.

Erik
January 24, 2008, 04:50 PM
Prepared to me means begins with being in reasonable shape and having an idea of how to effectively survive a physical assault.

Think of it like firearms knowledge, skills, and abilitites: If I said be reasonably prepared to defend yourself with firearms most here would agree.

---

I realize everyone's situation is different: Rural vs urban, retired vs working, loner vs family type, and certainly that schewes things. Point? Threads sometimes get drifted or dominated by folks with unusual circumstances who argue them fairly well as "normal." Who knows? Maybe that's me, by the way, in my advocation of training for the rough stuff.

Hemicuda
January 24, 2008, 05:08 PM
I have NO intention of grappling with anyone... that is why I train with and carry a gun...

Lurper
January 24, 2008, 07:09 PM
Such as? Such as when the fight is on before you know it. Such as when your attention is devided. Such as when you do not have a safe back drop to fire. Such as when you do not have weapons. Such as when you have to retain your weapons. Such as the fight is with someone who doesn't merit lethal force. Such as you have to figt prior to deploying the guns. Such as firearms enthusiasts are not imune to the statistical likelihood of their invlvement in arious types of assaults. (Anyone here live where shooting outnuber fights?) Such as, such as, such as...
Any attack that is pressed on you is justification for lethal force. If somone punches you and walks away, then it isn't. The law does not require you to take a beating before using lethal force. Nor should it. There should never be a "fight prior to deploying guns." There is rarely a "fight with someone who doesnt' merit lethal force" if you are armed. Which is the whole point

MLeake
January 24, 2008, 10:49 PM
To HemiCuda: You may have no intention of dealing with an attacker without using a gun. However, odds are that an attack will be ambush style, from behind, so you might want to at least do some training in escaping from grabs and in weapon retention. Attackers usually have the advantage of choosing time and place, and not to the victim's benefit.

To Lurper: I think any number of DA's would take issue with your contention that any attack on you, when you are armed, justifies deadly force if pressed. This may be true for people who are physically infirm, much smaller, etc. I'm 6ft and 215 and in reasonably good shape, and might have a hard time justifying use of a weapon vs some teenage or 20something attacker to a jury.

To Erik: Agreed. It's better to have some training than none, and there are any number of instances where a weapon is not legally available.

To Mark: Have had at least a couple instances in FL where guys have died from punches, after falling and hitting heads on car bumbers or curbs. Fights are not a good idea. As for believing in fair fights, I'm half Sicilian. Think again.

For Scorch: Not all 2nd degrees are created equal. Some are great, some went to belt mills. Beware generalizations. Several years wrestling and a lot of years aikido here, plus some kickboxing, and I avoid fights. Getting injured is not fun. Much better to buy a guy a beer, chill him out, etc. Read the whole scenario, please, then critique.

TripIII
January 24, 2008, 10:54 PM
If given the choice I would choose a 45 ACP over karate any day. CCW gives you the freedom to walk/get away in order to avoid the use of deadly force. Keeping distance is critical to avoid contact and to seek cover and fire if threatened with serious bodily injury or death. In North Carolina, simple assault is not a justification to use deadly force. Only imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death...or for females sexual assault. CCW obligates me to de-escalate and avoid needless conflict. (So why did I choose to enter the forum again???):)

But I do physical training every day. Keep the heart and lungs in top shape.

I support the right to CCW in a peacefull and responsible manner.

TripIII
January 24, 2008, 10:56 PM
Oh...+1 Hemicuda.

Lurper
January 24, 2008, 11:58 PM
I think any number of DA's would take issue with your contention that any attack on you, when you are armed, justifies deadly force if pressed.
The converse argument is that you have to let someone beat you unconscious. Most states laws do not require that (none that I can think of). They do not require that your assailant be armed. They require that you have a fear of death or serious bodily injury. I'd like to hear the argument supporting the wisdom of letting someone knock you unconscious, take your gun kill you and who knows how many others. I'd like to hear the argument supporting fighting someone when you are armed period. Every confrontation you enter when you are armed is potentially a lethal confrontation. Everyone who carries should understand that. Are the standards applied differently? Yes, and they should be. But if someone chooses to assualt you after having been warned that you are armed, that you would just like to leave and having blocked your retreat, it is definately a lethal encounter.

You have no way of knowing the level of skill that your attacker(s) possess or for that matter what weapons they may have. You may not take a second punch. Some state have a "like force" requirement, some don't. It is important to know your state's law and case history. But to say that you have to take a beating just because you are armed is not true. Just as saying you should get involved in a fist fight while armed is folly.

Socrates
January 25, 2008, 01:05 AM
Well, I'm a firm believer in Chi and adrenalin.

I believe that training for those forces presents a vibe to the attacker that throws off their planned attack, or, they quickly realize they are dealing with a situation they are not familiar with.

One of my martial arts teachers, in the 70's World Full Contact champ Clinton Mosley and I used to go out, and, while he didn't drink much, he enjoyed acting like he was having a REALLY good time. People made the mistake of thinking they could screw with him at this point. Simply put, most wannabe bad guys wilted under the focus of his energy, and, if that didn't work, he usually came up with a remark that totally threw them off their game, and made them realize this might be the first day of a new death.

My old boss, long time martial artist, general green beret who reupped till the war was over in Vietnam, used to have
problems because his focus and energy would scare the daylights out of the people that he worked for, and the people that he worked with. There are many ways to avoid fights, and, being prepared to fight, and die, is not something most victims are willing to do...

rrebels
January 25, 2008, 01:19 AM
If you are carrying, you cannot get into a physical altercation, period. No matter how good a fighter you are, the chaotic nature of a physical altercation presents a very real chance of you losing your weapon during the fight, so yes, martial arts is important, but if you are carrying, you cannot fight. I disagree that pulling a gun is "deadly force." SHOOTING a gun should always be to kill, but that should be an extraordinarily rare occurence....

38superhero
January 25, 2008, 01:56 AM
omg plz lock this thread

MLeake
January 25, 2008, 12:12 PM
People are way off the original topic...

This all started out in a different thread, when somebody asked about responses to witnessing a beating going on, that resulted in one fighter being knocked out, and the other continuing to beat on him. Scenario assumed we didn't see what started the fight, and so didn't know if the unconscious guy had done something heinous. What would we do?

My answer was call 911, and let the guy know that cops were coming. If he continued, then try to get other witnesses to assist in taking the guy down and holding him there. Failing that, it was a question of try to pull him off and lock him up, draw a weapon, or leave. I opted for pulling the guy off, but bearing in mind I'd have to keep a focus on weapon retention if things went south. The option of letting the unconscious guy continue to take a beating seemed morally repugnant.

The question wasn't about acting macho, or starting fights, and my answer wasn't about either of those things. The question also wasn't whether martial arts were more useful than a CCW, but whether CCW holders also trained physically for lesser confrontations (or, has been pointed out by other posters, for situations where a weapon can't be carried).

To those who think there is absolutely no value in MA training, I would point out that I've avoided a couple of fights with drunks by slipping punches or rolling out of a shove, and letting them lose balance. (Both were cases of mistaken identity - guys thought I was somebody else and attacked - wish I knew who my evil twin was...) In both cases, the guys opted to find something else to do. I don't like hitting or otherwise hurting people. The training, though, is very useful at times, even if only for avoiding or minimizing injury to self.

Obviously, a lot of people here feel that drawing a weapon is the only alternative if a weapon is carried (or leaving the scene). I was trained for military security many years back, where we were taught continuum of force rules. For military and / or police, who are carrying weapons, there is still a requirement to attempt lesser levels of force where feasible. For civilians, laws may vary, but we all still have to live with our own actions.

In the military, under international laws of war and under CJCS doctrine, we have theories of necessity and proportionality. While these don't directly apply to CCW, they do provide a pretty good insight into the ethics of use of force.

I do agree this offshoot of the thread has run its course, and I now see why senior members dislike the scenarios threads.

The Tourist
January 25, 2008, 01:31 PM
I now see why senior members dislike the scenarios threads.

I do not mind scenario threads as long they are reasonable in nature, provide info or produce a new slant in thinking.

However, there is a very real issue here, the use of MA and reality.

Before I ever rode a bike, Hunter Thompson wrote that a bartender with scar tissue across his knuckles can hit harder and faster than a black belt that had never been bloodied. And trust me, seeing is believing.

If the older guys owe our younger members anything, it is to dispel the colorful answer in which they might like to believe. Keep the anecdotal 'war stories' down to a practical level. Send them off in the right direction for some good info and research materials.

And the truth of the matter is that if you take your shiny new black belt to a ticked off cowboy you'll awaken a week later in a hospital. And as much as that differs from the Hollywood portrayal, the concept plays itself out in reality every night in a thousands of honky tonks.

Socrates
January 25, 2008, 05:55 PM
My intention was NOT to get into a discussion about a scenario. Nor is my intention to discuss the merits of martial arts in potential fights. MY thread was posted about the fact that shooting is a martial art, and, it requires both training in that art, and, cross training when possible, as well.

Fitness is also a factor. Your ability to move, react, get your gun out, avoid fights, all are based in fitness. A gun is no better or worse then the person shooting it.

Also, I suspect Alexander Karelin, or Ron Morris, who have tendons and grip similar to most hydraulic vices, might be much more recoil resistant then I, giving them the ability to fire quickly a much larger caliber gun then I can...Heck, maybe my 525's at 1350 out of my Ruger Maximum feel like a 22lr to a guy that size...

Another quick story, from Franco Columbo's bio. Columbo was first a 35-0 boxer, who quit after nearly killing someone to become a power lifter, then body builder. He and Arnold met in Germany, came to the US, and trained in LA. Story goes they would have a little wine, and, for fun, pick up the front of a parked car, and put it on the sidewalk. Then, they would take the rear end of the next car, and put it on the sidewalk, and proceed down the street, making a 'snake' out of the parked cars...

Columbo is also on the top of my list as far as guys I never want to box, or fight..

Steamboatsig
January 25, 2008, 06:43 PM
I am concerned with home/self defense so I try and watch UFC at least twice a week. I have watched so many fights that I feel that my family is safe. If that is not enough, I like to watch fight videos on youtube and break.com.

grymster2007
January 25, 2008, 07:17 PM
Keep the anecdotal 'war stories' down to a practical level. Send them off in the right direction for some good info and research materials.

Good point!

Personally, I’m not a big fan of martial arts and think only the very best-trained few really gain the skills necessary to likely prevail over a determined (or crazed) foe that gets the drop on them. I’m afraid that the people buying the $3000 black belt have purchased nothing more than misguided self-confidence that may even lead them into situations that demonstrate their folly…. or worse. I’m also convinced that excessive pumping of weights and seeing oneself all bulked up in the mirror is at least equally dangerous for the same reasons.

IMO, while not quite so glamorous, wrestling, as a hand-to-hand SD is superior to the punching/kicking/throwing-based martial arts.

My advice:
1. Build endurance.
2. Build strength without bulk.
3. Take hand-to-hand SD classes, work on the techniques.
4. Don’t let any of the first three get you to thinking you’re a tough guy.
5. Stay out of situations where trouble will find you (bars, clubs, house parties, etc.).
6. Get the hell away from an attacker if you can. Exit the situation if possible, even if it means looking like a coward.

grymster2007
January 25, 2008, 07:23 PM
I have watched so many fights that I feel that my family is safe. If that is not enough, I like to watch fight videos on youtube and break.com.

A friendly word of caution. Watching fights is absolutely NOT the same as being in them and thinking that watching them makes you a better fighter is dangerous.

XD40Tac
January 25, 2008, 07:25 PM
I'm six feet and 200 pounds and lift weights on a regular basis. I do not want to engage in hand-to-hand of any sort. I have back problems and one quick turn the wrong way and I'm hit by paralyzing pain and would be out of commission and unable to walk let alone fight.

Hence, the forty :D

XD40Tac
January 25, 2008, 07:31 PM
I always like it when some guy puts on a prelimanary martial arts display in a movie to intimdate someone who pulls a gun and blows them away;)

Covert Mission
January 25, 2008, 07:34 PM
Also, I suspect Alexander Karelin, or Ron Morris, who have tendons and grip similar to most hydraulic vices...Another quick story, from Franco Columbo's bio. Columbo was first a 35-0 boxer, who quit after nearly killing someone to become a power lifter, then body builder.

Man, I'd never want to get into it with someone like that. Like flighting a 250# python...fuggedaboudit! I have a freind who's a 52 y/o ex-cop adn active bodybuilder, deadlifts 500+ w/o straps. Grip like a hydraulic vice like you say...he grabs you, good luck getting ungrabbed!

StuMan
January 25, 2008, 08:14 PM
How much training, Just enough to learn technique and the rest is up to you. Since we cant carry in Canukistan I have been mugged (attempted) at knife point and circle booted in another alteration. Fighting is a last resort and if you can carry do so.

The Tourist
January 26, 2008, 11:57 AM
Watching fights is absolutely NOT the same as being in them

While I agree 100% with your observation, you realize, don't you, that you're speaking heresy to thousands of guys from McDojos.

In the end, that's the real problem. We take these young kids, give them just enough knowledge to get them into real trouble, tell them they are invincible and then let them watch a Rambo movie. It is flatly irresponsible, culpable and self-serving to send a younger unschooled fighter (who won't back down) up against a drunken cowboy when the boy thinks he's an equal.

When Michael Keaton was still doing stand-up, he once told a joke about facing a mugger. He put his hands up in the typical "karate kid" pose and told the mugger her knew ju jitso, kung fu, karate and twenty other Japanese words.

Perhaps we should not blame the kids. Perhaps we should start using the epithet "McSensei."

grymster2007
January 26, 2008, 01:02 PM
you're speaking heresy to thousands of guys from McDojos.

I know and I’m not doing this to get people jacked up. I speak from experience here and I’m trying to help these guys out. I’ve seen it dozens of times where a guy has a bit of training in MA, whether boxing, karate, judo or taekwondo, and through misguided self-confidence, they get into a scrap that they should have walked away from. When they run into a guy that just flat knows how to fight, they get hurt and sometimes real bad.

These days, it’s even more dangerous. As a young lad, I got into a lot of scraps and while I did face a few knives and guns , those were different times and most guys back then settled matters with their fists. Seems that these days, people would just as soon shoot you as get a knuckle bloody.

I don’t know the answers. Maybe get some training, but put at least as much effort into avoiding the situations where one might get into a confrontation. I don’t care who you are, I can guarantee that there’s some wiry 5’4” guy out there who can absolutely kick the crap out of you. I’ve seen it and I’ve lived it. And these days he might not want to get blood on his shoes, so he might just shoot you.

Just some thoughts from a late-forties guy who’s seen and experienced a lot of fighting, has seen the times change and the dangers rise. Hope nobody takes offense.

The Tourist
January 26, 2008, 02:03 PM
These days, it’s even more dangerous...I don’t know the answers.

I'm in the same boat. Having said that, I have the same needs for safety and security all TFL members do. And to be honest, we're all getting older.

I'm sure you remember the old missile idea of The Cold War. It was called 'MAD,' meaning mutually assured destruction. We also call this idea a "Pyrric Victory." In simple terms it means that if you are foolish enough to attack me, you will also suffer.

In many ways, I do the same thing.

I figure/know that someday I might have to face a younger, faster, stronger man with far superior fighting skills. Set your ego aside, we all know that any of us could be laying on a cold floor begging, "no mas, no mas."

It is here I use Kirk's answer to Kobayashi Maru. I cheat.

The one thing I can do better than most is sharpen. I put samurai edges on my pocket knives. Oh, I may in fact get knocked down, but to do this an aggressor will have numerous tendons severed and at least one puncture wound dangerously close to a femoral artery.

Why do I mention this? Here's a dirty little secret. I'm not the only 'boomer who's going to do this.

Why sould I get beat up because you want to dramatize the skill of your karate belt? Why should my teeth get knocked out?

"Tourist, you're a slimy, scheming, cheatin' poltroon! You intend to maim a younger guy who's spent countless hours in a dojo! And you used a second, hidden knife"

Yes, I will. As millions will. As every stevedore, biker and cowboy will. You will lay in a hospital bed undergoing numerous surgeries with just your shiny new black belt to comfort you.

Assaulting a man is serious business. And you're going to have to come to terms that in 75% of the time it will be you laying on the floor.

Socrates
January 26, 2008, 08:37 PM
I have no illusions about my immortality, or prowness, at this point. I'm constantly reminded, on a daily basis, as I watch college and even ex-pro basketball players, and even some high school kids, of their superior physical strength.

That said, the oddest thing I find in youth is thinking that they will win, due to their youth. Having shook Ed Parker's hand, and watched a fairly old Tino Temescululo spar with
my then Sensei, some people retain, and refine their art to maximize their effectiveness. Tino kicked my sensei in the groin, lightning quick, and it worked, putting down a 6'2" 240 pound, lightning quick, former World Heavyweight Full Contact champ.

Point being, as you age, your targets, and situation changes. Old guys have to go for targets that instantly stop, or disable the attacker. Also, for this reason, use OG's want to avoid conflicts at all cost.

I find as I get older, and have to deal constantly with conflicts between large, aggressive, adrenalin pumped players that I'm developing ways of dealing, or defusing, potential situations that I didn't have prior. Problem is, conflict management isn't a high enough priority in most martial arts schools...

I'm looking at every non-violent method of avoiding violence I can, and, every weapon possible, at this point. Pepper Spray is a constant carry, ordering some new holsters, so I can quite possibly always have a gun with me, even if it's a mouse gun.

Wonder if Jack can build a .480 Ruger on a Titanium J Frame???;)

Wayward_Son
January 26, 2008, 09:41 PM
I'm a Shotokan guy. I marked my third year in December.

After my first year, I thought to myself, "You know, I'm pretty inexperienced and new to this karate thing, but in the last year I've learned enough to be able to surprise somebody."

Another year went by, and I thought to myself, "I've gained a lot of confidence, I've learned some new skills while refining my basic techniques, and I think I'm proficient enough to defend myself if the need arises."

In December, my third year came, and I thought/think to myself, "Wow, I've learned a lot; my basics are getting better, my precision is getting good, my speed is getting good, and my focus and alertness are much improved. I'm a better fighter than I was three years ago. I need to be more careful now than before about keeping my temper in check and only acting in defense of myself or others, because if I had to I could put a serious hurt on somebody."

I am testing for my Shodan (first black belt) in June, if all goes accordingly.

And a year from now, next December, I will probably be looking back at my foolishness as a colored belt and realizing just how much I still have to learn.

The point is that you can never be too prepared. The more martial arts practice (be it karate, kung fu, judo, wrestling, boxing, or some hodgepodge of different arts) you can study, the better you will become and the more prepared you will be if that time should come. Real improvement requires consistent training. I think two days a week is the minimum. Three is good. Four, every week, is excellent. More than that is probably more than most people care to train, but for the person who can commit themselves to such a regimen great things will happen.

To think that you can take a six-month course in boxing, karate, or Brazilian ju jitsu and be "competent" is not only naive, it's foolish and can possibly get you into trouble.

So what's my point?

At this point in my training, I'm thinking that three years of consistent study is the minimum. Others will tell you different. Hell, a year ago I would have told you that two years is the minimum. Boxers or wrestlers may tell you that six months of six-days-a-week boxing or wrestling in a studio under a good instructor is enough. Aikido guys will probably tell you that five years is the minimum, and you're looking at closer to ten if you want to really learn the art to the point where you can apply the skills.

So yeah. Three years. At least! :cool:

The Tourist
January 26, 2008, 11:32 PM
At this point in my training, I'm thinking that three years of consistent study is the minimum.

Responsible advice. One of the points I make here is that we are the good guys. We would treat each other fairly, even in a financial situation of selling a firearm. That should be the point of our debate.

To that end, this bubble of being civil ends when you shut off the computer.

I expect to have a felon shoot me or shoot at me during the commission of a crime. It is under those circumstances that we must use everything we have learned to seek safety. If weight training, conditioning or MA gives you an enhanced tool for survival it is worth every penny you have paid.

But that's if you get an honorable chance.

Let's examine our urban living situation. You can be shot and killed by a felon for simply witnessing a crime.

Now, if you're a consenting adult, have a few years of in depth training with a knowledgeable sensei, then you can make any choice you wish. I'm offering advice, not demanding that you alter your codes against your will.

But it grinds me that our light banter here might induce young up and coming folks to believe we all have superior skills and will crush our enemies.

As I said, I intend to cheat, maim if I have to. I don't see why the felon should go home safe while my wife mourns.

And so to young guys we should make the case that if an TFL member might cheat then a felon certainly will. To those who might disagree I would ask only that they google "Snopes" under the heading of 'knife wounds.'

Socrates
January 27, 2008, 12:27 AM
Third year////??????:eek:

I started in about 1976, and, really stopped in about 1997, yet feel like I just started getting good about my 15th year.

Crow61
January 27, 2008, 03:10 PM
There are some folks, like myself that have physical problems that won't allow us to excersize, take martial arts lessons, etc. A hangun is really our only means of protection. But, common sense and good judgement SHOULD keep us out of most situations.

golf97
January 27, 2008, 03:50 PM
I would have to say that it is good to be able to defend yourself as best you can, armed or not.

There are situations where I might not be armed and attacked, and I would hope that my training might give me the upper hand.

If I am armed, I'm not going to the ground where some meth head on adrenaline or otherwise maniacal freak can get to my weapon and use it against me.

So in conclusion, martial arts are great for the times you can't carry. You said you were a teacher, so I doubt you carry to work. I'd get some boxing and wrestling in if I could, maybe some BJJ. You sound like a very fit person (judging by your workout regiment), and that is possibly the best defense. If you've ever been in a real fight, you know how tiring grappling can be.

I also understand what its like to be a teacher (whole family of them), so do what you can when you can, and thanks for taking on one of the most important and underappreciated/paid jobs in this beautiful country. You don't get much free time other than the summer.

On a side note that is completely unrelated, try and balance out all of the liberal-president/country-bashing-socialistic-communism that is being taught in our schools, or at least teach an unbiased history and view of this country (what I suggest). I've seen it start as early as elementary school, and its tearing the future of our country in these young ones to shreds.

Wayward_Son
January 27, 2008, 05:21 PM
"I started in about 1976, and, really stopped in about 1997, yet feel like I just started getting good about my 15th year."

Socrates, that's exactly my point. ;)

The Tourist
January 27, 2008, 07:09 PM
I started in about 1976, and, really stopped in about 1997, yet feel like I just started getting good about my 15th year.

During this debate I also felt that "when" should be discussed as well as "how."

I know how to break your jaw with a baseball bat. I need to know when that skill should be applied.

As a teenage boy I carried a stiletto 24/7. Thinking about how irresponsible "that boy" was I'm glad "he" never got into any serious trouble.

My idea of a knife during that period was a tool you used to stab somebody.

One of the positive things my wife (a teacher) points out is the return to a calm discipline a student regains after he joins a local dojo. I hear stories from their parents over coffee that reflect the same idea. They use phrases like, "It was the best thing I ever did."

If a student sticks it out for three years, earns some belts as a positive re-enforcement, I believe he will be a better man.

Socrates
January 28, 2008, 01:59 AM
Well, this has me on my Tai Chi lecture. Tai Chi, or Hsing I, any of the internal arts, have a huge advantage. By moving slowly, you develop the weakest muscles in your body, which are the weakest muscles in the chain that determine your ability to kick, punch, etc. Put simply you punch with muscles that start at your toes, and go all the way through your body. The weakest in that link is going to determine the maximum force you can apply.
Also, the internal arts develop the ability to focus, and channel chi, as do the external arts. You can reach the same ability, using both arts. Problem is, using external arts, the body tends to become too battered through either contact or bruising to function for a prolonged period of time.
Also, the Tai Chi approach teaches you to relax, and, by relaxing your opposing muscles you can move REALLY way faster.
As for teaching, I did 2 years of a 3 year program designed for special education, Project Pipeline, in the Kali. What I learned is the system is so screwed up, that you are lied to by principals, misrepresenting the positions you are offered, and, the work load is double a regular teacher. It's really a lottery if you are lucky enough to get a good principal, situation, and make it through the credential program.
I've done long term subbing, and teaching on an intern credential since 1999, and, my conclusion is it's not something I want to continue, at least not in Kali public schools. Pay is too little, stress and evaluations dependent totally on political correctness, and your principal.

I'm doing it now because my SO is out of work, it's a job, and I need one, and I just haven't had a chance to really find something better, though I'm working on that. When I walk out the door, I leave the job, since I'm a sub, and, that's fine, since I would obsess over how best to teach, and, found myself working 80 hours a week, with no life, for little money.

By the way, I was a real punk, though gifted, as a martial arts student. I was the guy the black belts loved to spar, since I could stay with them, in full contact, even at lower belts. My promotions from orange to black were based on my fighting ability, not katas, as everyone else pretty much went. I was given my first, and the only black belt I still have, based on my fighting skills.

Same thing happened with Shihan Hiranno in Hawaii.
Why? My teacher sensei Clinton Mosley took fighting techniques, free style, and slowed them down, much like doing Tai Chi. This developed excellent, powerful full contact skills, and fighting skills, in a relatively short period of time.

Also helped having a Si Lum 7th degree, and, a Wing Chun 2nd degree, who's specialty was breaking stuff, in the same dojo.

Not to mention training with the best non-pro boxers in the United states, at Ft. Ord, at the time..