Good martial art for subduing enemies without injury?

[Mystic Muse]

This is intended for a tabletop RPG character, but it has nothing to do with them besides fluff so I thought it would fit better here.

As the thread title says, what are some good martial arts intended to subdue an opponent without injury? They don't have to be specific to any culture or anything, they just have to be real.

[Mando Knight]

Judo? It's mostly throws and holds, IIRC, so it would be better than, say Krav Maga or Muay Thai for taking down opponents without giving them much more than a few bruises or cracked ribs.

[Spiryt]

If you are able to dispatch anyone with caring about their well being at the same time, it's a sign that you have indeed hold big advantage in the first place...

There also would be the thing about defining "injury".

Is battered face and a bit stomped stomach and injury?

Because then there's a mater of "subduing" - different people will give up after different treatment. Some a bit drunk dude that had weird idea will forget about it pretty quickly, if 'victim' defends.

While 300 pound dude on some weird drugs that make him loose contact with reality may be very difficult for several policemen.


Anyway : Any sort of choke is generally fairly "safe". Someone passes away, for a while, and generally doesn't remember what happened afterwards.

[dehro]

aikido? judo? viet vo dao? it's not the art but what you do with it..
any martial art that has submissions, throws and such will do..again, depending on what you do with it and whether you want to be able to do more or are just looking for something that has "just that" (which doesn't really exist..but the other stuff can vary greatly, as do the attitude and "level of contact" in practice and sparring and training)..for gaming purposes.

and now I suppose we'll hear from a few martial artists who will "sponsor" their favourite discipline :smallamused:

[Spiryt]

As far as judo goes, throwing someone unprepared, especially on concrete can end.... Very different than "without injury". :smallwink:

[Frozen_Feet]

Any martial art primarily focused around grappling will likely contain the techniques necessary to pull it off... however, the only way to certainly leave your opponent uninjured is to run away. Even the best locks and holds often rely on the rationality of the opponent - if someone is too drugged (etc.) to get the hint that their arm is breaking, arm goes BWEAK! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JWw4AxgWKg)

And so on.

[Irbis]

Military-grade pepper spray or smilar. Not-damaging opponents with any martial art if they are determined to fight is rather hard.

[Temotei]

Grappling-focused jiu-jitsu could work, though the take downs will hurt and the submissions will most likely break something if the opponent doesn't want to submit themselves.

[Mystic Muse]

If you are able to dispatch anyone with caring about their well being at the same time, it's a sign that you have indeed hold big advantage in the first place...

Well, the character is a superhero so yeah, big advantage. I figure they would use something to subdue their opponent since their power "Magic" is ill defined at best and might not be able to subdue a normal human without hurting them. They'd rather not harm people who can't really fight back effectively.

[Mina Kobold]

Well, the character is a superhero so yeah, big advantage. I figure they would use something to subdue their opponent since their power "Magic" is ill defined at best and might not be able to subdue a normal human without hurting them. They'd rather not harm people who can't really fight back effectively.

What about pressure points?

Hitting them right can make your opponent pass out or lose feeling in the body part you hit.

Not really a specific style of martial arts, though. ^_^'

[Cheesy74]

Aikido focuses on using an enemy's force against them without actually harming them. Usually joint locks and throws.

Jiu-jitsu has a lot in common with aikido, but is far more focused on throws and takedowns.

Defensively speaking, a lot of people don't know that Tai Chi is actually a martial art focused around weakening or even nullifying the blows of opponents. It doesn't have much in the way of actually subduing an opponent, but it's very good at getting a hold of them or softening an attack. I'd compare it to the Dancing Leaf (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85614) discipline.

[SurlySeraph]

Aikido's probably best; it's based on a pacifist philosophy, and the idea behind it is to make sure neither you nor the attacker is seriously injured.

[DeadManSleeping]

Aikido has a philosophy and method of doing the minimum level of force to stop someone from hurting you. However...there are a lot of techniques in aikido that do serious injury when done properly at combat speed to someone not intentionally cooperating. And that's generally the situation you're going to be in if you're actually fighting. So, yeah, even with a defensive art like aikido, your guy is going to end up snapping tendons and shattering elbows sometimes.

If your hero is martial-arts focused, you'll actually want multiple martial arts, since you need to account for multiple ranges.

[Mystic Muse]

If your hero is martial-arts focused, you'll actually want multiple martial arts, since you need to account for multiple ranges.

They aren't really martial arts focused. The description for the rank I gave them in "fighting" was "gifted" and with the way the character's personality is going to be, I wanted them to be good with a martial art that would be good at avoiding long lasting harm for your opponent..

[Xuc Xac]

All martial arts that are effective at stopping an opponent who wants to hurt you are going to be lethal to some extent. In reality, there is no "non-lethal". A muay thai boxer could put his knee into an attacker's gut, knock the wind out of him, and end the fight right there with only a slight bruise. An aikidoka could use a "harmless" evasion to push an attacker down only to have the attacker crack his head against the concrete and die from a serious concussion. On average, aikido is gentler than muay thai, but there are no guarantees when fighting. In a comic book superheroes game, you can probably manage it because it relies on fictional physics where knocking someone unconscious with a blow to the head is perfectly safe and merciful (as opposed to dangerously life-threatening like in the real world).

[Spiryt]

The thing about pressure point and aikido is that it tend to doesn't work in any sort of real situation.

Small chance of defending oneself with some complicated holds and pressure applying against determined, opponent, whose patterns you cannot foresee.

And I've heard and read it from ~ 10 years aikido practitioner, so it cannot even be considered 'hating' or anything.
:smallwink:

Generally I would say that any of the : Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Jiu Jitsu, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, Submission Wrestling, Shoot Wrestling - so in short, any sort of submission wrestling.

Allowing to take opponent down not very violently, and then choke him out.

But then again - fate wanted that opponent had cardiovascular problems - and *bam* after getting his blood flow cut, he's dead.

So there's nothing certain.

[rakkoon]

Ju jutsu has a few schools that were designed for detaining samurai without drawing blood so that would be my best guess.

On a side note: my spelling checker wants me to spell it "ju jitsu". Does anyone know the address of this spelling maker? I would like to visit him :smallwink:

[Asta Kask]

A really, really big, scary dog, like a Pyrenean Mastiff (Average weight 180 lbs., although males often weigh as much as 220 lbs.)

Seriously, you want to subdue someone without harming them? Scare the crap out of them.

[Irbis]

Does anyone know the address of this spelling maker? I would like to visit him :smallwink:

You want to congratulate him for spelling 'jiu jitsu' right? :smallamused:

Anyway, as above - martial arts don't work in real world. Ever. Unless enemy is really weaker than you or does not know how to fight. If enemy has a knife or broken bottle, using martial arts is a sure way to seriously hurt at least one of you.

That's why I said chemical means are the only sure way, and even they don't work in all situations.

[Telonius]

As the thread title says, what are some good martial arts intended to subdue an opponent without injury? They don't have to be specific to any culture or anything, they just have to be real.

Diplomacy. The greatest martial art is turning an enemy into a friend.

[Incompleat]

I dunno, Tazer-fu?

Not 100% harmless, obviously, but any other semi-reliable way of subduing determined aggressors will be at least as dangerous as this, I think.

[Sholos]

Anyway, as above - martial arts don't work in real world. Ever. Unless enemy is really weaker than you or does not know how to fight. If enemy has a knife or broken bottle, using martial arts is a sure way to seriously hurt at least one of you.

Tell that to Krav Maga users or any of the martial arts that are actually meant for self-defense and thus deal with things like knives and not ones like TKD which are sports oriented (and thus practically useless in a real fight). Proper training is always useful, as it stops you from thinking and still lets you be effective.

[Spiryt]

Tell that to Krav Maga users or any of the martial arts that are actually meant for self-defense and thus deal with things like knives and not ones like TKD which are sports oriented (and thus practically useless in a real fight). Proper training is always useful, as it stops you from thinking and still lets you be effective.

I'm also pretty confused about post you quoted, but no matter how Krav Maga you are, actually fighting someone with a weapon is bad idea.

As far as TKD, IIRC, there are plenty of full contact schools and competitions of it, so it can be indeed useful in any 'real' situation, not really 'useless'.

In fact, most of the bad Krav Maga gyms, and other magical (read: fraud and silly) "self defense system against knife and what not" can be much, much more useless.

[Mina Kobold]

You want to congratulate him for spelling 'jiu jitsu' right? :smallamused:

Anyway, as above - martial arts don't work in real world. Ever. Unless enemy is really weaker than you or does not know how to fight. If enemy has a knife or broken bottle, using martial arts is a sure way to seriously hurt at least one of you.

That's why I said chemical means are the only sure way, and even they don't work in all situations.

But Kung Fu was invented for soldiers in case they had to fight their opponents (who usually used swords and spears, mind you) while unarmed. O_O

That doesn't sound very useless to me. :smalltongue:

[Scarlet Knight]

I believe the real question is how close do you want to mix real life and RPG fiction?

Judo was created as a sport version of jujutsu and can be less dangerous. It was the technique used by Mr Moto in the books & films for subduing criminals.

Kung Fu is not one style but is used for many Chinese styles. I would recommend for a RPG a soft style of Kung Fu such as Pa-Kua or Tai Chi Ch'uan. Caine from the Kung Fu series was very passive and gentle.
The quote from the series I love was :
"Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious and cannot be replaced."

Both caine and Mr Moto seem to fit the character you're looking for.

[DeadManSleeping]

Teachers at my old dojo used to say (from experience) that no matter how good you are, if you are facing an opponent with a knife who knows at all how to use it, you had better be prepared to get a lot of cuts on your hands and arms. Knife fights don't have winners, just survivors.

That said, any martial art has evolved from a tradition of either facing armed opponents while unarmed, or from stopping opponents without killing them. They still exist because the practitioners lived long enough to perfect them and teach them to other people. If taught properly, they do enable people to perform the feats that the arts are built towards.

[Asta Kask]

But Kung Fu was invented for soldiers in case they had to fight their opponents (who usually used swords and spears, mind you) while unarmed. O_O

That doesn't sound very useless to me. :smalltongue:

Yes, but not to subdue their armed opponents without harming them. If I understand it correctly, when facing an opponent with a weapon, time is your enemy. You need to down the armed person quickly and decisively - and that means harming them.

[Spiryt]

You need to down the armed person quickly and decisively - and that means harming them.

Or just 'down' them without hurting that much, by any trip or takedown.

If dude has spear or axe, it's pretty much useless in grapple.

Exchanging any form of strikes with person armed with any longer weapon is the sign of suicidal urges. :smalltongue:


That said, any martial art has evolved from a tradition of either facing armed opponents while unarmed, or from stopping opponents without killing them. They still exist because the practitioners lived long enough to perfect them and teach them to other people. If taught properly, they do enable people to perform the feats that the arts are built towards.

:smallconfused:

I'm pretty sure that most evolved from a traditions of effective moves without weapons, for various purposes, and simply that.

Competition, some defense, big bad dude prowess... :smallwink:

Wrestling each other was present in pretty much any culture, so was punching and so on.

Killing other similarly sized person without weapon isn't that simple without weapon, (unlike movies are telling us:smallwink:), so "stopping without killing" comes pretty much naturally.

[Irbis]

Tell that to Krav Maga users or any of the martial arts that are actually meant for self-defense and thus deal with things like knives and not ones like TKD which are sports oriented (and thus practically useless in a real fight). Proper training is always useful, as it stops you from thinking and still lets you be effective.

Read my post again, please. If Krav Maga user is to win, he has to be A) both far more advanced than his enemy is, fulfilling the 'enemy doesn't know how to fight' clause, and B) the Krav Mage user will hurt his enemy, as this is the whole point of this style (fulfilling the 'hurting at least one of you' clause).

Can I ask how one of the most aggressive fighting styles (that was meant to kill/permanently disable enemies) is rebuttal to my post or even looser requirement from the OP (subduing enemies without injury)? :smallconfused:


But Kung Fu was invented for soldiers in case they had to fight their opponents (who usually used swords and spears, mind you) while unarmed. O_O

But A) their Kung Fu has little in common with what is taught today in schools B) they used it with explicite intent of harming the enemy as badly as possible until he stops resisting. Preferably permanently :P

[Mina Kobold]

Yes, but not to subdue their armed opponents without harming them. If I understand it correctly, when facing an opponent with a weapon, time is your enemy. You need to down the armed person quickly and decisively - and that means harming them.

I know that, but I was more aiming to point out that martial arts can be used in real life. I may have read it wrong but I took "martial arts don't work in real world. Ever." as meaning that no matter what you aim to do you are better of forgetting all about martial arts.

I blame my cloudcuckolander side for reading it that way.



But A) their Kung Fu has little in common with what is taught today in schools B) they used it with explicite intent of harming the enemy as badly as possible until he stops resisting. Preferably permanently :P

A) I don't actually know that much about Kung Fu, so I assume you are right.

B) See above reply, I argued it was useful, not that it wasn't deadly. Though, I do think knowing some may make it a little easier to not kill your opponent but I digress.

C) Sorry if I misunderstood. ^_^

D) Have a cookie if I did *Hands apology cookie*

[Sholos]

Read my post again, please. If Krav Maga user is to win, he has to be A) both far more advanced than his enemy is, fulfilling the 'enemy doesn't know how to fight' clause, and B) the Krav Mage user will hurt his enemy, as this is the whole point of this style (fulfilling the 'hurting at least one of you' clause).

Can I ask how one of the most aggressive fighting styles (that was meant to kill/permanently disable enemies) is rebuttal to my post or even looser requirement from the OP (subduing enemies without injury)? :smallconfused:

You said simply that they "don't work". Not that they "don't work as the OP wishes". There's a huge difference.

[Asta Kask]

Oh, it's definitely better than nothing... I've a friend on the boards who trains karate, and I'm absolutely confident she could kick my donkey in a fight. And if we were attacked by a mugger, she would be better able to handle herself (partly because she's in better shape than I've ever been, and partly because she's used to kicking people). But if the mugger has a knife, my bet is she'd be best of running, because if she chooses to fight she has to incapacitate him quickly. Don't bring a fist to a knife fight unless you have no other options.

[Scarlet Knight]

I dunno, Tazer-fu?

Not 100% harmless, obviously, but any other semi-reliable way of subduing determined aggressors will be at least as dangerous as this, I think.

You lead me to ask another question: What is the style most likely taught to law-enforcement (who often have to subdue) as opposed to the military?

[Frozen_Feet]

Anyway, as above - martial arts don't work in real world. Ever. Unless enemy is really weaker than you or does not know how to fight. If enemy has a knife or broken bottle, using martial arts is a sure way to seriously hurt at least one of you.

Practicing Martial Arts kinda tends to increase the chances that you are stronger than the enemy, and the you do know how to fight better. Exploiting basic mistakes a non-martial artist often does is one of the first things you actually learn in self-defense - the rest is how to fight against opponents of higher skill level.

Sure, subduing a person without causing any harm is ludicrously hard, and actually against the principles of many MAs. Likewise, trying to fight an armed agressor unarmed is never a good option. You are right there.

But while other things you've said make sense, "Martial arts don't work in real world. Ever" doesn't follow from any of it.

You lead me to ask another question: What is the style most likely taught to law-enforcement (who often have to subdue) as opposed to the military?

Law-enforcement version of the same MA they teach to local military.

Seriously.

If military is taught Krav-Maga, the police is taught law-enforcement applications of Krav-Maga. Same goes for SAMBO, Jujutsu and countless other styles.

A single style can easily be broad enough to serve for both. What differs is the weighing of different aspects in practice.

[Irbis]

You said simply that they "don't work". Not that they "don't work as the OP wishes". There's a huge difference.

I thought I was pretty clear in context, but I see many people misunderstood me so allow me to re-iterate: there are two kinds of martial arts. "Sporty" ones, taught in schools, accessible to public. "Heavy duty" ones, generally inaccessible.

Sporty ones - they don't work. Ever. They might have similar name to normal ones, but are more work-out than martial art, all dangerous moves deleted or weakened (because then, teaching it would be outright illegal in most places). These "martial arts" assume enemies playing by the rules, fights in well-lit halls, on padded mats. Pit them against someone determined to fight, or armed, and as I said, you'll end up harming yourself. Unless the difference between you and enemy is too great, then, you'll end up hurting the enemy - because he is not playing by the rules.

You might say what you want about blocks or throws, but doing that against angry opponent who is not on padded mat and doesn't know 'falling' techniques is a good way to break a few bones or fracture his skull... or end up with such yourself.

Military martial arts also don't work. Ever. They're aggressive, designed to maim/kill/disable enemy in shortest time possible, before he raises alarm. Designers simply didn't concentrated at all on means of not harming someone. They can kill people (unlike the strange assertion above that it is hard to kill others) in one strike. They are like full-auto sub-machine gun - tools of war, unsuitable for civilians. If you know them, it's better to run anyway than to face someone with a knife, as usage of these even in self-defence (unless absolutely necessary) can lead to accusation of excessive force and big legal problems.

They certainly rarely work for OP purposes, unless, again, the enemy doesn't know how to fight. That's why best usage of MA in most cases is using extra strength for running. You want to disable someone relatively unharmed, you use gas or electricity, that's why LE is using them.


You lead me to ask another question: What is the style most likely taught to law-enforcement (who often have to subdue) as opposed to the military?

The exact same things that are taught to military. Except, they have a few military moves removed, a few 'sporty' grappling moves added, still they are more dangerous that what civilian can learn. At least in countries I'm aware of, where competent trainers often work with both LE and military on government contract.

There are also martial arts designed for LE, though they are rarer, and in my experience police will know either what government taught him or something 'civilian' he learned in his spare time rather than this.

[dehro]

miyagi-fu

also, pressure points?
in my experience, most thugs have a tendency to wear several layers of clothes, not to mention the optional baggy trousers..which tends to render any sort of "precise striking" on pressure points a rather difficult task.

the applications in game or "virtual" scenarios however could make it worth it.

the "this or that martial art doesn't work" is yet another version of an endless debate that will never find a proper answer until you either interview a bunch of coppers who actually use one or the other system to subdue drunkards on the lose, and also interview a bunch of navy seals and similar professionals, and listen to what they think about it (although mostly they do focus on always having more firepower than their target)

the notion martial arts don't work because they are done in safe conditions and with padding and whatnot is also deeply misguiding.. martial arts teach not only how to punch kick or grapple..but also how to fall and how to keep a cool head and what to expect from an opponent.. you might have learned it on a tatami or a padded floor of some kind, but knowing how to tuck and roll (and having actually practiced it) or how to go follow the flow of a movement is certainly better than to do a belly flop on asphalt.
not to mention the physical conditioning of having some training and some experience in what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a punch/kick...
however small, some sort of training is better than none at all, and what makes a difference is how you apply it and how you use your brain...
know your limits.

[Irbis]

the notion martial arts don't work because they are done in safe conditions and with padding and whatnot is also deeply misguiding.. martial arts teach not only how to punch kick or grapple..but also how to fall and how to keep a cool head and what to expect from an opponent.. you might have learned it on a tatami or a padded floor of some kind, but knowing how to tuck and roll (and having actually practiced it) or how to go follow the flow of a movement is certainly better than to do a belly flop on asphalt.
not to mention the physical conditioning of having some training and some experience in what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a punch/kick...
however small, some sort of training is better than none at all, and what makes a difference is how you apply it and how you use your brain...
know your limits.

Yes, but in 95% of the cases the most useful part of that training is going to be 'RUN LIKE HELL for longer than enemy can' :P

Even if your target is alone and unarmed getting into fights almost always results in big unpleasantness later, even in game (though, GMs will often sweep most consequences under the carpet to not derail game too much).

By the way, the part about special forces and firepower is wrong, IMHO, these guys are practically always heavily outgunned, shoot only in direst circumstances and martial arts are very useful for them to kill silently. Some, like Krav Maga or Systema were specifically designed recently for spec forces usage.

[dehro]

By the way, the part about special forces and firepower is wrong, IMHO, these guys are practically always heavily outgunned, shoot only in direst circumstances I disagree, methinks that is what they do in videogames.. your "regular" spec op is a lot noisier
and martial arts are very useful for them to kill silently. knives, yes, that involves martial arts, I know.
Some, like Krav Maga or Systema were specifically designed recently for spec forces usage.
I know

sorry for being to the point..it's kinda late and I should be in bed already

[Irbis]

I disagree, methinks that is what they do in videogames... your "regular" spec op is a lot noisier

Videogames? :smallconfused:

I've read plans of Warsaw Pact's operations from 1982 that was supposed to throw a total of 120.000 Spetsnaz operators at targets in the whole NATO, from Lisbon to Narvik, USA included, should the war start - and every single of these soldiers was to be assumed outgunned the whole time, and dead if local police managed to track them, as even conscripts and policeman can deal with special forces if there is enough of them and they know where the target is.

Sure, they had serious firepower, being heavily equipped in anti-tank/air rockets, but were supposed to spend them in flash attack at whatever strongpoint was their target, destroying materiel rather than gunning it out with enemy soldiers.

By the way, wrong guess, Spetsnaz weapon of choice for quiet combat wasn't knife. Three guesses to what it actually was? :smalltongue:

[dehro]

the shovel.

that was rather the point..during the action they were to use massive firepower..afterwards they could all die...as long as the mission was accomplished, they were expendable.
russia, especially in those days, wasn't known for treasuring their troops. (but this is my overal impression from reading about warfare and such..it might not be accurate)

[Shadow of the Sun]

I'm a judoka who knows a bit of stuff about punching (Jack Dempey's book is a really good resource here and I used to spar a lot) and has a passion for anything WWII-era combatives.

All in all, if you're trying to subdue an enemy without hurting them, you're doing it wrong. =P If someone attacks you, you don't worry about hurting them. You put them down and out and make sure they can't attack again.

Pulling into the sport-vs-'reality' debate, I think both have their merits. If you're not allowed to spar in a controlled fashion so you won't end up killing your opponent, you don't know the moves in a realistic situation- a resisting opponent who is trying just as hard to belt you as you are to belt him. That said, if you train SOLELY for sport, you're restricted to your ruleset and are not quite so well off in unfavourable conditions. It's all about balance.

I think a good example of the "sporty versus realistic" debate is: Jigoro Kano decided that in his form of jujitsu which was later named judo practicing your moves against a resisting opponent was the best way to develop skill and, as such, the more dangerous moves weren't taught until you were advanced. The other schools didn't have the sparring; they learnt the moves for the kill and such.

In a competition to decide the official martial art of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Force, the judoka beat out the traditionalists. Sure, the techniques they used weren't as "deadly", but they way they'd trained them was a lot more realistic than their supposedly "realistic" methods.

[Marillion]

Obviously, for real people the best option is running away. As any actually qualified instructor will tell you, "a fight is what happens when self-defense goes wrong." Or, as Mestre Pastinha put it once, "A good Capoeirista has an obligation to cry at the feet of his opponent." :smallamused: About 98 percent of self-defense is avoiding or escaping a situation where you might get hurt.

However, for game/fluff purposes, the whole philosophy of Aikido* is conceived around protecting your attackers life. Sure, your assailant might have a broken arm, but he's alive and that's what matters.

However, there exists a secret technique which can guarantee victory in any battle. It is known as Cob's Traverse.



"I conclude, that he that fights...has no safe way to help himself, but only Cob's Traverse.

This Cob was a great quarreler, and did delight in great bravery to give foul words to his betters, and would not refuse to go into the field to fight with any man, and when he came to the field, would draw his sword to fight, for he was sure by the cunning of his traverse, not to be hurt by any man.

For at any time finding himself overmatched would suddenly turn his back and run away with such swiftness, that it was thought a good horse would scarce take him."
~George Silver, "Paradoxes of Defence"


*Aikido: The Art of Unity with the Earth. The practitioner attempts to become one with the earth by being thrown into it repeatedly at high velocities in the hope that s/he will merge with the earth. This usually doesn't happen, so the process must be repeated. Frequently.**

**Also known as The Art of Throwing Yourself at the Ground for No Good Reason.

[Worira]

Pulling into the sport-vs-'reality' debate, I think both have their merits. If you're not allowed to spar in a controlled fashion so you won't end up killing your opponent, you don't know the moves in a realistic situation- a resisting opponent who is trying just as hard to belt you as you are to belt him. That said, if you train SOLELY for sport, you're restricted to your ruleset and are not quite so well off in unfavourable conditions. It's all about balance.

I think a good example of the "sporty versus realistic" debate is: Jigoro Kano decided that in his form of jujitsu which was later named judo practicing your moves against a resisting opponent was the best way to develop skill and, as such, the more dangerous moves weren't taught until you were advanced. The other schools didn't have the sparring; they learnt the moves for the kill and such.

In a competition to decide the official martial art of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Force, the judoka beat out the traditionalists. Sure, the techniques they used weren't as "deadly", but they way they'd trained them was a lot more realistic than their supposedly "realistic" methods.

This is a statement which is accurate. It's pretty hard to practice a move that kills someone 100% of the time (and most don't work anyway). Also, there's the fact that one of the most effective moves in combat is, rather than Five Tap Fatal Ki Disruption Maneuver, the famous Punch Right In The Face Technique.

EDIT: Oh, and most (or many, at least) Western police departments teach what is basically a simplified version of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

[Griever]

By the way, wrong guess, Spetsnaz weapon of choice for quiet combat wasn't knife. Three guesses to what it actually was? :smalltongue:

Tomahawk > All, at least the US Army seems to think so.

[TheOasysMaster]

CQC Metal Gear Solid style?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXrBUynMjnI

[rakkoon]

You want to congratulate him for spelling 'jiu jitsu' right? :smallamused:

As for as my Japanese goes Jitsu means "nut" and Jutsu means "art" or "technique"

No really, the Ju Jutsu school of Shinden Fudo Ryu for instance uses a lot of holds to subdue someone. Incidentally it is also a part of Bar(t)itsu. Which Sherlock Holmes uses :smallsmile:

[Ytaker]

It's next to impossible to subdue a person with a knife safely. People are slipperly, and whatever you do to them they'll almost certainly be able to twist out of your hold to slice the knife against you. To defeat a knife user you have to take them out very very quickly, which carries a risk of injuring them.

Generally if you want to subdue someone without a knife, you use martial arts with grappling moves or joint attacks, and then subdue them with strength and skill. It's not easy to reliably knock someone out, however. People move in a fight, and someone hopped up on adrenaline can take a lot of hits. If you're outnumbered trying to subdue them all is a fairly hopeless task.

[DeadManSleeping]

As for as my Japanese goes Jitsu means "nut" and Jutsu means "art" or "technique"

The original Japanese spelling would be correctly romanized as "Jujutsu". Later, it was also romanized as "Jiu Jitsu". However, because the Brazilian art derived from it is ONLY spelled "Jiu Jitsu", that's generally considered to be the "correct" spelling (remember kids, even if it's wrong, it's correct if everyone else uses it!).

Also, "jitsu" translates to 'truth' or 'reality', and is part of many compounds which include "kajitsu", a word for fruits, nuts, and berries.

[Asta Kask]

As for as my Japanese goes Jitsu means "nut" and Jutsu means "art" or "technique"

So basically "fear the squirrel"?

[Ytaker]

You lead me to ask another question: What is the style most likely taught to law-enforcement (who often have to subdue) as opposed to the military?

There's the problem that both are taught techniques that aren't that effective. What is the first thing a police officer or soldier does when they learn a new technique? They try it out on their buddies.

In the end, the most popular technique is the dogpile. Multiple police officers run at a criminal and overwhelm them with their weight and strength.

http://www.turtlepress.com/articles/wrist_locks_for_law_enforcement.aspx


Officers who don't like joint locks say:

• they are mostly ineffective.

• they only work on the training mat.

• they don’t work when the suspect resists intensely.

• they rely too much on fine motor control.

• you have to be too close to the suspect.

He mostly agrees with these points, but says that it's the police officer's fault for not being good enough at the martial art, and not knowing a host of extra techniques that can fix it. That is brazillian jujitso.

“Aikido is effective; but yours isn’t.”

That's the problem with learning martial arts. You learn them after seeing badass individuals. Those badass individuals and you generally assume the reason is their martial art, but generally it's actually because they have been in hundreds of fights and are thus really good at fighting. Learning their martial art won't give you their long years of experience.

[Scarlet Knight]

Many good points have been made. Unfortunately, there are many variables in the topic discussed, so let’s see if we can narrow it down.

Let us imagine a policeman; he is well trained , with years of real fight experience.

He has a gun, a night stick, and a tazer, and is skilled in how and when to use them all. He will need a martial art for the times he does not need/ want to use these.

We assume he will incorporate any good new techniques he learns over the years.

What style would you want him to learn at the academy that will serve him best, when he has to subdue a big, belligerent but otherwise harmless, drunk?

[Frozen_Feet]

That's the problem with learning martial arts. You learn them after seeing badass individuals. Those badass individuals and you generally assume the reason is their martial art, but generally it's actually because they have been in hundreds of fights and are thus really good at fighting. Learning their martial art won't give you their long years of experience.

"Learning their martial art" is synonymous with giving you their long years of experience. No-one is good at anything without practicing. Compare musicians - an instrument can be capable of all that badass ****, but obviously you can't pull it off without learning to play first.

So the martial arts of those "badass inviduals" are part of the reason they're so good, just like the instrument is part of the reason why musician is able to play certain songs.

Your message is sound, though; you don't just "know kung-fu" and be better at kicking ass than other people. All martial arts, like all other skills, take time and training to pay off. It's not an "on / off" thing.

[rakkoon]

I've also seen someone who does a "weak" martial art (not saying the name, will start another discussion) but he was 1.95 meters tall, build like a bull and was lightning fast. It didn't really matter what martial art he did, that's some formidable power :smallsmile:

[grimbold]

Judo? It's mostly throws and holds, IIRC, so it would be better than, say Krav Maga or Muay Thai for taking down opponents without giving them much more than a few bruises or cracked ribs.

i agree my sis does judo and it seems to do only that

[Frozen_Feet]

I've also seen someone who does a "weak" martial art (not saying the name, will start another discussion) but he was 1.95 meters tall, build like a bull and was lightning fast. It didn't really matter what martial art he did, that's some formidable power :smallsmile:

Brings to mind what my Krav-Maga teacher told us. Competence in a fight consists of three things: skill, fitness and willpower. So if someone is more fit than you and more determined to hurt you than you are to hurt him, there needs to be a large disperancy in skill for you to be victorious still.

(Obviously MAs are some of the best things to practice for fighting as they increase all of those, but any contact sport (Icehockey, for example) will be beneficial as they increase at least one.)

[Asta Kask]

Brings to mind what my Krav-Maga teacher told us. Competence in a fight consists of three things: skill, fitness and willpower. So if someone is more fit than you and more determined to hurt you than you are to hurt him, there needs to be a large disperancy in skill for you to be victorious still.

So that's what? Base Attack Bonus, hit points and Will save?

[Frozen_Feet]

No. Attack Bonus, Hitpoints and good Morale. :smalltongue:

[Jack Squat]

Many good points have been made. Unfortunately, there are many variables in the topic discussed, so let’s see if we can narrow it down.

Let us imagine a policeman; he is well trained , with years of real fight experience.

He has a gun, a night stick, and a tazer, and is skilled in how and when to use them all. He will need a martial art for the times he does not need/ want to use these.

We assume he will incorporate any good new techniques he learns over the years.

What style would you want him to learn at the academy that will serve him best, when he has to subdue a big, belligerent but otherwise harmless, drunk?

I'd want him to learn boxing as a foundation, with useful techniques (grappling, pins/holds, etc.) thrown in on top. Though to deal with the outlined situation, it's better to have a radio and 5 other officers as back up than any particular MA.

[Ytaker]

"Learning their martial art" is synonymous with giving you their long years of experience. No-one is good at anything without practicing. Compare musicians - an instrument can be capable of all that badass ****, but obviously you can't pull it off without learning to play first.

Only if they are an exceptional teacher. I know judo martial artists who can have me on the floor in seconds. I know what moves they are doing on me but I can't do the same to the because they have better timing, because they know exactly how to move, because they can read my actions better than I can read theirs, because of subtle things which they don't know how to teach me.

There are many hidden aspects of martial arts that are hard to teach, which take years to master. A good martial artist, knowing these principles, will be able to see how to use a move more effectively. They can use a bad move more effectively than you could use a good move. They are, effectively, a higher level than you, and just better. Learning a martial art won't give you the years of experience that they have.

Plus, everyone's body moves differently, everyone has a different weight and muscle distribution. What works for them might not work for you.


So the martial arts of those "badass inviduals" are part of the reason they're so good, just like the instrument is part of the reason why musician is able to play certain songs.

Instruments don't fight back. That's the point. If you learn a formula on how to do a move it will work the same way on an instrument every time. People react differently and counter your moves in various ways, and part of being badass is learning how to counter their counters and predict what they're gonna do. And being physically tough by having people hit you, which you need practise at.

People who learn martial arts often do it with willing partners who make it easy for them to hit them or throw them, but in real fighters people are not so predictable.


Your message is sound, though; you don't just "know kung-fu" and be better at kicking ass than other people. All martial arts, like all other skills, take time and training to pay off. It's not an "on / off" thing.

Knowing a martial art won't help you much unless you know the basics well. You have to know what distance to kick from, what time to do it, how hard to do it, what muscles to use. You have to make sure you're advancing in the basics as well as the kung fu moves. And the basics are a lot harder to learn.

[Shadow of the Sun]

As a judoka: yes, judo is almost entirely throws and grapples. And yes, they work.

Some people might see that as restricted, but it's about how you train. A good counterexample is Kyokushinkai Karate, which is fabled as being one of the most "hard" and "brutal" striking styles.

Because of the way most Kyokushin dojo teach, you're not allowed to hit an opponent in the head with the hands or the elbows. As such, the competition nature of it encourages a low guard with full stength blows to the body- at which point a boxer or Muay Thai guy would just hit you in the face really hard. Similarly, kicks to the head AREN'T prohibited, and they're used a lot in competition, too. If a good judoka saw them chambering that up, they'd get in and throw them to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

Any martial art can be used effectively -although not perhaps gently- if it's trained right. If the focus is off, though, you're painting a big target on yourself. If I was in a streetfight and I took the other guy to the ground, mounted him and started using locks, my kidneys just sent an open invitation to all of the guy I'm fighting's friends to jab a knife in them. Because that approach is competition focused.

[Frozen_Feet]

Only if they are an exceptional teacher.
Humbug. Good teacher is enough if the student is also good (willing to learn, that is.)

You know, you are harming your own point here. I said already, I don't disagree with your main points (ie. martial arts are hard and take a lot of practice), but you make some pretty odd generalizations here.



There are many hidden aspects of martial arts that are hard to teach, which take years to master. A good martial artist, knowing these principles, will be able to see how to use a move more effectively. They can use a bad move more effectively than you could use a good move. They are, effectively, a higher level than you, and just better. Learning a martial art won't give you the years of experience that they have. .

Learning any martial art takes years of experience - the experience you gain is, in itself, the martial art. Obviously you don't become a master during one month basic course, but you don't learn to do anything well in that time.


Instruments don't fight back. That's the point. If you learn a formula on how to do a move it will work the same way on an instrument every time. People react differently and counter your moves in various ways, and part of being badass is learning how to counter their counters and predict what they're gonna do. And being physically tough by having people hit you, which you need practise at.

People who learn martial arts often do it with willing partners who make it easy for them to hit them or throw them, but in real fighters people are not so predictable.

... which is why majority of martial arts include free sparring and the like where you're not supposed to make yourself easy to hit or throw for your partner, to iron out such training mistakes. And body hardening exercises to numb you to pain. Really, you are just listing things martials arts are supposed to teach you - and they will, with time and practice.


Knowing a martial art won't help you much unless you know the basics well. You have to know what distance to kick from, what time to do it, how hard to do it, what muscles to use. You have to make sure you're advancing in the basics as well as the kung fu moves. And the basics are a lot harder to learn.

You are making a completely arbitrary and needless division between knowing "basics" and knowing "martial arts". The basics are part of any martial art. If you can't handle the basics, chances are you don't know a martial art in the first place.

[pendell]

Check me on this, but with respect to law enforcement, an officer relies first and foremost on verbal control -- preventing the situation from ever escalating to violence in the first place.

If the situation does escalate to violence, I suspect that the window at which a police officer would use martial arts is very narrow. I can't imagine a police officer trying to subdue a PCP-crazed psycho with martial arts on her own. They *might* try it if he was a fairly tame drunk and there were about 5 or 6 of them. But a sole police officer is going to go straight for the taser. If that doesn't work, she'll wait until backup comes and then they'll subdue the suspect by beating the tar out of him with nightsticks. If the subject doesn't want to wait for backup , the taser doesn't work, and he's still coming ... that's what the gun is for.

I suspect there is a reason why police officers are required to qualify on firearms twice a year but aren't trained on martial arts after they're taught in the academy. Sure, they can learn and spar on their own, but it's not mandatory the way firearm quals are.

From what I've read, the main purpose of police martial arts is if someone grabs your gun. That's when you need some grappling martial arts to keep from being killed. But outside of that, I don't see much use for it.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jack Squat]

Check me on this, but with respect to law enforcement, an officer relies first and foremost on verbal control -- preventing the situation from ever escalating to violence in the first place.

Correct - though I'd expand it to say that preventing escalation should be the first tool in every fighter's toolbox.


If the situation does escalate to violence, I suspect that the window at which a police officer would use martial arts is very narrow. I can't imagine a police officer trying to subdue a PCP-crazed psycho with martial arts on her own. They *might* try it if he was a fairly tame drunk and there were about 5 or 6 of them. But a sole police officer is going to go straight for the taser. If that doesn't work, she'll wait until backup comes and then they'll subdue the suspect by beating the tar out of him with nightsticks. If the subject doesn't want to wait for backup , the taser doesn't work, and he's still coming ... that's what the gun is for.

Actually, most of the time you want backup before you use a taser. With the range limited to 21 feet, if it doesn't work you're going to have a pissed off person charging at you if you miss. Generally tasers and OC spray are used when it's undesireable/dangerous for an officer to approach a suspect, such as when they are holding a piece of chain, a broken bottle, a flourescent light, or a camping chair. At this point, there's normally back up on scene with lethal force ready if the less-lethal tactic isn't effective.

So far as the window in which to use martial arts, it varies on the encounter. More often than not, a suspect becomes aggressive towards the officer when the officer is trying to gain compliance - going to grab the suspect, leading them along a path by the arm, etc. These moments can last a few seconds to a few minutes. They don't always have time for back up to arrive before confronting a suspect, so they very well could be involved in an altercation alone for as long as it takes for more officers to arrive on scene.


I suspect there is a reason why police officers are required to qualify on firearms twice a year but aren't trained on martial arts after they're taught in the academy. Sure, they can learn and spar on their own, but it's not mandatory the way firearm quals are.

A lot of the reason for this comes down to money. Most departments don't have the budget to allocate enough training. There's more liability if an officer has to fire a weapon than if they draw their baton, so it sits higher on the list of priorities - though with talking with officers, even the firearms training leaves much to be desired.


From what I've read, the main purpose of police martial arts is if someone grabs your gun. That's when you need some grappling martial arts to keep from being killed. But outside of that, I don't see much use for it.

The main purpose is if you can't get to your gun, not necessarily just if someone grabs it. If someone comes up to you and takes a swing at you, it's faster to throw a punch than draw your weapon.

[Renegade Paladin]

But Kung Fu was invented for soldiers in case they had to fight their opponents (who usually used swords and spears, mind you) while unarmed. O_O

That doesn't sound very useless to me. :smalltongue:
The odds are still terrible. Being trained in a practical martial art designed to deal with weapons gives you a slim chance instead of none at all; you are still at a serious disadvantage.

[Knaight]

The odds are still terrible. Being trained in a practical martial art designed to deal with weapons gives you a slim chance instead of none at all; you are still at a serious disadvantage.

Well, yes. Weapons were invented because its easier to kill things with them than without after all. Still, a slim chance is better than none.

[DeadManSleeping]

... which is why majority of martial arts include free sparring and the like where you're not supposed to make yourself easy to hit or throw for your partner, to iron out such training mistakes. And body hardening exercises to numb you to pain. Really, you are just listing things martials arts are supposed to teach you - and they will, with time and practice.

A distressing number of judos/gyms do NOT have much free sparring, and that's the kind that won't teach you enough of how to actually fight. If you want to fight, and you want to not die, you need to have plenty of practice with anticipation, timing, and footwork, none of which you can properly learn outside of free sparring (stances are NOT the same as good footwork, they're just part of it).

And I've never run into a dojo/gym that trains body hardening, even hard styles.

However, for what it's worth, someone who knows martial arts but doesn't have much fighting experience will still have a significant edge over someone with neither. Powerful and precise moves, when drilled enough, become instinctive, and that split-second shaved off your reaction time is the difference between getting your face punched and countering so that the other person's face gets punched instead.

[Frozen_Feet]

And I've never run into a dojo/gym that trains body hardening, even hard styles.

Huh? Not even the basic exercises where you block or take forceful blows from your partner to learn how it actually feels like in action?

[DeadManSleeping]

While we blocked during free sparring at my old dojo, and would occasionally hold pads to be kicked, no, never. It's not as common as you think.

[Ytaker]

Humbug. Good teacher is enough if the student is also good (willing to learn, that is.)

You know, you are harming your own point here. I said already, I don't disagree with your main points (ie. martial arts are hard and take a lot of practice), but you make some pretty odd generalizations here.

A good teacher will teach the student moves and stances in such a way that they learn them well. An exceptional teacher will be able to tell a student how to win.

I'm not trying to prove your points, I'm trying to prove mine. Martial arts are of varying difficulties, and if you're learning something that really works for you a single session can massively improve your effectiveness. The first time I learnt to punch in Karate, that massively improved my fighting effectiveness and was pretty easy to learn.


Learning any martial art takes years of experience - the experience you gain is, in itself, the martial art. Obviously you don't become a master during one month basic course, but you don't learn to do anything well in that time.

You could gain a lot in a one month course. It depends on the course quality. Or you could gain little in several years, if most of what they teach you is newer and more complicated moves, and not how to use what you have more effectively.

This is why boxers are so hard to fight. They only know a few punches, but they're great at controlling their distances, great at taking hits, and they can do those few moves really, really well. If you have a teacher who can teach you how to do that, great. But just by practising what the teacher did won't make you as badass as him.


... which is why majority of martial arts include free sparring and the like where you're not supposed to make yourself easy to hit or throw for your partner, to iron out such training mistakes. And body hardening exercises to numb you to pain. Really, you are just listing things martials arts are supposed to teach you - and they will, with time and practice.

You might learn it. Or you might just use the free sparing to reinforce bad techniques. That's why you need an exceptional teacher. They can spot when you're doing something that looks right but doesn't work very well and tell you how to change it.

A lot of martial arts shy away from physical contact and make lots of rules about exactly where you can hit and how much. That's part of many criticisms of them- that they have purposely diluted the spirit of the martial art for health and safety.


You are making a completely arbitrary and needless division between knowing "basics" and knowing "martial arts". The basics are part of any martial art. If you can't handle the basics, chances are you don't know a martial art in the first place.

Not really. I know lots of people who know martial arts but can't get it to work properly, and so patch up the flaws in their basic skills with greater size, or strength, or speed. A lot of martial arts just teach their students techniques and not how to properly apply those techniques. If your martial art doesn't help you a lot with how to apply those techniques you should be worried.

In this case, it's not just about having a good martial art to subdue enemies. You need to have extensive experience with subduing enemies without injury. You need to be able to move very effectively.

[Asta Kask]

Kreese: Fear does not exist in this dojo, does it?
Karate Class: NO, SENSEI!
Kreese: Pain does not exist in this dojo, does it?
Karate Class: NO, SENSEI!
Kreese: Defeat does not exist in this dojo, does it?
Karate Class: NO, SENSEI!

[Frozen_Feet]

If you have a teacher who can teach you how to do that, great. But just by practising what the teacher did won't make you as badass as him.
Yes, it does, once the time you've practiced starts getting close to his. That's how learning works. Obviously the teacher is not going to make you as good as him in half the time, but that's a separate point entirely.

That's because "practicing what the teacher did" includes getting into real fights, waking up 4 AM to pump iron or run uphill, if that's what the teacher did. "Badassitude" of high-end martial artists grows from the same roots as the ability of any lay practitioner - they just tend to have a massive head start. There's no more magic to being a badass.

Those boxers? They're tough because they trained long and hard in boxing. And most often, they had a teacher or manager telling them what to do.


Not really. I know lots of people who know martial arts but can't get it to work properly, and so patch up the flaws in their basic skills with greater size, or strength, or speed.
You are correct that you can compensate for half-assed technique with raw strenght. Still, body usage is part of any martial art. Obviously there are many techniques that won't work without sufficient speed, strenght or size, but that's because speed, strenght and size are part of the technique. Improving those qualities is part of the deal.

A lot of martial arts just teach their students techniques and not how to properly apply those techniques. If your martial art doesn't help you a lot with how to apply those techniques you should be worried.
It's not martial arts that just teach their students techniques, it's the teachers. Bad teaching is bad teaching regardless of what's being taught.

In this case, it's not just about having a good martial art to subdue enemies. You need to have extensive experience with subduing enemies without injury. You need to be able to move very effectively.
Yes, but gaining experience with subduing enemies and ability to move effectively are part of the martial art. If you haven't acquired them, you've either not trained long enough, not trained hard enough, or you've trained in a wrong way. The division you talk about is "basic technique vs. advanced technique", not "basics vs. martial arts".

Overall, most of what you've said is true or makes sense, but the division you make between "knowing martial arts" and "knowing basics" still strikes me as pretty darn bizarre.

I refer you to the trinity of "fitness, skill and willpower" we talked about earlier - I think it captures what you're trying to say better. Speed, strenght and body control are part of fitness, technique and real-fight experience are part of skill. You can have those three in different quantities, but the important thing is that they're still part of all martial arts. If you're lacking in some, it's not necessarily fault of the art.

[Partysan]

I don't want to enter the martial arts discussion here, but I'll give some answers to the OP.
Martial arts a superpowered character might use to not injure his opponents too much:
Aikido: A "pacifist grappling style". Since we can assume the character is faster as the opponent he wants to spare this is actually a good option. Would still have to be trained in a more comparative fashion than they do in most schools.
Ju Jutsu: A bit more practical than Aikido but lacks the pacifist philosophy.
Tai Chi Quan: A soft kungfu style which can be used extremely viciously but also very mercifully. Features both strikes and kicks as well as throws and joint locks.
Ba Gua Zhang: Another soft kungfu style, centered on circling the opponent. Has a lot of standup grappling, throws and joint locks, but also features palm strikes.


Many good points have been made. Unfortunately, there are many variables in the topic discussed, so let’s see if we can narrow it down.

Let us imagine a policeman; he is well trained , with years of real fight experience.

He has a gun, a night stick, and a tazer, and is skilled in how and when to use them all. He will need a martial art for the times he does not need/ want to use these.

We assume he will incorporate any good new techniques he learns over the years.

What style would you want him to learn at the academy that will serve him best, when he has to subdue a big, belligerent but otherwise harmless, drunk?

I'd have him learn FMA (Filipino Martial Arts, such as Kali/Escrima/Arnis, those are all pretty much the same anyway). They incorporate joint locks and disarms, deal with defenses against punches and weapons and he can use their techniques unarmed as well as with his night stick or whatever he's holding at the time.

[Killer Angel]

A really, really big, scary dog, like a Pyrenean Mastiff (Average weight 180 lbs., although males often weigh as much as 220 lbs.)

Seriously, you want to subdue someone without harming them? Scare the crap out of them.

Agree on the concept, but that dog is not a martial artist.
Now, if you took Chuck Norris along with you.... :smalltongue:

[leakingpen]

I study Aikido. Its very much a how to defend yourself without harming your enemies. (well, you CAN use it to cause harm, but it works best in not causing lasting harm)

[pendell]

Sounds to me as if the best "martial art" is a maxed-out bluff skill. If you convince your opponent that they have no chance against you, that the battle is over before the first punch is thrown, then you will be able to subdue your opponent without a single injury.

[Scarlet Knight]

Reminds me of the story of the student who got into a bar fight. He intended to kick his opponents head off, but because of years of training with pulling his kicks, his fierce kick stopped 1 inch from the man's nose. The opponent thought he stopped it there on purpose and backed down.

"Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good." :smallwink:

[Ytaker]

Yes, it does, once the time you've practiced starts getting close to his. That's how learning works. Obviously the teacher is not going to make you as good as him in half the time, but that's a separate point entirely.

That's because "practicing what the teacher did" includes getting into real fights, waking up 4 AM to pump iron or run uphill, if that's what the teacher did. "Badassitude" of high-end martial artists grows from the same roots as the ability of any lay practitioner - they just tend to have a massive head start. There's no more magic to being a badass.

If the teacher grew up in an environment where they had to fight to survive he's not obviously going to be able to teach you how to be him. He will be from a very different root. If you have different body styles the teacher may never be able to teach you to be as good as him because his style doesn't work for you.

You are saying that the majority of martial arts involve getting into situations where people want to kill you and you have to fight to survive? That is an unrealistic scenario for a policeman who is taking martial arts training to improve themselves, or a giantip member who takes up karate at their local gym. Most martial arts seek to avoid such fights because otherwise the police would imprison them.

Being physically strong, ala your physical training, is a long way from being badass. It helps, but if you fight someone with speed and strength you'll still get badly injured, and will lose if they are bigger and stronger and faster.


You are correct that you can compensate for half-assed technique with raw strenght. Still, body usage is part of any martial art. Obviously there are many techniques that won't work without sufficient speed, strenght or size, but that's because speed, strenght and size are part of the technique. Improving those qualities is part of the deal.

I'm talking about times when people use techniques wrongly and brute strength through their poor technique. Like if you do a kick too close to someone and it hits them with little force as your leg hasn't extended enough. You can make it more effective if you put enough strength into it or do more early morning runs and get strong, but learning the perfect range for it will make you vastly more effective.


It's not martial arts that just teach their students techniques, it's the teachers. Bad teaching is bad teaching regardless of what's being taught.

It's perfectly good teaching to teach people moves and then get them to practise those moves on their own with some adjustments from the teacher. Generally these martial artists have more than one person to teach and can't continually stare at one person. Plus it is exceptionally hard to explain to someone in words what they are doing wrong.


Yes, but gaining experience with subduing enemies and ability to move effectively are part of the martial art. If you haven't acquired them, you've either not trained long enough, not trained hard enough, or you've trained in a wrong way. The division you talk about is "basic technique vs. advanced technique", not "basics vs. martial arts".

Unless you know the basics you can't do advanced techniques well, or basic ones. You have trained in a wrong way. Many people train in a wrong way that isn't especially effective for actual combat. A lot of martial arts moves too aren't designed to work on someone who isn't playing by the rules. This is purposeful. If you teach someone effective combat techniques it won't make a good show and people will be severely injured.


Overall, most of what you've said is true or makes sense, but the division you make between "knowing martial arts" and "knowing basics" still strikes me as pretty darn bizarre.

Not really. It's a major part of many martial arts. I know the (or a one in the past) japanese fencing team spent a year simply doing footwork and not doing any sword fighting. A lot of martial arts have special training on footwork and pacing and timing. If your martial arts teacher does help you with that too you know you have a better teacher.


I refer you to the trinity of "fitness, skill and willpower" we talked about earlier - I think it captures what you're trying to say better. Speed, strenght and body control are part of fitness, technique and real-fight experience are part of skill. You can have those three in different quantities, but the important thing is that they're still part of all martial arts. If you're lacking in some, it's not necessarily fault of the art.

Not all martial arts teach proper body control and real fight experience. Indeed, people elsewhere in this thread have mentioned that. A lot of martial arts teachers don't know how to teach those things effectively and so you will reach a limit to your skill level because the teacher or the art has no way of taking you further.

[Force]

You want to stay out of fights? Stay out of places where you might get into a fight.

You want to get out of a fight? Run.

You want to fight? Use a firearm.

Not because one should shoot down any problems, but because any fight you should be in should be a life-or-death situation which cannot be avoided and from which you cannot run, and in that case, use of lethal force is necessary. That's all there is to it.

[Mystic Muse]

Now, if you took Chuck Norris along with you.... :smalltongue:

my character is stronger than Chuck Norris.:smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

You want to fight? Use a firearm.


The other two things you said are true, but this one is wrong, plain and simple.

Why? Simply: getting a working firearm to your dirtry paws, let alone carrying it to every place of potential threat, is downright illegal in most places. Simply trying to do that can get you in more trouble than losing a fist fight ever would.

Unarmed martial arts, and those using counter-intuitive and "impractical" weapons, developed due to a simple maxim: you don't always have a weapon with you. You always have your hands and feet with you. (Well, you should have them.)

If you do need a weapon, learn to use things that are close by; this is why many traditional MA weapons can be traced back to farming implements or the like. Modern self-defense usually incorporates usage of pens, scarfs etc. to the mix for the same reasons.

If you want to fight, start practicing a full-contact MA and let that steam out in the ring. If you need to fight, learn to use the best weapon you can legally carry around, and learn to fight without it as well.

[Force]

Uhh, Frozen, I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the States, you can legally carry a handgun concealed if you are over 21, do not have a felony on your record, and pass an approved course. I'm not yet 21, and do not carry a handgun, but I will once I am, where it is legal and correct for me to do so. I have nothing against MA, but they're for when you don't have access to a weapon.

[Asta Kask]

Agree on the concept, but that dog is not a martial artist.
Now, if you took Chuck Norris along with you.... :smalltongue:

I made a martial arts style for cats in GURPS.

[Knaight]

Uhh, Frozen, I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the States, you can legally carry a handgun concealed if you are over 21, do not have a felony on your record, and pass an approved course. I'm not yet 21, and do not carry a handgun, but I will once I am, where it is legal and correct for me to do so. I have nothing against MA, but they're for when you don't have access to a weapon.

The U.S. is the exception in this regard. In most of Europe and Asia guns are outright banned for civilian use, and there are restrictions in the parts of Africa that are actually under governmental control. Australia has tighter restrictions than the U.S, as do the more developed South and Central American countries and Canada.

[dehro]

Uhh, Frozen, I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the States, you can legally carry a handgun concealed if you are over 21, do not have a felony on your record, and pass an approved course. I'm not yet 21, and do not carry a handgun, but I will once I am, where it is legal and correct for me to do so. I have nothing against MA, but they're for when you don't have access to a weapon.
I have nothing against firearms, have shot plenty of them on the range. I accept the need of firearms as a concept and as a tool for law enforcement and warfare.
in most parts of the world, definitely in Europe, to carry any kind of weapon, let alone a firearm in a concealed manner is a sure way to be arrested and prosecuted. (in fact, any blunt object that is carried without obvious reason, such as, say a screwdriver if you're not a plumber and don't need it for work, might get you into trouble, if concealed)
to own a handgun, in most of europe (if not all), you need a special licence issued, for
personal defence (if you can prove that your personal situation, work, or other instance, puts you into serious danger),
work (if your job requires you to be armed), or
sport (which means you can only carry a gun, unloaded, to and from the range).

that said...
to carry a weapon, more often than not, is to go looking for trouble.
self defence my hairy arse..
unless you work in security or in law enforcement, there is no situation where to carry a gun is a real solution to a problem.
having one on the premises if you work in a store that is likely to be mugged, maybe...to carry one around on the street..sheer stupidity

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm from Finland. Guns are pretty common here, but it's still illegal to carry handguns in public, and that's not getting to the stigma you can get placed on you in the light of recent events. US gun laws are, in general, pretty lenient.

There are many other reasons to advice against guns even if you can get away with legally carrying them. One is that the level of force a gun represents is applicable to lesser range of situations. There's a variety of situations where punching someone in the face is entirely justified or even necessary to get out of a situation, but pulling out a gun would cause a major incident.

Second is that in situations where using the gun is justified, it makes you vastly more threatening to potential assailants. This isn't always a good thing, as panic and desperation are enemies of rational thought - in many cases you might as well be waving a red flag to a bull, so to say. And the thing with guns, or any sort of weapons, really, is that unlike unarmed MAs, they're obvious. Pulling out a gun is equivalent to shouting "I know Kung Fu!". There are people stupid enough to call your bluff.

I'll also not that the wording of your original advice was more than a bit unfortunate. :smallwink: If you want to fight, real firearms are the absolute poorest option, as actually fighting with them gets you charged with attempted murder (etc.) pretty fast. This also has the side-effect of making legally owning a gun even more of a hassle.

[Jack Squat]

Uhh, Frozen, I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the States, you can legally carry a handgun concealed if you are over 21, do not have a felony on your record, and pass an approved course. I'm not yet 21, and do not carry a handgun, but I will once I am, where it is legal and correct for me to do so. I have nothing against MA, but they're for when you don't have access to a weapon.

Even if you do have a carry permit, it generally doesn't allow you to carry in the areas you're most likely going to be harmed - or at least that's the case for me. My work doesn't permit me to have a firearm when on the clock, it's a felony to carry on my school campus, and if I'm in a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol I can't have it on me if I plan on drinking (in many places, you can't have it in a place that serves alcohol period). Between work and school, that's about 80% of the time I'm out of the house that I can't carry, but places where there's a real chance that I may be involved in a scuffle or a threat to my life. When I go to bars, which is maybe once every couple weeks, I'm generally out fairly late and they're not exactly located in the safest part of the city, so it'd be nice to be able to carry then (note: I don't get drunk, and normally stick around long enough to be completely sober at the time I leave).

In the case that I can carry, I normally do, but even then it may not be appropriate to pull my firearm. For a scenario, let's say I decide to meet up with one of my friends at Ruby Tuesdays, a "casual sit down" restaurant that has a bar area. Since it's just the two of us, and the place is pretty busy, we decide to sit at the bar. I order a burger and coke, and start discussing plans for an upcoming paintball game with my friend.

While we try to figure out a time that people could make it, a guy who's had a few too many approaches me and starts accusing me of staring at him "that way", despite that I hadn't noticed him to be there before he walked my way. I try and talk him down, saying that I don't know what he's talking about, and that I think he should return to his seat, when he calls me a liar and throws a haymaker at me.

In this situation, I am not in fear for my life. I'm being physically threatened, and have every right to defend myself, but I'm not justified to pull my firearm. I must rely on some semblance of martial arts or unorganized fighting skills to negate the threat to myself.

Now, if instead of him throwing a haymaker he pulls out a utility knife, I'm justified in producing my firearm - though chances are with how close he'd be that I wouldn't have time to clear my holster before he makes contact with me.

Guns are great for self defense if you can use them, but they're not a magic wand that makes all your problems go away, they're just another tool - just like hand to hand skills.




that said...
to carry a weapon, more often than not, is to go looking for trouble.
self defence my hairy arse..
unless you work in security or in law enforcement, there is no situation where to carry a gun is a real solution to a problem.
having one on the premises if you work in a store that is likely to be mugged, maybe...to carry one around on the street..sheer stupidity

You wear a seatbelt when in a car, no? Carrying around a gun is no different than wearing a seat belt. It's a pretty low chance that in any given drive you will be involved in a crash, much less one severe enough that you need a seat belt (most crashes are fender benders), yet you wear a seat belt because you're taking precautions so in the case you are involved in an accident, the damage done to you is minimal.

Civilians carry guns because while it's a low chance that they'll be in a situation where it's needed, they're taking precautions so in the case they are involved in a situation where it's warranted (a mugging, car jacking, kidnapping/rape attempt, hollywood style shootout in front of a bank, etc.) they can minimize the damage done to themselves.

[Force]

Jack:

Your points are valid. For me, while I can't carry at my workplace or my campus either, I don't spend time in establishments that serve alcohol. Where I do spend my time out of class or work would be nice to have a firearm. I prefer to avoid or run from danger. That said, I did have a brush with death when I was younger... it tends to color my perceptions. The feeling of helplessness sucks.

Frozen:

My wording is a bit strong. What I mean to say is, as a personal thing, if you are willing to engage in a fight it should be because it's necessary that you do it in order to survive. In a survival situation, the use of lethal force--and thus the use of a firearm-- is justified. I've run across a few martial artists who are cocky about their ability to fight, and for me that's a warning sign.

[Jack Squat]

Jack:

Your points are valid. For me, while I can't carry at my workplace or my campus either, I don't spend time in establishments that serve alcohol. Where I do spend my time out of class or work would be nice to have a firearm. I prefer to avoid or run from danger. That said, I did have a brush with death when I was younger... it tends to color my perceptions. The feeling of helplessness sucks.

I understand that feeling, and I'm hardly trying to talk people out of carrying (I've convinced a few of my friends to get their permits) - just trying to impress that having a gun's not a substitute for getting your hands dirty.

When you do pick up a pistol (be it when you pass your permit class or beforehand), take a few classes and get beyond proficient in its use. The carry class qualifications are generally pretty laughable considering how much liability there is if you fire a round and miss your target (IIRC, in TN it's placing 42/50 rounds in a man-sized target, with 33 of the rounds fired at 3 yards).

[dehro]

You wear a seatbelt when in a car, no? Carrying around a gun is no different than wearing a seat belt. It's a pretty low chance that in any given drive you will be involved in a crash, much less one severe enough that you need a seat belt (most crashes are fender benders), yet you wear a seat belt because you're taking precautions so in the case you are involved in an accident, the damage done to you is minimal.

Civilians carry guns because while it's a low chance that they'll be in a situation where it's needed, they're taking precautions so in the case they are involved in a situation where it's warranted (a mugging, car jacking, kidnapping/rape attempt, hollywood style shootout in front of a bank, etc.) they can minimize the damage done to themselves.

bad example...I drive long distances (and plenty of short ones) every day, for work.. I always wear a seatbelt.. as I did on the one time I totalled my car.. the seatbelt quite likely saved my life (not just the seatbelt, airbag and all help too)..
again, for work, I've watched the car safety tests (the one with the dummies) being performed up close, and the seatbelt's proper use did affect the result of each test severely.
however, whether I use the seatbelt or not, the chance that the other car I crash in (or tree or wall, you choose) grabs said belt and tries to strangle me with it are... well..you see what I mean.

other scenario..you carry a gun, you're not provoking any accidents (although it is my opinion and experience that not provoking isn't good enough..if you go to certain places you must learn to see trouble coming, and learn to walk away from it before it happens...and if you haven't learned it, you should stay away from them).. anyway..you're not provoking anybody, but somebody still feels the urge to cause trouble..
(again, a great moment to walk away).. for the sake of the argument, let's say you're cornered and wal
king away is not an option anymore (I still mantain that if that's the situation you've done something wrong..allowing the situation to get to that point..)
let's say you pull your gun, trying to scare him off.. because he's pulled a knife. (anything less than that would land you in jail if you pulled your gun).. who is to say that he will be sober enough to understand the situation and back off? are you going to shoot him if he doesn't? what if he happens to also carry a gun and hasn't pulled it yet, but now you're suddenly in a gunfight?..what if his friend/friends carry guns and were just going to hang back untill you pulled yours? what if you make a mistake and he wasn't pulling a knife after all, but you got scared and acted without thinking? what if the guy is close enough and quick/big enough to take your gun off you (maybe you hesitated half a second from shooting somebody in cold blood and he happens to have been in fights before or to be too drunk to care)..and then shoots you with it, and then your friends/girlfriend/loved ones?

these are all extreme situations, and "what if's".. but any scenario that sees you pulling a gun IS extreme, .. and you only need one of those what ifs to happen, for your life to be pretty much ruined, whether you survive the fight or not.

now don't get me wrong, if somebody seriously threatened the life of a loved one I'd do anything in my power to stop them, including firing a gun.. but to bring the gun myself equates to escalating the risks involved in a fight.
I've witnessed firsthand an argument escalating into a punch-up..between 2 "regular" guys, one of which later turned out to be carrying a knife and not to be so regular after all. he never used it, or meant to..but what if the other guy had pulled a knife or a gun..out of fear, or nerves? a simple argument that was solved and ended in a broken tooth and a round of beer for all involved, could have ended in a bloodbath..for no reason other than the fact arms were "there".
ultimately, if you decide to carry around a lethal weapon, gun or knife, the risks are of the same magnitude, the most important question you should ask yourself is "am I ready to use it to it's full lethal capacity, or do I think there is a chance I'll hesitate to take another man's life?"..if you're not sure about the answer, you should leave your gun at home, because it will be more of a danger for yourself than for anybody else.

the simplest rule of survival in any fight is to not let it happen in the first place.

[Z3ro]

Civilians carry guns because while it's a low chance that they'll be in a situation where it's needed, they're taking precautions so in the case they are involved in a situation where it's warranted (a mugging, car jacking, kidnapping/rape attempt, hollywood style shootout in front of a bank, etc.) they can minimize the damage done to themselves.

Just to preface this by saying I'm about as anti-gun as it gets:

This is a fantasy. Look at the shootings in Tuscan and see what happens when civillians with guns get involved in shootouts to see what can result.

[Renegade Paladin]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Also, it should be observed that this line of discussion is going to get the thread locked sooner or later.

[DeadManSleeping]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

If that's not a quote, it should be.

[Knaight]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Also, it should be observed that this line of discussion is going to get the thread locked sooner or later.

That is such a great quote. However, allow me to present the alternative belief here. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2159#comic):smallbiggrin:

Moving on to elsewhere in the conversation:

As far as guns and seatbelts go, its a pretty good analogy. On any given day you aren't likely to be in a severe car crash, if you aren't wearing a seat belt on the day you are, its going to suck. Its going to suck much, much harder if you also lack an airbag -the same principle applies to wearing a helmet when using a bicycle or motorcycle. Similarly, the one situation where one is actually in some sort of mortal danger is liable to screw one over without a good way out. I'm partial to running and emergency numbers personally, what works and what doesn't isn't exactly a consensus.

[The Rose Dragon]

That is such a great quote. However, allow me to present the alternative belief here. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2159#comic):smallbiggrin:

MARRY ME NOW!

Honestly, I agree with whoever said that if you are trying to subdue your opponents while worrying about not injuring them, you are probably doing it wrong.

[Mystic Muse]

Honestly, I agree with whoever said that if you are trying to subdue your opponents while worrying about not injuring them, you are probably doing it wrong.

Well, the character is a superhero. It's kind of their job to do things like that.

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, the character is a superhero. It's kind of their job to do things like that.

Can they be hurt if they screw up? If yes, then they are still bound by the same principle: incapacitate your opponent before they do it - or worse - to you.

If they are, say, Superman, they can take their sweet time incapacitating their opponents, since most of the time their opponents are unlikely to harm them. They are going to be severely outclassed if they rely on that and meet someone capable of hurting them.

[Jack Squat]

bad example...I drive long distances (and plenty of short ones) every day, for work.. I always wear a seatbelt.. as I did on the one time I totalled my car.. the seatbelt quite likely saved my life (not just the seatbelt, airbag and all help too)..
again, for work, I've watched the car safety tests (the one with the dummies) being performed up close, and the seatbelt's proper use did affect the result of each test severely.
however, whether I use the seatbelt or not, the chance that the other car I crash in (or tree or wall, you choose) grabs said belt and tries to strangle me with it are... well..you see what I mean.

There is a chance seat belts can do more harm than good. One of my teachers was in the hospital for awhile because her seatbelt had cut pretty deeply into her stomach. She was wearing the seatbelt improperly, which I'm sure is the reason that happened. There are also cases when a seatbelt doesn't help one at all. These don't happen near as often as when a seat belt helps someone, but risk is inherent in everything.


other scenario..you carry a gun, you're not provoking any accidents (although it is my opinion and experience that not provoking isn't good enough..if you go to certain places you must learn to see trouble coming, and learn to walk away from it before it happens...and if you haven't learned it, you should stay away from them).. anyway..you're not provoking anybody, but somebody still feels the urge to cause trouble..
(again, a great moment to walk away).. for the sake of the argument, let's say you're cornered and walking away is not an option anymore (I still mantain that if that's the situation you've done something wrong..allowing the situation to get to that point..)

I agree with you up to this part. Not just when carrying a gun or knife or baton, or whatever, but being aware of a situation and avoiding it is hands down the best way to get through it.


let's say you pull your gun, trying to scare him off.. because he's pulled a knife. (anything less than that would land you in jail if you pulled your gun).. who is to say that he will be sober enough to understand the situation and back off? are you going to shoot him if he doesn't? what if he happens to also carry a gun and hasn't pulled it yet, but now you're suddenly in a gunfight?..what if his friend/friends carry guns and were just going to hang back untill you pulled yours? what if you make a mistake and he wasn't pulling a knife after all, but you got scared and acted without thinking? what if the guy is close enough and quick/big enough to take your gun off you (maybe you hesitated half a second from shooting somebody in cold blood and he happens to have been in fights before or to be too drunk to care)..and then shoots you with it, and then your friends/girlfriend/loved ones?

You never pull a gun to try and scare someone off. As a civilian, the only time it should ever clear your holster is if you are in fear for your life and you are going to shoot someone. That's it. This is what every concealed carry course teaches.

As for the different scenarios, that's why I advocate training. Using a gun is as much a martial art as anything else, and requires proper techniques and constant practice to be proficient at. To re direct your questions, what if any of that happens if you don't have a gun? The outcomes are exactly as dim.


these are all extreme situations, and "what if's".. but any scenario that sees you pulling a gun IS extreme, .. and you only need one of those what ifs to happen, for your life to be pretty much ruined, whether you survive the fight or not.

If it comes down to pulling and firing a gun, your life may never be the same, but at least you still have a life.


now don't get me wrong, if somebody seriously threatened the life of a loved one I'd do anything in my power to stop them, including firing a gun.. but to bring the gun myself equates to escalating the risks involved in a fight.

The simple solution is to avoid fights as best you can. When carrying a gun one is held to a higher standard. You can't ever be seen as the aggressor, and often times must try and defuse the situation before it leads to being hit. If you can't do that, you shouldn't carry a gun - but that's a personal decision everyone should make. IMO, the same philosophy applies to anyone who's learned a traditional martial art.


I've witnessed firsthand an argument escalating into a punch-up..between 2 "regular" guys, one of which later turned out to be carrying a knife and not to be so regular after all. he never used it, or meant to..but what if the other guy had pulled a knife or a gun..out of fear, or nerves? a simple argument that was solved and ended in a broken tooth and a round of beer for all involved, could have ended in a bloodbath..for no reason other than the fact arms were "there".

I think the fact that the guy had a knife and never used it more of proves that carrying "weapons" (I personally have a knife on me wherever I go - the most it's done is mercilessly mangle boxes and plastic wrap) doesn't automatically lead to the aforementioned bloodbath.


ultimately, if you decide to carry around a lethal weapon, gun or knife, the risks are of the same magnitude, the most important question you should ask yourself is "am I ready to use it to it's full lethal capacity, or do I think there is a chance I'll hesitate to take another man's life?"..if you're not sure about the answer, you should leave your gun at home, because it will be more of a danger for yourself than for anybody else.

the simplest rule of survival in any fight is to not let it happen in the first place.

Agreed.


Just to preface this by saying I'm about as anti-gun as it gets:

This is a fantasy. Look at the shootings in Tuscan and see what happens when civillians with guns get involved in shootouts to see what can result.

Only one guy, the perpetrator fired his weapon, so I don't really see how this relates. A CCWer was among one of the people to tackle him. It should be noted that he did not pull his weapon because he felt it was not safe to fire within that crowd.

The "Hollywood style shootout" statement was in regards to the North Hollywood bank robbery back in 1994 - while highly unlikely that civilians would be trapped up in that, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. It's not something I train for, but I'm not going to condemn the people who do.


Also, it should be observed that this line of discussion is going to get the thread locked sooner or later.

Not discussing politics or illegal activities, but rather the merits of a fighting style, so I don't particularly see how.

[Renegade Paladin]

Only one guy, the perpetrator fired his weapon, so I don't really see how this relates. A CCWer was among one of the people to tackle him. It should be noted that he did not pull his weapon because he felt it was not safe to fire within that crowd.
Oh, he meant Tucson. Here I thought he was referring to some obscure shooting in Tuscany. :smalltongue: In that case, this is ludicrous; Jared Loughner wasn't employing a gun to defend himself, but was rather attempting an assassination. In light of that, I completely fail to see how it's relevant to a discussion of self-defense.

As for getting the thread locked, discussing law also tends to trigger the politics rule.

[Hawkfrost000]

honestly?

straight punch to the stomach, then headlock

simple

DM

[Jack Squat]

honestly?

straight punch to the stomach, then headlock

simple

DM

I'm underweight, haven't (formally) trained in a martial art in a decade, and I have a bad knee. Even still, you'd have to have the build of a football player to have the chance of that working on me.

There is no single technique that will always work. If there was, there wouldn't be a need for an entire art devoted to fighting, much less countless different ones.

[Ytaker]

honestly?

straight punch to the stomach, then headlock

simple

DM

People normally have their hands in front of them to protect them from such punches. Plus, a lot of people have knives which they'll use to slice you up while they're in a headlock. Any tactic based purely on grappling will eventually fail because some people have knives, and it's incredibly hard to stop people from using knives. They'll twist and turn and slice both of you to ribbons.

Plus, if they manage to get you to the floor their buddies may well come along and stamp you into submission. Shoes can be a very deadly weapon when you're on the floor because your body is trapped between the ground and their shoe, and your body will be the thing that gives in that conflict.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm partial to running and emergency numbers personally, what works and what doesn't isn't exactly a consensus.

That's because what works and what doesn't is situational. Traditional MAs developed in conditions where metal weapons were too expensive or illegal to own, but a roving raider could stumble on you while you were working the crops etc. In such situations, being able to defend yourself with whatever at hand (no matter how unideal) was the best, and since there were no police or emergency numbets the only way to be sure your opponent would not come after you was killing him.

Times and places have changed, and these days killing anyone, even in self-defense, is likely to get you in more trouble than just getting roughed up, and the roving raiders have mostly been replaced by oafish drunkards who are a much lesser threat for your life. Professional help is a phonecall away, so the incentive to fight yourself is pretty small.

In my experience, though, there's a consensus in civilian MAs that the best fight is not fought. Military and law-enforcement MAs are obviously different, becaus running away is often just not an option in those lines of work..

@Darius Macab: All fine and dandy, until you remember that punching an unprepared opponent in the stomach carries a real chance of causing serious injury. Usually, it's better to forget about the headlock and just turn tail and run, but even if you pull it off, you'll likely have to wrestle with a tenacious opponent for a good while nonetheless. God help you if he has friends!

[Worira]

It really doesn't, actually. It's about the safest place you can punch someone while still having an effect. Short of Evander Hollyfield slugging a 70-year-old lady, the chances of doing permanent damage are miniscule.

[dehro]

It really doesn't, actually. It's about the safest place you can punch someone while still having an effect. Short of Evander Hollyfield slugging a 70-year-old lady, the chances of doing permanent damage are miniscule.

I suggest you look up how Houdini died.

[Worira]

I suggest you do. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/houdini.asp)

[dehro]

I suggest you do. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/houdini.asp)

I had, and my point here is not that he was killed by a punch, which he obviously was not...but that external circumstances made said punch/punches have a much worse effect than they would have..(i.e. they brought about the rupture of the apendix much earlier than would probably have happened in "natural circumstances). the punch was an accellerating factor.
this fits quite nicely with my view on the matter of getting into a fight with certain "pre conditions" (i.e. carrying a gun or knowing a martial art) and assuming that that will give you control over the situation.. when in fact it doesn't because there can be hunderds of external factors that intervene in an actual situation..training CAN prepare you (just as houdini thought he'd prepared, come to think of it, but he was still taken by surprise)..but there's no telling what will happen in any fight..and to carry a gun in such a situation is very much rising the stakes...
in my limited experience, what causes trouble more often than not, is the illusion of control

[Renegade Paladin]

But increasing your own options greatly increases the likelihood that one of them will prove useful to you. You're conflating the problem of overconfidence with possession of a weapon (or knowledge of a martial art, or great ability to run away, for that matter; they produce the same effect) in general; as long as you are not under the delusion that your knife/gun/baseball bat/martial art makes you invincible, then it is nothing more than another tool at your disposal.

It should be noted, though, that any tool for any purpose can be dangerous to the user without proper training on how to use it. Firearms tend to have a sort of phobia around them; since they are primarily weapons, people tend to think of them as more dangerous to the user, when they're really not. I would sooner hand an untrained (but not malicious) person a shotgun to shoot targets with than I would hand him, say, a chainsaw with which to cut down a tree; the latter has much more capacity to injure or kill the untrained user than the former. That extreme example aside, knives, screwdrivers, saws, drills, scissors, and pretty much any other tools you can think of more dangerous than an eraser are capable of injuring their users or any bystanders if the user doesn't know what he's doing. The problem isn't the tool; it's the training. A lot of the problem with firearms is that some people think they're a solution in themselves, when in fact the armed martial arts take training just as the unarmed martial arts do.

[Asta Kask]

The plural of anecdote is not data.


If that's not a quote, it should be.

It think Mark Crislip of Quackcast fame says it a lot.

[dehro]

I would sooner hand an untrained (but not malicious) person a shotgun to shoot targets with than I would hand him, say, a chainsaw with which to cut down a tree; the latter has much more capacity to injure or kill the untrained user than the former. That extreme example aside, knives, screwdrivers, saws, drills, scissors, and pretty much any other tools you can think of more dangerous than an eraser are capable of injuring their users or any bystanders if the user doesn't know what he's doing.
agreed..then again, you won't be surprised to find out that I don't carry any of those with me as a tool for protection. if at any time I do carry one, it's for what it's designed for, and a weapon is designed to kill, and nothing else. I'm more than happy to defend myself with whatever is at hand, be it "only" a rolled up magazine" (which can be surprisingly effective).. personally I just draw the line at carrying something that has only the purpose of killing another man, because if push came to shove that's what I would end up having to use it for..and I don't wanna. very personal and subjective, I know.

OT anecdote on chainsaws..
one of my sisters is 25, fit and quite goodlooking (and yes, she's taken).. and works in the fields inbetween a few rare modelling jobs.
one day she pulled her car up to a red light, and next to her a truck stopped, whose driver was quite obviously leering at her, smiling and winking and such...
my sister winked back and gave hime an evil grin, then she grabbed the chainsaw she had lying on the backseat (she had been trimming olive trees that morning)..showed it to him and gave him another wink.
she told me she'd never seen a truck move quite that fast when the light turned green.

[Partysan]

I somewhat don't get how people think they need to carry guns just in case. Sure, if (and at least where I live that's a very very small if) you get involved in a fight which is serious enough to actually pull a gun then you'll have one, but it also means that every psycho in the streets could possibly carry a gun.
Also, in any kind of fight pulling out a weapon means escalating the situation. If you get into a streetfight maybe you'll get beaten up badly, but if you pull a knife in a street fight you're likely to be killed. As long as you are not the attacker you will be at a disadvantage in every fight, because the opponent(s) have the initiative. If you are in a country where every civilian can carry a gun, chances are the muggers will have one or at least be ready for you having one. Bank robbers are always heavier armed than you. The only point at which your gun will help you is when you have one and the enemies don't. That's why I prefer a place where no one has guns to one where everyone has them, simply keeps down the lethality.
Of course there's always pros and heavy criminals, but against those you won't win even with your gun out.

@OP: what do you say about the suggestions various people have made in this thread for your character?

[Mystic Muse]

@OP: what do you say about the suggestions various people have made in this thread for your character?

Aikido and Jiu Jitsu sound best at the moment.

Also, can we please drop the discussion about guns? It's not really relevant to the character, its getting close to laws/politics territory, and I'd prefer it if this thread wasn't locked.

[Killer Angel]

my character is stronger than Chuck Norris.:smalltongue:

Heresy! :smallsmile:


I made a martial arts style for cats in GURPS.

The Cats' God is pleased. :smallbiggrin:

[rakkoon]

Aikido and Jiu Jitsu sound best at the moment

Go for Aiki-jitsu and kill two birds with one gun stone

[Asta Kask]

I say kick'em in the balls. Most assailants will be men, so it will work wonders. And if you meet a woman - well, just kick a little harder.

Edit: Killer Angel, if you're interested. (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=40717)

[Killer Angel]

Edit: Killer Angel, if you're interested. (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=40717)

Ah, very nice, tnx.
After D&D, GURPS is our favourite game system. :smallsmile: