If You Only Had One Range

[bodhisattva]

Mike - I don't have to talk to a wisened Kali master to learn where the large nexus of arteries are within the body, nor do I need ask him where the nerves or tendons are located. I learned all that in High School Anatomy I & II and University Level Anatomy 101 and 103.

Maybe there are STILL a lot of fine points I don't know, but, jesus, Mike, a person doesn't have to know every stab target and every slash target and every nerve plexus.

A person SHOULD however know some of them, and be able to attack them effectively.

And that is easily learned while boxing, and working submission grappling skills on the ground and in the clinch.

--

I don't really figure a butcher would be a "most dangerous man" with a knife, any more than I figure a karateka "board breaking champion" is the most dangerous man with his fists.

[bodhisattva]

I can. Butchers. Slaughterhouse workers. Oh, and people who train to use knives to kill people.

There's a lot more to knife work than poking holes in people. In my admittedly limited opinion, real knife training doesn't start until you realize that all the vital targets are on the inside and begin using the tool specifically to reach and damage them. A good jab with a knife in the thigh isn't the same as an educated jab right to the abdominal aorta or the cluster of veins and arteries in the hip cradle.

Specific education should not be undervalued.

Actually, I don't know if any of the Sayoc guys are reading this, but I'd love to get Sun Helmet's take on the matter. He can most assuredly speak with far greater experience and intelligence on the matter than I can.

Yeah, and the actual SKILL to hit those points is within the boxing, clinch and groundfighting.

As far as studying "where to hit," honestly, it does you little good until you develop the "skill to hit." "Where to hit" can be learned in a week or a months study. "Skill to hit" is a never ending cycle of training.

Same as "skill to control." Gotta train clinch and ground to have that.

If I can take a man's back in the clinch, then I can take his back when I have a knife - too. And when I'm behind him, I don't have to be a Fillipino knife master to know that the kidneys and the throat make great targets - or that I can reach his heart from behind almost as easily as from the front. ETC.

If I can wrestle a man down, and strangle him easily - then I can just as easily cut his throat. If I know where the tendons are for pain controls, and I know where the blood vessels are for compression, then why would I not know where to stick my knife - as well? Cut the tendon - destroy the arm. I have a good liver shot - I developed it boxing. If I have a knife in my hand, my livershot becomes horrific. If someone simply says "twist the knife as you yank it out" to me, I don't need trained to do it if I already have the boxing skill to set up and complete a good livershot.

However, if I don't have the boxing skill to set up and deliver a good livershot, then putting a knife in my hands won't magically give me that skill, nor will telling me the liver is a good place to sink and twist a knife.

The "skill" takes a lot longer to learn - and is the truly important element. And that skill is to be found in boxing, clinch, and groundfighting.

[bodhisattva]

I didn't intend to say that training with an eye for self-defense was paranoid, nor did I mean to say that I ignore self-defense personally. I wrote my post that way because so far people have been citing the tools and advantages of their chosen range as the reason for their choice- for good reason- but I wanted to approach the question from a different angle. Don't get me wrong, I keep a shotgun handy for home protection (target practice is fun too), and I wouldn't focus so much on boxing if it weren't one of the best ways to develop practical fighting skills. However, I don't ask myself what the absolute optimum way to train is for self-defense when deciding what to work on. The reason being that the more I enjoy my training the more I train, and thus the better I get. When I decide to work on something just "because it's good for me" I start to lose my enthusiasm and when that happens my work outs start to be less productive. Obviously for a training program to be effective one MUST be disciplined and that means doing certain things whether you enjoy them or not, even if you aren't in the mood for it on a given day but what I'm getting at is, I think, what you're talking about here:



The point that I'm making is that for the over-whelming majority of us if we're honest with ourselves we don't train because we HAVE to we train because we love doing it. Sometimes in the process of trying to find the most bad ass way to train it's easy to lose sight of that fact- I think that mentality is the reason many of the people you're talking about in the quote above are insecure in their training.

Couldn't agree more.

I like training Boxing/Clinch/Wrestling/Bjj adjust for MMA. I like doing that because it has already shown it's utility.

I could walk around class talking about "the street" all night. And I could paint grim depressing scenes all night. And I could describe and train grim, depressing tactics, all night. But that's pretty stupid. Why not just train what has utility, and throw out the stupid, grim, depressing stuff.

Practice only what has utility, but then throw out all that depressing talk and just enjoy practicing.

It's funny how so many guys who train techniques that are "only for the street" can't seem to pull those techniques off "in the street" or "on the mat."

Likewise with all the people doing "knife training." I can't fathom a more dangerous person with a knife than a man who has trained unarmed boxing, clinch, and groundfighting for a few years with dedication, to a high level of skill. Now the knife is in his cross or jab hand. Now the knife is part of his neck tie and part of his underhook. Now the knife is part of his strangle and part of his arm bar and will come into play in all kinds of situations aside from those.

Guys who train primarily for the mat, always seem pretty good at pulling off their techniques "in the street" and "on the mat."

That's why I like the Straight Blast Gym stuff so much. It has all the utility it needs, without much of the stupid, grim, or depressing.

http://www.straightblastgym.com/store.htm

[bodhisattva]

I choose weapons, because, obviously "Guns Are Better."

Wait, that's kind of obvious, it would be kind of dumb to post the obvious.

---

I couldn't pick one range. They all blend together. It's a whole unit that we subdivide for sake of communication and instruction.

[Sagacious Lu]

However, from my own point of view I don't think that allocating training time to good self-protection is "paranoid". It is inherent in human nature to defend ourselves and our loved ones. The reality is, or sorry my reality has been, that these situations can occur regardless of all your efforts to avoid them. I'm a peaceful guy, but I have been forced into a range of violent confrontations over the years. Where as I agree that they should not monopolise your motivation, I don't believe self-protection can be ignored.

I didn't intend to say that training with an eye for self-defense was paranoid, nor did I mean to say that I ignore self-defense personally. I wrote my post that way because so far people have been citing the tools and advantages of their chosen range as the reason for their choice- for good reason- but I wanted to approach the question from a different angle. Don't get me wrong, I keep a shotgun handy for home protection (target practice is fun too), and I wouldn't focus so much on boxing if it weren't one of the best ways to develop practical fighting skills. However, I don't ask myself what the absolute optimum way to train is for self-defense when deciding what to work on. The reason being that the more I enjoy my training the more I train, and thus the better I get. When I decide to work on something just "because it's good for me" I start to lose my enthusiasm and when that happens my work outs start to be less productive. Obviously for a training program to be effective one MUST be disciplined and that means doing certain things whether you enjoy them or not, even if you aren't in the mood for it on a given day but what I'm getting at is, I think, what you're talking about here:

When I see the guys in the gym who stand around constantly moaning and questioning their art - I just think they are insecure about whats in their back pocket, should the shit ever hit the fan.

The point that I'm making is that for the over-whelming majority of us if we're honest with ourselves we don't train because we HAVE to we train because we love doing it. Sometimes in the process of trying to find the most bad ass way to train it's easy to lose sight of that fact- I think that mentality is the reason many of the people you're talking about in the quote above are insecure in their training.

[fire cobra]

I think building up an awarness to your suroundings the enviroment,the people around you the things around you that you could use for defence/offence etc is fun to,as much fun as a round on the pads or sparring to me.
Just this morning i was using a small stool,a wallet,and pair of shoes against a blade attack,it was great fun.
I can imagine some people turning this into paranoia,but i prefer to think of it as good awareness and great fun,especially when im the one with longer bigger weapon!

Thanks for the post. The question is completely an open one, so each person's motivation for their choice and their study is entirely their perogative.

You make some interesting points. I too focus I'd say 90% of my training currently on a ring sport, boxing, because I really love and enjoy it. I agree with you that your training time and indeed your mentality should not be infected by the constant fear of a street attack. One of my teachers once said that the average person doesn't need to spend their whole life worrying about something that may never happen, and if it does will be over in ten seconds, thats a waste of life.

However, from my own point of view I don't think that allocating training time to good self-protection is "paranoid". It is inherent in human nature to defend ourselves and our loved ones. The reality is, or sorry my reality has been, that these situations can occur regardless of all your efforts to avoid them. I'm a peaceful guy, but I have been forced into a range of violent confrontations over the years. Where as I agree that they should not monopolise your motivation, I don't believe self-protection can be ignored.

I always teach a concept called "The Core", which is that 10% of absolute nitty gritty, full on, all out, worst case scenario material for defending your life. If you have that, if you maintain and enhance it, if it is always there in your back pocket - then you can just relax and enjoy your training. When I see the guys in the gym who stand around constantly moaning and questioning their art - I just think they are insecure about whats in their back pocket, should the shit ever hit the fan.

I guess overall you made a good point in that all of this depends on your environment, line of work, area, lifestyle choices etc. These have influenced your views, my background influences my views. All interesting stuff, thanks.

[Sagacious Lu]

If you took weapons away, I'd have to change my answer to clinch range, though. Even if the other guy has a weapon, I can't hope for a disarm outside clinching range (assuming running away isn't a "range" but a tactic). So it's odd that as soon as weapons are absent, trapping range or clinch range becomes the most valuable tactical choice. Other opinions?

I have a different opinion. I haven't posted in a long time but, and I pretty much never post in the JKD forum since my experience with JKD is limited to having read (and enjoyed) Bruce's book but I'll throw my two cents into this. Obviously a weapon is the best choice if you're trying to win in a life and death situation so I agree with Mike about that range. However, my choice is punching range because in the real world I am extremely unlikely to need to defend myself and boxing is IMHO much more fun than any of the other options. I live in Atlanta and even though it ranks at the top of the list in the U.S. when it comes to crime this country is safe enough that statistically the average citizen here will never need to defend themselves from violence. Since only the military, law enforcement and private security professionals really need to be good in a "real" fight I may as well pick the one I enjoy the most. I'm not discounting the other ranges, nor do I ignore the but in this thread my choice is based solely on the basis of what gives me personally the most satisfaction. Since I do not need to use violence in my professional life I think I would have to be paranoid to put my priorities anywhere else.

[Tant01]

How about Judo with a Kerambit!

Now you're talking!

[Tant01]

Then don't answer the thread Tant my friend



....like you...

Exactly! LOL

[Tant01]

Yeah

Can I get a gladiators thumbs down for Tant for not being social.

............. LOL

2BZ these days to play here with you guys.

[JKDBrando]

Can I get a gladiators thumbs down for Tant for not being social.

[fire cobra]

LOL Define "weapons"? Tactical nuclear devices?

Okay... personal combat?

If I recall (and I do) Mike once said; "Long range marksmanship and surveillance skills. Beats Bjj every time."


I like my karambit and I also like Judo. I can't pick just one range. The idea of even asking such a thing seems meaningless unless you want to laugh at all the folks that would even consider responding to it?



Seriously? I pick "weapons" range. lol

How about Judo with a Kerambit!

I can't pick just one range.

Then don't answer the thread Tant my friend

The idea of even asking such a thing seems meaningless unless you want to laugh at all the folks that would even consider responding to it?

....like you...

[Tant01]

To quote Mr. B.

Gotta go with weapons if I'm only allowed one range. That leaves a lot more room, and a lot more effective tools to work with.

LOL Define "weapons"? Tactical nuclear devices?

Okay... personal combat?

If I recall (and I do) Mike once said; "Long range marksmanship and surveillance skills. Beats Bjj every time."


I like my karambit and I also like Judo. I can't pick just one range. The idea of even asking such a thing seems meaningless unless you want to laugh at all the folks that would even consider responding to it?



Seriously? I pick "weapons" range. lol