View Full Version : Lessons from Boxing
paul browne
13th December 2007, 18:56
Gassho,
Hi all,
This is mainly aimed at the UK kenshi but I was wondering if anyone watched the Amir Khan boxing match on Saturday.
To those who don't know he is an up-and-comming fighter the UK has high hopes for who had a match against a highly regarded opponent on Saturday. It was his 21st birthday and he must have been in a hurry to get to his party as he won the fight in 72 seconds.
Anyway the relevance is that the first damaging blow landed (the first knockdown) was described by the commentator as a hook but more closely resembled a text book chidori ashi jun zuki It isn't clear to see in this clip but it was the only one i could find, on telly they showed it in slow motion from the other side and close in.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1BwiAQBCCAs
In the post fight interview he stated he had noticed a weakness in his opponents position when he came up after ducking and he cleanly targets his kenryo/mikazuki with a very fast, hard punch that spells the beginning of the end for his opponent. Anyway whatever your opinions on boxing this was a very good illustration of the five elements of atemi in application.
Regards
Paul
Gassho
JL.
13th December 2007, 21:29
Gassho!
Actually I think he uses that Jun zuki quite a lot. More of a Chokusen technique, though. He is, indeed, really good. :)
Kesshu,
______ Jan.
paul browne
13th December 2007, 21:57
Gassho,
Hi Jan,
As you say he uses a punishing straight jab (jun zuki to us:)) a lot.
What really singled this out for me was the stepping off line to strike from an angle. Thats very common in boxing for hooks but his punch was almost straight in delivery much like chidori ashi jun zuki.
As you say he is very good,and seems likeable too, lets hope that success doesn't spoil him!!:)
Have a Happy Christmas and New Year
Paul
Kesshu
Nii
13th December 2007, 22:32
Cool fight. It reminds me of Sendou's smash in the manga Hajime no Ippo. A cross between traditional punch and uppercut. A fictional punch perhaps, but it looks awfully similar =)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KzGbsLae9_I
Richard Codling
14th December 2007, 14:55
I've never liked boxing but I do remember seeing some clips of Amir Khan after the last Olympics and was massively impressed by his 'jun zuki jodan'. Seems to be his secret weapon and is effective becase of the speed at which he moves.
dirk.bruere
14th December 2007, 20:05
One of the things that boxing can teach kenshi is what it's like to get hit. I was quite surprised the first time I got a hard contact that rotated my head, and I discovered what "seeing stars" meant. Previously that was something I thought happened only to characters in cartoons.
Dirk
Tripitaka of AA
15th December 2007, 08:27
This clip from YouTube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fHuVlPTYiNw&NR=1) shows some of those Slow-Mo replays that Paul mentioned. It does seem to have been filmed by someone off his Living Room TV (including the reflective surface of his coffee table at the bottom of the picture), so the quality is poor.
luar
17th December 2007, 03:45
Great topic and I do have more to say later but for the time being have a look at this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aiVrtP2arLk).
luar
17th December 2007, 14:34
In almost every seminar I have ever attended, boxing is always mentioned leading me to ask the question about how much of it influenced Kaiso or at least his thoughts about it.
Boxing has many important lessons for us. Most importantly, as Dirk says, is it can teach us what its like to get hit. The problem with most martial arts is that there is this underlying notion that you will never get hit. Regardless how good you are, boxing accepts that you will get hit and trains for that.
Another important lesson is the punching power as shown in the video I posted earlier. More than any other martial art, boxing delivers the most powerful punches and is something we do try to emulate in our style. Boxing knows that stance is important for delivering that power and that the hips must be used to generate that power.
Blue Popovic
17th December 2007, 17:49
More than any other martial art, boxing delivers the most powerful punches and is something we do try to emulate in our style. Boxing knows that stance is important for delivering that power and that the hips must be used to generate that power.
Hmmmm firstly boxing is nothing more than a sport. Nothing less but nothing more. The fact that it requires skills doesn't make it an art, and there certainly is nothing martial about it!
And because some boxers have devastatingly fast and/or powerful punches doesn't make boxing the best way to deliver punches.
I must say I am often amazed at the mystique surrounding "boxing"... anything that gets some people's adrenaline pumping while watching 2 human beings destroying each other's face senseless reminds me of the romans who so enjoyed gladiators tearing each other apart in the colosseum. Boxing is just it's modern version. And we're supposed to be enlightened compared to the romans!
The most brutal animal human instincts made into a bloody spectacle, given to youngsters as a valid way of enjoying oneself, promoted, glorified.
Not the most dignified way to enjoy oneself, is it???
But then again we live in a world where everything and anything goes. So as long as it generates revenue and audiences, who cares???
Outlawing boxing, yup you got my vote, anytime!
The devil's advocate, me???
Nii
17th December 2007, 21:51
I'm with Luar on this one actually. Why don't you consider boxing to be martial?
Boxers do nothing but fight with their hands. If their entire curriculum involves only punching, to do the maximum damage to your opponent while minimising damage to yourself, why wouldn't it be one of the most effective punching systems on the planet? I'm assuming the punching techniques got refined time and again over the generations until there is a sort of finesse to it. The fact that the sparring ruleset is relatively lax in terms of safety of your opponent so you can see a pretty good application of the techniques (as opposed to, say, Taekwondo).
dirk.bruere
17th December 2007, 22:55
I'm with Luar on this one actually. Why don't you consider boxing to be martial?
Boxers do nothing but fight with their hands. If their entire curriculum involves only punching, to do the maximum damage to your opponent while minimising damage to yourself, why wouldn't it be one of the most effective punching systems on the planet? I'm assuming the punching techniques got refined time and again over the generations until there is a sort of finesse to it. The fact that the sparring ruleset is relatively lax in terms of safety of your opponent so you can see a pretty good application of the techniques (as opposed to, say, Taekwondo).
The problem with boxing, from a technical MA point of view, is the big gloves. A lot of boxing technique is geared to getting past the gloves, hence the number of circular attacks. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the old bare fist fighting had a lot more straight line attacks. Anyone know anything of modern bare knuckle fighting?
And as for gladiatorial games, I have no problem with what consenting adults choose to do to each other.
Dirk
paul browne
18th December 2007, 09:30
Gassho,
When I introduced this topic I suspected a pro/anti debate might ensue.
I'm not going to expand upon it as people usually have fairly entrenched views on topics like this but I would like to make some observations.
1) Boxing is both a professional and an amatuer sport so not all participants are drawn to it by a lust for blood, money and glory.
2) Boxing may not be 'Martial' but you can argue neither is Shorinji Kempo (that got your attention:)) or any other modern self-defence discipline. For example Nii, I assume, practices Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu (TSKSR) Heiho. This art is a 400 year old tradition in the use of medieval Japanese weaponry for use on the battlefield in time of war. By their standard modern unarmed practices are stylised civilian brawling. Taken further a modern soldier would consider TSKSR not to be martial since time has rendered it irrelevant to war. If we are talking applicability to self defence then within it's obvious limitations boxing is no less martial than Shorinji Kempo's goho waza.
3) In general terms Boxing cannot be considered an art, but again one can argue that it is the practioner that elevates the activity to the level of 'art' not the activity itself. For example my crude fumblings when performing juho can scarcely be compared to the almost mystical level of skill that was attained by the late Mori Doki Sensei, that was art!. To make a more accurate comparison which shows greater artistry, the often scrappy 'chicken fighting' (to coin a Mizuno Sensei phrase) frequently seen in Shorinji Kempo randori matches or the skilled, clinical application of taisabaki, footwork and the five elements of atemi displayed by Amir Khan in the fight I opened with?
4) I too dislike watching bloody mis-matches, but this clearly didn't take place in the aforementioned bout. It was stopped by a vigilant referee when it was clear the opponent was beaten and before serious damage could occur. Comparisons to the Roman arena are emotive but don't bare real scrutiny.
5) How you feel about these matters really depends on where you draw your line in the sand. If you're an animal lover you can find objections to horse racing, showjumping, greyhound racing, fishing, dog-showing(?) etc. You can object to motor-racing as people are probably just waiting for the crashes and in the mean time the carbon emissions are drowning polar bears:).
Whether you like or approve of boxing or not you dismiss it's skills at your peril. There are a lot of (ex)amatuer boxers out there and within their range they are very dangerous, it is presumptive to assume combat superioriy just because our art is more sophisticated. Boxing training methods are effective and easily adapted to Shorinji Kempo training, the use of the heavy bag, focus mitts, evasion drills etc are all effective in improving your Shorinji Kempo,and the body movement for punches is almost identical.
Regards
Paul
Kesshu
paul browne
18th December 2007, 09:45
The problem with boxing, from a technical MA point of view, is the big gloves. A lot of boxing technique is geared to getting past the gloves, hence the number of circular attacks. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the old bare fist fighting had a lot more straight line attacks. Anyone know anything of modern bare knuckle fighting?
And as for gladiatorial games, I have no problem with what consenting adults choose to do to each other.
Dirk
Gassho,
Hi Dirk,
Thought I'd post on this seperately. I don't know anything about Modern bare-knuckle boxing (and definately don't approve of it:)) but historically boxing (pugilism, the fancy, whatever you choose to call it) used many straight punches and usually with a vertical fist. Paintings and drawings from the 1700's through to photo's of gloved boxing in the early 1900's show a vertical fist being used for all 'choku zuki' type strikes. As late as the 1920's Jack Dempsey was advocating a vertical fist for straight punches.
Daniel Mendoza (google it and you can find his manual) is credited with inventing scientific boxing in the 1700's and he introduced evasion and an emphasis on the straight punch.
I don't neccesarily think this had an influence on Shorinji Kempo's adoption of the vertical fist, it is common in China (as is the flat fist) but it does seem to be the strongest way to punch if the wrist isn't strapped.
I meant to add to my previous post;
6)To some people a comparison of Boxing and Shornji Kempo would reveal no difference. They would see the exchange of blows in Boxing and the application of pain our Juho waza, see two people hurting each other (consent not withstanding) and consider it wrong. Many years ago the then Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Roy Hattersly MP expressed the opinion that Martial Arts (all of them) added to a climate of aggression and violence, and so were undesirable in British society. (OutlawShorinji Kempo....Got his vote:))
Regards
Paul
Kesshu
luar
18th December 2007, 13:32
Gassho,
Whether you like or approve of boxing or not you dismiss it's skills at your peril. There are a lot of (ex)amatuer boxers out there and within their range they are very dangerous, it is presumptive to assume combat superioriy just because our art is more sophisticated. Boxing training methods are effective and easily adapted to Shorinji Kempo training, the use of the heavy bag, focus mitts, evasion drills etc are all effective in improving your Shorinji Kempo,and the body movement for punches is almost identical.
Highly agreed and considering all that has been said against it, it is highly ironic of the influence it has on Shorinji Kempo.
In my opinion, boxing is a martial art - how it is being used today and the image it projects is another thing.
If one needs to be really technical about what is an art versus a sport then look at Judo which was always designed to be nothing but sport. If one wants to discount it because of its savagery, then look at the origins of jujitsu or for that matter Krav Maga both of which were designed for combat fighting and not for sport.
Nii
18th December 2007, 22:05
I had completely forgotten about the big gloves in boxing, and had no idea they emphasized more on straight punches with vertical fists back in the day! Thanks for informing me about that =)
But yeah, even without the gloves, most of boxing's techniques still have practical uses. For instance, bobbing and weaving is even easier if the opponent aren't wearing gloves due to less surface area. Boxing's evasion techniques are so cool, they've helped me get out of tough situations when cross style sparring with my friends.
dirk.bruere
19th December 2007, 14:37
The problem with boxing, from a technical MA point of view, is the big gloves. A lot of boxing technique is geared to getting past the gloves, hence the number of circular attacks. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the old bare fist fighting had a lot more straight line attacks. Anyone know anything of modern bare knuckle fighting?
I've just found the old classic video of a bare knuckle fight between two guys who are pros and not kids. Title "Pikeys in Nikes", and it's been around for quite a few years. Maybe quite close to the original boxing pre Queensbury.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lDrd4TyXOG4
Dirk
Tripitaka of AA
19th December 2007, 15:24
Anyone who finds "Boxing" barbaric and objectionable should NOT watch that clip. It is brutal, ugly and painful. The three-year-old kid being given the close-up view will make for an interesting case study when he comes up for psychiatric evaluation after his first arrest...
It is, however, quite thought provoking and may be a necessary evil to endure when attempting to understand the dangers we may come up against. There are people here, apparently grown men, who have taken some satisfaction from watching, filming and taking part in grotesque violence... and they may well be the man next to you in the pub the next time you spill your drink.
Tripitaka of AA
19th December 2007, 15:38
Another point to note. Dirk's clip features a contest that appears to have quite a few rules, at least two referees, a signalled victory and survival of both participants. Self-defence situations will seldom have the benefit of those conditions. There are other clips if you want to look for them, which are far worse...
Personally, I prefer not to actively seek too much of that sort of thing, as I find it upsetting.
dirk.bruere
19th December 2007, 16:34
Another point to note. Dirk's clip features a contest that appears to have quite a few rules, at least two referees, a signalled victory and survival of both participants. Self-defence situations will seldom have the benefit of those conditions. There are other clips if you want to look for them, which are far worse...
Personally, I prefer not to actively seek too much of that sort of thing, as I find it upsetting.
Strangely, I don't.
It's not as if any innocent victims are involved.
And I've watched real street fights between adults without intervening. Of course, if the fight had turned lethal eg if one of the participants was inflicting serious damage on the other I would have intervened. Otherwise - their choice.
Dirk
paul browne
19th December 2007, 17:41
Another point to note. Dirk's clip features a contest that appears to have quite a few rules, at least two referees, a signalled victory and survival of both participants. Self-defence situations will seldom have the benefit of those conditions. There are other clips if you want to look for them, which are far worse...
Personally, I prefer not to actively seek too much of that sort of thing, as I find it upsetting.
Gassho,
Whilst distasteful such filmclips can be educational (in small doses, otherwise they are dispiriting:().
I would add from direct (though thankfully secondary) experience that the social group that are so stringent in applying rules to there own encounters won't be so concerned about granting you the same privileges.
On one occasion a colleague of mine (a nicer, milder, less offensive person you couldn't wish to meet) had his nose destroyed by a self-proclaimed bare-knuckle boxer whilst he was looking down to write out a receipt. This pugilistic hero then turned his back on officers running to the rescue, placed his hands together behind his back and loudly proclaimed that he wasn't resisting, obviously not fancying his chances against opposition that was ready and (by now more than) willing. To their credit (though not natural justice) he was secured without injury.
This activity has really no greater connection to Boxing than Shorinji Kempo has.
Regards
Paul
Kesshu
tony leith
19th December 2007, 21:57
I have to say that I have really enjoyed watching boxing at the last couple of Olympics - the limitations designed to protect the 'amateur' fighters (not if they're Cuban, they're not) allow me to enjoy the sheer skill involved in the discipline without worrying to much about irreversible brain damage being inflicted in the name of entertainment.
In terms of what we lesser mortals can learn from watching the likes of Mayweather and (possibly) young Mr Khan - pretty much 'that's what physical genius looks like', and that's it. Boxing is designed to create a fair arena in which the better man can win. This is absolutely NOT what i am looking for to happen in a self defence context.
Self defence isn't fair. Good.
Tony leith
Nii
19th December 2007, 22:02
Wait, what? This self proclaimed bare knuckle boxing decided to punch someone in the face out of the blue? That's kindof worrying for reasons other than the apparently violent nature of boxing.
So with the shift to a less straight line approach, and adaptation to glove based sparring, you guys think the effectiveness of boxing has been reduced over the years?
dirk.bruere
19th December 2007, 22:21
So with the shift to a less straight line approach, and adaptation to glove based sparring, you guys think the effectiveness of boxing has been reduced over the years?
In my opinion - yes.
Whenever a combat art is 'softened' with rules and protection (originally gloves were to protect the hands) it takes it away from reality. Compare Thai boxing with Western boxing or most MA.
Dirk
cheunglo
23rd December 2007, 06:59
Whether you like or approve of boxing or not you dismiss it's skills at your peril. There are a lot of (ex)amatuer boxers out there and within their range they are very dangerous, it is presumptive to assume combat superioriy just because our art is more sophisticated. Boxing training methods are effective and easily adapted to Shorinji Kempo training, the use of the heavy bag, focus mitts, evasion drills etc are all effective in improving your Shorinji Kempo,and the body movement for punches is almost identical.
Gassho Paul!
I had wanted to post on this thread but a busy time at work only allowed me to do this on Sunday morning! Anyways, the points I want to make are...
Anyone who finds "Boxing" barbaric and objectionable should NOT watch that clip. It is brutal, ugly and painful. The three-year-old kid being given the close-up view will make for an interesting case study when he comes up for psychiatric evaluation after his first arrest...
David, I have to dispute the charge of brutality in this clip. I observed that the clip was at 6:33 mins before anyone landed a serious punch. I think it would appear brutal to someone who was unable to see pass the hype to observe what was actually happening (not much for six and a half minutes).
The problem with boxing, from a technical MA point of view, is the big gloves. A lot of boxing technique is geared to getting past the gloves, hence the number of circular attacks. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the old bare fist fighting had a lot more straight line attacks.
Dirk, I think that you have raised a good point but this is a limitation of all martial arts - many of their defence is geared towards their own attacks. Shorinji Kempo is no different from this point of view. Whilst I agree that in a boxing match, the gloves do lengthen the time of the bout (along with rules, 3 minutes rounds et. al), from a technical angle, training with gloves encourage boxers to learn additional techniques other than the straight jab. I don't think anyone thinks that a boxer could not do a straight jab if they saw the opportunity.
I must say I am often amazed at the mystique surrounding "boxing"... anything that gets some people's adrenaline pumping while watching 2 human beings destroying each other's face senseless reminds me of the romans who so enjoyed gladiators tearing each other apart in the colosseum. Boxing is just it's modern version. And we're supposed to be enlightened compared to the romans!
The most brutal animal human instincts made into a bloody spectacle, given to youngsters as a valid way of enjoying oneself, promoted, glorified.
Not the most dignified way to enjoy oneself, is it???
I must say that I am with Paul and Dirk on this one. Anyone kenshi who is unable to see pass the ugliness and learn the lessons from clips like this should have a strong warning to their training - beware - you will not be able to actually defend yourself in an ugly fight, ie all serious fights
The British army has a saying, morale is to physical as three is to one. This means that aggression is worth three times more than technique.
Blue Popovic
23rd December 2007, 11:56
Anyone kenshi who is unable to see pass the ugliness and learn the lessons from clips like this should have a strong warning to their training - beware - you will not be able to actually defend yourself in an ugly fight, ie all serious fights
Yes indeed, fights tend to be instinctive, nasty, without rules and very ugly. it is then within each one of us to know in advance to what extent we are willing / legally allowed to go to defend ourselves.
There is sufficient "moral" room within Shorinji Kempo to take the initiative too. It is perfectly acceptable to take the initiative and floor an opponent in a pre-emptive move/strike, if we can, if we feel we'd be in immediate danger.
But we are kenshi, and fighting -using self-defense- should be used as a last resort. There are ways to diffuse situations, and they always should be explored first. Then again some people don't understand diplomacy. Animals should be treated as such.:look:
cheunglo
23rd December 2007, 15:19
Yes indeed, fights tend to be instinctive, nasty, without rules and very ugly. it is then within each one of us to know in advance to what extent we are willing / legally allowed to go to defend ourselves.
There is sufficient "moral" room within Shorinji Kempo to take the initiative too. It is perfectly acceptable to take the initiative and floor an opponent in a pre-emptive move/strike, if we can, if we feel we'd be in immediate danger.
Gassho Blue Popovic!
There is one thing that many boxing classes have going for it that most traditional martial arts, including Shorinji Kempo, gloss over. An ugly fight is NOT an intellectual exercise where you get to decide, in advance, to what extent you want to morally commit nor can you rely on being able to floor an opponent if you so decide to take the initiative.
When a highly stressful situation jumps and bites on you things that become important include your natural aggressiveness, emotional response (especially after getting hit) and what kind of day you have just had. In this case there is NO substitute for personal experience.
There was a case in the papers about a year ago of a police inspector travelling on the (London) tube who got punched savagely in the face. Perhaps some people recall it, the inspector, despite all his training, completely lost his confidence and his ability to function as a police officer.
Our training in the dojo is, to an extent, theoretical. I am not saying that this should change - what I am saying is that we need to recognise it for what it is and (more importantly) what it is not. There are some essays (http://www.members.shaw.ca/tmanifold/tell_it.htm) by other members of this forum based on actual personal experience. Similar to the initial boxing clip that Paul put up - whether or not we like their findings, we need to learn the lessons that they present.
dirk.bruere
23rd December 2007, 18:10
Gassho Blue Popovic!
There is one thing that many boxing classes have going for it that most traditional martial arts, including Shorinji Kempo, gloss over. An ugly fight is NOT an intellectual exercise where you get to decide, in advance, to what extent you want to morally commit nor can you rely on being able to floor an opponent if you so decide to take the initiative.
Hi Cheung
To some extent I disagree with this. One of the mental exercises any serious MA should do regularly is the "what if" scenario eg what if this guy suddenly lunged at me, what if I was walking down a dark alley and someone grabbed my arm etc. We should preplan as far as possible mentally for various happenings and decide *in advance* what we would do. For example, I decided long ago that if I was ever in a serious argument with a stranger and they reached into their pocket that I would hit first and hard. If they were going for their hankerchief then they have made a bad mistake. If they were going for a blade and I didn't hit first, I would be the one making the mistake. When we run these scanarios we should come up with "rules of engagement" so that we don't have to work it all out from scratch in the moment. As far as possible [Big Caveat]. Then again, as someone once said, no plan survives contact with the enemy intact, but a plan is better than nothing. We plan physically ie techiques, and we should also plan mentally.
Dirk
cheunglo
24th December 2007, 06:31
Hi Cheung
To some extent I disagree with this. One of the mental exercises any serious MA should do regularly is the "what if" scenario eg what if this guy suddenly lunged at me... We should preplan as far as possible mentally for various happenings and decide *in advance* what we would do... no plan survives contact with the enemy intact...
Gassho Dirk
I wasn't referring to not planning. I think the full quote is "No plan survives implementation but a failure to plan is planning on failure"
What I was referring to and, I believe, we have had previous discussions on this, is that no amount of intellectualising actually prepares you for the emotional roller-coaster of being suddenly faced by an unexpected violent encounter. It is well known that the surprise created by an ambush does not only give the attacker time but robs the other side of the desire to retaliate.
Technique does not replace the will to fight and the will to fight is not related to intelligence. What you are referring to is visualisation that helps both to prepare your body for violence and to calm your emotional response.
Since I believe I am aware of your thoughts on this matter, I think we are violently agreeing.
BlackPaladin
24th December 2007, 15:23
Boxing's not so bad.
The word "Pikey" (as in Piker; ethnic slur against Irish Travellers) is another story.
Kaenzig
24th December 2007, 21:42
One of the mental exercises any serious MA should do regularly is the "what if" scenario eg what if this guy suddenly lunged at me, what if I was walking down a dark alley and someone grabbed my arm etc. We should preplan as far as possible mentally for various happenings and decide *in advance* what we would do.
And I always thought I was just paranoid ;)
paul browne
24th December 2007, 21:46
Boxing's not so bad.
The word "Pikey" (as in Piker; ethnic slur against Irish Travellers) is another story.
Hi Terry,
Just wanted to point out that the phrase used was to describe the title under which the clips were posted on Youtube. I don't think anyone on this thread has used the term directly or indirectly in any other sense.
Paul
paul browne
24th December 2007, 22:46
Gassho,
Just realised I forgot to say
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!!:D
May none of you receive coal.......unless you own a coalfire and want some.
and to those who have kids, I hope they doze off at a civilized hour.
Kesshu
Paul
Kaenzig
25th December 2007, 00:28
Just realised I forgot to say MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!!
You are not alone...
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!
and it is 2.30 am as I write this so definetly not a "civilized" hour (although I am not a kid) ...
tony leith
26th December 2007, 12:54
We've gone round the houses on this one before. The fact that people who participate in full contact combat sports have experience of people genuinely trying to hit them as hard and as often as possible is obviously an advantage in self defence terms.
On the other hand, combat sports are designed to present a contest. INMO the reason for the 'rules' in most combat sports, certainly at the level where people are paying to see them, is to ensure the paying public get to see something for their money at least as much as for the protection of the participants. It would be difficult to argue that in Muay thai where knee and elbow strikes are allowed the gloves are helping very much in terms of damage limitation, likewise in MMA bouts
Mei uchi and kintenki are effective, but would afford limited entertainment value. I would suggest that our goal is NOT to get into a battle of attrition involving exchanges of blows, because in that cotext superior height and weight is very likely to be decisive.
Again it comes back to objective - if our aim is survival and extrication, then our inability to win a battle of attrition is less problematic. In the UK at least, this handily coincides with what the law deems allowable as 'reasonable force' i.e. that level of force which allows one to remove oneself from the situation of threat, not to achieve unconditional victory.
Having a 'plan' isn't I think all that helpful in conditions of great stress. Having conditioned reflexes and what Nosaka Sensei calls 'body memory' of how to respond to given stimuli might just be.
Tony leith
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.