4 ms·

"Fascinating history. It's strange to see what the various jujitsu-descended arts choose as their comfort level with injury." I think is not strange. This osci

"Fascinating history. It's strange to see what the various jujitsu-descended arts choose as their comfort level with injury." I think is not strange. This oscillation is normal. There is a tension in all the martial arts that serious practicants are very aware of. If you practice only the form, where you can practice everything, you are not really practicing, because you are not used to what means a real fight. In the other hand is impossible to practice in a total realistic way because is dangerous and not healthy. The same tension translate to competition. When you start making rules it stop being a real combat, but without rules is impossible to have competition. In the Brazilian Jujitsu combats, for instance, there are a lot of things that are forbidden and you never train for (attack the eyes, break fingers..) but you would find in a "street fight" As the bio mechanics are the same for all the martial arts, we are all humans after all, I think that one of the more important things that determine a martial art "shape" is how it solve this tension between form and combat. The other more important being where your focus is (for instance stand up vs. floor, or grappling vs. punching). What you describe is the natural movement in those axis.

mcv 11y ago
I've done about one month of Pencak Silat many years ago, and in that month, I learned to attack the eyes (a whip with the fingers to cause pain or temporarily blind) and how to rip out a throat. It was obviously not done as sport. And yet this was also a fairly defensive style where every move started from a dodge and you never attacked with a fist. But it was a very aggressive defense.
- V-2 11y ago
  The problem with "deadly" styles and moves is known as Kano paradox (after Jigoro Kano the judo founder, not the Mortal Kombat Kano ;) ), or alternatively a randori paradox. It boils down to that: you can learn eye-gouging, but you can't really practice it, so it ends up less effective than more "modest" and safer techniques. Learning to rip out throats without actually ever ripping it lacks lacks in the so-called aliveness aspect: https://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU https://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU
  - qrendel 11y ago
    Additionally to that, it's also not particularly useful in most situations even if it can be performed effectively. Unless you're truly in imminent danger for your life then killing someone will likely be a hugely disproportionate reaction, especially if done in such a brutal way as ripping out throats, and will lead to some serious consequences like long jail time, getting sued for medical bills, etc. There's a common (apocryphal?) story about an untrained guy who got into fight with an experienced grappler. The grappler got the takedown, got on top and was beating on him a little to show he'd won. Then right when he was about to stop and let him go, the guy tries to stick his fingers in his eyes. He ends up getting completely brutalized by his now really upset opponent who had already won and wants to punish the loser for trying to permanently blind him rather than just accept he'd lost. You basically stop being the victim and become the aggressor at that point, so it's good to be able to de-escalate a fight without having to severely maim the other person. Having a small repertoire of techniques that can only be used to kill or maim someone leaves you vulnerable in a huge number of self-defense scenarios.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      No. The part about "and was beating on him a little to show he'd won" tells me that the guy on top is now the aggressor. The guy getting beat on does not know when the other guy will stop, or even if he will ever stop. Given that he got "completely brutalized" for using a maiming technique in self-defense against an opponent that clearly outmatched him, my hindsight judgment is that it would have been justified for anyone present to threaten lethal force to stop the fight, simply to prevent further injury to the loser. This is why you avoid fights in civilized society, and disengage as quickly as possible if you cannot. The best fighter in the world is the one who can run away the fastest.
      - qrendel 11y ago
        I can certainly see why someone would find the entire story disgusting, and the point isn't to imply fights are fun tests of machoness. The point is not to escalate a fight if you're going to lose it anyway. To continue your example, if someone had chosen to threaten lethal force, they would have been escalating it yet again, and may have just as well ended up getting killed themselves. (For example, if the other person had an armed group of friends nearby.) The entire hypothetical thing is an example of how things can get out of hand really fast. The main reason I brought it up was that a lot of people think of eye gouges and groin shots as a "get out of jail free" card in a fight, and doing so has a good chance of getting them seriously hurt against someone who will not be stopped by it. That aside, I certainly agree with this part: >This is why you avoid fights in civilized society, and disengage as quickly as possible if you cannot.

mcv 11y ago

I've done about one month of Pencak Silat many years ago, and in that month, I learned to attack the eyes (a whip with the fingers to cause pain or temporarily blind) and how to rip out a throat. It was obviously not done as sport. And yet this was also a fairly defensive style where every move started from a dodge and you never attacked with a fist. But it was a very aggressive defense.

V-2 11y ago
The problem with "deadly" styles and moves is known as Kano paradox (after Jigoro Kano the judo founder, not the Mortal Kombat Kano ;) ), or alternatively a randori paradox. It boils down to that: you can learn eye-gouging, but you can't really practice it, so it ends up less effective than more "modest" and safer techniques. Learning to rip out throats without actually ever ripping it lacks lacks in the so-called aliveness aspect: https://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU https://youtu.be/imjmLWj5WCU
- qrendel 11y ago
  Additionally to that, it's also not particularly useful in most situations even if it can be performed effectively. Unless you're truly in imminent danger for your life then killing someone will likely be a hugely disproportionate reaction, especially if done in such a brutal way as ripping out throats, and will lead to some serious consequences like long jail time, getting sued for medical bills, etc. There's a common (apocryphal?) story about an untrained guy who got into fight with an experienced grappler. The grappler got the takedown, got on top and was beating on him a little to show he'd won. Then right when he was about to stop and let him go, the guy tries to stick his fingers in his eyes. He ends up getting completely brutalized by his now really upset opponent who had already won and wants to punish the loser for trying to permanently blind him rather than just accept he'd lost. You basically stop being the victim and become the aggressor at that point, so it's good to be able to de-escalate a fight without having to severely maim the other person. Having a small repertoire of techniques that can only be used to kill or maim someone leaves you vulnerable in a huge number of self-defense scenarios.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    No. The part about "and was beating on him a little to show he'd won" tells me that the guy on top is now the aggressor. The guy getting beat on does not know when the other guy will stop, or even if he will ever stop. Given that he got "completely brutalized" for using a maiming technique in self-defense against an opponent that clearly outmatched him, my hindsight judgment is that it would have been justified for anyone present to threaten lethal force to stop the fight, simply to prevent further injury to the loser. This is why you avoid fights in civilized society, and disengage as quickly as possible if you cannot. The best fighter in the world is the one who can run away the fastest.
    - qrendel 11y ago
      I can certainly see why someone would find the entire story disgusting, and the point isn't to imply fights are fun tests of machoness. The point is not to escalate a fight if you're going to lose it anyway. To continue your example, if someone had chosen to threaten lethal force, they would have been escalating it yet again, and may have just as well ended up getting killed themselves. (For example, if the other person had an armed group of friends nearby.) The entire hypothetical thing is an example of how things can get out of hand really fast. The main reason I brought it up was that a lot of people think of eye gouges and groin shots as a "get out of jail free" card in a fight, and doing so has a good chance of getting them seriously hurt against someone who will not be stopped by it. That aside, I certainly agree with this part: >This is why you avoid fights in civilized society, and disengage as quickly as possible if you cannot.