Enforcer of Northeast Anti-Silliness Department Inc.
Posted On:9/27/2006 9:25pm
Style: Kaju, BJJ, Judo, Kempo
Well I've searched a bit, but I don't think this has been done before. I want this to be a thread where everyone shares a theory or concept that idealy a) is put off as too deadly or b) is meant to nullify a conveniently "alive" fighting style/technique yet is completely flawed and removed from reality. I think giving a brief description, the style of MA you learned it in, and analysis as to why it is flawed will help alot in disillusioning students of BS artists, especially those who are too d34dly to spar.
I'll start with a few choice ones I've heard in my day.
Weapon Destruction: Also known as "limb destruction." The basic idea here is to damage your opponents arms and legs (their "weapons) to the point that they are no longer fit to continue attacking you. You will often hear analogies along the lines of, "If your opponent has a gun (weapon) and you get it away from him, then that weapon no longer poses a threat to you. If you take away their ability to punch, then that arm no longer poses a threat to you."
The problem with this lies in the fact that while you are trying to knuckle punch the bicep, they are succeeding in punching you in the face. Proponents of this crap often will argue that they "can't" do the move on you in sparring, because they might cause irreparable damage, and often claim that after 'teh destruction' they would be following up with a laundry list of deadliness such as elbows to the jaw, groin kicks, and throat grabs/strikes. Keep in mind these guys, "DON'T PLAY AROUND" (at least in their own minds), and sparring is nothing but a game to them.
The often cited cop-out to prove their theory is legit is to point to the ring where MT fighters frequently drop opponents with cut kicks to the thigh and leg. They fail to account for the fact that they are constantly protected during those strikes, as well as setting them up to be executed in reality. Just because striking one limb makes sense, doesn't grant validity to all other attempts, nor should it be discounted that it's more practical to kick low (rather than high) than it is to punch low (rather than high...to the jaw).
Rebounding: Rebounding is a theory of continuous motion, often touted by those who failed physics in high school. The concept is to keep your hands moving continuously to not give your opponent a moments rest if he (on the off chance) were so skilled to stop your strikes. You can tell someone is "rebounding" by the sound of them slapping themselves in the chest repeatedly in between strikes (usually are chops, knife hands, low vertical punches and backfists).
You will often hear in defense of this theory, other PROVEN scientific theories such as "an object in motion will stay in motion." They argue that your hand is literally 'bouncing' off of your chest, thus gaining in speed and power...so theoretically the more they block the worse position they are getting into. The other often touted defense is of course a comparison to something proven....boxing. Boxers often roll their shoulders to keep loose and to keep continous motion so that their strikes are not telegraphed. Since boxers stay in motion....and rebonding stays in motion, they are clearly the same thing!
The problems with this theory are simple. a) you are dropping your guard, and will undoubtedly be punched in the face and b) Your hand hitting your chest, and then reversing direction means that scientifically your hand at one point stopped moving, and thus the entire concept of continous motion goes out the window. Your hands are NOT made of rubber, and do not compress to create a greater velocity after impact.
Knowing is not enough, you must apply...
...Willing is not enough you must do ~Bruce Lee
Posted On:9/27/2006 9:26pm
One I'd like to see is this elusive idea that ninjas have of keeping the space or something. There's some japanese word for it I think.
Posted On:9/28/2006 7:18am
Style: Kali/Jun Fan/CSW
I think the word you're looking for is "Kukan" and the only reason it's elusive is because it can be quite hard to get a straight answer out of a ninja.
As far as I can gather, having good position and control of your partner in grappling (put enough of your weight near his hips while holding side control to avoid easy escapes etc.) or having good ring control would be prime examples of controlling the kukan or active space.
Of course, this is coming from a self-admitted ninjer who's trying to make sense of it all instead of joining the smoke-blowing choir.
I'd like to leave this world like I came into it: Screaming, naked & covered in someone else's blood
Posted On:9/28/2006 7:24am
Style: Muay Thai (BJJ hiatus)
Why the Guard doesn't work in reality
This was one my old Kung Fu teacher used to come out with. Basically, the guard doesn't work in real life because the other person will attack your groin. Incidentally this was also why the UFC isn't realistic.
Posted On:9/28/2006 7:37am
Style: Yoseikan Budo
I had never come across the Rebounding theory before, I had seen people striking their chest in between punch but I thought it was for show purpose to make more noise so the crowds go 'hoaaa' I had no idea there was a stupid theory like that behind it.
Aikido theory :
A kick is like a Punch : The theory here is that if you can move out of the way of a punch then a kick is the same thing but lower. That's kind of ok for a straight kick but completely dismisses all the other kicks or the kicks that start low but end in your face or vice versa.
Of course this theory is never tested since it's kinf of hard to find someone that CAN kick in most Aiki dojo's I have seen. It completely misses the fact that the dinamic of a kick (speed, power and well the simple biomechanic of a leg) is very different from a punch.
Martial Arts is like sex, if you over complicate it with exotic sounding names, theories and principles, you end up fucking yourself in the ass. -Ronin69
Posted On:9/28/2006 8:00am
Style: Shotokan Karate
What about the old favourite:
90% of fights go to the ground
Often used to imply that groundwork is much more important than striking since street confrontations will reliably end up in a ground-wrestling scenario. I've yet to see anybody cite a credible survey that backs up this theory but it's been quoted so often that people often accept it at face value because of its familiarity.
Perhaps 90% of fights end with one person on the ground (injured or knocked out or having fallen). Perhaps 90% of fights where one or both or the participants is skilled in wrestling go to the ground. Perhaps 90% of professional MMA fights go to the ground and this has been misinterpreted because "MMA is the closest thing to real fighting". But I seem to remember that some dude who surveyed closed circuit camera footage of assaults found that the most common scenario was slugging punches to the head, not takedowns.
I had never come across the Rebounding theory before
Yeah, me neither. Weird one that. Punching yourself in the chest as a means of hurting your enemy. I hope if I ever get in a street fight that the person is a practitioner of this technique and proceeds to beat the crap out of themself.
Posted On:9/28/2006 8:14am
I think the x% of fights go to the ground is from a survey on Police Arests which was then blown out of proportion by people with an agenda.
1% Shark is better than you.
Posted On:9/28/2006 8:19am
Attacking the Centerline
How has no one mentioned the greatest BS theory of all time? The WC theory that going straight up the middle and limiting your opponents attacks down the middle will overwhelm everyone. This is my favorite because it tends to completely ignore low round kicks that anyone with eyes can see working all the time.
The argument is that that is only a main theory of the first form but I have to wonder why you would teach people how to fight badly before teaching them anything else. Also, in my experience people spend so much time learning to fight this way they always tend to drop into the old habit under pressure even when they "know" better.
Posted On:9/28/2006 8:37am
I like the idea of this thread. I do think we should be careful about the context of the theories we're talking about. A good example of this is with the Weapon Destruction principle. In an empty hand context I agree with Kempofist, that it's overblown and really not a very efficient tactic.
In a weapon context on the other hand, that is the majority of the long range game and is the set up for a lot of medium and close range tactics. This tactic is seen in Kendo, sabre fencing, tai chi fencing, Filipino martial arts, and I believe in some of the older sword styles from Europe (I'm not certain on that one). It is a staple of weapon based fighting and is pretty useful because a good cut with a sword on the weapon hand can make the fight a lot easier.
So what might be a low probability tactic in one arena is the foundation of another. From reading Kempofist's post, it does look like he meant this for empty hands because all of his examples are for empty hands. I think that a lot of people take the idea of Weapon Destruction from a weapon based style.
A lot of FMA people teach this way because they get to import all of the movements from their weapon work into their empty hand style. Sometimes, it just feels like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole because there are some things that are efficient with weapons and are not efficient with empty hands and vice versa.
Just my 2 cents
Gnarly King of Half-Guard
Posted On:9/28/2006 8:38am
Originally Posted by KempoFist
Your hands are NOT made of rubber, and do not compress to create a greater velocity after impact.
Um... even if they were, they couldn't possibly gain speed by bouncing off your chest. You can't gain energy by colliding with something stationary.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info