next weeks video tutorial?

what shall we have?

so far the suggestions are ridge hand strike/ forearm strike?

how not to telegraph?

how to deal with someone who has started their attack?

have i missed any?

at some point I'd like to see getting to clinch through a guard.
for example, opponent is a boxer and, from out of range raises his hands to a boxers stance. Rather than fight him at his favoured range, clinch range might be your best bet.

obviously one option is Bobs crash through, but assuming you're going to move before he starts firing, any other tips for getting in.

How about a document helping the decision process to choose between dialogue or action.

When do you have to talk and when do you need to stop talking ?
How to read the signs ? How to choose a momentum ?

Serge

you mean like a procedural task analysis?

it would be a pretty epic endeavour unless it was the roughest of guides... you've got me thinking now Serge, I do like a bit of a challenge

Adam

thats a nice idea I certainly would like to do one on that, and it should probably be in the beta 8 syllabus too

How about something along differentiating between the combative sport mindset vs. the mindset needed for self-defense.

I spar and grapple regularly, but find myself having to "hold back" or even become complacent because of the rules involved. This causes me to give the upper hand to my opponent sometimes because to progress the way I want would cause injury - or for me to get a severe beating....LOL

hey richie,

just found your forum. looking very nice indeed.

regarding your next clip, didnt you want to talk about not wanting to drive the opponent backwards? and the result of that if it happens. so i guess some detail on how to ensure that doesnt happen. also would be nice to see you train it on the pads. you have a short vid where you say that you dont want to aim for the centre of the pad because its a clipping shot. any chance of seeing you demo the pad work to cement the method?

also a little discussion on the importance of ones elbow position when delivering that particular punch. ie due it being a clipping shot do you still want the elbow to be directly behind the fist, or it doesnt matter?

lastly (am i being greedy?) could you please demo the shot placement again to the chin a few times. just interested to see the angle you prefer to approach at. was a bit difficult to see when your friend was practicing it as her striking arm was furtherest away from the camera.

just thought it would be good to wrap up the topic of the first vid before you launch into the next one. your thoughts?

thanks,
simon

Victor, sounds good, a topic close to my heart since I fell foul of the sportive mindset a few times in scraps

Melv, yes as ever you are greedy ... but would we ever get anywhere without such traits?!

I tend to avoid demoing on the pads much because I shy away from "look at how good I am" type demos which impress but dont instruct much, but I see your point and will give it a go

Quote :

didnt you want to talk about not wanting to drive the opponent backwards? and the result of that if it happens. so i guess some detail on how to ensure that doesnt happen

this must be based on a previous convo we've had, but...erm... I dont remember it? Sorry why wouldnt I want to drive an opponent backwards?
...
ah, do you mean within the context of a ko shot? if so then yes GOTCHA! really important point

Quote :

also a little discussion on the importance of ones elbow position when delivering that particular punch. ie due it being a clipping shot do you still want the elbow to be directly behind the fist, or it doesnt matter?

how could the elbow not be behind the fist? it is attached by the forearm! can you give me an example of a punch with it "not behind the fist"? expliquez moi and I will address it for you as best I can

Quote :

lastly (am i being greedy?) could you please demo the shot placement again to the chin a few times. just interested to see the angle you prefer to approach at. was a bit difficult to see when your friend was practicing it as her striking arm was furtherest away from the camera.

I aim to please: if you or anyone can give me any suggestion of how to make this clearer i will give it a go... obviously step one is I will demo it on HER with my striking arm facing the camera

thing is, as ever, I wouldnt get too fussy over the details, a good bang in the jaw is a good bang in the jaw any day of the week?

in most fields the devil is in the details, in this field the devil is in the INTENT

snap the head round, shake the brain, make them fall over with x's on their eyes and tongues lolling out

however, in the name of thoroughness, I will wrap that one up first

Quote :

how could the elbow not be behind the fist? it is attached by the forearm! can you give me an example of a punch with it "not behind the fist"? expliquez moi and I will address it for you as best I can

behind the fist as in driving the fist forward on the same (curved) line VS more of a pawing action

Quote :

in most fields the devil is in the details, in this field the devil is in the INTENT

for sure. just after a new perspective of the basics

thanks

pawing? who punches in a pawing fashion? what da hell?

I guess you could afford that kind of sloppy thingy if you have a glove on but you wont get away with it bareknuckle

the kysuho guys have pressure point knockouts that hit down and across the chin with the base of the fist (hammer fist) is that what your thinking of?

anyhoo, its deffo straight wrist straight forearm punch fo shizzle, its pretty much the mechanics of a a boxers right cross

Richard Grannon wrote:

you mean like a procedural task analysis?

it would be a pretty epic endeavour unless it was the roughest of guides... you've got me thinking now Serge, I do like a bit of a challenge

It could be your version, your views about the " management of unknown contact " as Southnarc would say, or about the standard procedure thinking that would make you to decide to leave the fence for a preemptive action.

I am highly interested about your lecture of the external signs that would lead you to initiate an self offence action rather than a verbal judo one.

you know Serge as tempting as it is to test the old brainasium with what you suggest, I just reality checked myself:

I cant think of any situation Ive been in where I was on any doubt whatsoever about whether the person was a REAL threat who merited a preemptive dig or not

And it was never from some subtle "pre fight non verbal bodylanguage unconscious cue" it was determined by the circumstances...
i.e. he just went through a little verbal and posturing ritual that preceded smashing the other guy in the chippy, now he is doing it in front of ME

I'll be honest with you Serge I think its a seductive notion to pontificate about specific tactical subtle cues, its quite jason bourne/secret agent/ninja mind controlish, but in the real world it has very little relevance

procedural task analysis for prefight threat assessment and decision to go preemptive made simple:

1.is target being threatening?

a.if no- ignore them

b.if yes- get ready to hit them (move to 2.)

2.is target moving towards you?

a.if no- you can maybe have a chat with them (sorry "verbally deescalate" or just ignore them

b.if yes- knock the cunt flat fucking out!


If he walks into your space whilst threatening you- bang him out, simple as

Why walk towards you unless attempting to hurt or intimidate you (both illegal actions in any country)? You can hear him just as well from 10 metres away, you arent deaf.


Yeah, I like it, I made a solution(pleased with myself )... thanks for leading me there Serge and for giving me the temptation to be really analytical and intellectual about it

Im sure that's not what you were looking for, but sincerely mate, this is the one you should stick too.

Fuck the subtle cues, if he's walking towards you whilst shouting and swearing, bang him out

if he's walking towards you without shouting, tell him in no uncertain terms to "stay the fuck back!" and get your hands up and your feet set, ready to drop bombs

In fact, Richard, your point of view is how I am programmed too, coming from my life experience and my combatives background.

To be honest, I am on the grill right now, exchanging and debating with friends defending different approaches, coming from a more " let's desescalade the situation by all means rather than take the risk to have to smack down an individual and maybe have to defend ourselve in a court of law ".

well mate if i was in that argument I would ask in which country is it not considered a reasonable option if you are a civilian (WHAT I DESCRIBED ABOVE DOESNT APPLY TO DOORMEN AND POLICE) minding your own business and someone picks you out to assault you to defend yourself by hitting them before they can really get there teeth sunk unto whatever it is they are out to do?

you are minding your own business

they approach you and threaten you

you hit them once and stop as soon as they are down or you hit them just enough to make space so you can run out the chippy and hop in a taxi

if you act lawfully the law should support you, no need for a "avoid the courtroom" at all costs type mentality... its way too debilitating... in ANY field of endeavour not just SP

God if they keep down that path they will be scared to drive, go to work or even leave the house soon!

we live in the age of litigation, they need to do like Chopper Read says and
"harden the fack ap!"

if you end up in court for punching someone who starts on you at the bus stop you are very unlucky... it does happen though, something to be calmy considered, not hysterically feared

yes, he might have a glass jaw and bang his head on the way down and end up in a coma or worse... but so might you

the courts will take that into consideration, act lawfully and the system should support you

take measures to understand and play to the system obviously

Richard Grannon wrote:

well mate if i was in that argument I would ask in which country is it not considered a reasonable option if you are a civilian (WHAT I DESCRIBED ABOVE DOESNT APPLY TO DOORMEN AND POLICE) minding your own business and someone picks you out to assault you to defend yourself by hitting them before they can really get there teeth sunk unto whatever it is they are out to do?

you are minding your own business

they approach you and threaten you

you hit them once and stop as soon as they are down or you hit them just enough to make space so you can run out the chippy and hop in a taxi

if you act lawfully the law should support you, no need for a "avoid the courtroom" at all costs type mentality... its way too debilitating... in ANY field of endeavour not just SP

God if they keep down that path they will be scared to drive, go to work or even leave the house soon!

we live in the age of litigation, they need to do like Chopper Read says and
"harden the fack ap!"

if you end up in court for punching someone who starts on you at the bus stop you are very unlucky... it does happen though, something to be calmy considered, not hysterically feared

yes, he might have a glass jaw and bang his head on the way down and end up in a coma or worse... but so might you

the courts will take that into consideration, act lawfully and the system should support you

take measures to understand and play to the system obviously

In the wonderful state of Florida they passed a law in 2005 which is called the castle doctrine.

Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.


Score 1 for the law abiding citizens - 0 for the bad guys....

We are absolutely on the same tracks, Richard.