TFL martial artists

I've done TKD since I was 8. I have had some Wing Chun Kung Fu private lessons. Recently though I've studied Aikido and Iaido. I've found that the mindset and the control that we martial artists have with our bodies integrates well with any sort of discipline whether its stock market trading or firearms training. I've found that some MAs are "gun-only" hoplophobes, meaning that they love and embrace all weapons EXCEPT firearms...which is a curious thing indeed!

Dan
 
Studied karate when I was 11-12, aikido for a year, and danzan ryu jujitsu for a while. Unfortunately I seem to have lost my motivation so now I practice sit-on-ass fu. We did a few gun defense techniques in jujitsu but otherwise guns weren't really discussed. My sensei was ex-military, as well as his teacher and many of the higher belts. Many highway patrol officers also take from him. I can't really say if any of my limited training has helped me with firearm handling or not. Situational awareness yes, firearm technique...?
 
I agree that it is not hard to find an anti-gun bias in the martial arts world. In fact, I often find it applied to _any weapon_ at all!

I remember this one time I was at a wedding (a friend of the wife). I met this guy there that studied TKD and Hapkido. Naturally we got to talking. When I explained that I also studied medieval swordsmanship as a martial art he replied, "Oh, well that's not really a martial art" (and he emphasized "art"). Well at first I thought this was going to turn out to be a perpetuation of the old myths that medieval swords weighed 20 pounds and were weilded only with brute strength and no skill. However, as I talked to to him he gradually revealed that he didn't think any combat that relied on a weapon was a "true" martial art! I couldn't believe it.

Now maybe most people arn't that extreme, but there are martial artists like that out there. I shudder to think what that guy would say about guns!

Regards,
Matt
 
U.S. Army Retired
Okinawan Kempo Karate - 1st Dan
Judo - Studied two years
American Karate - Studied three years
Boxing - Two years
Kickboxing - Four years
Jr High & High School Wrestling

and many scars from the real thing.
 
probably Matt.

hi Spectre - email me at Viceroy808@hotmail.com sometime this is the ol' dragontooth73 if you remember at all :)
 
fadingbreed,

I reckon he's talking to just about anybody. I also study
Jinenkan bujutsu but so what? I study martial arts for two reasons: 1) I like them. 2) With unarmed techniques, you can't be totally disarmed. Other than that, I'll take my Kimber, thank you very much. By the same token, I'll bet on a person who has relatively little training with a sword or a knife against an expert who is totally unarmed. If a person can take an armed person who has any idea whatsoever how to handle his weapon, while unarmed, that person is a MASTER of unarmed combat. I've successfully beat the crap out of EIGHT unarmed opponents while armed with nothing but a cutoff (three foot) shovel handle. (It was dark, they were looking for me but I found them first:)) They weren't masters by any stretch of the imagination but quantity has a quality all its own. So do weapons.
 
Although I've studied martial "arts" for years, I'll caution participants that there is a difference between training for a fight in a dojo and actually being in a fight. I believe that we should learn basic moves that can be carried out under stress (being attacked isn't the same as punching air or even sparring) and that are effective after some dude sucker punches you (don't see much of that in a dojo either). Reality is that fights don't happen like in the movies and you need only a few brutal moves that will leave your attacker disabled or at least stunned long enough for you to get away. Learn what will work in a dark alley, not a dojo.
 
Blunder - That's an excellent point. So many people train technique, but forget the mental aspect (I'm guilty of this also, starting to address this). I recommend a gentleman named Tony Blauer for further research on this subject.

Rob
 
Spartacus said, "By the same token, I'll bet on a person who has relatively little training with a sword or a knife against an expert who is totally unarmed."

I have to agree for the most part. The whole unarmed versus armed debate springs out of the old cliche' of an unarmed expert being just as deadly as someone armed. I mean, I love the old Kung Fu movies, but one guy using only his hands and feet taking on someone armed with a sword? Heh, heh. I don't think so! Anyone who has done any weapons sparring (or real combat for that matter!) knows how ridiculous that is.

I think the truth behind the myth is that being highly trained in unarmed fighting can _help_ to even the balance with someone who is armed but less skilled. But to say that one's fists can be more effective (for pure danger and damage) than a knife/club/sword/what have you is just plain silly.

Regards,
Matt
 
While the UFC does have a certain amount of bogosity, it is (was?) a forum that produced some kind of reality check.

Notice that (in the UFC) once in a while ahighly trained little guy beats out of shape fat guy, but MOST OF THE TIME well-conditioned big guy beats well-conditioned little guy. (Martial arts movies to contrary.)
 
We all have our own definitions of reality. I find UFC to be very unrealistic due to the fact that I can't use weapons and my friends can't help me and the terrain is limited to a ring, also the fight is at a set time:) I've seen little guys run over the big guys on the street but they didn't do it by standing in front of them or by playing by "rules."

This reminds me of a thread with Skorzeny on Brazilian jujitsu. I was willing to stipulate that BJJ is the best one on one unarmed fighting system there is...but that still leaves the BJJ guy with two major problems related to fighting me: 1)finding me alone and 2)finding me unarmed.
 
Matt,

I would not even think of stating that there are not people who can take an armed opponent while unarmed. When this does happen I believe it is because of one of two rea firson, if not both-the armed opponent is totally ignorant of the use of the weapon or that the unarmed fighter has attained mastery in whatever fighting skills he uses.


I've got a friend who at 6'1" weighs three hundred pounds. He looks like a fat, beer swilling bubba-he is. He's also almost as fast as Bruce Lee which his opponents are definitely not expecting. And he's a berserker in the traditional Viking meaning. I've seen him fight four people at once after refusing my help. They fought in an alley. The first threw a jab and Dennis shifted his body and reached out and grabbed the guy by the nape of the neck. He then swept the guy through a 270 degree arc and slammed him face first into a cinderblock wall. He dragged the guy's face down the wall as he advanced to the next. He did the exact same thing to all of them but the last two weren't really trying to fight, they were trying to climb the walls of the deadend alley. He has no training and he doesn't practice what he does do. He's taken two people armed with revolvers. He's a master of unarmed fighting.
 
I'm a BJJ fighter. I had no problem manhandling my opponent in Detac. Sent him airborne too. He was never able to get his gun out.

Everything has it's valid points. Those of you who say that the UFC is bogus are both right and wrong. The UFC is the sport of fighting in a controlled environment. It's one on one. On the flip side, if you can't fight a single opponent in a controlled environment, what makes you think you can fight 1, 2 or 3 successfully in an environment with an unknown number of variables? You gotta be good with your hands, feet and weapons.

I'm pretty confident with my gun, but I wouldn't dare have a duel with my Kendo trained roommate. He'd kill me before I ever get to my gun. Gotta be well rounded in everything.
 
SDforce - The UFC, IMHO, rules in regard to competition here in the States. A controlled enviroment and one-on-one? Yes; however, but I think it is on of the best competition events, period. I don't believe, many of us here would fare all that well in the UFC. It can get brutal in the Octagon.
 
What makes me think I can do well against 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. is actual experience doing so using strategy as well as fighting skills. Unarmed I've beaten two opponents on two occasions and four opponents on two occasions. Not just survived- beaten them, run them off and remained in sole possession of the field of contest. As I mentioned above, I've faced eight unarmed opponents with a three foot shovel handle and prevailed. Once again, I remained in sole possession of the terrain after the fight. The difference between this and contests such as UFC? Strategy. All you have in the UFC is tactics, strength, speed, endurance, etc. The eight guys were looking for me for the purpose of beating the crap out of me. First tool of strategy-superior intelligence. I had a spy. Next, choose your terrain and time-don't let the enemy choose the battleground or set the terms of combat. Surprise-I ambushed them in the dark...everyone I encountered in the melee was an opponent-they actually started fighting each other in the confusion. Since reaching adulthood, I've been in thirty fights. I'm 27 and 3. In the three defeats, I was injured badly in each after sustaining a sucker punch from behind...I check my six a lot nowadays. Major concussions are not fun.

I've beaten a real Tueller drill from a four foot distance. My opponent suddenly grabbed a sledge hammer handle concealed on top of a tool box and aimed a blow at the top of my head. I got off the line of attack and was drawing my P35 before he could raise the hammer handle fully above his head and he was not moving slowly. As I had taken a large step to my right oblique rear, I was out of his range. When he realized that he was about a half second from being shot, he released the handle. The discussion between us had been totally amicable until he suddenly attacked.

That being said, let me make no bones about the fact that probably all UFC fighters could stomp my butt in record time in the Octagon...if I was fool enough to get in. Strategy mandates that you shield your weaknesses, avoid your opponent's strengths, choose the field of battle and the time, and strike with total surprise and overwhelming force.
The rules of the Octagon deny you the ability to do that. A superior strategist will win against a stronger, faster, and more technically adept opponent. He will win if outnumbered. He won't win by engaging in a duel.
 
Controlled Environments vs. Reality

Spartacus-

My first post here. A good thread to contribute to.

I think that your judgements about "reality fighting" are a bit harsh. Most serious martial artists understand that the "UFC" as you will, is intended to be an enclosed environment, containing basic rules of sportmanship.

The UFC fighters, especially as of late, may do extremly well against single attackers on the street, because of rock solid technique, but I believe their weakness lies in training singularly around defeating single opponents in an arena that is still based on "rules". Basically, no unintended, unknown variables.

Strategy on this (UFC/etc) level of individual combat is limited to techniques that will not immediately kill or main your opponent, and are executed with an amount of control that allow the opponent to submit if need be.

These rules of sportman ship are not offered in real life or death situations.

No eye gouging, no groin strikes, no fish hooking, no kicks while on the ground, imposed time limits, no multiple attackers, no weapons, no fellows wearing boots trying to kick your ribs in while 2 other guys hold you.

I don't see the absense of these variables taking away from the combat skills of the participants. The individual combat skills are an important aspect to any fighter, and when you add in the "reality" of fighting, which includes groin shots, using your environment as a weapon, etc, I think that most of them would make rather good partners to have in time of trouble.

I think that the main problem that most martial artists have, is not training for reality often enough. They get constipated within forms, and the "nice" part of the art, and don't practice enough groin kicks, throat strikes, and eye gouges. If you don't practice these everyday, you won't execute them when it counts. You'll throw a strike, a kick, or shoot for a takedown, and the brawler will kick you in the nuts, chop you in the throat, or kick your knee out.

Personally, when showing my wife targets, and ways to hit them, the 3 main targets I show her, are 1: groin 2: eyes 3: throat

I'm a firm believer that the superior strategist wins no matter what the environment. This has been seen in the earlier UFC by the gracies. Given the set rules, Brazillian Jiu Jitsu contained superior strategy then the other martial artists that entered the contest. If they had been better prepared, they would have realized that their styles were none-effective on the ground. Where Royce Gracies was able to capitalize upon their weakness.

GUNS:

Most of the guys that I work out with are pro-gun. Some hunt, some are Law Enforcement, some are corrections officers, some are just regular joes like you and I. There are some that like guns that don't like hunting, and there are some that just don't like guns.

It is my personal opinion that in order to call yourself a martial artist, weapong familiarity is a must. These guys that get into the "arts" and then say that weapons take the purity out of it, are living in a fantasy world, and have not done to much reading of the history around martial art and culture.

I think that if you are going to familiarize yourself with weapons, you should be familiar with as many different weapons available. Some martial artists say that a gun is just "to easy", and that "anyone can shoot someone".

They fail to see that there is an "art" to shooting. My father spent half is lifetime learning the art of shooting, and today, he is an inspiration to me, and I aspire to his skill level. His casual, offhand, hand in the pocket stance, always blows my mind. (He is almost 70)

This "art" is just delicate as the art within sword drawing, or the arts of bare handed combat. Just as an unskilled person with a sword can take 20 hacks at a small tree with a katana of quality, the skilled iaido-man will complete the cut as he draws his weapon. In one smooth action. Truly an art if I ever saw one. It is easy to see the parallel between the skilled marksman and the expert swordsman.

Breath control, relaxation, firm steady grip. These are synonomous in both disciplines.

I urge any of you reading this, to talk to your fellow martial artists that "don't like" guns. Express to them the discipline of it, the art, the skill. Shooting contains all the fundamentals of all of the other arts of japan and china combined. Maybe then they will realize that it is not the art of shooting that they don't like, but the "Feelings" that guns give them, based upon an impression they have recieved by the media.

I've said much, I'll retire now. Hope you all enjoyed my first post and all, hope I didn't offend anyone.

Kindest Regards,

Dave in Oregon

PS- i'm a student of gung-fu, brazillian jiu jitsu, and judo. (7 yrs)

PPS- for semi-full-contact stick fighting fun try - http://www.dogbrothers.com/

These guys are nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top