Narrowly specific targets

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Narrowly specific targets

Postby klonk on Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:14 pm

Something comical:

I find, in considering this, that I lack confidence in the idea of relying on only a few targets, for unarmed defense. I think this feeling is probably in error.

For, if I cannot succeed with two or three targets, why would I have more confidence if I had dozens? Wouldn't having lots of targets make my chances worse not better? There is more to screw up.

Paradoxically, I am okay with the idea of a short list of targets when weapons are contemplated; either Lamb's nightstick approach or Janich's knife approach seems reasonable. What changes when the weaponry is, instead, foot and fist? Why am I more comfortable, in that case, with lots of targets? I think my feelings on the subject are unreasonable.

A part of it may be early-life exposure to the charts in martial handbooks that show all the many places to hit, without any indication provided that I should be thinking seriously about just a few of them. On other pages, there were the very many ways of attacking the points. I early on got the impression that this stuff has a lot of complexity to it.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Narrowly specific targets

Postby klonk on Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:37 pm

So, again looking at this from the mostly-a-striker perspective, knee and collarbone are good targets. These from Lamb's method. (Janich's targets would seem to require a knife to do damage reliably.)

The head, throat and neck are too good to give up, in terms of a target-rich environment for a striker. This from the Shotokai, from boxing, and from anyone else who has thought about it.

The right shot to the carotid baroreceptors, or a solid jolt to the cerebrum, will postpone further festivities to a better day. The ground fighter wants to put his arm, or maybe his legs, around your neck. There is no fight stopper like loss of consciousness.

Granting that one may need feints, ruses, setups and "second intention fencing" to get there, is that short target list sufficient for self-defense?

Militaria, bon mot department: Having a plan is the mark of an officer. Having a good plan is the mark of a good officer.
Last edited by klonk on Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Narrowly specific targets

Postby klonk on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:02 pm

fuga wrote:If you are looking at armed self-defense (which is what your initial examples are), I would tend to think, depending the whether the weapon is blunt/sharp or long/short, that the primary targets will either be the head/neck or the weapon hand.


Fuga has eaten too much fugu. The question involves unarmed combat.

klonk wrote:What I want to know is whether this narrowly focused and anatomy-based approach seems sound and useful, and whether adapting something like it to unarmed self-defense seems sensible and feasible.
Last edited by klonk on Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Narrowly specific targets

Postby Steve James on Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:10 pm

I'd say that the targets are essentially the same whether armed or unarmed. What will change is the method of destruction or control. The vulnerable areas of the body are vulnerable to all weapons. You wouldn't use a bat the same way you'd use a sword or a knife. Hitting or cutting the back of the knee or front of the wrist will work.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 16075
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Narrowly specific targets

Postby klonk on Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:09 pm

Steve James wrote:I'd say that the targets are essentially the same whether armed or unarmed. What will change is the method of destruction or control. The vulnerable areas of the body are vulnerable to all weapons. You wouldn't use a bat the same way you'd use a sword or a knife. Hitting or cutting the back of the knee or front of the wrist will work.


That is quite true. I suppose that leaves open only the question of how to attack with maximum effect, given the limitations of the body's natural weapons, and that will vary according to which target you are going after.

I suppose the old principle of "maximum efficiency with minimum effort" is the best guide. I will leave aside, for now, attacks on the head and neck. That is old ground for most of us. Likewise body-shot targets that knock the wind out. I'll focus on attacks that make the opponent unable to use an arm or a leg.

There appears to be little material online or in books that looks at the question from this particular slant, but it appears to be a useful investigation.

So far, two attacks that stand out as practical are hammerfist against clavicle and heel kick against knee. I refer to the frontal heel kick done with the toes of the kicking foot turned a bit outward, which is in some martial arts but not others. Of course there are other ways to kick the knee.

Attacking the collarbone is surprisingly challenging if your assailant has raised his arms, as assailants are wont to do. This requires study.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6354
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Previous

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest