Terry Brown's bare-fist techniques

[Kevin Holmes]

"Yeah, its 100% about context... You are comparing a combat fighting "style" with a "sport". In a combat, your only intent is to kill your enemy, any victory other than that is just a game.... "combat is not a game, its life and death." But you are absolutly correct. "

“Since 1900 their have been over 1000 documented deaths in boxing (http://www.grapplearts.com/Mixed-Martial-Arts-3.htm).”

This was stated by Rob Braniff IRRC

How can you say that is not dangerous? Sport Jiu-Jutsu was not allowed in the olympics because of the amount of chokes. I was told this by Chris Blanke, either of us could be wrong, but death is very possible. MMA competitions were orriginally just a brawl inside a cage or ring. I can say from experience that some people do not "let" you submit. It is very very possible to skip over that completely to break an individual in many ways.

Thai boxing is a sport, but they had to put down rules because of so many deaths.

In essence, any martial art is designed to injure or disable with the possibility of death. Judo and Tae Kwan Do and others...i'll argue that they are most definitely combat sports, and will argue their effectiveness.

I would not agree with the techniques presented in the book that are described, but i do not agree with a lot of techniques in multiple areas. By no means am I saying that this would not work or that combat sports are sports, while that was designed for war, I would still argue that any fighting style is designed for combat. Even wrestling can be used for combat. Infact, I've used a take down to knock people out, i was worried that i broke people's neck's multiple times or that they wouldn't get up.

[LynGrey]

"Yeah, its 100% about context... You are comparing a combat fighting "style" with a "sport". In a combat, your only intent is to kill your enemy, any victory other than that is just a game.... "combat is not a game, its life and death." But you are absolutly correct. "

“Since 1900 their have been over 1000 documented deaths in boxing (http://www.grapplearts.com/Mixed-Martial-Arts-3.htm).”

This was stated by Rob Braniff IRRC

How can you say that is not dangerous? Sport Jiu-Jutsu was not allowed in the olympics because of the amount of chokes. I was told this by Chris Blanke, either of us could be wrong, but death is very possible. MMA competitions were orriginally just a brawl inside a cage or ring. I can say from experience that some people do not "let" you submit. It is very very possible to skip over that completely to break an individual in many ways.

Thai boxing is a sport, but they had to put down rules because of so many deaths.

In essence, any martial art is designed to injure or disable with the possibility of death. Judo and Tae Kwan Do and others...i'll argue that they are most definitely combat sports, and will argue their effectiveness.

I would not agree with the techniques presented in the book that are described, but i do not agree with a lot of techniques in multiple areas. By no means am I saying that this would not work or that combat sports are sports, while that was designed for war, I would still argue that any fighting style is designed for combat. Even wrestling can be used for combat. Infact, I've used a take down to knock people out, i was worried that i broke people's neck's multiple times or that they wouldn't get up.

The key thing is rules... in wrestling, karate, JuJjitsu, Kempo, Thai... do they teach you to bite out the guys throat while burring your thumbs into brain matter thru his eye sockeys? Yeah thats the difference in a combat sport and real combat.

[Mike Cartier]

The key thing is rules... in wrestling, karate, JuJjitsu, Kempo, Thai... do they teach you to bite out the guys throat while burring your thumbs into brain matter thru his eye sockeys? Yeah thats the difference in a combat sport and real combat.

Sure but you seem to forget several historical facts, firstly the Greeks practiced a form of No Hold Barreds fighting with only 2 rules, no biting or eye gouging. This was also the same ruleset used in the early UFC.
The only penalty in fact was in Ancient Pankration they would beat you with a stick, in the early UFC they would fine you. In both cases the fight would continue. Biting and eye gouging are not magic techniques, they need to be set up with leverage and defense that same as anything you do. If you do not have a good position on the person you will not get the leverage to do these techniques.

The other aspect you're forgetting is noone can train to bite and eye gouge through peoples brain matter, you can pretend but you cannot do it, in combat sports you can complete many techniques in uncooperative free play. Combat sports teach you excellent timing, distance , footwork,. conditioning, delivery of power etc all things essential to fighting.

[/quote]

[LynGrey]

Biting and eye gouging are not magic techniques, they need to be set up with leverage and defense that same as anything you do. If you do not have a good position on the person you will not get the leverage to do these techniques

Not so much as punching him in the chest, or face or kicking properly.. it's alot easier to deal damage with the eye gouging and biting more so than normal striking.

The other aspect you're forgetting is noone can train to bite and eye gouge through peoples brain matter, you can pretend but you cannot do it, in combat sports you can complete many techniques in uncooperative free play. Combat sports teach you excellent timing, distance , footwork,. conditioning, delivery of power etc all things essential to fighting.

There are ways to train. Second off all the things of what combat sports can trian in are true. its all part of the muscle memory. They are all good things, but they aren't sure fire winners. What most don't teach are unfair fights, fights where you are caughtly completely off guard, or even the proper conviction to come out unharmed. I've scraped a few blackbelts off the floor in clubs and bars before.. its a shame.

[Gene Tausk]

Biting and eye gouging are not magic techniques, they need to be set up with leverage and defense that same as anything you do. If you do not have a good position on the person you will not get the leverage to do these techniques

Not so much as punching him in the chest, or face or kicking properly.. it's alot easier to deal damage with the eye gouging and biting more so than normal striking.

The other aspect you're forgetting is noone can train to bite and eye gouge through peoples brain matter, you can pretend but you cannot do it, in combat sports you can complete many techniques in uncooperative free play. Combat sports teach you excellent timing, distance , footwork,. conditioning, delivery of power etc all things essential to fighting.

There are ways to train. Second off all the things of what combat sports can trian in are true. its all part of the muscle memory. They are all good things, but they aren't sure fire winners. What most don't teach are unfair fights, fights where you are caughtly completely off guard, or even the proper conviction to come out unharmed. I've scraped a few blackbelts off the floor in clubs and bars before.. its a shame.

I think you are missing the point here. As Mike C has already stated, although it is true that sport systems have rule based limitations, they still teach participants the essential core techniques of fighting: timing, distance, technique, attitude and perception. Once these skills are learned, the person is well on his way to being a formidable fighter.

Also, the skill sets learned can easily translate to other fighting systems. For example, although Greco-Roman wrestlers are limited in their techniques to the upper body, they learn these techniques extremely well and develop the ability to pull off throws and other techniques from these limitations. This is why GR practitioners have done well in NHB contests. Look at Alexei Karelin (voted greatest GR wrestler of the 20th century). Do you really want to piss this guy off?

I agree there are some sport combative systems that have become so artificial that what they have to teach is, for all intents and purposes, useless in any type of "real fighting." Modern sport fencing is an example of this. Also, unfortunately, some "black belts" in some systems get these belts by never having to really fight in earnest, hence, they get picked off the floor. However, these are not examples of real combat sports IMHO. A list of what I would consider effective combat sports are (and I note this is not a complete list, just off the top of my head): wrestling (both freestyle and Greco-Roman), judo, Brazilian jujutsu, sambo, Olympic style taekwondo, boxing and Kyokushinkai karate. These systems teach the five essential basics of fighting noted above.

[LynGrey]

Don't forget mentality... thats if far more important than anything else.

[Gene Tausk]

Don't forget mentality... thats if far more important than anything else.

I said that attitude was one of the critical 5 elements. I believe your definition of "mentality" us the same as what I am talking about.

[LynGrey]

attitude is a narrower scope of mentality to me. sorry about that.

[Stewart Sackett]

Hi, This is my first time posting on these forums. I’m always interested to see what others have to say but until now have not felt that my own level of knowledge warranted any comments on my part.

Human biomechanics don’t really change so, in my opinion, variations in fighting styles must be attributed to environmental (for example differences in terrain), technological (weapons/protective equipment or the lack thereof) or cultural differences (warfare vs. duel vs. sport). Whenever I see variations between seemingly effective arts I, therefore, try to understand the underlying environmental, technological & cultural differences in the history of those arts which lead to these differences. It is, for example, completely understandable that knightly Ringen would emphasize grappling over striking; as unarmed blows are not likely to be effective against plate armour & wrestling a weapon from an armed opponent is a surer strategy then exchanging bare handed blows with someone as they strike at you with a blade.

I’m saying all this to explain the perspective from which I approach this sort of inquiry & to make perfectly clear that I’m not questioning the effectiveness of old pugilism only endeavoring to understand the difference between that style & others which I have more personally experienced. My own experience with boxing is in the modern “Crazy Monkey” style, invented by Rodney “Chico” King, that has become popular in MMA.

With all that preambling done: I read Mr. Brown’s post & had some comments & questions…

“Please note that early boxers were at pains to maintain as great a distance as possible to prevent the application of head butts, throws, sweeps, etc. In order to maximize reach of arms the elbows must be kept high, lowering the elbows shortens the range and puts you in reach of the aforesaid, it also reduces your defensive reaction time.”

First of all, let me just admit that I’m a little perplexed by the second half of this statement: “In order to maximize reach of arms the elbows must be kept high, lowering the elbows shortens the range”. I can’t honestly say I understand any reason the elbows cannot rise when a punch is thrown & so see no compelling reason that elbow height preceding a punch would effect striking range.

As for the first part of the quote, that’s where I have questions. While it makes sense that people would want to avoid being head butted or taken to the ground it seems reasonable that they’d still want to be able to apply such techniques themselves. While I understand how distance is closed to clinch under the Crazy Monkey system I’m not clear on how the old pugilist stances were used offensively in this regard. Could someone please clarify?

“If you are fighting within rules that bar those things then fine, if not you could have problems.”

This is another area where I’m a little nonplused. Keeping your arms extended would seem to me to make it easier for an opponent to get inside your arms thus entering into the clinch & facilitating head butting more than a guard which keeps the hands back.

“One of the things historically taught was the bar or gate where the forearm was placed across the solar plexus. As for bending your back in order to place your elbow in front of your stomach (If I Understood You Correctly) this widespaces both head and side of body.”

Again, I don’t question the historical accuracy of the bare-knuckle techniques it’s just that the arguments for their necessity in place of the more modern techniques don’t seem to hold water for me.

It’s true that the Crazy Monkey guard (slightly hunched, hands on head, elbows low) does offer less protection to the abdomen then it does the head but it still serves as an effective defense of the torso & as Mr. Brown himself pointed out: “lower targets are protected by distance and measure to a greater degree than the higher targets”.

[Mike Cartier]

This is the "crazy monkey" from classical Greece
http://historical-pankration.com/archiv ... iveid=1104

[Stewart Sackett]

Yep. The perspective & posture is a little stylized but that’s basically it. The fighter on the left seems to be using his lead elbow to slip past his opponents punch (in this case a straight cross thrown with an open palm) to close the distance & is keeping his guard high on the right to defend against the second blow which the right side fighter is preparing. As I said, there are a few oddities but they can all be attributed to the artistic conventions of the time.

There’s no new thing under the sun.

For anyone unfamiliar with the Crazy Monkey style I found a promotional video. Here’s the link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5978343371105054251&q=Straight+Blast+Gym&hl=en

It’s only fair to note that the Instructor, Rodney king, does seem to land his most effective blows against the body. However, I believe this is more a reflection of his skill (& his preferred targets) then an indication of any inherent weakness in the style.

[terry brown]

[quote="Stewart Sackett"]Hi, This is my first time posting on these forums. I’m always interested to see what others have to say but until now have not felt that my own level of knowledge warranted any comments on my part.

With all that preambling done: I read Mr. Brown’s post & had some comments & questions…

“Please note that early boxers were at pains to maintain as great a distance as possible to prevent the application of head butts, throws, sweeps, etc. In order to maximize reach of arms the elbows must be kept high, lowering the elbows shortens the range and puts you in reach of the aforesaid, it also reduces your defensive reaction time.”

First of all, let me just admit that I’m a little perplexed by the second half of this statement: “In order to maximize reach of arms the elbows must be kept high, lowering the elbows shortens the range”. I can’t honestly say I understand any reason the elbows cannot rise when a punch is thrown & so see no compelling reason that elbow height preceding a punch would effect striking range.
>
>
The stance as shown is your starting position, your position of maximum advantage. It is designed to maintain the 'place', ie, it forces your opponent to use wide spaces and false times to reach you. It is during his use of these false times and wide spaces that you will deliver your attacks. >
>

As for the first part of the quote, that’s where I have questions. While it makes sense that people would want to avoid being head butted or taken to the ground it seems reasonable that they’d still want to be able to apply such techniques themselves.
>
>
Of course they would want to apply these methods themselves and they would do so when their opponent was disordered, that is to say was wide-spaced or false-timed.>
>
“If you are fighting within rules that bar those things then fine, if not you could have problems.”

This is another area where I’m a little nonplused. Keeping your arms extended would seem to me to make it easier for an opponent to get inside your arms thus entering into the clinch & facilitating head butting more than a guard which keeps the hands back.
>
>
This is just not the case because this stance allows you to control the place. I have had many boxers and coaches, professional and amateur, train with me and they all said the same thing, that they found it extremely difficult to get past this stance. In any case on the occasions that opponents get past they then become vulnerable to hammer-fists, knee strikes, elbow shots, and locks.>
>
>
“One of the things historically taught was the bar or gate where the forearm was placed across the solar plexus. As for bending your back in order to place your elbow in front of your stomach (If I Understood You Correctly) this widespaces both head and side of body.”

Again, I don’t question the historical accuracy of the bare-knuckle techniques it’s just that the arguments for their necessity in place of the more modern techniques don’t seem to hold water for me.
>
>
That's fair enough but the only way to find the answer is to study the sources and I have studied the sources for twenty-five years. I can only repeat what I said before, that different systems use different methods.>[/i]>
>
I don't visit forums very often, lack of time, so if you reply further and you don't get a reply please don't be offended.[/i]

[Stewart Sackett]

It is designed to maintain the 'place', ie, it forces your opponent to use wide spaces and false times to reach you. It is during his use of these false times and wide spaces that you will deliver your attacks. >

I take it by this that you mean it forces your opponent to encounter your arms before they can enter a range from which to strike at your body.

Thank you for your courteous response. It does clear things up for me somewhat & I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no substitute for personal experience, rigorous study & practical training.

[terry brown]

It is designed to maintain the 'place', ie, it forces your opponent to use wide spaces and false times to reach you. It is during his use of these false times and wide spaces that you will deliver your attacks. >

I take it by this that you mean it forces your opponent to encounter your arms before they can enter a range from which to strike at your body.
>
>
Yes, that is what I mean. I do recall seeing old photos of thai boxers holding their arms in a not too dissimilar position, although never having trained in that system I would hesitate to say the reasons are the same.
>
>
Thank you for your courteous response. It does clear things up for me somewhat & I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no substitute for personal experience, rigorous study & practical training.

>
>
My pleasure. I would also add that I am a great fan of modern boxing and make use of some of its training methods, especially for developing punching power. >
>
Best wishes,
Terry Brown
Company of Maisters of the Science of Defence