Loroi abilities, and Loroi Judo

[junk]

The kata's versus actual sparring is pretty much a problem in every single civilian martial art. Kata's make rank progression easy and look flashy. So a lot of people eat them up and a lot of teachers tend to focus on them more than on what they should.

What about Boxing or Wrestling? IIRC, they have no kata whatsoever, are they not civilian martial arts?

From a certain standpoint someone who's trained as a boxer is better off than someone trained with katas but will overall be behind someone who's training in more traditional sparring techniques.

Boxing does have a lot of amazing techniques in it, but they're pretty limited in effect and also do tend to work on the premise that you have those gloves on. Trust me, you really don't want to keep punching someone into the face without them on. It's more likely you'll hurt yourself against his or her cheekbones than the other way around. (those things are extremely tough).

But boxing does give speed and strength and does work on a confrontational basis. Still really rule tied. But not bad.

AS wrestling goes - I assume you mean the wrestling that happens on schools and stuff right?

Good and bad again. In a way better than boxing since close body sparring is a bit more usefull against one person, but it's also insanely rule tied and person has reflexes kinda set to those rules.



But overall both are better than any training which focuses on katas more than anything else. Hell as a friend tends to say - a person that knows nothing is sometimes better off than someone who only knows katas.

Keep in mind - if you look at historical martial arts and current effective ones. it usually doesn't matter where you find them. Be they european, african, asian or whatever. They will generally have the same moves and are probably going to be fairly balanced against all three - hits, throws and submissions. The human body works in similar ways no matter where you come from. Though I do recall that old european MA's tended to incorporate a bit more high strength work which was based on the assumption that european populations where indeed a small bit bigger than others.

The real difference come in armed martial arts. Where local differences really start to play a huge role. In part because the weapons and armour begin to vary wildly.

Put a historical judo practioner against a historical person who's thought one of the various unarmed styles in Europe and you'll get fairly similar moves and expectations from both.

Put a historical samurai against a medieval knight (let's say german to make it easier) and you'll get completely different techniques and styles. That is as long they stay armed. If they become unarmed you'll again get similar results.

But considering how a samurai would fare against a knight, I doubt it would get to that. The samus are a fair bit outclassed in the arms race.

[discord]

junk: i mostly agree with your points however there is one point i'll dispute, the arms race between japan and the west, the katana is a very fine sword, the japanese longbow is also very fine, it is in the area of doctrine and defensive equipment it differs significantly, for instance the shield....

[Michael]

The kata's versus actual sparring is pretty much a problem in every single civilian martial art. Kata's make rank progression easy and look flashy. So a lot of people eat them up and a lot of teachers tend to focus on them more than on what they should.

As to good knife fighter against another one. There's that common saying, that if you have two good knife fighters, you don't end the fight with one getting stabbed. But from one bleeding out from far too many small cuts to count.

A kata is for practise. never ever used in combat. Ever. they aren't used to make rank progression "flashy" they are used to teach students how to perform moves in combination, repeat: Teach Moves In Combination. You never actually use the kata it's self in a fight and yes, the kata is used to show the people grading you that you know the moves and are able to perform them in combination, but think karate kid's Mr Miyagi and "Wax on, Wax off" his teaching teaching the kid to block and making the motion a natural habit (a clean car to boot), many of the moves in a kata have a use, such as Sokuto fumikomi AKA: Stamping Foot Edge Kick or Jodan uke AKA: Upper Arm Block to name only two of several, they all have a use.
But if you're enrolled in a karate school which is teaching you that a kata is what's used in a fight, that in a fight you can stand there and just use kata moves rather than actual fighting stance moves, moves taught for the eventually that you get into fight (for which a kata is not designed), then get out of that school.

Sparring is different from kata in that you practise fighting moves with people that know those same moves you have to be quicker, smarter and better than the other or you'll lose, sparring teaches you that while kata is a safe way of becoming faster and still learn the moves.

[discord]

michael: that is how it is supposed to be, yes, reality does not conform to theory.

[junk]

The kata's versus actual sparring is pretty much a problem in every single civilian martial art. Kata's make rank progression easy and look flashy. So a lot of people eat them up and a lot of teachers tend to focus on them more than on what they should.

As to good knife fighter against another one. There's that common saying, that if you have two good knife fighters, you don't end the fight with one getting stabbed. But from one bleeding out from far too many small cuts to count.

A kata is for practise. never ever used in combat. Ever. they aren't used to make rank progression "flashy" they are used to teach students how to perform moves in combination, repeat: Teach Moves In Combination. You never actually use the kata it's self in a fight and yes, the kata is used to show the people grading you that you know the moves and are able to perform them in combination, but think karate kid's Mr Miyagi and "Wax on, Wax off" his teaching teaching the kid to block and making the motion a natural habit (a clean car to boot), many of the moves in a kata have a use, such as Sokuto fumikomi AKA: Stamping Foot Edge Kick or Jodan uke AKA: Upper Arm Block to name only two of several, they all have a use.
But if you're enrolled in a karate school which is teaching you that a kata is what's used in a fight, that in a fight you can stand there and just use kata moves rather than actual fighting stance moves, moves taught for the eventually that you get into fight (for which a kata is not designed), then get out of that school.

Sparring is different from kata in that you practise fighting moves with people that know those same moves you have to be quicker, smarter and better than the other or you'll lose, sparring teaches you that while kata is a safe way of becoming faster and still learn the moves.

I know what the the sense of katas is. The problem is, that in most cases those kata's form a long term drill which supercedes pretty much everything else.

junk: i mostly agree with your points however there is one point i'll dispute, the arms race between japan and the west, the katana is a very fine sword, the japanese longbow is also very fine, it is in the area of doctrine and defensive equipment it differs significantly, for instance the shield....

The katana is actually a fairly mediocre sword as far as built and design go. It's not bad and it's fairly amazing against unarmoured opponents, but it tends to be brittle on the edge (more than is common for other swords) and is both shorter and just has heavy as a longsword.

On top of that a samurai has essentially no way of dealing with a knights armour. Even riveted chain would probably be enough to deal with virtually any katana cut.

On top of that keep this in mind. Weapons like the katana were known in Europe. Or at least very similar ones. Shields, longswods and armour on the other hand were not known on the same level in Japan.

Those japanese longbows (as well as English ones) would once more have serious issues penetrating armour in such a way to dangerous to the kight.

There's a reason why the French didn't generally fear british long bowmen. It was because those long bowmen couldn't generally do squat, unless the french did something incredibly stupid.

Which they ended up doing on more than one occassion. And even so it was often terrain that was the danger.

[daelyte]

From a certain standpoint someone who's trained as a boxer is better off than someone trained with katas but will overall be behind someone who's training in more traditional sparring techniques.

What do you mean by traditional sparring techniques?

Boxing does have a lot of amazing techniques in it, but they're pretty limited in effect and also do tend to work on the premise that you have those gloves on. Trust me, you really don't want to keep punching someone into the face without them on. It's more likely you'll hurt yourself against his or her cheekbones than the other way around. (those things are extremely tough).

Yes, I also mentioned that earlier.

Put a historical judo practioner against a historical person who's thought one of the various unarmed styles in Europe and you'll get fairly similar moves and expectations from both.

Ever heard of Irish collar and elbow wrestling? It was intended for smaller individuals to use speed and leverage to defeat bigger stronger opponents, and the techniques and strategy are remarkably similar to judo. Yet it clearly evolved independently in Europe, alongside various related Celtic wrestling styles.

junk: i mostly agree with your points however there is one point i'll dispute, the arms race between japan and the west, the katana is a very fine sword, the japanese longbow is also very fine, it is in the area of doctrine and defensive equipment it differs significantly, for instance the shield....

The katana is actually a fairly mediocre sword as far as built and design go. It's not bad and it's fairly amazing against unarmoured opponents, but it tends to be brittle on the edge (more than is common for other swords) and is both shorter and just has heavy as a longsword.

Also, samurai were primarily horse archers not swordsmen.

There's a reason why the French didn't generally fear british long bowmen. It was because those long bowmen couldn't generally do squat, unless the french did something incredibly stupid.

Which they ended up doing on more than one occassion. And even so it was often terrain that was the danger.

Not all plate armour was well-made or well looked after, and there were also weak points in the eye and air holes and joints where arrows could penetrate, meaning that even if the armour was proof against nearly all arrows, being shot at by thousands of longbowmen would have been an uncomfortable experience, physically and mentally. One contemporary French account described the barrage at Agincourt against French knights wearing plate armour as a "terrifying hail of arrow shot".

Full plate armour of the highest quality was also extremely expensive, only used by knights; the vast majority of soldiers were not armoured in plate from head-to-toe. Even for knights, in practice their horses tended to be less well protected, so that longbows could kill or wound the horses even when the arrows had little effect against the knights themselves.

[saint of m]

Also, there were different types of arrows. Some were barbed and good for hunting, others designed for piercing armor.

But English longbowmen were better off then the general range standby, the crossbow, as it took forever to load (other then that, it it had a lot of kick and an idiot could wield it no problem in some cases).

As For samurai and anti armor, they had their methods. First you have the kanabo, which was a thick wooden club almost as tall as the samurai weilding it, with thick metal stubs or spikes on it (it's the prefered weapon of their oni, or devil/ogre). It could bash armoed foes to death, and was affectionatly called a "Sword Breaker."

The ninja also had a method or two. First off was their ninja sword, which while just as sharp as the standard katana, was made straiter so it could be a piercing weapon used agaisnt samurai armor.

Kusarigama was also a popular choice. At one end was a hand held japanese sickle that resembles a small scythe, and on the other was a metal ball connected to their sickle with a chain. The ball was a heavy weapon and could be used to bash someone's head in, but was more often used to wrap around a warrior's sword arm, and pull him to the ground or else in a position where the blade to do it's work.

Europe also had methods for getting past armor, but largely focused on the bludgioning aproch. Maces, flails, norning stars, warhammers, and the scottish ball and chain were all used to great effect for that. Even if they couldn't do more then dent the armor, the force of impact should be enough to deal some dammage (break an arm, snap a neck, cause a concussion.

Even braodswords were designed so that if even the blade dosn't get past the armor, you aint leaving the battlefield without a broken arm.

For a knight in armor, anther method that was popular was to grab the blade of the long sword with one hand, the gauntlet protecting the hand, and the tip of it into the breastplate of another warrior. This adds more leverage, and now you have a piercing weapon.

A Europian halburd could be used in a same manner. Generally it was a pole-arm that had a ax head, with a spear's tip and a hook. If it didn't have the hook, I've seen some with a warhammer on the back of the ax part. Each part had their use: The ax was a hacking weapon, the spear got through armor, and the curved hook on the back was used to take away shields (although, I guess it could dismount a rider as well).

[discord]

junk:
one, the katana is a good sword, not the best in all cases by a long shot but very good due to being good at cutting, thrusting and being nimble enough to be used defensively, a difficult combination to pull off.
<edit> the greatest achievement of the katana though is getting such a good blade out of such crappy raw materials.</edit>

two, the japanese longbow was pretty much as good as the english, a bit bigger though and slightly more unwieldy on the ground due to it being designed for horseback use.

and three, it is defensively the Europeans wins the 'arms race', full plate when done right and maintained is VERY good armor, to bad only kings and high nobles(with a few nutcase lower nobility wasting much of their wealth on it) actually had it, chain mail ain't bad either but the biggest difference is the shield, give me a shield and a kitchen knife and i could probably take down most old school samurai, that is how big a difference the shield does.

[Absalom]

Some TV show a few years ago did some number crunching, & decided that an army of Spartans vs an army of 'standard Samurai' would result in a Spartan win (which surprised them, because they expected that iron/steel > bronze). The Spartan shield was a big part of that (the Samurai sword, in comparison, was dismissed as useless in such a fight).

At any rate, the Katana is from all the descriptions I've read simply unsuited to combating metal armor. The various Japanese sword arts that originally used it apparently allocate scores on the basis of 'valid strikes' to traditionally unarmored portions of the rival's body (e.g. the armpit area). There are those stories of Katanas cutting guns, sure, but those were the highest-quality swords, and only succeeded a handful of times before they broke (gun steel is apparently comparatively soft, as well). The only real anti-armor weapon that I've heard of the feudal Japanese using was the Kanabo (& similar) mentioned above.

Though in some ways they're lucky that they managed that, since the iron found readily in Japan is apparently all of the lowest grade. I have no doubt that the average European army had more armor than the average Japanese one during the feudal eras of both. The fact that Europe was more directly exposed to a larger variety of combatants (Norse to the north, Byzantines & horse tribes to the west, & the Islamic world through Jihads & Crusades) might have given an advantage to a European army too, but only an actual real-world battle (which as far as I know never happened, and in these terms surely never will) could give us an answer to that question.

[Aygar]

Some TV show a few years ago did some number crunching, & decided that an army of Spartans vs an army of 'standard Samurai' would result in a Spartan win (which surprised them, because they expected that iron/steel > bronze). The Spartan shield was a big part of that (the Samurai sword, in comparison, was dismissed as useless in such a fight).

At any rate, the Katana is from all the descriptions I've read simply unsuited to combating metal armor. The various Japanese sword arts that originally used it apparently allocate scores on the basis of 'valid strikes' to traditionally unarmored portions of the rival's body (e.g. the armpit area). There are those stories of Katanas cutting guns, sure, but those were the highest-quality swords, and only succeeded a handful of times before they broke (gun steel is apparently comparatively soft, as well). The only real anti-armor weapon that I've heard of the feudal Japanese using was the Kanabo (& similar) mentioned above.

Though in some ways they're lucky that they managed that, since the iron found readily in Japan is apparently all of the lowest grade. I have no doubt that the average European army had more armor than the average Japanese one during the feudal eras of both. The fact that Europe was more directly exposed to a larger variety of combatants (Norse to the north, Byzantines & horse tribes to the west, & the Islamic world through Jihads & Crusades) might have given an advantage to a European army too, but only an actual real-world battle (which as far as I know never happened, and in these terms surely never will) could give us an answer to that question.

Very true

Worse you would need many real-world battles to answer the question. These would be necessary to remove the uncertainties associated with a particular battle (bad luck, terrain advantage, etc...)

[Absalom]

Very true

Worse you would need many real-world battles to answer the question. These would be necessary to remove the uncertainties associated with a particular battle (bad luck, terrain advantage, etc...)

Bad generals...

I can just imagine it: "What do you mean he charged straight into their spears?!?".

[discord]

if it's a army comparison at the same time it gets different, since at the time where people are thinking 'samurai' western europe were marching in nice blocks of musketeers, which means that if the japs could close with the enemy without breaking or losing too many troops, they would probably win, if not....europeans would slaughter'em, either way the japs would be losing
troops like chaff to the wind.

the difference here is.
1. guns
2. doctrine on how to use what you have.

the comparison between the knight and the samurai is more fun though.

[junk]

if it's a army comparison at the same time it gets different, since at the time where people are thinking 'samurai' western europe were marching in nice blocks of musketeers, which means that if the japs could close with the enemy without breaking or losing too many troops, they would probably win, if not....europeans would slaughter'em, either way the japs would be losing
troops like chaff to the wind.

the difference here is.
1. guns
2. doctrine on how to use what you have.

the comparison between the knight and the samurai is more fun though.

It's also because both the knight and samurai are icons. Sure you could claim that have many variations. From the crusading frank to the heavy plated milanese knight with an armour built to resist italian heavy crossbows. To early samurai to late idolised versions.

But in the end, when you say knight, most people imagine one certain subset and the same goes for samurai. And while they are both from completely different eras. What they have is comperable.

[Grayhome]

Out of curiosity, I had noticed that Fireblade possessed on her Gurps character sheet a PK shield ability. I was wondering if that would that be able to repel sonic attacks?

[TeidarPallanLeinnol]

I AM NOT SURE

LET ME CHECK THE BOOKS AND GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT

[osmium]

Okay epic old school osmium rant in progress.

tl;dr at the end

I'm going to touch on a couple of the major martial arts points people have made here some 2nd hand experiences etc that I think are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Martial arts have a focus. Karate was hands vs swords. You needed to knock the sword away long enough to get in and drop them. One punch, if you didn't land it perfect with maximal power you were toast because that blade was coming back and you probably already sacrificed the blocking hand. So what does a style with that as its roots provide. Mid range power, general with hand techniques (hard to control the opponent's sword at a distance). How do you apply that best? look at the situation and read your opponent, find an opening and use exactly as much time as they give you to deliver maximal power. You'll notice with Karate (and many "traditional" martial arts) that there is a counter rotation caused by additionally pulling back the non-punching hand. If they give you a small opening, use a jab, don't bother with the pull back, or do something fancy from a hand that just blocked like a back fist or something. If they commit their weight after they do a fake punch, two kicks off the same leg combo, charge in and give it maximal power.

Does that focus necessarily make karate ineffective against an armed opponent? Or at a disadvantage vs a grapple? Or impotent when fighting multiple opponents? No it just changes the game. If someone tries to get in on you your objective is either to prevent that (get back push him back with a kick etc) or to cause significant damage as he comes in (knee to the chin, drop down elbow to clavicle, dropping elbow to the head / neck etc, strike to the temple etc). Sure you are in trouble if they get to you, but they have to get to you in one piece. Also, a lot of grappling styles seem to ignore that someone might just try to poke your eyes out or use your eye sockets as leverage on your head, bite, break joints etc. (I'm looking at you wrestling / competition jiujutsu).

On to some stories. Taekwondo is often looked down on for not knowing what to do if they get in close or catch a kick. The real issue is that many people that practice taekwondo focus exclusively on sparring for tournaments (which are more or less good approximations of real combat depending on the rules, but they are only approximations) and so they don't focus on how to deal with what other styles might do. A friend of mine was sparring some apparently famous taekwondo guy back when he was younger (he won the US national tournament for one of the branches in the early 80s I could probably look those winners up and try to take a stab at finding him but it's really not that cogent)... so my friend manged to step in and catch a kick and thought he was stepping in for a nice reaping throw and his opponent instead jumped, and landed a heel kick to his temple with the leg he was standing on. My friend was impressed when he finally woke up.

My point here is that knowing your style (whether it's pure or just the bits and pieces from the various styles you've learned over the years that work for you (in your current body, we all age many lose flexibility)), and knowing what it is good at and not good at, how to hedge against your limitations in training and capability as well as where and when they shine brightly are what make you effective. Being able to read your opponent better than they read you and making solid tactical decisions based on the situation are key to being effective. All styles will have limitations (some like say boxing will be more severe than others, like say hapkido and all of the newer "complete" martial arts (that cross train in weapons, hard style strikes, soft style joint manipulation, throws, grappling etc))...


On to styles of training.
Many traditional styles have a very round-about method of training (wax on wax off movie go-ers?). You do basics and learn the mechanics for your hands, then you do it moving. Then you do it moving in different directions (kata). Then you do it with partners where you know what's happening when (for instance attacker attacks 3 times with a mid level punch... complication would be changing the attack pattern). Then you might do it without knowing, but one side attacks one side defends. Then you might do "fake" sparring where you each take turns and go slow. Then you might do full on sparring... finally with multiple opponents. You can't say that kata serves no purpose merely because it isn't directly fighting. If you just learn by doing you learn wrong. You build in mistakes and tells and inefficiencies. This is the limitation of the vaunted fighting systems like krav maga. They're great, but they're main utility is in that they are very flexible and each practitioner learns what works for them (which the utility of which cannot be understated, it is very rare that one person is *actually* good at all aspects of a given martial art). The downside is that they don't take long to figure out, and versus a well trained opponent that lack of versatility is detrimental.

To continue the main obstacle to applicability traditional styles have is that they use complicated techniques that take years to hone and even then in adrenaline pumped situations you're likely to mess the most complicated of them up. (this is where fighting systems really shine, hence why they're used in militaries you need to be effective the first time you are in combat, you don't just want to survivors to be good, you want them to be good before they need to survive). That being said often the only part that is lacking in tournament focused styles is this last step of applying the techniques (which I make seem easier than it really is in that statement).

Another way to explain the above sort of stream on consciousness list of practice techniques... I'll specify karate's because I am familiar and I think people have probably seen (hopefully) the original karate kid, or have at least seen something with the rows upon rows of endless students punching in time. You start with the arms separate from all else, perhaps in a horse stand, perhaps in a front stance. This forces you to focus on the fist traveling straight to the target, on hitting with your knuckles and hand bones aligning with your arm, shoulders down, not leaning forward/back or side/side. Then perhaps you include moving forward or backward. You need to time the fist with the feet, if you punch without your feet on the ground you have no way to a) use your bigger muscle groups in the core / legs and b) nothing to push off of / nowhere to support the counter force of your strike. Then you do kata, where you introduce spinning, i.e. changing directions. Look first, decide to step, step, rotate, then perform a technique ( such as the punch). Then you add an opponent, first it's just I punch you block. Blocker learning timing, reading the opponent to see what he's going to do. Attacker gets distance and learns to see how a defender defends and perhaps finds openings in their defense for further attack. No you might add in a counter, i.e. attack 3 times then the defender finds an opening to counter attack in. Then perhaps you might do the same thing with free form attacks, or you might just do a single attack anywhere and they block and counter. (more reading training / quick response training i.e. don't over think it, react). There is also pad work where you learn how applying power actually feels (you can't really appreciate a roundhouse kick until you actually try to plant one solidly, kicking air is almost worthless for this kick for training on the power as you generate so much rotational inertia if really committing that you can't really expect to stop your own leg. (which maybe you don't want to always do, but if you know the opponent can't get out of the way maybe it's the right call) Finally there is sparring where you fluidly try to find openings and hit them. now for many styles this sparring is riddles with rules. The main one I dislike about karate is the above the belt rule. For me however it is good practice as in other styles I've taken I *never* kick above the belt, I read the opponent wait for them to kick or commit on the front side, block or dodge and then charge low taking out the *back* knee (people feel like it's just so unassailable it usually turns out to be an easy target if you can time well and go fast... which it turns out are (currently) my two main strengths in fighting). So it's sorta like training your "left" leg or "left" hand it gives you more flexibility (say in soccer, it's better to use whatever foot is available, not have to use only one specific foot).


On to weapons.
In close knives are scary. Slashing, stabbing, whatever they suck. I trained in a philipino style which is related to eskrima that the philipino military uses. The objective is to physically disable the opponents body. The standard knife techniques are to soft block an incoming strike, cut through the tendons of the arm come back and cut through the bottom attachment point for the bicep and continue on toward the neck (which at that point is just going to be gravy that arm is worthless and as they attacked with it it very well might have held their weapon)... or you can bypass the bicep stab in towards the lung through the floating ribs and disengage. And that's just one of dozens of techniques they use. Militaries have variations on those to disarm and disable the weapon hand... to injure a or kill a target and keep them quiet while doing it etc. Weapons totally change the dynamic and if you haven't played with them before it's going to be dangerous


Sparring
in my experience the biggest risk in sparring and fighting is not knowing your opponents style (i.e. not being able to read them). If you've never seen a drunken boxer, or seen some of those animalistic kung fu styles you're unlikely to be able to gauge what you opponent is doing or might do. A lot of chinese styles do a *very* good job here with just an absolute torrent of techniques and weird weapons with distraction built into them (chain swords, rapiers with red ribbons and little lead weights, meteor hammers and all sorts of inexplicable rope and blade type weapons). If you think your opponent is going to hit you in the face but then you feel them stab you in the shin that distraction where you don't expect it ends the fight because while you're confused they land their killer blow... similar things could be something as simple as stepping on their toe, if they don't notice it and try to step back (but can't) that is a great moment to attack in.

Loroi styles. The one thing I've noticed in all the styles I've taken is that there always seem to be pairs, of decisions, of ways to get at a technique or pairs of techniques that work well together (for instance if you try that standard elbow lock standing that everyone learns like their first day in any soft style it pairs nicely with a figure 4 ish + major reaping throw sort of thing as what you do to oppose one of the pair leads right into the other). The pair that I think will show up over and over in loroi styles will be the disengage or stay engaged. I'll elaborate.

There are two axes to a loroi on loroi combat. The mental half (can you touch you opponent and win via some mental will wrestling) and the physical half (can you make them physically incapable of harming you further). To that end I think the Loroi "sizing up your opponent" is going to involve some clashes wherein the opponents attempt to discern if their opponent is stronger than them mentally, if they deal well (mentally) with physical distractions as well as the normal do they have better range than me, what of their techniques are faster/slower than which of mine. (sometimes a big opponent has a relatively fast kick for their size but really slow arms etc etc).

I see Loroi-fu being a blend of the many styles that are collectively called kung-fu (for their awesome misdirection and very unexpected attack angles), things like judo / jiujutsu / aikido / anything soft and joint manipulationy for the ability to force an enemy away from you, or to disable their limbs quickly as well as high power styles (that overlap with above kung-fus) such as taewkondo or karate (or really anything korean they all usually have similar footwork / kicks and differ mainly in the application thereof).

I see the striking styles & judo+++ as being what people who are mentally weaker will attempt to use(or vs opponents that seem very mentally grounded who can't be shaken by physical abuse).

I think if they're closely matched you might see some muy thai, jiututsu sort of grabbing and joints and close in stuff (perhaps to try and gain mental tactical advantage by distracting the attacker).

If they have the mental advantage I think you'd see joint manipulation, submissions, grappling etc to try to maintain physical contact and limit the capability of the opponent to damage you physically while you attack mentally from the skin contact.

I think all of these techniques that would resemble some of that plethora of styles I mentioned would work in pairs or have options, they would be techniques where you could attempt to engage and stay in contact, where you could try to do maximal damage in minimal time (while risking contact i.e. distract mentally and finish physically) or where you could avoid the grab and strike. For instance an outside block you can just block and then backfist with that hand you blocked with and reverse punch kick or something. Or you can do that outside block and lead the attacking hand into your rear hand at which point you could step in and elbow them and then throw them... or you could grab that hand and take the elbow joint lock do the break or try to take them to the ground with it. Or as you come in with the elbow you might stomp on their foot, send a mental pulse attack through the hand as you hit them with the elbow.

Now TK combat will be *very* different. Someone like fireblade could maybe just trip a couple hundred people in front of her at a distance, crush one person or lob enough shuriken / arrows / rocks to blot out the sky at rail gun velocities. Someone with more control but less power might to TK assisted cartwheels to get out of otherwise impossible to escape joint locks, or throw people by "pushing" their heels just as they're going to land. Or if we want to get all nerdy game breaky, just squish their opponents eyeballs and ear drums, or pinch their carotid arteries shut. TK at many power levels is going to be a "weapon" on crack. TK in close quarters combat is going to be as much an advantage vs anyone as fighting an untrained opponent in close quarters while you wield a sharp knife and know how to use it. Now of course a la jedi their powers can and will break down vs a large number of well armed, knowledgeable and determined opponents (snipers anyone?), but that doesn't actually reduce their utility it just enforces their need to not act alone.


I know I'll have stirred the pot a bunch, not sure when I'll get back in here to catch up on the results.

tl;dr. No one style is better than another, it really depends on how well the practitioner knows their style/s what it does well and what it does not do well. You can often utilize a style(or weapon) in unexpected ways (say elbowing someone's punch, or cutting their arms rather than their torso).

Fighting systems are usually designed to make you not have to think and be somewhat effective while under the effect of your first real adrenaline rush (i.e. your first deployment). What they lack is the depth of techniques that martial arts provide.

different styles have different focuses, that doesn't make them inherently ineffective. Similarly styles have a number of teaching methodologies to try to make you learn it right, so you can apply it right... usually by reducing the number of variables so you can focus on one thing at a time (such as range and timing, technique of the arms, technique of the legs / body / posture, application, targeting etc).

Most of fighting is gauging an opponent, finding their weakness, telegraphs (i,e, blink right before a punch, shift gaze towards target, grip hand tightly in anticipation, cock fist back etc) and tendencies (oh he seems to throw 3 techniques and if I get out of the way and the last technique is a kick he goes low... or he bobs left if I fake right) and learning how to apply what you know to take advantage of it.... similarly knowing what your style/ game's disadvantage is and knowing how to minimize it or how to counter the attacks someone might use on those openings. (and this doesn't even *begin* to touch on faking, or understanding what your tells / telegraphs are and mimicing them... or how you decide when you should decide you need to change things up to prevent them from getting a read on you etc).

-O

[daelyte]

Martial arts have a focus. Karate was hands vs swords.

Source?

My thoughts on karate vs modern combat sports...

Bare knuckle boxing was very different from modern sport boxing. Punching someone in the head is a good way to break your hands, so bare knuckle boxers used techniques such as palm strikes, hammerfists, backfists, forearm strikes, etc. They also used the current array of punches, but mostly directed at the body which is a softer target. The main target was the solar plexus, not the head. Bare knuckle punches do more damage to muscles, so the stance was different as well. They had a deep sideways stance, with their hands held at chest level to protect the solar plexus.

As a karateka, does any of this sound in any way familiar to you?

If someone tries to get in on you your objective is either to prevent that (get back push him back with a kick etc) or to cause significant damage as he comes in (knee to the chin, drop down elbow to clavicle, dropping elbow to the head / neck etc, strike to the temple etc). Sure you are in trouble if they get to you, but they have to get to you in one piece.

That might work against an untrained tackle, but not a trained wrestler. With the momentum they put into it, they'll get you down even if they're momentarily unconscious.

The easiest and most effective way to stop a tackle is what wrestlers do: sprawl. If you do it quickly and well, the wrestler has to back off to avoid ending up face down under you, which is NOT where he wants to be. He'll try again, but every time he does you can punch him, kick him, make him pay for it. The resulting style is known as "sprawl and brawl" and once strikers got good at it, wrestlers had to cross-train striking to put the odds in their favor again.

Also, a lot of grappling styles seem to ignore that someone might just try to poke your eyes out or use your eye sockets as leverage on your head, bite, break joints etc. (I'm looking at you wrestling / competition jiujutsu).

Accidental eye pokes and broken toes are not uncommon in grappling practice and competition. They're not fight-enders, and bites aren't either.

A joint lock can easily turn into a broken joint if you don't tap out. Breaking major joints like shoulders, elbows, wrists, knees and ankles does end fights, and that's exactly what grappling arts like jiujitsu and catch wrestling focus on. The problem with all such techniques is getting the opponent to stay still while you do them, and that's easier to do when you have him pinned on the ground, hence all the grappling.

Taekwondo is often looked down on for not knowing what to do if they get in close or catch a kick.

More often for not knowing how to take a punch, due to lack of full contact sparring.

The real issue is that many people that practice taekwondo focus exclusively on sparring for tournaments (which are more or less good approximations of real combat depending on the rules, but they are only approximations) and so they don't focus on how to deal with what other styles might do.

That's why some people do casual MMA, sparring against a variety of styles so you know what to expect.

A friend of mine was sparring some apparently famous taekwondo guy back when he was younger (he won the US national tournament for one of the branches in the early 80s I could probably look those winners up and try to take a stab at finding him but it's really not that cogent)... so my friend manged to step in and catch a kick and thought he was stepping in for a nice reaping throw and his opponent instead jumped, and landed a heel kick to his temple with the leg he was standing on. My friend was impressed when he finally woke up.

Yes! This is what TKD is supposed to look like. Too bad that's not how most schools teach it.

My point here is that knowing your style (whether it's pure or just the bits and pieces from the various styles you've learned over the years that work for you (in your current body, we all age many lose flexibility)), and knowing what it is good at and not good at, how to hedge against your limitations in training and capability as well as where and when they shine brightly are what make you effective. Being able to read your opponent better than they read you and making solid tactical decisions based on the situation are key to being effective. All styles will have limitations (some like say boxing will be more severe than others, like say hapkido and all of the newer "complete" martial arts (that cross train in weapons, hard style strikes, soft style joint manipulation, throws, grappling etc))...

I agree with all of this.

You can't say that kata serves no purpose merely because it isn't directly fighting. If you just learn by doing you learn wrong. You build in mistakes and tells and inefficiencies.

I agree here. Even wrestlers, who mostly learn by doing, practice techniques separately from live sparring/grappling, for the very reasons you mention. Boxers do shadow boxing.

The main problem with full contact sparring is that it has physical limitations. You can only take so many punches, so many falls, so many bent joints in a day. Not to mention what to do when you have injuries that make such training impossible. When you've had your fill of full contact training, katas and compliant training lets you continue practicing techniques and counters when you otherwise would have to stop. This is less of a problem for throws and grappling, but it's not uncommon for injured judoka to train aikido while waiting for an injury to heal.

This is the limitation of the vaunted fighting systems like krav maga. They're great, but they're main utility is in that they are very flexible and each practitioner learns what works for them (which the utility of which cannot be understated, it is very rare that one person is *actually* good at all aspects of a given martial art). The downside is that they don't take long to figure out, and versus a well trained opponent that lack of versatility is detrimental.

I disagree here. The main utility of a "complete" system is that it covers the basic defenses against a variety of common attacks. Nowadays many schools of competitive martial arts also offer a weekly MMA class to integrate those defenses into their student's style.

The main weakness is that you don't learn any one area of combat in depth, so you should look elsewhere to push what works for you to the limit. So if punches work best for you, train boxing for punches, and MMA (or krav maga) for defense against all that other stuff.

To continue the main obstacle to applicability traditional styles have is that they use complicated techniques that take years to hone and even then in adrenaline pumped situations you're likely to mess the most complicated of them up.

IMO the main problem is most TMA schools only do kata or point sparring, and air doesn't fight back. Once you've been punched in the face, kicked, tackled, thrown, and caught in all kinds of nasty chokes and joint locks, there just aren't that many surprises left. Students of traditional styles that do full contact training, whether they do it in their own school or get it elsewhere, do just as well as students of combat sports, and sometimes better if their techniques are more refined.

That being said often the only part that is lacking in tournament focused styles is this last step of applying the techniques (which I make seem easier than it really is in that statement).

I'm not sure I understand this. What do you mean by "tournament focused styles"?

Another way to explain the above sort of stream on consciousness list of practice techniques... I'll specify karate's because I am familiar and I think people have probably seen (hopefully) the original karate kid, or have at least seen something with the rows upon rows of endless students punching in time.

Yeah I've seen all 4 karate kid movies, and tried a few months of karate but it wasn't for me.

I get what you're saying about progression of training, the same is true of most combat sports for safety reasons. Most boxing coaches won't let you spar until you've trained the basics for a least a month, so you don't get demolished. In judo they start with breakfalls, pins and escapes, and the safest throws to fall for not necessarily the easiest to do. Joint locks and sacrifice throws are kept for later, even though they're not hard to apply, to avoid newbies injuring each other.

Weapons totally change the dynamic and if you haven't played with them before it's going to be dangerous

Even if you have, I would guess it's still going to be dangerous.

Sparring
in my experience the biggest risk in sparring and fighting is not knowing your opponents style (i.e. not being able to read them). If you've never seen a drunken boxer, or seen some of those animalistic kung fu styles you're unlikely to be able to gauge what you opponent is doing or might do.

No, that would be the second biggest. The biggest risk is using flashy techniques that make you vulnerable without getting anything done.

see Capoeira vs Boxing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5t0s_Fn9s

Loroi styles. The one thing I've noticed in all the styles I've taken is that there always seem to be pairs, of decisions, of ways to get at a technique or pairs of techniques that work well together (for instance if you try that standard elbow lock standing that everyone learns like their first day in any soft style it pairs nicely with a figure 4 ish + major reaping throw sort of thing as what you do to oppose one of the pair leads right into the other). The pair that I think will show up over and over in loroi styles will be the disengage or stay engaged. I'll elaborate.

There are two axes to a loroi on loroi combat. The mental half (can you touch you opponent and win via some mental will wrestling) and the physical half (can you make them physically incapable of harming you further). To that end I think the Loroi "sizing up your opponent" is going to involve some clashes wherein the opponents attempt to discern if their opponent is stronger than them mentally, if they deal well (mentally) with physical distractions as well as the normal do they have better range than me, what of their techniques are faster/slower than which of mine. (sometimes a big opponent has a relatively fast kick for their size but really slow arms etc etc).

YES! This makes a lot of sense to me. The stronger telepath will want to maintain contact, whereas the weaker telepath will want to keep it to a minimum.

I see Loroi-fu being a blend of the many styles that are collectively called kung-fu (for their awesome misdirection and very unexpected attack angles), things like judo / jiujutsu / aikido / anything soft and joint manipulationy for the ability to force an enemy away from you, or to disable their limbs quickly as well as high power styles (that overlap with above kung-fus) such as taewkondo or karate (or really anything korean they all usually have similar footwork / kicks and differ mainly in the application thereof).

I see the striking styles & judo+++ as being what people who are mentally weaker will attempt to use(or vs opponents that seem very mentally grounded who can't be shaken by physical abuse).

That makes total sense. Judo is great for getting people off of you. Standing locks are easily avoided, but doing so can cramp an opponent's style in the grip fighting phase, thus delaying an unwanted clinch. Punches and kicks are the best way to damage someone with minimal contact.

Sanshou uses punches, kicks, and throws from shuai jiao which are similar to judo (they're related via sumo), and some standing locks and chokes, all in a full contact format. I plan to train it so I can learn to apply my judo throws vs punches and kicks, as well as set up throws using strikes.

I think if they're closely matched you might see some muy thai, jiututsu sort of grabbing and joints and close in stuff (perhaps to try and gain mental tactical advantage by distracting the attacker).

Again mostly makes sense, a knee to the face can be very distracting. Throws work very well from the clinch as well, especially if you can get your opponent off balance.

If they have the mental advantage I think you'd see joint manipulation, submissions, grappling etc to try to maintain physical contact and limit the capability of the opponent to damage you physically while you attack mentally from the skin contact.

For a loroi with strong "brute force" type mental abilities, something like wrestling should suffice except against much larger (possibly alien) opponents. Clinch, takedown, and pin them while you rip their mind apart. It would be the loroi equivalent of "ground and pound".

Those with more finesse could grapple on the ground using subtle mental skill and the threat of submissions to stall for time both physically and mentally, hoping to tire your overwhelming opponent enough to eventually gain the upper hand. In short, BJJ with telepathy mixed in.

Now TK combat will be *very* different. Someone like fireblade could maybe just trip a couple hundred people in front of her at a distance, crush one person or lob enough shuriken / arrows / rocks to blot out the sky at rail gun velocities. Someone with more control but less power might to TK assisted cartwheels to get out of otherwise impossible to escape joint locks, or throw people by "pushing" their heels just as they're going to land. Or if we want to get all nerdy game breaky, just squish their opponents eyeballs and ear drums, or pinch their carotid arteries shut. TK at many power levels is going to be a "weapon" on crack. TK in close quarters combat is going to be as much an advantage vs anyone as fighting an untrained opponent in close quarters while you wield a sharp knife and know how to use it. Now of course a la jedi their powers can and will break down vs a large number of well armed, knowledgeable and determined opponents (snipers anyone?), but that doesn't actually reduce their utility it just enforces their need to not act alone.

I wonder why strong TK didn't become more common among the loroi in their primitive warlike past, give how much of an advantage it would be. Maybe there's a evolutionary tradeoff in terms of lifespan or something? The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long?

Fighting systems are usually designed to make you not have to think and be somewhat effective while under the effect of your first real adrenaline rush (i.e. your first deployment). What they lack is the depth of techniques that martial arts provide.

Yup, they mostly stick to the basics that can be taught in a short time.

different styles have different focuses, that doesn't make them inherently ineffective. Similarly styles have a number of teaching methodologies to try to make you learn it right, so you can apply it right... usually by reducing the number of variables so you can focus on one thing at a time (such as range and timing, technique of the arms, technique of the legs / body / posture, application, targeting etc).

Yes.

Most of fighting is gauging an opponent, finding their weakness, telegraphs (i,e, blink right before a punch, shift gaze towards target, grip hand tightly in anticipation, cock fist back etc) and tendencies (oh he seems to throw 3 techniques and if I get out of the way and the last technique is a kick he goes low... or he bobs left if I fake right) and learning how to apply what you know to take advantage of it.... similarly knowing what your style/ game's disadvantage is and knowing how to minimize it or how to counter the attacks someone might use on those openings. (and this doesn't even *begin* to touch on faking, or understanding what your tells / telegraphs are and mimicing them... or how you decide when you should decide you need to change things up to prevent them from getting a read on you etc).

Forcing your opponent to play by your rules. A kickboxer wants to strike, and a BJJer wants to grapple. Wrestlers are good at choosing where the fight will happen, but not so good at fighting in any one range.

Don't forget that an attack may not be as effective as expected. Karate and kung fu fighters are often surprised at a boxer's ability to take punches and keep on fighting. Many a wrestler in MMA has taken a few punches right in the face, and still managed to tackle their opponent and win the fight on the ground.

It's important to know how to escape from a big sweaty man wearing nothing but speedos, intent on "mounting" you.

[Grayhome]

Bump for info on whether or not Loroi Psi-shields can block sonic damage, I've read through Gurps that psi-shields can block acidic attacks via highly corrosive liquids.

[Fotiadis_110]

Loroi psi shields, how do you grab or block something you cannot see?

I imagine you COULD if fore-warned, like how fireblade can trap a bubble of air around her in open space, but a generic permanent shield would need to be transparent to air to ensure you can hear what is going on outside of it, if you harden it then you cannot hear, but it has a good chance to block sonic attacks, after all: if you can hear, it obviously isn't stopping sound.

[Grayhome]

I imagine you COULD if fore-warned, like how fireblade can trap a bubble of air around her in open space, but a generic permanent shield would need to be transparent to air to ensure you can hear what is going on outside of it, if you harden it then you cannot hear, but it has a good chance to block sonic attacks, after all: if you can hear, it obviously isn't stopping sound.

Exactly, and if psi-shields are permeable to oxygen to allow for the user to breathe that would make attacks via gasses a viable option, especially if the Loroi nervous system is as "open" as Arioch has previously mentioned. I would imagine that a Loroi squad would be particularly susceptible to attacks from either the categories of sonic or gas weaponry.