16 posts / 0 new
Last post
diadicic
diadicic's picture
Kyusho test Love this stuff.

Is it because he didn't smash it hard enough?

Tau
Tau's picture

OK, a number of thoughts from The Guy That Sits On The Fence

Firstly I would argue that that's more BL10 than GB20 but textbooks vary. What doesn't is that the point is the occiput which is adjacent to the brain stem. It can indeed cause a loss of conciousness. Repeatedly hitting it and hitting it hard is stupid.

There are many bunkai that involve hitting it. I believe it's in the bubishi too.

We practice hitting that point in my dojo. Well controlled in paired technique and f***ing hard on the focus mitts. The impact should be like a baseball bat.

From a clinical perspective posterior (back of the head) head injuries are nearly always more serious than anterior (forehead) injuries. They're far more likely to result in concussion rather than minor head injury.

From a recipient's perspective I was nearly put out by an illegal blow to the back of the head in a semi-contact Kickboxing match! Also, there's a reason they're banned in MMA!

In the video those strikes were often off target and most were so light they wouldn't stun a hamster. My suspicious is that the strikers were pulling them out of (fair) fear of causing injury.

Little trial for you, especially the non-believers. Just once. Find the point and give it a reasonable tap, just to "stun" your uke. Let then recover. Then go again. This time strike the outer part of the foream, between the radius and ulna before striking the occiput. Using triple warmer to exacerbate whatever comes next. This is the sort of thing that I find can't be explained in a western model. And before anyone suggests, I've considered that striking the arm turns the body and therefore better exposes the point and so I've done this from behind my uke so that there was no significant movement of the head prior to striking.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Ah, I remember this video--kids goofing off, really. I suspect their light strikes were, at least in part, influenced by seeing the super-light-touch garbage, and the looks-light-but-isn't demonstrations. There was probably some definite fear of potentially hurting their partners, though, and as Tau mentions, that is perfectly fair. Regardless of your opinion on kyusho, there is a lot going on back there--the spine, the cervical plexus, the occipital ridge, the brain stem, itself, etc. Hitting that with a hard strike is going to cause some problems for the person being hit. I feel like this was kind of a silly one for them to point out as needing testing.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
Well controlled in paired technique and f***ing hard on the focus mitts. The impact should be like a baseball bat.

Wastelander wrote:
Hitting that with a hard strike is going to cause some problems for the person being hit. I feel like this was kind of a silly one for them to point out as needing testing.

I agree. But to be fair to the makers of the video they are trying to replicate the first demonstration. The guy did tap incredibly lightly and the recipient reportedly went out like a light.

When they were hitting lightly nothing happens. So their proved their point.

There’s no doubt that striking to that area with force will put someone down. Tapping it won’t.

The striking area is a valid one. All the video shows is that a light tap to the area won’t work; whereas the original demo suggested it would.

A light tap to the side of my jaw won’t do anything … but that does not mean the jaw is not a good target. A good hook or palm heel to that area will put me down, but a tap won’t.

So the test is a fair one (if not a smart one or a needed one). The premise was “Will a light tap to that area put someone down as shown in the clip?” Innumerable light taps later, the answer is an unequivocal and unsurprising “no”.

Was any one doing a similar test after Holly Holmes kicked Ronda Rousey in the head i.e. “Will a full power round house to the head put someone down as shown in the clip?” I’d hope not! It’s obvious that will work, and to me it is equally obvious that light taps don’t knock people out like that.

We know that hitting these areas with power will drop people. We should also know that light taps do nothing and hence the test as shown on the clip, to me, is a waste of time because it is blindingly obvious. It did, however, show the obvious.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
Little trial for you, especially the non-believers. Just once. Find the point and give it a reasonable tap, just to "stun" your uke. Let then recover. Then go again. This time strike the outer part of the foream, between the radius and ulna before striking the occiput. Using triple warmer to exacerbate whatever comes next. This is the sort of thing that I find can't be explained in a western model. And before anyone suggests, I've considered that striking the arm turns the body and therefore better exposes the point and so I've done this from behind my uke so that there was no significant movement of the head prior to striking.

In many cases I’m sure people will feel no difference. If they do, before they jump to “this can’t be explained by modern science” I would ask them to consider the following:

1 – For the test, this would be the second hit, and if the first one was no fun, even though they have recovered physically, they may be jumpy about getting hit a second time and hence the anticipation makes it feel worse.

2 – The hit to the arm hurts too; so the psychological anticipation of further pain could again make things “feel worse”.

3 – The pain of a blow is subjective and hard to judge. If you are told the second one will be worse, you may think it is even though it may not be. Believers may also want to believe it was worse, so that’s what they experience.

4 – To have some kind of “control group” you may want to tell some people that the hit to the arm will actually reduce the effect of the second blow (as opposed to increase it). My guess would be you’ll find plenty of people say that it was better and hence any “effect” can be put down to human fallibility and a kind of “placebo”.

5 – To be a fair test to need an equally powerful blow each time. Again, we humans will find that difficult to judge. It is entirely possible that the second blow was harder, so it felt harder. It could also be that if the test was administered by a believer they may subconsciously hit a little harder on the second one (I’ve personally seen that). Just as I, as a non-believer, may subconsciously hit a little lighter to prove my point too. Human psychology is a complex thing.

There’s lots of variables here and all good tests need those ruled out. A true test would need a mechanical rig doing the striking so it was exactly the same each time. I’m not a scientist, but I’m guessing that good experimental protocol would need a group that was told the strike to the arm would make it worse, a group that was told it would make it better, and a group that was told nothing either way. You’d also need the experiment set up so that the difficulty we have in objectively measuring pain was overcome. For that I’m guessing you’d need a very large sample to average that out?

Now if the test was done with good scientific protocols, and it did show something unexplained was happening that would be huge! People would be all over it because it would show a new area of biology that was not yet understood.

If that happens, then I’m a believer! However, personal experience or the individual experience of others would not be enough because I can see how that experience could easily be something else at play which does not require me to reach to the unknown. So if people tell me they tried the test and found it worked for them, Occam’s Razor has me think that the explanation with the least assumptions is the better one. I therefore lean toward one of the above explanations.

All the best,

Iain

Evan Pantazi
Evan Pantazi's picture

I tried to stay away, but my apologies for anther intrusion.

First off is when you work to accomplish something, you actually can...these folks (whom I had lengthy discussions with in attempt to help via video and dialogue),worked to say Kyusho was not real,they in their own mind and skill set, achieved what they wanted... that being Kyusho did not work for them.

First I know personally the practitioner (however I have not seen him now in about 10 years), that was demonstrating in the original technique and he can actually work Kyusho.

The reason it worked so lightly and why it worked so lightly is the condition of the recipient... everyown is physiologically moreor less sensitive and why knowing Kyusho well mandates caution and understanding of this so as not to overwhelm. In real application we are not (well some of us are not),foolish enough to blast any "Vital Target".  There are many who have a higher tolerance that more power must be transfered for the same result, the practitioner must be aware of this.  We do not work to satisfy a skeptical audience, we work to help people understand what all the old masters knew and wrote in Books (Funakoshi), Scrolls (Fujita), Manuals (Bubishi, White Crane Docterines), etc.  and a very real essence of the ancient arts.

Now lets look at their attempts, first up the man is not hitting the real target (which is a branch of the lesser occipital nerve) has no real trajectory or penetration, in fact they are not on the nerve.  Now looking at the tools used, they are not using the wrist bone to attack thenerve (not pressure point folks), they are using the soft "Shuto" part of the hand (introduced for safety and sport).  There is no intent,there is over caution and lackidaisicle performance... no success is possible in any venture that way.

There were a few reactions in nueromusculuar reflex, but they did not expound on these, probably as they were only expecting a KO.  They few that were shocke, nor any were interviewed to hear what they felt.  

No one duplicated the original strike.

Kyusho is not a bunch of magic buttons, it is a study...just like a Karate anything must be trained to be usable and successful, this is not a connect the dot approach as they took it.  And I will venture to say if you keep thinking of it as peressure points, your learning curve will be much longer, Kyusho is NOT pressure points.  We have dissected this art from all scientific and medical approach... add decades of hands on application, obeservation and in depth study.  We found we got better answers with this method as opposed to speculation and as videoed, lack of proper instruction or training.

And anything not fully accepted and trained as that will be at best weak or doomed to failure.  You know the other Kyusho in MMA post diverted due to question, but did anyone here read Chuck Liddels book "Iceman" where he describes training in Okinawa to attack a certain target on the jaw...then in many a MMA bout landed it for the KO?  It is in MMA,just not really mentioned or known.  As a side story, I actually wrote to Dana White a number of years ago letting him know we could explain and duplicate any of the UFC KO's and if he would be interested in a joint venture to take all of those KO's he had on film, disect, duplicate and instruct them... the letter from the attorney stated they were not interested at this time.  (By the way I will be releasing in Budo magazine and on my website an article with the medical reasons the Revival/Restorations work... from a team of real medical professionals.  So we can see beyond the crystalls).

Our one downfall in presenting Kyusho to the public was that we were not Oriental, had an Oriental Master (like Oyata) worked to make this more know,all would have accepted or at least researched andtrained it as opposed to trying to negate it.  They failed as that was their intent.

 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for the input.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
They failed as that was their intent.

How would you design an objective test?

If you get an expert trying to KO or stun someone, but it does not work (as in the case of this news reporter at 3:10 - https://youtu.be/pdrzBL2dHMI) then can we take that as being a legitimate test?

Evan Pantazi wrote:
There are many who have a higher tolerance that more power must be transferred for the same result, the practitioner must be aware of this.

In boxing there are some folks who have “glass jaws” and others who have “jaws of granite”. Of course we have no way of knowing ahead of time in self-protection and therefore we will just hit hard in application all the time.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
We do not work to satisfy a skeptical audience, we work to help people understand what all the old masters knew and wrote in Books …

I think everyone should be sceptical and only accept things as true or useful when they have been demonstrated as such. I also think there is an onus on those who feel they have something important to share to present it in a way that is robust. Maybe “close-minded” would be a better word than sceptical?

Evan Pantazi wrote:
No one duplicated the original strike.

Have people with the knowledge and skill to duplicate the strike ever submitted it to a legitimate test? If they did, and it did not work, does your previous statement that “there are many who have a higher tolerance that more power must be transferred for the same result” mean that it is simply this higher tolerance that causing the fail? And to correct that would we simply hit them hard? And if we do that what is being proven by hitting people hard and there being an effect? Isn’t that a given?

What I’m driving at is what test would you construct to disprove kyusho?

“Tests” from either perspective that can’t fail to give the desired result are pointless. They prove nothing.

Part of the scientific process is that scientists design experiments that seek to prove their theories wrong. It is in this way that scientific theories have robustness. I accept what you are saying about how you see many flaws in the original video. So how would you do it? What test would you construct to prove kyusho wrong? If it succeeds in such a test, it would go a long way toward gaining wider acceptance.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
did anyone here read Chuck Liddels book "Iceman" where he describes training in Okinawa to attack a certain target on the jaw...then in many a MMA bout landed it for the KO?  It is in MMA, just not really mentioned or known.

I’ve not read the book. What was that target? Was it something that has been missed in combat sports prior to Mr Liddel’s use of it?

Evan Pantazi wrote:
Our one downfall in presenting Kyusho to the public was that we were not Oriental, had an Oriental Master (like Oyata) worked to make this more known ,all would have accepted or at least researched and trained it as opposed to trying to negate it.

Not me. At best that’s the logical facility of “appeal to authority”. At worst, it’s playing up to stereotypes and inferring an inherent martial inferiority of anyone who does not have recent ancestors hailing from Asia. What works, work. It does not matter what the rank or ethnicity of the person putting forward the data is. The data should speak for itself.

I do consider myself a sceptic; in the best sense of the word. I’m open to all possibilities, but I want any idea I accept into my martial arts to have proven utility. I’m totally on board for anything that will help move the martial arts forward and make them more effective.

Kyusho does not have a good reputation, but that does not mean it is automatically ineffective. If I see a bad movie, it does not mean all movies are bad. To help make the case for Kyusho it needs more good examples to counter the many bad ones.

If taps can knock out people who are sensitive to taps, that really does not take us anywhere. If we need to hit hard to get a higher rate of success, then hitting weak areas hard is hardly a revelation or anything new. I’m assuming there is a methodology being put forward that gives us more than simply hitting known anatomical weak area hard?

Greater knowledge of weak areas can be helpful; providing the study is done within the limits imposed by the reality of conflict (otherwise the information is merely academic and ultimately unusable). But beyond that, what is Kyusho putting forward that martial artist need, but don’t realise they need? And how do we construct a test where it can fail, so that when it does not its validity is demonstrated?

All the best,

Iain

Evan Pantazi
Evan Pantazi's picture

Hi Iain,

How we work objectively is through hundreds and even thousands of hands on applications with people from all styles, countries, ethnenticities, genders, ages and sizes.  We also are aware that nothing is 100%, even a Karate/JuJitsu move practiced thousands of times. And all that said, Kyusho is not only knockouts, to some they may be all as they are a great dojo trick, but Kyusho has so many other possibilities that are overlooked by those only concerned with a KO.

That guy you posted the video of is just a boob.  Every art has these folks (and if we look through youtube we could post them here for Karate as well, but it does not invalidate Karate).  And I am sure all reading this have met or seen folks like this too, we must train well to be able to discern a boob from a legitimate practitioner.

Yes Close Minded is a better term than skeptical, as a skeptical person may seek more than these guys that took it upons themselves to show their in-experience only not a valid test.  

There is no way to tell anything 100% in life, even in our bodies, as example when I was doing the cadaver work on the arm and neck (we investigated the entire anatomy... getting past the pressure point BS and down to the realities).  The cadaver we were working surprised the doctors running the program as they saw something they never saw before.  Our particular cadaver had one of the several brachial nerves running over the clavicle whereas 99% (probably more) are and are supposed to be all underneath.  Was this a shoulder of glass or granite?  So even though we are all the same, we are all still different deep down... hence the need for training with as many "Individuals" as possible and also why we do so darn many classes and seminars in different countries.

The "Pressure Point" Mr.Liddel used in my estimation would probably be the ST-5 (but maybe the Mental Nerve is possible as well), hard to discern for sure due to his description of mid jaw line, but either the facial or mental nerve... you can see him nab it many times with the over hand hook (both nerves I saw struck in his fights with success).  It has not been missed in combative sports as you ... but definately verlooked.  Oscar De La Hoya once did an interview with playboy describing three targets that he knew could or would cause KO.  Then in the epic fight with Antonio Vargas you could see him trying for them as well as landing then and dropping Vargas.  You can see it in all fights, if you know what to watch for.

As for a test I would not construct one to disprove or prove anything, as that already slants expectation and would be a faulty test.  I would rather train them as in asrealistic a way as possible and in my thinking; I may as well train an attack against a vital structure rather than general area, if I miss the vital area I still hit the general area and am not at a loss.  Look not only have I needed and used Kyusho 3 times in reality (all worked), but have many friends, collegues and students of these folks aswell as scores of police officers (for control, not KO), that have related real stories... all have reported it working better minus the dojo restraints.  I have an interview I just did with former max security prison guard, now street officer that has used it many times... it should be out soon.  The point I am getting at is; do we need a test or is real life test enough?

As far as Kyusho having a bad reputation, it is only as bad as that of Karate when you only look for it and find examples of it, these first gentlemen had no skill, the second was so full of himself he may have forgotten to actually train and bought the BS of another or in his own sense of granduer.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMiNFh1Rk4s  this proves absolutely nothing just as the videos that have been posted above (or the comedy spoofs of the MMA post), it does prove that good instruction is the responsibility of the individual... buyer beware I guess.

You see science is great, medical study is also great with testing and we have done both and still do consistently... but all the readings, measurements and tests mean squat in times of need, I agree with you that a head full information is not a handfull of skill, that is only aquired through hard training.  But the goal is to educate people that hitting the lesser occipital nerve is far more efficient than striking just the neck or head (and many other such refinements).

Sincerely,

Evan Pantazi

Marc
Marc's picture

Evan Pantazi wrote:

(By the way I will be releasing in Budo magazine and on my website an article with the medical reasons the Revival/Restorations work... from a team of real medical professionals.  So we can see beyond the crystalls).

Evan, can you please post a note on this forum when your article is out?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Evan Pantazi wrote:
The "Pressure Point" Mr.Liddel used in my estimation would probably be the ST-5 (but maybe the Mental Nerve is possible as well), hard to discern for sure due to his description of mid jaw line, but either the facial or mental nerve... you can see him nab it many times with the over hand hook (both nerves I saw struck in his fights with success).  It has not been missed in combative sports as you ... but definitely overlooked.

If it is a specific location, that has a markedly greater effect than a hard hit to anywhere else on the jaw, then it would be helpful to discern exactly where it is. We then need to factor in the reality of the “chaos” of conflict and the relative sizes of the fist and the jaw (the fist can cover pretty much all of the jaw, so can we really say that a specific place underneath is being hit?).

I also don’t think the “sweet spot” of the jaw has been overlooked. It’s a prime target well known to all.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
As for a test I would not construct one to disprove or prove anything, as that already slants expectation and would be a faulty test.

That’s not the way that science works though. You do seek to disprove your own conclusions and that way give them robustness. I only ask because the “test” that sparked the thread was deemed invalid. From your post, I can accept your reasons for you deeming it invalid. But what would be a valid test?

Hitting (not tapping) weak areas and that having an effect is widely accepted, because we see it and experience it endlessly. The issue is the “light taps” having spectacular results because they suggest there is another largely unexplored level to this.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
I may as well train an attack against a vital structure rather than general area, if I miss the vital area I still hit the general area and am not at a loss.

I accept that, but I reverse the thinking. I will aim for known “zones” (i.e. jaw not “ST5”) because that does not demand “fine precision within chaos”. I liken this to throwing grenades as opposed to firing a sniper rifle.  Everything in the “blast zone” is getting effected and I don’t need to aim for a specific very small target within the zone.

We agree on the general idea though: Hitting hard to the general area gives redundancy.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
The point I am getting at is; do we need a test or is real life test enough?

Real life – and combat sports – have demonstrated beyond doubt that hitting anatomical weaknesses hard has a result. But if something more is being claimed, then that needs to be demonstrated as conclusively.

At the moment, I think people are justified in being sceptical when they see light taps having seemingly spectacular result when an instructor applies them to their own student. No one doubts that Chuck Liddell genuinely dropped his opponents with his powerful punches to the jaw (no test other than that needed). People do doubt that light taps are having the results claimed for them though (so an objective test would be helpful).

Evan Pantazi wrote:
As far as Kyusho having a bad reputation, it is only as bad as that of Karate when you only look for it and find examples of it …

Totally agree. As I said in the last post, seeing a bad movie does not mean all movies are bad. So we need to see the good examples. As I say, if the claim is being made that hitting weak areas with force will have an effect, then there is unlikely to be any dissenters. There are no YouTube videos saying Ronda Rousey faked the results of Holly Holmes kicking her full power in the head. However, there are videos (lots of them) doubting the effects these light taps are said to have. That’s why I ask what could be convincing to the sceptics?

Evan Pantazi wrote:
the goal is to educate people that hitting the lesser occipital nerve is far more efficient than striking just the neck or head (and many other such refinements).

I can see the value in that education – putting aside the limitations of accuracy in chaos already discussed – so how do we show that increased efficiency? People are doubting it because of the “light tap demos”, so what is the alternative demo?

I appreciate I’m playing “devil’s advocate” here. I also do like the anatomical “meridian free” approach you have to kyusho. I think the approach you put forward is one that has far greater validity than ones that are “chi based” and have TCM cycles at their core. I do however share the scepticism people have when they see people drop like they do in “light tap” demos. They put people off and cause people to doubt the value of kyusho over all; even the more medical approach you espouse.

Weak points are firmly established. No argument there. But if there is validity in “light tap KOs” how do you show that and provide the alternative to demos that are currently working against your objectives?

All the best,

Iain

Evan Pantazi
Evan Pantazi's picture

Many things that are obvious and proven with time andthroughout history (like the old writings of the masters of old), have been overlooked or maybe even ignored.

In quantum physics, they proved you will see exactly what you are looking for as it manifests, just as these folks did in proving it would not work for themselves.

I say just go out and work it to draw your conclusions... and I for one am glad it is not as easy to learn as what they presented as we would all be knocking ourselves out just scratching our heads.  That and they are less likely to teach it and spread substandard Kyusho.

Now Real Kyusho practitioners, not those of long belt and many patches profess but those that really work it, never make claim to light touch although it is far more result with less force than conventional non Kyusho strikes.  But that some people are more prone to lighter, so be it...why lay waste to them with more than necessary in demonstration.

The how you prove it to your self, others (in my opinion, far less important if at all), is to work it and let yourself find your own truth, not just word or video of another.  But it must be on both the giving and receiving ends (Tori/Uke) to gain the reality.  I know the light tap videos put some off, but maybe that is a weeding process as if all did it, then quite frankly I would be out of work... in the Martial aspect.  And if more people did great Karate you would be also... the Yin and Yang of it sir.

And as I am not a proponent of light tap or no touch crappola, I can not say that any of it is working against my objectives as I am trying to rid the world of this and it's "professors" with more real Kyusho.  When I see something is not real like pressure points and TCM, I tell the world as I am right now... we work with people and experience, be it civilian, law enforcement, military and medical.  AN example from Ex Marine Sarge:  http://www.kyusho.com/ssgt/ 

I was just mentioning what a more or less, seasoned veteran in this skill saw.

Now just for the heck of it sir, here is an unlisted YouTube (please keep it only for your forum members here), I added a few years ago of one of our instructors working level two curriculum skills with Kyusho.  You will see chaos and you will see competance in chaos, that is how we work more realistically through our program.  You may note a couple of strikes that were at the same target (although it is advised against as in combat it is often protected with raised arms and shoulders), some do land and a few misses (that will occur in a more chaotic environment). The difficult part is to control your adrenaline so you do not injure and only incapacitate to a level 2 KO.  Peter Pinard of Claremont Ferreand:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEslzTt-Q8o

Again thank you for aloowing my participation.

Sincerely, Evan Pantazi www.kyusho.com

 

Tau
Tau's picture

Evan Pantazi wrote:

In quantum physics, they proved

Off subject but I have a passing interest in such things. One thing that Prof Brian Cox and Prof Stephen Hawking are certain about is that quantum physics proves nothing; it is merely a set of equations leading us hopefully towards greater understanding.

Evan Pantazi
Evan Pantazi's picture

Yes the view of two.

There will always be a variance in opinion, always a change in opinion with discovery, albeit it slower with resistance known as normalcy bias... Reluctance to believe something outside of your personal experience, hence my suggestion to experience prior to contesting.

There is also a principle known in physics known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle;  which teaches us that when you change the way you look at something, the thing you look at changes is response.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Evan Pantazi wrote:
In quantum physics, they proved you will see exactly what you are looking for as it manifests …

I think you are referring to the double split experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). The experiment – while mind-blowing to me in its weirdness – does not say that what we are looking for manifests, but that the act of observation has an influence on what is observed. It is the fact we are observing that has an influence. What we hope to see has no bearing on what will be seen. It’s also not a proof of “consciousness shaping the world” that many of the “new age” present it as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

“In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that effects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.”

Evan Pantazi wrote:
There is also a principle known in physics known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; which teaches us that when you change the way you look at something, the thing you look at changes is response.

You seem to be mixing up two diffrent ideas (which is common, as per below):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects."

Tau wrote:
quantum physics proves nothing; it is merely a set of equations leading us hopefully towards greater understanding.

That’s exactly it. I once head an expert on quantum physics state in a radio interview that anyone who says “quantum physics tells us that …” should be ignored. His point was as yours Tau i.e. it is a solid set of equations that can make spectacularly actuate predictions; but that “model” does not give us a definitive explanation about the nature of reality; nor does it claim to.

Back on point …

Evan Pantazi wrote:
I know the light tap videos put some off, but maybe that is a weeding process as if all did it, then quite frankly I would be out of work... in the Martial aspect.  And if more people did great Karate you would be also... the Yin and Yang of it sir.

I’m not sure I follow you here? Are you saying you don’t want something you believe to be highly effective to gain widespread acceptance? And that poor videos that put people off are helpful in that regard?

For my point of view, I want everyone doing good karate and I hope we will reach a point where there is no bad karate left for us to critique. That what I put forth will become viewed as self-evident and the accepted norm would be a fantastic achievement. It’s up to “karate” what it wants to do, but I’d be delighted if it took what I do as the norm.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
And as I am not a proponent of light tap or no touch crappola, I cannot say that any of it is working against my objectives as I am trying to rid the world of this and it's "professors" with more real Kyusho.  When I see something is not real like pressure points and TCM, I tell the world as I am right now... we work with people and experience, be it civilian, law enforcement, military and medical.

I think your critique of taps, no touch and TCM concepts is very important and I defiantly think it makes for a version of Kyusho that has far greater robustness pragmatically and intellectually.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
Now just for the heck of it sir, here is an unlisted YouTube (please keep it only for your forum members here), I added a few years ago of one of our instructors working level two curriculum skills with Kyusho.  You will see chaos and you will see competance in chaos, that is how we work more realistically through our program.  You may note a couple of strikes that were at the same target (although it is advised against as in combat it is often protected with raised arms and shoulders), some do land and a few misses (that will occur in a more chaotic environment). The difficult part is to control your adrenaline so you do not injure and only incapacitate to a level 2 KO.  Peter Pinard of Claremont Ferreand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEslzTt-Q8o

Thank you for sharing that. Chaos is always good. My concern would be that it still seems like lots of light tap knockouts. Granted it’s not against a single static individual, but I’m still seeing five people easily dropped with light shots in under ten seconds. Therefore the sceptic in me does not see the evidence desired.

Maybe if we increased the ferocity of the attackers (put on boxing gloves, give the defender a head guard, etc) and had those ignorant to kyusho play that role (i.e. they can only react to what did drop them, so we can rule out reactions to what they think should stop them)? There could be safety issues that way of course i.e. the person doing the drill end may up delivering full force shots to the necks of the attackers, or get smashed by multiple full power gloved fists.

I think the bottom line is we all have to go with what we think true, based on the evidence we have seen and experienced. The guys in the original clip have done that, you’ve done that, and I’m doing that.

For me, I’m of the view that there are some areas of the body that have a greater effect than others when hit; that these areas are based on known anatomical weakness (not chi and related concepts); that landing shots accurately can be extremely difficult in the chaos of conflict; that power – which is a result of good technique – is a vital component of any effective technique; and therefore I remain unconvinced by light tap knockouts. Hit weak areas hard and we get results. I think that’s a pretty solid, uncontroversial position to take.

Of course, different people have differing experiences and it’s good that there is not consensus because things tend to presses through a thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis model i.e.

1 – A martial artist puts forward a proposition.

2 – Other martial artists take the opposite position and argue against it.

3 – The resulting debate will have “common truths” from both thesis and anti-thesis reconciled such that a new thesis is formed.

The fact your own experience has led to your conclusions that weak areas are not chi-based “points” is a great example of this process in effect.

For me, I have learnt – from these conversations – that not all “kyusho” is reliant on an acceptance of chi, meridians and acupuncture points as a real world entities. We may not agree on other things, but I do find that area of “synthesis” to be useful.

Evan Pantazi wrote:
Again thank you for allowing my participation.

Thank you! All views are welcome here. All we ever ask is that they are articulated coherently, politely, and remain open to respectful challenge. It’s that that makes for interesting and enlightening discussion. I have really enjoyed our conversations and I’m very grateful to you for sharing your knowledge and experience in these threads.

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

We nwo have two threads on Kyushu and I confess to being lost as to which is which.

Two perspectives from the-guy-that-sits-on-the-fence

Just this week NICE have unveiled recommendations that acupuncture NOT be used for lower back pain, finding it as effective as a placebo.

Alternatively, last week at university I was lectured on alternative and complimentary therapies as part of a prescribing course. The lecturer was explaining that CT scans of people undergoing acupucture have shown that physiological changes do occur.

I can easily reference the former (look at the NICE web site) but have no reference for latter but I'm sure a google search will reveal it.

Evan Pantazi
Evan Pantazi's picture

Exactly gentlemen, some say they see something one way and it is their reality, others see it another way and see their reality (in any and all methods).  For me the (my) truth is realized through my experience, validated by more experience as well as those of others.  If I question something, I study and works hands on to validate it.  If it does not work for me I say it is not my reality, but that does not mean it is not someone else's.

I can only relate what I have actually done and seen (in actual need and use as well as observation and instruction), grateful for others that relate their real experiences.  Those in military, law enforcement, emergency response that have effectively used it in chaotic high stress situations

What one chooses to see and believe should always be based on experience... As all else is speculative.

As for those Danish guys in the film, they just weren't doing it correctly, (statement based on my personal reality and observation).

All is merely perception on an individual basis, be it quantum, acupuncture, modern medicine... They are all proven correct and incorrect through trial, error and success... But only in the eyes of the beholder.

That said, I too have learned from these interactions here.  When rationed perspectives are forwarded, those involved benefit.  I will say that those that take action to even interact gain the most.  Those that read only, gain a fleeting idea that does not anchor.  (Personal observation from forum moderation since 1995).

Sincerely

Evan Pantazi