Is it possible to still damage your attackers vital points if they are covered with a thick coat or something?

Go to a non-I.M.A. site to ask this question.
With Ba-Gua I'll slam your whole body onto the ground. No vital parts needed.

Thats a pretty open question. There's a big diference between an 'accupuncture point' hidden under the bulk of heavy winter clothes (for northerners), or going for a throat, temple, elbow or knee.

once i fought this guy in chainmail, I kept trying to hit him on G17(the knock out point), but the mail kept me from it. So now i avoid renessance fairs, and time travle.

Mark;
I've been in many fights and you are not going to be able to hit a moving vital point. You just need to be able as Tim says to hit a large quadrant of body or slam the person to the ground. In Tim's Effortless Combat Throws on page 23 he states:

Unlike the fists or feet, the earth never gives nor misses.

In the fights I've been in have I have mostly used an external style of Kung-fu (San Soo) and I have never connected with a vital point except in one fight and that was because two of the three guys stood in one place.
I was in one fight where I couldn’t connect with the guy because he was terrified with me. I finally lost my wind and he smacked me in the forehead that knocked me to the ground for a moment. Just landing on the ground just shook the hell out of me. I’ll always remember that feeling. That is why I like Tim’s statement.

Just striking the Earth and not being hurt rattles you. It will give you time to run if need be.

I can just imagine if I was thrown by a trained fighter.

- Ron (SysOp)

Ron

I am in agreement with you.

I recall that in Michigan winters after changing out of my 'gi', it occured to me that the 'great' stuff we had been doing in the dojo would not work anywhere near so well when dressed in our heavy clothes and boots.

I agree with Tim and do not have his experience, but part of training in these arts is that (ideally) we can manuver such that we can hit a temporarily not moving target. The Hsing Yi goal of being able to hit anywhere effectively (center of mass) is still a very good idea, as well as use of the ground, walls, counters, etc.

Perhaps Curious should clarify what he intends by 'vital point'.

I agree with the folks who say vital points are not viable in real combat. I draw a parallel from police or practical pistolcraft.

Well informed police pistol trainers were teaching (at least they were fifteen years ago when I last took classes) that you should shoot for the center of mass of the target. The basis for this is the psychology of combat stress which says that in a real combat situation fine motor skills are (generally) gone. Thus any idea of shooting at small areas (e.g. the head or the legs) is out.

This of course matches the xingyi teaching of aim right for the center of mass. The combat doctrines are identical.

As an aside, the local (Taiwanese) cops are taught to aim to wound the bad guy first. They are taught to aim for the legs. When I first heard that my jaw dropped. I find it sad that the local officers are put at risk due to grossly outmoded training approaches.

Take care,
Brian

That is probably why ancient japanese hand-to-hand consisted mainly of throws and joint-breaks in a time when the average warrior wore wood and leather armor. Vital point arts were more often than not assassination methods (what good is it to strike a point that causes death much later when you need your attacker stopped now?), and usually involved "short" striking due to accuracy problems in a melee. Aikijutsu and okinawa-te generally use grabbing or clawing attacks to vital points for this reason also.

Kenneth -

The Japanese wore chain mail and lacquered leather armor - do you have a source that states they wore wooden armor? Perhaps in very early times?

Some actually adopted European style breast plates in later times.

Brian-

I am stunned that Taiwanese cops are taught to aim for legs. Bad tactics.

With training head shots are not difficult at close range. They are S.O.P for SWAT units on hostage rescue operations, but you are generally talking MP-5's or .223 at room distances.

Center mass simply provides a higher probability of rounds (or strikes) hitting and (hopefully) stopping.

I think the use of firearms puts the lie to vital point striking for a different reason- many is the man hit multiple times by handgun rounds, in various "vital" areas, and continued to fight and live.

If people want to claim that their MA training allows them to strike with greater efficacy than a 9mm or .45, I am willing to put it to the test - they can punch me in the solar plexus, then I'll shoot them with my HK. We'll see which one hits harder.

Hissho and All

You forget that any gun 'hits' the user with more energy than the bullet hits the target. The diference is in how that energy is applied. Just as with diferent types of blows. (FYI Should a bullet cut the femoral artery in the leg, the shootee may be dead before any ambulance could arive)

Suppose 'Curious' idea of 'vital points' includes the eye, would that make a diference in the responses already given? If he included the collar bone? Xyphoid process? Kidney? Spine?

Curious How 'bout getting a little more specific?

I'd like to add that in traditional CMA technical categorization (which includes kicking, striking, throwing and grappling), striking "vital points" (referring to relatively small, vulnerable areas) is not included in the category of "striking," but in the category of "chin na" (grappling)techniques.

The guys who really fought back in the day discovered accurate strikes to small targets were extremely difficult on a mobile opponent. They found the most opportune time to apply a "vital point" strike was when the opponent was immobilized (pinned on the ground) or otherwise "locked up" with joint lock/restraining techniques.

Hissho, sorry for the inaccuracy, you are obviously more knowledgeable in the specifics of japanese arms and armor, but the same principle applies. Mark, whenever I hear "vital points", I think "acupuncture points", but you are correct, vital points covers so much more. As for a punch to the solar plexus, if it were from Tak Kubota or Mas Oyama, I doubt I would still be standing to shoot him. But Hissho's point is well taken. Handgunning may be the ultimate vital point art as far as CQC is concerned. There are so many variables (size, emotional state of target, caliber and type of bullet used, etc.•••••• is nice that we can discuss the possibilities and probabilities while we bear in mind that, for the particular situation that may face us someday, none of these need necessarily apply.

Tim, while on that subject, I'd like to point out that many CMAs labor under the assumption that the "keyword" formulas of their respective systems (such as eagle claw or mantis) represent the heart of their systems, when in actuality, they represent what differentiates their systems from others in terms of principles of movement, secret methods, etc. The "meat" (if you will) of a system lies in its chin na techniques and regardless of how they are executed, they must effect the target the same way regardless of style. I believe it is Yang Jwing Ming who, in his "Shaolin Chin Na" book, gives a definition of chin na that essentially expresses this.

Actually, some Japanese armor were made of lacquered strips of bamboo.

That's what I always assumed. Thanks, Meynard, I'd much rather have you support me than slap me

I was just letting of steam. You shouldn't take me seriously Kenneth when I say such things.

You have to think of what's abundant in Japan in those times. I don't think they had a large supply of leather, but they do have lots of those giant bamboo. Those things are tough especially after they've been lacquered. They also made armor out of ray skin. Of course, the richer Samurai would have metal armor made of almost the same kind of steel that they made swords with.

Meynard-

Did you get that from Don?

Not saying it is not accurate, it is simply not what I have heard before - just the opposite. I am wondering if you know of a source document for that info.

Which part is not accurate?

I use to go to the Hawley Library/Musuem in the Hollywood Hills and have seen a good amount of Japanese armor and weapons. Iron ore had to be transformed into iron ingots and depending on the use, different amounts of carbon were added to it. Depending on the maker swords would have a .5 to .9 percent carbon depending on the section of the sword. Some would have a pure iron core with no carbon whatsoever.

I've seen armor made out of lacquered bamboo. The helmet would be iron but the rest of it is lacquered bamboo. Shin and arm guards would have strips of metal or strips of lacquered bamboo. They were connected with chainmail or silk and would have some padding underneath. Some were made of leather, deer hides. Some were lacquered leather. The whole thing is totally modular. Parts were made from different materials. It also depends on what era you are talking about.

Meynard-

What era was the laquered bamboo armor from, and was it decorative or combat armor. Did it have a bamboo covering over hide, leather, cloth, chain, scales or plate?

Even in the Yamato period body armors and helmets were made of iron plate - they had bronze and iron working capabilty, and ample raw materials as evidenced from what has been found in the early mound tombs.

I would love to know the provenance of the bamboo armor you saw. I am no specialist, so I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, it is only that seems to run counter to what I have read and heard about Japanese armor (I have been digging through my Bottomly and Hopson to find some reference to wooden or bamboo armor and haven't had any luck).

On the other hand I have heard that idea dismissed as false by folks who claim it came from the erroneous idea that karate punches and board breaking developed from the Okinawans punching through the samurai wooden armor.

Of course if Hawley had a suit of bamboo armor, that was not ceremonial, that puts the lie to that, doesn't it.

According to Patrick McCarthy, karate was developed for fighting other okinawans actually, because when the supposed weapons ban went into effect, bandits and other unsavory types took full advantage of it to waylay unarmed law-abiding citizens. For you NRA members, sword registration implemented by an okinawan king made weapons confiscation simple for the japanese invaders that came along later. Now, I am hearing that there may never have been a weapons ban, that belief in such was the result of a mistranslation. Regardless, although there were a few incidents of karate masters defeating armed samurai, this was rare. A man almost supernaturally skilled in unarmed combat against a man almost supernaturally skilled in wielding a 4-foot razorblade? You do the math.