sensei8

Sounds great, Patrick. Please count me in in any way that I can help. I, too, look forward to the 2016 LiveStream; they're always so much fun, as you've mentioned. Love to interact with KF members in any available venue!! See you all there!!

Welcome back, jaymac; glad that you're back!! What have you been up to? Still training?

No comments yet as to either the topic and/or the video. I'm patient to the overflowing in the hopes of a productive conversation amongst us all.

Congrats, ashworth; well deserved!!

While the below link is cute, and it is, I also wanted to make a comment about the patience that this instructor exemplified on the floor. Teaching kids can be difficult for many MA instructors across the board, and even more so when the student ages range from 3-5 years old. An instructor, no matter the age of the students, has to demonstrate maturity and the like, and equally important is patience. It's easy to lose patience, yet, it's unacceptable to do so because we instructors have to show that given professionalism at all times, in and out of the school. You want your students to love the MA...to love going to the school...to improve across the board...but if an instructor has no patience, imho, that instructor isn't qualified to teach anybody anything. Patience of an instructor gives the student confidence in themselves! That confidence is one of the selling points of the MA, no matter the age. Might be even more important with kids, and especially with the 3-5 year olds. No instructor is a babysitter, but without patience, that instructor isn't qualified to be a babysitter. Kids are very impressionable, and we instructors have been entrusted with a great honor to mentor them with love and tender care. Parents depend on our level-headed abilities to engage and teach their children the MA virtues that have been the staples for as long as the MA has been around. Watch, and enjoy, the below video, and please watch how this instructor interacts with this 3 year old student beyond the cuteness. https://www.jukinmedia.com/licensing/view/907620 Comments and conversation welcomed...thank you, in advance!!

Welcome to KF, MattTaylor; glad that your here!! I'll run the dojo; and the software won't and/or can't!! The software can only act against the information that I provide it, and that isn't enough because parameters of a dojo change outside of the given software parameters. And no software is going to tell me that I've got to start a new class and set up times. That matrix, and it's a good thing, is not set in stone!! That means that I can override the program as I feel fit and necessary. Therefore, the software can only suggest, and that leaves me to either accept the suggestion or ignore the suggestion. I've no software to suggest to you because I don't use any software outside of bookkeeping and various Microsoft programs. So, I use the simple turn up and pay; seems to have worked for me for a very long time!!

Solid post!!

Do any of your students react poorly when they haven't been invited to the testing cycle? Or is it well explained to the student + Parent (if student is under 18) when they enroll? Poorly? No! Every student has had this explained to them quite clearly!! Therefore, there are no misconceptions and/or misunderstandings about that at all. Thankyou for the clarification. That is good there are no poor reactions None of our Student Body is under any preconceived notions that they'll receive ANYTHING, because nothing is guaranteed, nor is anything given to them: Earn everything!!

I mean, after all, the possibility of ending up on the ground is always there, and if so, best to be prepared should it occur!!

Do any of your students react poorly when they haven't been invited to the testing cycle? Or is it well explained to the student + Parent (if student is under 18) when they enroll? Poorly? No! Every student has had this explained to them quite clearly!! Therefore, there are no misconceptions and/or misunderstandings about that at all.

Thank you, lowereastside!!

My students; now and forever!!

Welcome to KF, northstar; glad that you're here!! All students of the SKKA have to be invited to any Testing Cycle; no exceptions. So, no, we've no make-up days and the like because if one's invited to any Testing Cycle, which are held once per quarter and annually, then they've obviously not missed any days. If they've not received an invitation to any Testing Cycle, then missing days, might be part of the reason for not being invited, but the missing days parameter is at the very bottom of the list of qualifying factors, if at all, to be invited in the first place.

Whenever Greg, our Kancho, and I spar, we go all out with full speed and full power...that's MY favorite sparring drill!!

Yes. Yes, he was 24, just a few months shy of his 25th birthday. Impressive? That might be true, depending on whom one asks. Yes. He was 8 years old. Born: 1932 Started training with Soke: 1940 Shodan: 1946 [16 years of age] Godan: 1956 [24 years of age] JBB wasn't established until Soke wrote the By-Laws in 1957. Soke only had one student his entire life in Takahashi Sensei until they both moved to the USA, and the only child that Soke ever taught to was Takahashi Sensei at the tender age of 8 years old. I, too, always thought, even now, that Takahashi Sensei's Shodan was quite earned at quite a young age...but...I never questioned Soke and/or Dai-Soke as to that because that would've been rude and crude and would've not received by either quite well...to say the least. Shoot, I was at the tender age of 27 when I earned my Godan from Takahashi Sensei. Earned my Hachidan at 44, just 3 months shy of my 45th birthday in 2002. I started when I was 7 years old; having been born in 1957. Soke didn't bow to what other styles have decided as acceptable tenures, not even the slightest. Soke made the rules, and that's the bottom line!! Does our youthfulness as Hachidan's seem wrong and ineffective? One would have to decide for themselves, but not until one's stepped on the floor to see for themselves. Nothing wrong with it. Proof. Is on the floor. Now you said your Dai Soke's son got promoted to Judan from Nanadan. If he was an 18 year old shodan would they have skipped him to 10th or no? NO!!

If one didn't engage in Kumite until 4th Dan, then, I believe that a 4th Kyu could best a 4th Dan. Imho!!

Welcome to KF, schleeb; glad that you're here!! Sure, why not?!! I believe that anything learnt from a qualified instructor is beneficial to the student! Wrestling, generally, means that ground skills will be learnt, and in the world of stand-up Karate styles, it would improve ones MA betterment across the board. A waste of time? That's up to the individual alone to determine, but only in time. Like any competitor...that student will have the same chances as any other competitor...any other student...depending on the politics of the tournament. Rules are to be followed, and seeing that it's wrestling, one might not be able to throw a roundhouse kick, but only techniques allowed by the tournament. Chances? That's to be determined, as well!! Karate skills that would translate into this type of wrestling, or any wrestling for that fact, might be more with Tai Sabaki and the like, basic blocks/deflects, and things like that. However, a Karateka with some experience can adapt quite well because body mechanics are just that, and not some mystery that's either allowed or not allowed. Basic Karate techniques fit quite well with wrestling, but the Karate attacks of punching, strikes, and kicks well be quite limited in many wrestling competitions. But far and away from competition...well...all levels of Karate fit quite well with wrestling because, nothing ventured is nothing gained. So, do whatever one believes will work!! Good luck, keep us updated, and have fun.

Yes. Yes, he was 24, just a few months shy of his 25th birthday. Impressive? That might be true, depending on whom one asks. Yes. He was 8 years old. Born: 1932 Started training with Soke: 1940 Shodan: 1946 [16 years of age] Godan: 1956 [24 years of age] JBB wasn't established until Soke wrote the By-Laws in 1957. Soke only had one student his entire life in Takahashi Sensei until they both moved to the USA, and the only child that Soke ever taught to was Takahashi Sensei at the tender age of 8 years old. I, too, always thought, even now, that Takahashi Sensei's Shodan was quite earned at quite a young age...but...I never questioned Soke and/or Dai-Soke as to that because that would've been rude and crude and would've not received by either quite well...to say the least. Shoot, I was at the tender age of 27 when I earned my Godan from Takahashi Sensei. Earned my Hachidan at 44, just 3 months shy of my 45th birthday in 2002. I started when I was 7 years old; having been born in 1957. Soke didn't bow to what other styles have decided as acceptable tenures, not even the slightest. Soke made the rules, and that's the bottom line!! Does our youthfulness as Hachidan's seem wrong and ineffective? One would have to decide for themselves, but not until one's stepped on the floor to see for themselves.

There are varied ways that failing to take advantage of safe avenue of retreat can undermine your legal defense of self-defense. Of course, in one of the 16 duty to retreat states you would lose self-defense as a matter of law. Poof, it's gone. Even in most stand-your-ground states, where you do not have a legal duty to retreat, the prosecution can still argue to the jury that your failure to do so was not the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person, and so you lose self-defense because you lose on the required element of reasonableness. There are a handful of "hard" stand-your-ground states that prohibit the jury from even considering whether the defender could have retreated, which sounds good, but even here you can get tangled up by failing to take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat. This can happen if the prosecution can convince the jury that you were the initial aggressor (doesn't need to be TRUE, just needs to be CONVINCING). If he does that successfully you lose self-defense on the required element of innocence. UNLESS it turns out that YOU can show that even if you WERE the initial aggressor, you legally recovered your innocence by withdrawing from the fight in good faith. Of course, if you can be made to look like the aggressor and CANNOT show you withdrew in good faith then you will NOT have recovered your innocence, you lose self-defense, and off to the party you go. In terms of "automatic defensive reactions," I understand the rationale from a tactical perspective, especially when we're most likely to be subject to an ambush attack, but that kind of terminology is very dangerous for a legal claim of self-defense. Self-defense, from a legal perspective, must be a deliberate, reasoned act--NOT an automatic reflex. If your automatic reflex turns out to put you outside the bounds of self-defense law (e.g., your "automatic" use of force was disproportional to the attack) the fact that it was an "automatic" response not only won't save your self-defense claim, characterizing it as "automatic" will only further undermine that claim. An "automatic" defensive response that's unlikely to cause much damage--e.g., a block or a shove to create distance--also is unlikely to cause too much legal liability. On the other hand, an "automatic" defense response that maims your "attacker"--especially if it turns out you were wrong about the nature or intensity of the "attack" is going to be a huge problem, legally speaking. That's all I have time for right now, sorry about that, but clients need their cases handled. But I write about this stuff all the time in my professional capacity as an attorney specializing in use-of-force law. Google is your friend. Fair enough, Andrew, thanks!! Google, huh, everything is true on the internet, huh?! LOL

Finally...it's about time...better late than never... The Yankees WON!! I was like, whew....man oh man...how much does a WIN cost nowadays... But, boy oh boy, it felt good!! ::DEEPLY SIGHS OF RELIEF:: Yankee's are having rebuilding growth pains, as of late, but it's still early in the season!! GO YANKEES!!

I actually AM a lawyer, with a legal practice that specializes in use-of-force law (USA only, I'm afraid), so perhaps I can shed some light on this issue. I'll generalize a bit, but everything below would apply in all 50 states, unless I indicate otherwise. There are five elements to any claim of self-defense, and they are cumulative--that is, all five must elements MUST be present (unless legally excused for some reason), or the entire self-defense claim collapses. To put it another, for a prosecutor to destroy your claim of self-defense he needs to destroy any ONE of the required elements of the legal claim of self-defense. One of the elements that is always required is the element of reasonableness--were your perceptions, decisions, actions those of a reasonable person. Reasonableness is evaluated using a two-part test--first, whether your conduct was subjectively reasonable; second, whether your conduct was objectively reasonable. Your conduct must have been BOTH subjectively AND objectively reasonable, or your fail the element of reasonableness and you fail on self-defense. In the context of objective reasonableness, the jury is asked to decide whether a hypothetical "reasonable and prudent person" would have conducted themselves in the same way. If not, your conduct was not objectively reasonable, you fail on the element of reasonableness, and you fail on self-defense. Still with me? Here's where a defender's martial arts training/expertise comes into play. That hypothetical "reasonable and prudent person" (RAPP, we lawyers love our acronyms) is customized to fit the particular facts of that particular case. One of the ways the RAPP can be customized is for any exceptional or specialized capabilities or knowledge possessed by the defendant that is not normally possessed by the general public. The RAPP is presumed to possess generalized knowledge--fire is hot, knives are sharp, etc.--but NOT specialized knowledge. The same for specialized capabilities. If a defendant DOES possess specialized knowledge/capabilities, and this knowledge/capabilities contributed to their perceptions, decisions, and actions in self-defense, than that specialized knowledge/capabilities is relevant to their claim of self-defense. In effect, then, the jury is being asked to decide if a reasonable and prudent person POSSESSING THE DEFENDANT'S SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE/CAPABILITIES would have acted in the same way as did the defendant. If the answer is "yes," then the defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable. If "no," then the conduct was NOT objectively reasonable, the defendant fails the element of reasonableness, and the defendant fails on self-defense. Typically, relevant specialized knowledge is introduced into evidence through the testimony of an expert witness in that field. It's important to understand that such specialized knowledge/capabilities can be used EITHER to the defendant's detriment OR benefit, depending on the circumstances. An example of how specialized knowledge might be used to a defendant's BENEFIT is if he is faced with multiple "unarmed" opponents, and his dojo training and experience has taught him that such a disparity of numbers represents a threat of grave bodily harm. This could justify him in using a weapon even though his attackers are "unarmed." When the prosecutor argues that a weapon should not have been used against an "unarmed" opponent, the expert witness is brought in by the defense to educate the jury with the relevant specialized knowledge. An example of how specialized knowledge might be used to a defendant's DETRIMENT is if he is faced with an attacker apparently possessing no particular fighting expertise, e,g, throwing round house punches at the defender, and the defender possesses a suitable expertise in, say, judo, that he could reasonably throw the attacker to the ground rather than perform elbow mediated dental extraction on the poor fellow. (Another one of the elements of a self-defense claim, proportionality, requires that you use no more force than necessary to neutralize the threat.) That latter example is what most people are thinking of when they wonder "Can my black belt be used against me in court?" The answer is that if you possess a particular level of expertise, you will be held to the standard of someone possessing that level of expertise. It's hard to argue that this shouldn't be the case, really. Sorry, we lawyers tend to run on-and-on. I hope that's helpful information. Solid post, Andrew!! Andrew, If I've a chance to leave my attacker, and I don't, I continue to engage, am I wrong, in the eyes of the Law, and ultimately in a court of law?!? How far can one push the defense of perception?? If I say I perceive that I was still in danger, am I forgiven in the eyes of the court?? "I do not hit, "it" hits all by itself!!!" Automatic responses and the like, how might a judge view that? Can one use that quote as a defense? Seeing that one might say..."I was attacked, and my response was so automatic that after that very moment, I didn't think with intent, I just reacted without thought." Considerations are forgotten, not by malice, but by circumstances that I acted upon by automation within myself, as I've been trained to do so. Thanks, Andrew!!

Well, in the US almost all cases of self-defense are handled at the state, not the Federal, level. We've got 50 different states and thus 50 different sets of laws (plus Washington DC, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc.). As a result almost any statement about self-defense law generalized to the entire USA is going to be incorrect. In fact, only 16 states impose a legal duty to retreat before you can use force in self-defense. The remaining 34 states do NOT. So, a duty to retreat only exists in a minority of states. Even in the states that DO impose a legal duty to retreat, most of them impose this duty only before you can use deadly force in self-defense, and do not impose the duty to retreat if you limit yourself to non-deadly force. Unfortunately, we've had more than a few martial artist clients who mistakenly believed that "deadly force" means only force that can actually kill someone, and that any lesser degree of force must therefore be mere non-deadly force. Sadly for their cases, the legal definition of deadly force is considerably broader than that. If you've learned a martial art in part to make yourself hard to kill or maim or rape, it pays to know the use-of-force laws in your jurisdiction in order to make yourself hard to convict. Solid post!! I'd also add, that if there are 50 states in the USA that have differing laws, then one best stay in their state and not venture elsewhere. I'd like to think that these 50 states have a sense of normalcy in things like this. Have a chance to leave and you don't, now who's guilty?!?!?! I would think that a judge would pass sentence on me, as well as my attacker, and perhaps, even more so!!

Don't you mean, have them turn off their cell phones as part of dojo rules?! Because, the cell phone is private property, and imho, no dojo has the right to take anyone's cell phone/private property away. Possibly in some parts of the world, but kids are kids and they can all go into a box for "safe keeping".......... Or keep the darn thing in the car...with a parent...at home...anywhere except in the dojo and NOT on owns person during class...or put it in the locker, if your dojo is lucky enough to have them...leave it in your bag...just express consideration for the dojo and fellow students. Like the wearing of jewelry and the like in a dojo, use common sense, and FOLLOW THE RULES...OR GO HOME!!

Don't you mean, have them turn off their cell phones as part of dojo rules?! Because, the cell phone is private property, and imho, no dojo has the right to take anyone's cell phone/private property away.

That's great news there, Brian; congrats to Kenneth and Kendall...AWESOME WRESTLERS!! Come on next season!!