tallgeese

today- 6, 2 min rounds of basic combos. add movement, finish by adding defense. 15 min of work incorporating tripping takedown into above combo. 15 min of drilling escapes from guard and mount 4,3 min rounds of drilling these movements live, or (higher levels of experience) drilling free roll from negative positions. I specifically worked the z mount during the free roll. 2, 3 min rounds of adding strikes to bottom man from above drill finished with 4, 3 min rounds of free roll from knees 2, 3 min rounds of free roll from standing had a couple of new people tonight so we slowed the pace down to really work on basic strikes and posture.

Having come out of a system heavily influenced by standing JJJ, and having studied grappling arts for awhile, I can say that there ireally is a signifigant difference in application. Yes, there is certainly a root present there, however, it's grown very much into it's own entitiy.

today- 3 mile run back/bi/abs

Nice one!

Welcome to KF! Good luck at yor upcoming grading. Keep us posted.

Depends. Maybe more than one would think if one is proficient and comfortable with their use in such a manner. Personally, I tend to use straight and bent arm motions due to the gross motor function to apply them typically makes it easier to implement them. That being said, they've come in handy professionally from time to time. Just remember, digging for a small joint can get one in trouble, so use them accordingly.

I'm not a kata guy, I know, no one here is surprised. I will throw out there, just for sake of discussion, that grabs happen pretty frequently. Maybe not intentionally, that I'll give you. But when an attacker and defender crash, sometimes it's not as easy to maintain distance as one would think. I'm not talking about strikers v. grapplers here, I'm talking about joe drunk jumping you unexpectedly (or other such thing). A few punches fly the gap narrows and limbs get entangled. Often, the bad guy will grab either in an effort to hold and hit, or trying to push, move, or bear you to the ground. Thus, there are times that standing jj comes in handy to have in the tool box. Now, if those moves are bunkai or such I'll leave to others more informed on the subject. But I can see the situation where it'd happen.

bushido man, yes, there is a distinct difference between with a gi and without. I've done way more no gi and I can tell you that it's way easier to slip out of things, scramble quickly, ect without. Conversely, it's easier to control and move an opponent with the gi on. There is still a highly technical aspect to no gi. In fact, your submissions have to be very tight and well executed to have a chance of better success when things get sweaty. No gi to compensate. That being said, there are many more technical considerations when dealing with a gi. As to which to do first or more of, I'd say whichever is going to fill your needs better. That being said, having done mainly no gi, I wish I had spent more time in the gi before now. I think that it would have helped my understanding of body mechanics and the generalities of the game. Ideally, working both would be best. today- 3 mile run chest/tris/abs 4, 3 min rounds alternating between standup on BOB and mobility drills on the ground. It's nice to be hitting something again.

I don't know much about sword arts, but the symbolism that any sort of item like that has is huge. I give out katanas to my bb's when they make that rank. They've probably never touched one in training, but it's a symbolic thing. Congrats.

Congrats! Well done!

If you belong, I supposed they CAN do just about anything. SHOULD is a different story. Personally, I feel that "no" would be the answer to both.

today- I know, it's still part of my "off week" but... Went up to visit the bjj school of the guy who took first in my division in the naga. I had gotten the invite after the tourney. The day worked and I couldn't pass it up. Free rolled for about 1-1.5 hours. 5 min rounds. Spent specific time going over a mount variation I hadn't used before and submission series off it as well in there. Took real detailed notes on the way he and his people rode with knee in, very effective. I'd like to make regular visits up there, but it's a good 1.5 hour drive. We'll see how that goes over.

I agree. However, sometimes it's easier to start from an end point and build a program around that than pair down an existing, diverse system. Not to mention, usually those developing these sorts of things have intimate operational knowledge of 1) the situations most encountered for that core group, 2) they types on individuals that they will be training, and 3) time and resources to analyzing a wide array of data to help put together their program. I'm not disagreeing with you. I do think that, in most instances, it is easier to go with a goal oriented package for wide dissemination to people in these jobs.

Yes, there is a component of personal comfort. But if you do a breakdown of stuff that's proven effective in the street, you're going to find a smaller pattern of similar movements that will lead you towards the tightest product you can put forth. I'll have to look and find it, but it's along the lines of the stat analysis someone did on what movements win UFC bouts the most. It's usually the "go to" or high percentage stuff. Yes, we've seen all kinds of things work, even flying armbars and the like, but if you play to the odds you'll start seeing the same things pop up over and over again. This can help you set up your training time accordingly. The same can apply to street level confrontations. Again, I'll have to find it, but a police study done for one of the country's larger metropolitan depts found certain control tactics more used or more effective against resistive baddies. As I recall, knees were high on the list. This kind of thing can help one structure training for realism. I'm not saying people shouldn't be well versed, or that personal comfort doesn't or shouldn't play a role. But a handful of proven movements are often better worked on that several less applicable movements given the track record to their performance. That's all. .

Welcome aboard and glad to have you! Don't worry, we've all asked no end of odd questions. Enjoy.

Mainly technical manuals at this point. Preferably ones that are drill heavy for specific skills. Although I think there are some mindset books out there that should come first.

I don't foresee any issue at all. It's a scheduling issue, more training is always better, a secure instructor won't have a problem. Just let him know what you're doing and why. As to training out of garage, or any non-traditional venue taking you only so far, that's true if you're striving to compete at high levels. Not due to anything you can't do, but largely because you need more time than these facilities can usually give you and a wider range of sparring opportunities. I've actually had some of the best training experiences of my life training out of well stocked home workout facilities. My basement now serves very well. The key is personnel and equipment. If you've got both, you're golden. Usually, the only problem after that is time. Depending on your goals this can be a problem, granted. Otherwise, it's mainly a training experience determined by the quality of instructor and other students.

If you're concerned with grip strength you can also work on rope climbs and do it in sets of 5-15 depending on how long of length you can get ahold of. Also, pulling an object hand over hand is useful as well. I've used a milk crate with weights but you could tie a rope off to anything. Again, this works grip very well. As for the wrist curls and such, start off with high reps, say 15-20 for 3-5 sets. That's going to be more useful for most ms-ist than heavy weight and low reps. You can very your training once you start to see results. Don't forget you can also lever stuff in you hand. For instance, find an old sledge and just work on lifting it from a horizontal plain to a vertical one.

Granted. I think there are still certain "high percentage" movements that will connect more often under more conditions that make them more valuable.

The trend is to go to packaged products that can be easily taught to a wide variety of people quickly. Some are more effective than others. Blauer's SPEAR system has really taken off with lots of units of government and is utilized extensively by federal LE and the military. There are others out there, for instance, the Gracies developed a specific ground program for certain units. It's usually far more efficient to get results from some of these programs than look to complex codified systems that take years to get down. Some of them are very good.

sperki, you asked about target areas from an open stance. Bushido man is very correct in his assessment based on what your goals of sparring are. If you're constrained by specific areas, then an open stance, which tends to lend itself to more side postures, seem better. However, from a sd context, you tend to leave the kidneys (as you mentioned) open for attack, the spine (bad), and the lead knee (easily stomped). Additionally, it tends to be easier for an opponent to sweep the leg, or destabilize in some why, that lead leg. This can also mean a less defensible posture from which to counter takedown efforts. Of course, that's not the only way to assess what you're doing. It's just what comes to my mind. It's no more or less valid than anyone else's based on their goals. From the open posture as well, you're often limited to your lead side weapons for a majority of contact. This is true for both parties, I'll grant. But if no one is scoring good hits with their heavier weapons the fight will start to drag out. This means there is more that can go wrong and more chance he'll get that "punchers chance" shot in. I'll grant, as well, that in competitive sparring, it can set up attacks via surprise. However, most street confrontations crash together quickly and leave little, if any time for complex foot work patterns. This is why I prefer the gross motor function of a single stance. It's easier for the body to default to a single natural posture than move back and forth in conflict. Just some of the tactical concerns that I'd have.

Did no-gi. If I get some more time to practice with one I might do both next time, even though I'll be way outclassed for a time with a gi on. I haven't even been in a karate gi for any training (testing boards only) for years.

Ok, I know I said that I'd take a week off, but i got the chance to roll with they guys who taught me ground work so I couldn't pass it up. 10-15 min of light roll to warm up. 3, 4 min rounds w/no gi Spent 10 min drilling with the gi on as a refresher. I don't spend that much time in one any more, I'm thinking that I will now for a time. I've lost some of those skills. 3, 3 min rounds in the gi 2, 3 min rounds back to no gi Got controlled alot, worked alot of little things I've be missing or weak on. Great time.

Yeah, bushido man is right. Not much you can do on the wrist diameter itself. I too am cursed with small handles for people to grab on to. Everyone has made some good suggestions. Increasing the strength, and therefore size, of your forearms will make manipulations and control easier.

There are all sorts of tactical considerations when you move from closed to9 open stances. That I'll agree with, probably more than one can list out easily. It'll be a different set of weapons and different target areas that are presented. I'm probably in a minority here, but I'm not a big fan of switching stances. I have a few reasons so bear with me. First up, if you're switching your stance to accommodate another fighters stance, then you're effectively letting him dictate your style and approach to the fight. In all likelihood, you're playing into his game by allowing him to fight out of a stance he's comfortable while you're forced to work from a less comfortable posture. Even the most die hard stance switching advocates will usually admit that they are more comfortable in one stance over another. Why give him this advantage. Work against fighting opponents who face you in both open and closed stances, but don't feel the need to take away an advantage of yours. That's my major problem with it. Next, by moving from stance to stance, you give him a chance to capitalize on time that you're moving your feet and not attacking or pressing the fight. Depending on how the switch is done, you might even be presenting him with an opening to take advantage of. If you can fight against him from a single stance this cuts out this possible pit fall. Further, and related, it's time spent on movements that don't 1) further your game, or 2) prevent him from furthering his. It's a stalemate, he changes, you change, nothing is gained for you. Instead, take the advantage as he switches to push action. Lastly, it's a training time issue. If I had the ability to train all day everyday and could work on just about everything under the sun, I'd probably get to the point where I'd be just as comfortable out of one as the other. Until that independently wealthy day comes, I have to budget training time very carefully. So, if my body naturally wants to fight left forward, I'm not going to radically spend time to override it. I'm going to go with that and focus on training there and getting back there. There is a good case for familiarization. So I do a bit of work every now and again so it won't shock me into inaction. That's about it. I claim about a 90/10 split. That's probably about right, I might not be quite as frequent as the 10% on the off side, but that's what I'd advise. If an injury occurs to your lead side, a question that came up on another thread, then I'd say you need to evaluate how long that's going to keep your lead out of action. If it's short term, no problems. If it's long term, then I'd redefine my training goals or, and more likely, redefine my response patters into a way that my current stance could still work if possible. Good question and, as always, it will depend on what your training goals are. That's the bulk of my case anyway.