tallgeese

This is a less than efficient stance when utilizing a firearm. In fact, given my background, I think it's a really bad idea. First up, two hands on the weapon. Grip is essintal for accurate and fast fire. It's one of the many factors that make shooting an art and science in and of itself. Two hands should be used to maximize control and aid in bringing the weapon to bear. Single handed shooting should be practiced due to the likelyhood of taking a round in the hand during a gunfight. Injuries to hands are high in these encounters, it's best to practice for this possibilitry, but it's not a primary shooting platform. Next up, a more natural stance. You need to be able to move, not get stagnent with feet lined up in a row. Shoulder width apart, atheltic bend in the knees. Maybe a lead foot a tad ahead. Natural is key, build off the platform that your body wants to give you. Now, in cases of people doing this for a living, face frontal. It's a factor of body armor. Don't give the baddies a seam thru plates to shoot thru. Face that big piece of kevlar towards them. Good cross over training can occur between unarmed and working with a gun, but only if you're training good natural postures in both, not artifical stances. This will also make transition between hands on and presenting a weapon easier. But in the end, it's just that, cross over training. The gun it it's own art that is highly rewarding and useful. But one has to realize that just like any other art it's going to take time to learn all the considerations that go into it. Stance, grip, presentaion, trigger press, tactical considerations, it's a long list. I'm a big proponanat of making sure bb's are trained to use firearms, even if at only a rudimentary level, but you have to use movments that are viable to the handgun itslef, not just stick a gun at the end off a ma stance.

today- chest/ tris break ground work day: 10 min of drilling on shrimping and leg over. chained them together. 20 min instructinal block of side mount, passing side, submission series 10 min of escape/control work from side 7, 3 min rounds of free roll.

What's more important to training across various weapons in unarmed combat is similar principles, not similar weapons. An overall approach to the goals of fighting that is unified will serve you better than trying to unifiy the movements of the tools you're using. Still, it's not a bad teaching tool to get people used to training in an unfamiliar weapon to give them a similar pattern with something that they are more familiar with (ie, unarmed). As to what bushido man said, working BOB over with weapons is useful just like beating on him unarmed would be.

Heck of a good fight. GSP really did steal the show however. Even in Penn's inital round where he preformed his best, he was by and large simply defending well. GSP really came in with a solid game plan and excellent fitness. I swear, he still looks like he's getting better. I know Penn went up in weight for this fight, but skill wise he was really out fought by GSP. I think Penn will do better dropping back to his natural weight. I'm not sure that, for right now, GSP is going to get knocked off the top of the mountain. That weight class might be his to dominate for awhile.

It can be a really good tactic to use enviornmental factors to help you in a jam. Forcing people into walls, for example, will limit their mobility and give you a good controlled chance to work the in-fight if that's your range. As for the table, if the situation calls for an escalation or force multiplier it mightbe a real good option. The chair or barstool is excellent for building distance and a barrier between yourself and a knife. Might not be bad options. Now, if I could just remember to get that "looky here" line.

It's a matter of comfort, postion, and situation. I don't stress too much about what to use or the postion of the fist. It's too much to think about. I'm more concerrned with matching the weapon that I'm throwing to the target I'm trying to hit. That't it. If one will serve better than the other, then that's what I let pop out, I don't try to course correct on how the subconcious reads the angle I need. Generally speaking outside of situation specific encounters, my punches typically come into contact with a target around 45 degrees of rotation between the two.

today- 15 min of knife work, focus on angles, footwork, cuts 15 min of spontaneous offensive knife work 4, 3 min rounds of free sparring, sd focus

Congrats JohnC!

You are correct, Michi, I did like this quite a bit. I also happend to agree with alot of stuff he was doing. The dude is a riot and very entertaining. He used to to commentary for one of the fight leagues and it was fantastic. His "Big Book of Combat" is on my list of things to pick up (two volums I believe). Nice find, thanks for posting.

I do see the difference that joe is talking about. A big flying side kick might be very effective when it connects (high energy transfer to the head and all). But in terms of actually landing it in a dynamic fight and considering the number of reps it would take to make it workable for most body types, it wouldn't be very efficient. I think it's a minor point, but there is a difference.

today- 3, 3 min rounds on the mitts and body gear. cover and combo, cover, work low. holder initiates choke, trainee counters 3, 3 min rounds on the kick shield. push kick, mt, knee. add tie up, holder drops shield and single legs. trainee counters and pulls down with sprawl. 35 min instructinal block. standing jj and aiki work 7, 3 min rounds free roll from standing. break 40 min of spontaneous attack and defend drills at good pace/contact. focus on gaining standing control.

Welcome aboard, somewhat belatedly .

I was just reading thru a thread and what I though was an interesting question came to light. How much of what we all do is done that way simply because our instructors did it that way? How deep is the meaning behind just about anything we might be asked to do? So my qustion to everyone is this: how much do you value constat questioning and experimentation in your training vs. doing things a certain way simply because that's how you were taught? Where do you fall along this spectrum? I really do think this is a wide spectrum. I doubt very much that any of use are at the extreme end either way on this. It's probibly a matter of different shades towards each. We can't help but be influcned by the way we were taught, and in some cases, maybe you don't need to press forward with the evolution of what you're doing for one reason or another. Not suprising to anyone around here I'd bet, is that I fall into the constant experimentation catagory. I think that the less we take for granted, the more efficient we can become at combat. This is how progress is made. You work movements, you deploy them against very "live" opponants and see how they do. Then you continue to go back to the drawing board as needed. I'd like to see science applied more to things that have been either questioned or taken for granted for years (pressure points for instance). With the advent of RBSD networks, we're starting to see some research come out about different aspects of fighting and survial and I'm glad to see it, I hope it continues and we start to see statistical breakdowns of things that are working and arent' in real world situations. We're starting to see some of this come back anctedotally from troops using different unarmed methods around the globe as well as LE officers using DT in the line of duty. Hopefully, we'll start to see some deliniated studies on this sort of thing. I also think that the UFC has been very useful in the testing of movements over the last 15 years or so. Full contact competition with limited rules (not no rules, but more limited than lots of competitive venues) agaisnt fully resistive opponents has taught us alot about what works and what's suspect as well as training and teaching methodologies. So that's the side of things I lean towards. Now, there are some things I still do because that's the way I grew up in the arts. For instacne, I run belt tests about the same way my insturctor did. BB tests are done in the same manner with the same sections and proficiencies (sometimes different movements to be sure, but the same principles). There are also the same quirky aspects to them that I inherated from him. The one big thing I got from"because that's they way I was taught" mentality, was, ironically, the idea of contantly testing movements and new ideas for effectivenss. So how does everyone else feel about this topic?

Bushido-Ruach, you stated that these things work because they've been passed down from ealier generations that put them to task on the battlefield. Paraphrased. That may be true. Then again, it may not. For all we know, the guys doing this stuff were using 8 inch blades to accentuate their strikes. There's no way to tell. I agree with bushido man, what' d I'd need to see is some hard science on how and why they work. Then maybe some studies on how many times they were successfully deployed under fight conditions. Then we're cooking with fire. I'm not saying that there's noting there. I don't know, I can say I havne't been impressed with alot of stuff that I've seen come out of certain camps that put forth pressure point theory. But as we all know, there are good and bad everywhere in anything. I do have some friends that are pretty sold on the stuff, so it's on my list of things to look into deeper. Still, just because something has been passed down, dosn't automatically make it feesable. There's nothing wrong with ongoing experimentation into the effectiveness of things as we progress with methods.

today- In the wee morning hours I went in for my annual department jts training. It's a interactive video of situations that may or may not involve using deadly force with a weapon. (judgement training simulator). It uses laser weapons to record hits and our model has a fire back cannon to pelt you with inert paintballs if you use poor tactics. Everyone has to do three scenarios. I had a friend from the range staff give me a few more. He pulled up some good ones. Good stuff. Ran about an hour or 1.5 hrs.

Not a shotokan guy, but I hear what you all are saying about organization size. I come out of a very small regional group. This is great in the fact that I can name all of our black belts. I've been on the board for a few. This allows for very good control of what your final product is. No one slips thru the cracks. Ever. It also allows for alot of quality variation and growth that is difficult for a large organization to keep track of quality wise as new things and ideas come in. Also, you certainly have more latitude to grow your art concptually since there is little to no bueuracracy to go thru. On the down side, due to the lack of a serious chain of command, your going to have a harder time organizing events and such (we always joke that we are very much and associtation and not an organization). These things will generally cost participants less when they finally get around to happening but you'll also be less likely to draw highly recognized talent. You'll never have any kind of national or international recognition for your rank. This may or may not be important to you. You can still grow your own skill sets in a small organization, but you'll end up cross training outside it for sure. Either can be a good experiance and there are times I envy the organizational capabilities of big groups. Personally, I like the small group feel, but it's 6 of one half a dozen of another.

Sorry to hear that. A loss for everyone.

Speaking from a Christian world view (although I'll be the first to admit I'm as flawed as the next guy- probibly more so), there is a distinct difference between studying them to have a knowledge and understanding vs. following them as a way of addressing the issues you face in your daily life. The Bible is very clear on where a followers priorities need to be and on where the fundimental answers to our questions are. Anything that would lead us off that path is less than desireable. Now, does reading this stuff agaisnt the precepts of Christianity, I'd say no. In fact, how are you supposed to understand other's outlooks as a matter of witnessing to them if you have no idea of where they are coming from. So, read and understand them - fine. Follow - not so much. Bear in mind, this is my opinion and that's all. It's not my place to pass judgement on anyone. For me, it's been easy, even eastern thought dosn't play a part in my ma trarining. I veiw them as totally sperate activites as they related to the western mind. For me, ma has always been about fighting, therefore, I haven't felt the need to delve to deeply into the phylosophical side of things. Although I did end up with a minor in Philosopby during my undergrad years. But I spent plenty of time in non-eastern thought classes. So for me, it's easy. If they don't apply to your ma and you're not following those paths, then they aren't going to come into conflict with your faith. I can see how it might get tricky if you're trying to integrate them into your training. Again, not passing judgement, you asked for opinions and I'm just chiming in. Now, if you'd asked about the fighting and my attitute towards it and how it interacted with my faith it would be an entirely more complex answer that I'm not even certain I've figured out yet . See, we all have some sort of issue.

Glad to have you aboard. Welcome to KF.

I've always found that the step-in-front method of throwing this kick led to alot more issues like this than stepping behind. Regardless of style. It just seems, that across ma's, it tends to bind up your center and make it's actual execution more difficult that stepping behind, which seems to keep you more in line. I've often heard statements like yours. For what it's worth, I agree, throwing the arm out with the kick for no real reason is a bad idea and a dangerous habit to get into.

Sounds pretty much right. I'd even allow adult ranks of purple and up to teach a class of beginners if they had an adaquate plan that they were proficient in. But by and large I think your assesment sounds pretty dead on.

I've had those issues before, Erin. I usually try to gut it thru, but some times you just can't. I did keep a copy of Rama II by Clarke on the night stand for quite awhile. I was a big fan of the first book, but the second was horribly boring. I'd pick it up on nights I couldn't sleep and be out in a couple of pages

Very true. It's the reason so many small joint locking arts look similar. Which I think that's why most major advances in ma's are in the realms of distilling specific movments for what you want and working them in to more efficient methods for accomplishing your goal. You can also see advances in training methods and more efficinet drill work. That's where the big jumps foreward seem to occur, not in the creation of new movements or "arts" as a while.

I'd agree on the general physical conditioning aspect as well. Building the general fitness of the body will make one hardier. That's a good call. Also, ps1 has a point. Some people aren't cut out for this kind of thing. I do think that a warrior mindset can be conditioned and developed, but to some it will not be worth the effort. To others, it will be a longer journey than some of their peers.

That's be the easist way to take a look and diagnose what's going on. Bear in mind too that the application of the arm bar is, while mechanically the same, technically different from rolling on the ground in bjj than from jjj from more trad takedowns. I too went thru this type of transition from my core art when movinging into the ground game. I'm still guessing it's a distancing issue, but the video will be a bit more conclusive I would think.