joesteph

I found the second in this series by Ollie Batts. I particularly like what he does at :23 and :56. Someone with more experience than I have might be more skillful with how to perform the other responses. From what I can see just from the two videos posted, counters to joint locks have to be noticeably faster than applying them, or else you're a "goner." It looks like applying and countering joint locks can take up a whole class, if the instructor is willing/able to devote that time.

Assuming your studies have included applying joint locks, my question is if you've trained in countering joint locks. The following video is countering a wrist lock: You can start at the beginning to see him demonstrate what specific wrist lock is to be countered, or go right to :52 to see the counter. It's not just escaping that's being demonstrated, but turning things around on the opponent, applying a joint maneuver on him.

I take JKD each Thursday, and last night we practiced moving in an "L" shape. It was moving backwards, but it wasn't so much to avoid getting hit as it was to reposition yourself to hit the other guy. We were like soldiers who appeared to be retreating, when we were actually attacking another way. One of the drills we practiced was that one person punched while the other held the focus mitts--and yet acted as the opponent. So I was to hit one mitt as soon as I saw the other mitt moving to pop me on top of my head, just above my forehead. There was emphasis on "breaking rhythm" as much as hitting, and the footwork was actually not making major steps but little ones that had the incoming mitt miss my head while striking the focus mitt with the rear hand. JKD is known for the straight lead, but it's certainly not the only punch in the arsenal. Sometimes I got popped, but usually I didn't. I admit my partner and I were going at training speed with the focus mitt shots to the head, but when you're starting out, you have to go at that speed so that the one doing the punching can learn to catch the initial movement of the opponent and land that punch as instantly as possible. It was a good drill.

I'm sure we're all familiar with the following: Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced. I posted this under Strategies and Tactics because the ones we use have a great range, right up to fatal applications. Do you believe that martial artists who follow this advice (credo?) do so because they genuinely believe it to be the right thing to do, or because they fear that they themselves will get into trouble, either with the law or both the law and a lawsuit?

From the article: The IJF concern is that more and more often, wrestling and sambo techniques are seen during judo combats. “That is not good for the future of our sport in the Olympic Games”, says Mr. Barcos. I do not practice judo, but I do have a question: Does this mean that the sport has been evolving, and the "powers that be" are opposed, not based on judo becoming less effective, but that it must remain frozen in time to present a "purity" or "pedigree" to ensure it pleases the Olympic Committee?

I don't know that I'd take a single form and look for the examples Pearlman has given, but I do understand and applaud his point. Pearlman is advocating quality over quantitiy, and essentially asking the question, "When is less actually more?" In Soo Bahk Do, there are three basic forms for the white belt level. They could easily be made into two, and in-depth applications could be concentrated on. Right now, at 5th gup, I have a background of three basic forms, three forms in the Pyung Ahn series, and recently completed my second in the Chil Sung forms. If I stopped dead in my tracks right now and concentrated on the applications within, I'd be a happy man--and yet not a dan member. I do ask my teacher for what I see as individual applications within the forms as I am studying them, and sometimes I'm off-base, but usually she tells me that what I've concluded is one way of application, and has shown me a second application. But it isn't that I'm asking for every move, and there is the pressure of class time as a finite thing. Don't misunderstand me. Some of the moves we do are explained as we do them, but I would love to go deeper, to tear forms apart ("deconstruct" them?), especially the "higher" forms that still must incorporate the first three basics, and dive into the sea (Pearlman calls it an "ocean") of applications. I wonder if too many instructors are pressed for tests and promotions to go into such detail, especially if their art has many required forms to be known. Reaching black belt may actually refect the impatience of modern society, particularly the competition between schools for obtaining and retaining students. ("You're still an orange belt after all this time? I'm a red belt." "Your son/daughter is still a green belt with all those lessons? My son/daughter is a black belt.") I like what Steven Pearlman has to say but, then again, I'm a more patient man, a patience that does enjoy promotions, but wouldn't mind at all if they weren't so frequently tested for, and who wants to know "the how's and why's" of the forms for their applications.

Hi Fofito. Welcome to the forums. Hope you find a good place to train.

I got the "odd inclusion," DWx, but the test's text explained that people who see the oddity are often paying no attention to the pedestrians! One mistake by being inattentive, and you plow right into all those people.

For this one, the fighting scenes seem to be aggressive in a "hurl yourself at your opponent" way. I didn't see any "swooping" punches. The training (particularly after 4:26) would require a great deal of room for a class. The class seems to be sliding forward with each punch, and I think not just the rear foot being pulled, but the front sliding forward as well. You can actually hear the slide. Their punches aren't to the solar plexus or the head; they seem to be about their own shoulder height. Perhaps with the stance it's a strike to the chest/sternum of the opponent. Were the kicks "push kicks" using the ball of the foot, to be followed by a punch to where the opponent was shoved back, or just interpreted as hitting so hard that the opponent was rammed back, and then punched where he was driven? Are higher belt forms more "controlled"? They appear to be. The two-man form was nicely done. Thanks, barefoot-kohai.

I think you're right, Isshinryu, and while, say, a jumping side kick may be considered "advanced" over a regular one, how often is the martial sacrificed for the sport aspect, so that "advanced" is applied only to the latter? I wonder how many people who practice "low block" never see it as a groin strike, or even a wicked application against a shirt grab, as shown in this half-minute video: (I can't remember if I'd found this on my own, or I saw it posted on this or another martial arts web board/forum.)

This rather graphic video was made by a police department in Britain to warn teenagers about the dangers of texting while driving. It wound up on YouTube:

I'm not sure what position in the levels below dan yellow belt is, Conrad, but I'm a green belt in Soo Bahk Do, which is a striking art. There are three green belt levels: 6th, 5th, and 4th gup. When I was a 6th gup, I took a number of self-defense JuJitsu classes, the differences between the two arts causing me no confusion. As a 5th gup, I've started taking Jeet Kune Do while continuing Soo Bahk Do. There is very little terminology in JKD, no forms to learn and practice (it's really all technique from what I've encountered in the five classes I've taken so far), or one-step sparring exercises that would cause confusion with SBD. I don't know that I'm interested in going to 4th gup, certainly not now while I'm enjoying the Jeet Kune Do techniques which aren't as time-demanding as Soo Bahk Do, allowing me to work to become proficient in both. I've advocated in the past that someone should first reach dan level before taking up a second martial art, but I've experienced that something so different (one of the postings referred to grappling; I've specifically referred to self-defense training and a techniques-based MA) that you won't confuse the two is doable. However, I didn't start until I'd hit the halfway mark in belt levels below dan.

I was hooked as soon as I read: Dear Warrior, Want to learn the exact methods a slower, out of shape physically weak person can use to virtually rip apart a hardened 330lb skinhead fresh out of prison? In under an hour I can teach you how to seriously hurt a bad guy and survive a nasty attack on the streets -- And you don't need prior martial arts or fighting experience! "Dear Warrior"--that's me! I can't wait to sign up!

A number of jumping kicks are referred to under an "advanced" heading, but sometimes I've wondered if what's called an advanced technique in self-defense is simply that there's more that can be done, so volume (or video) 2 is available now, and it consists of lesser-used moves that only a practitioner dedicated to the art would know about. A contrast to this might be shown in these two YouTube videos: Forget the title, I just call it a Double Punch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fiXiXCKYn8&feature=related This would be the Double Punch with Follow-Ups: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnyz9JQ2OEo&NR=1 The first video is short, basic, to-the-point. The second video is still not what I'd call advanced up to 1:20, and then, at least for me, it would be considered advanced because it gets complex. At that point, it assumes you know more than one way to fight, or have achieved the dexterity to fight in such a manner. (It's also "overkill," which may be another example of "advanced.")

I'm glad you mentioned this, Cathal. I'm working on a new form, Chil Sung Il Ro Hyung, and the very first move, which I guessed wrong at (but at least I'd tried to figure out), is actually an escape from a rear grab. My teacher showed it to me for just a minute as class had to start, and it's not just an escape but has a takedown connected to it (which I had figured out, but didn't realize that one move led into the other). She did it quickly but, as I said, we just had a minute, and I'd like to ask her about it again. It's tricky to connect the two; the "new" escape from the rear grab is different from what I know from the past, which leads to strikes, not a takedown. This week, the dojang is closed for a summer break, but next week it'll be reopened. Thanks for the reminder.

I thought this was an interesting explanation from Edwin Haislet in On Boxing, p. 8: Hitting does not mean pushing. True hitting is like the snap of a whip--all the energy is slowly concentrated and then suddenly released with a tremendous outpouring of power. Pushing is exactly the opposite, with the concentrated force at the start of the blow and a subsequent loss of power as the arm leaves the body. In real hitting the feet are always directly under the body. In pushing the body is often off-balance as the force of the blow does not come from a pivot of the body but from a push off the right toe. I like his reference to the snap of a whip, and after my Thursday Soo Bahk Do class, the past assistant instructor, who was visiting, spoke with me about knife hand blocks, which can also be strikes, that when I practice them, I should concentrate more on exploding them out from what looks like a "hugging oneself" position. After a break that let me go home and get changed, I went to my Jeet Kune Do class, where footwork was especially concentrated on. When we punched, we carried our bodyweight into the lead hand strike, although for the rear hand, it felt more like conventional boxing--but straight punches only, no hook shots.

This is on p. 1 of Haislet's book: In England the boxing position seems to have developed from the fencing position, with the right foot and hand carried forward, with the left side of the body back. . . . There is little doubt that the present orthodox position resulted because of right-handed hitting. For any movement of the right hand in which power is needed, it is only natural to stand with the left foot forward. It is the natural movement in all throwing events, and it is the position of the blacksmith when swinging a sledge. The fencing position makes me think of Bruce Lee, of course, and the reference to throwing events is rather perceptive. I didn't think of the blacksmith but, in giving it some thought, Haislet does make a unique point.

I don't know your age, but breaking up your handle, it may be that you're likely in middle age. Presbyopia, which essentially means the natural lens is losing its elasticity due to age, is something that drops and eye exercises don't affect. My eyesight is terrible, and it's been terrible since my twenties. Eyeglasses never gave me the crystal clear vision that hard contact lenses did, and after I wore hard for two decades, I switched to rigid (between "hard" and "soft") contacts to deal with both presbyopia (rigid allows more air to hit the natural lens than hard) and astigmatism. No one but my eye doctor knows how bad my vision really is, because I've worn contacts for most of my life. I don't know if you wear glasses--or contacts for that matter--but contact lenses not only slow down (not eliminate) ongoing eyesight weakness, they're superior to eyeglasses because the contact lens covers all of the natural lens, meaning there are no "blind spots" when it comes to peripheral vision and the fact that glasses don't include the peripheral edges. Have you ever been examined by an ophthalmologist? Taken a field vision test? A specialist can give you scientific results and intelligent answers.

Teri Tom's JKD article "The Straight Lead: Follow-Through and Three-Point Landing," in October's Black Belt, has her quoting from Edwin L. Haislet's 1940 book On Boxing. I'd never heard of Haislet before her article, and his book came out ten years before Jack Dempsey's Championship Fighting. I found it online and legally downloadable in .pdf form at: http://www.scribd.com Just enter edwin l haislet (that middle initial is a small "L") in the Search box, and when the web page comes up, select Boxing by Edwin L. Haislet. It's really an interesting find.

I tried Xenadrine after the ephedrine was removed and before I underwent liposuction (at age 54). The side effect I had when taking it--and causing me to stop its use despite losing several pounds--was a recurring headache in the back of the head, and I have no history of headaches, before or since. I've searched the Internet, but I've found the same claims as I'd heard when Xenadrine and Hydroxycut were popular (such as to buy Avesil). That's why I posted; to find out if anyone's tried something that works w/o disquieting side effects.

When I learned this as a white belt, the punches had to be fired straight off the starting point to the solar plexus--no "swooping" at all. We learned to throw a hip twist into it for additional power. This video's punches "bump" the opponent's midsection. Isn't it a black belt performing the form--or am I seeing it wrong? Is there some bunkai (like a way of performing a groin strike) that justifies the way the punch is done? If that's what the practitioner's taught, and she's considered proficient enough to be featured on the site, then either that's the way of the art or, if not, then why is her instructor teaching/accepting what we see?

This was emphasized back when I was a white belt, Bob. My teacher has pressed that, to do a form correctly, you have to turn the head first. Sometimes you have to add in a slight twist of the body to make sure of what you're doing/where you're going, such as for a 180 degree turn. I've had lower belts crash into me while doing forms, simply because they either didn't look (which makes the form move faster--but I wouldn't say better), or they did a token glance that just didn't cut it. That's when our teacher calls out this important reminder.

No matter what the YouTube title says, Cathal, the demonstrator calls it (at :30) a "Fighter's Clinch."

I think a distinct lack of sensitivity has been an American problem for too many years. This may be tangental to the subject, but think of the school shootings that occurred by students who were simply picked on just too much--or were sensitive to the "teasing" and should have been left alone, but the insensitive got a rise out of it and the students just went over the edge. Then, after incidents like Columbine, the school systems started working on the bullying problem. I've been a teacher in an all-girls high school for 34 years, and I've taught 22 co-ed summer schools in the past. During the school year with girls, I've long since learned who can be kidded (not "teased"), how far with one but not another, what kind of kidding is appropriate, etc. I've honored the individual being the person that she is. As for summer school and having taught so many boys, I've found that quite a number of them have their sensitivity level the same as many of the girls I teach during the year. I've wondered if that contributed to their not passing during the year. At one time, kids picking on other kids was considered "part of growing up," and that "kids forget" about having been bullied (verbally as well as physically) as they get older. Insensitivity between adults has been brushed off as "S/he's an adult. S/he'll get over it." Baloney. A book I'd read a while ago by Elaine N. Aron, The Highly Sensitive Person, presents sensitivity as far from a crime. The social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, author of Shyness, praised her book for addressing "the challenges . . . faced by these special people and suggest[ing] new paths for making sensitivity a blessing, not a handicap."

Hi Simon! Welcome to the forums!