joesteph

When I injured the little finger knuckle on my right hand from performing a right hook bare-knuckled, I thought I'd broken/cracked it. But I was able to move my fingers, and X-rays (one of the hand flat, the other of my fingers making an "OK" sign) showed no breakage. If you look at the little and ring finger knuckles now, comparing them with the left hand, they're both larger (I don't remember pain in the ring finger knuckle, but it must have received part of the blast), which I imagine is some form of scar tissue. You've never mentioned mobility, X-rays, or even a doctor's visit, Ghostfighter. Sometimes they're the only way to handle an injury.

The October issue of Black Belt magazine, with Bruce Lee on the cover, has an article titled "The One." Sixteen prominent figures who studied under/have been strongly influenced by Lee were asked to select the single most important thing he taught. Nine of them answered for this issue; the remaining seven will be in the next one. Joe Lewis said, "I've stood toe-to-toe with the fastest fighters in the world, and I can say that Lee, with his sharp mental attributes, executed the quickest lead-hand punch of all." Teri Tom said, "The straight lead, of course! It's a no-brainer. Lee himself declared it 'The core of Jeet Kune Do.'" Leo Fong referred to "the straight front-hand lead. It's what we in boxing call the left jab--assuming you use a left-hand-forward or orthodox stance. . . . It's no coincidence that during my college competition years, the jab was my best weapon for setting up the left hook." I was surprised at Fong's reply, because my JKD instructor makes certain we understand it's not the jab that came to be (after Jack Dempsey and his "falling step") a set-up for another punch. I understand that Lee saw this lead hand punch, utilizing the stronger of the two sides forward (so for most it would be southpaw), as the main striking weapon in the arsenal.

I just started looking through the October issue of Black Belt magazine (yes, with Bruce Lee on the cover), and almost immediately ran into a two-page ad for a fat burner, Lipex II. The ad has what you'd expect, the pretty in-shape girl and the guy with rock-hard abs, plus how the product really burns away the fat. There's nothing in the ad that I haven't read before in one way or another for other fat burners. When I was younger, they didn't call them fat burners but "diet pills." They were mostly caffeine and I guess they kept your motor (or is it metabolism?) racing to burn off the fat. A whole new generation of fat burners came out after diet pills with Xenadrine and Hydroxycut, and I don't know how many new ones are out now as the next generation. Has anyone tried a fat burner and experienced positive results without unpleasant side effects? One side effect in the past was that your metabolism would race day and night, not good for people with high blood pressure, for example. One of Mother Nature's practical jokes is that, as we grow older, weight not only redistributes, it goes on fast and stays on while we eat less. I did have liposuction for "spot reduction" of the midsection three years ago, but I'd like to reduce all around the body.

It's a thought, like telling a boy to "hit like a man," but it may be just trying to rework something that just isn't appreciated. I like what my Soo Bahk Do teacher reminds my children, "Make a strong fist," because the younger they are, the less-clenched. I'd advocate emphasizing strong punches and kicks, and just drop the outdated remark. An instructor can call out to a whole class of boys and girls, "Strong punches! Strong kicks!" It's inoffensive, even encouraging.

I've been attending my new JKD classes faithfully, and I've found that footwork is really emphasized, and it's not like I can fall back on my karate stances and movements--there's such a difference. The tough part I'm experiencing, which means a lot of practice is needed, is backing up rapidly. I know there's another topic/thread about blocks and backing up, but this is really not the same. There's a fine video by Ted Wong at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXpmk0GbLMQ Regular backing up is at :42; compare it with rapid backing up at 2:00. Not the same at all. My instructor was demonstrating by being the target of a student's punches to his face how this way buys more space for you. Any Jeet Kune Do-ers in the forums who've done this? Tried this whether a JKD practitioner or not?

This isn't my art, DWx, but I watched the video twice, then read the comments on the first seven pages. Any reference to the W as presented has been a positive one. (And other videos I found, as you said, do it this way as well.) Interestingly, one of the comments, not specifying the W, said s/he thought it was good that different instructors taught the form differently. If you've been reading General Choi's book, then that definitely sounds like the "orthodox" way, and there must be bunkai for it as it's practiced in that manner. Is there a UK group/organization that would have approved a change? Could it be that it's easier to grasp this form by making that adjustment?

This was the first form I learned for Soo Bahk Do, but at nowhere near the speed performed in the video. It's also a Tang Soo Do form, which can be found by visiting the web site of the West Haven Academy of Karate at http://www.kwanjangnim.com/ and selecting Education from the tabs to see computer-generated images of each move. When I was searching for an instructor for private sparring lessons, I met a sensei who invited to participate in his class and his style of Japanese karate (Shurenkan). The form we did was the same as in Soo Bahk Do, but then he said that since I knew the moves, I could try the "next up" version, which was a way of walking that closed the legs together at the half-step, then opened them again to perform block or punch, walking that way in order to protect the groin. I don't think I'm familiar with Shotokai at all. It's only Shotokan that I'm aware of. Thanks for posting that video, Chuck.

I read in Phillip Starr's Martial Mechanics on pp. 2-3 that the advent of gloves permitted the hook punch to be utilized and, let's face it, there have been a lot of KOs attributed to a strong hook punch to the jawbone. It seems that, according to Starr, the striking surface of the fist changed (widened) with the introduction of gloves, so that this punch would now not break your knuckles, especially the ring and little finger ones, by hitting your opponent in the head. And that article by armandosainz really is a good one.

I wonder if a hair grab and a successful defense against it as shown in the videos would apply more to domestic violence than an attack in another setting, such as going back to your car at night. I thought of domestic violence in that it's usually a bullying act.

There's a drill I did during a JKD class, in which instead of spear handing our partner's eyes, we shot an open hand out and tapped him/her on top of the head with the full length of the spear fingers--right where the videos show the grab is made. This isn't limited to women's self-defense, although women in particular might take note. Which would you pick? Or do you have an alternate way of defending against someone grabbing your hair and yanking on your scalp?

Ouch! This is just as possible as someone grabbing your shirt, but a lot more painful--and controlling. What all three videos have in common is the person's hair being grabbed from the front. This one is of a man having his hair seized: http://www.ehow.com/video_2357209_self-defense-video-hair-grabs.html This second one is of a woman: http://www.ehow.com/video_4467612_escaping-hair-grab-womens-self.html As is this third: http://www.ehow.com/video_2360486_hair-grab-move-koden-kan.html They all start off with the same double-hand grab of the adversary's hand to arrest his control, but then each has its own spin on handling the situation. Do you think these are viable? Do you recommend one over the others?

Excellent question, Twistkick. It would take in a risk-taker. And it need not be that the student is doing poorly in school, but might choose to challenge what is stated in the textbook--or even what the teacher says is the way to interpret, say, a historical event.

I disagree. It's an attempt, and it's misguided. And teasing isn't appreciated, certainly not by me, and it's no go towards my sons or I go into action. Males, particularly during the formative years of pre-teen and/or teen, need positive encouragement, not "negative reinforcement" that masquerades as a motivator. (Do it better and I won't say [insert crass comment here].) I wonder how many school-age males have cried "dry tears" and given up because their own coaches/trainers and even MA instructors have been insensitive.

Let me ask you, Rateh, and any of the female members of the forums, of course, if you think that a woman has to work harder than a man in the martial arts (I'm trying to confine it to MA, not extend it throughout society) for respect/recognition? Here's a second one. Without getting into specifics, a certain male student disrupted my MA class twice, each time with a female instructor. I spoke with a male instructor in another school, just giving him a few details, and he told me he's seen this before, that a male student would pull a stunt with a female instructor, but not be known to do the same with a male instructor. Do female instructors feel they have to assert their position more so than male instructors do?

I'm not sure about other countries, but in American culture in the past (at least what I've seen), it was common to say this type of statement to boys. I went to an all-boys' high school, and two of the teachers used to "quiet" a class that got noisy by calling out, "Uh . . . Girls!" If you've ever seen Full Metal Jacket, the DI kept calling out "Ladies!" to the men. I don't know about other countries/cultures within the last decade, but somehow it still pops up in American life. An episode of Everybody Loves Raymond had the father squeezing between his two sons to get some food. "Pardon me, girls" is what came out of his mouth, and the two sons just moved to let him through as though nothing odd had been said. I didn't think it was funny. I'm not aware of how profitable it is in instruction, but many times, I think, it's been said by a male to other, usually younger, males simply because it had been said to the speaker when he was younger. It becomes perpetuated in society. And don't think only males say it to males; I was present when a female instructor said it to a male student, and he was offended, feeling he was being called effeminate. I believe that both sexes want to be judged by their abilities/performance and still be considered masculine or feminine--qualities which the society actually determines, and can change over time.

This is something I give to my (high school) philosophy students. It's when we discuss human freedom that I ask them to consider: Do Only What Is Permitted vs. Do Whatever Is Not Forbidden At first, the students think they're the same thing, that the words may be different, but there's no difference between the two. After I have them write their thoughts about each at their desks, we then discuss them, and a great difference comes to light. In philosophy, there's a theory that people have to learn to be free, so in psychology, there are those who find emotional comfort in doing only what is permitted, and that to do whatever is not forbidden is a great step to take. It can be a scary one for them, and many people, during their formative years, establish boundaries that are a "safe distance," meaning it's uncommon for them to get into trouble (usually in the social setting of school and school-related). There are others who, during their formative years, "push the envelope" and more regularly get into trouble (again, such as in school or what is school-related), but tend to become more independent adults. What do you think? ~ Joe

Iain Abernethy's August newsletter includes a link to his reviewing the original "Master's Seminar" (or "Crash & Seize" as I call it) bunkai from kata outdoors with a friend. This second video is called "Naihanchi/Tekki Bunkai," and while it's essentially the same, some differences got in there that make it worthwhile to view and compare. If you go to: http://blog.iainabernethy.com/?cat=5 both the new and first videos are there for free downloads, or you can go to: http://blog.iainabernethy.com/?p=231 and on the right hand side menu you can select either or both.

Let's give it a go . . . >JKD is akin to an arrow - swift and piercing >Aikido is akin to water - ever flowing >Tai Chi is akin to black ice - unseen until too late

UFC 100 was on Spike (again) last night, and I caught the Top 20, one show being 20-11, the next being 10-1. I liked it because it was trimmed to the "most action" segments, so it kept my attention, but twenty fights was definitely my limit. My problem with UFC is that I don't really remember individual fighters' names=faces, but when I see them on the screen, I recognize them and know who I like. It was just by luck that I was home, and I'm glad I caught it.

Here's a roundhouse movement that I haven't seen before: http://www.ehow.com/video_2360483_roundhouse-kick-koden-kan-martial.html It starts off like a front kick, then flips over to the roundhouse execution. It's deceptive, but it's not a tournament sparring trick; it's the way the kick is done in Koden Kan. Reminds me of the "Screwdriver" piercing side kick we'd discussed in another thread.

Looking through eHow/Expert Village and YouTube videos, the lead leg roundhouse doesn't seem to be emphasized for head high, although the following video: http://www.ehow.com/video_2356188_doing-front-leg-roundhouse-kick.html presents it as a double and even triple shot, hitting from low to high as your supporting leg inches forward due to the lead leg kicks. The demonstrator suggests that the low kick causes the opponent to block or be distracted low, opening up his head (as his body drops down because of the setup low roundhouse) to a strike.

What reasons do they give? If it's that MMA is "dangerous," then boxing would have to be outlawed. If they say it's not "really" a martial art, or that it lacks values, they have every right to their opinion, but the consumer has a right to choose whether or not to study it. Do they admit they have a vested interest in keeping out popular competition? l won't say that there aren't those who dislike MMA for non-economic reasons, but the loudest protestors may well be financially motivated.

Reala, if you go to this YouTube page: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=revolution+of+kicking&search_type=&aq=f you'll find it's all from the "Revolution of Kicking" series. You can select any kick, see the mechanics of it, and then be instructed in exercises for that kick.

Eagle Ace, this is from my post on another thread: I was taking my JKD class, and one of the drills was what I would call an infighting position . . . I was to cover up my head while [the instructor] was inches from me, whacking me with two focus mitts, and then, at the right time, there would be a pause for me to take advantage of to pop out a lead punch to one upheld mitt, a cross to the other, and then an elbow to that first mitt. . . . I . . . didn't cover my head as well as I should have, taking a boxer's guard, but being too close for that (my hands had to protect above the eyes [forehead, temple, front top of head]) so I got whacked a good number of times right where I wasn't protecting, even though I knew what I was supposed to do. (But at least I did catch on.) It happens to everybody. I've been taking Soo Bahk Do for eighteen months, but this was only my fourth Jeet Kune Do lesson, and one difference between the two is non-contact (SBD) vs. contact (JKD). I used to do light-to-moderate contact with a friend when younger and prefer it. It's true that backing up a lot often means you're stuck blocking until you're hit, but you'll get soon enough get better control and shoot right back. That's the way I'm viewing it for myself. When there's contact, it can rattle anyone a bit, but it's something that's surprisingly easy to get used to. I'm happy to say I was able to respond fairly respectfully during the focus mitt drill for a guy getting a drum roll on his head.

I think that what JusticeZero is referring to may actually be a matter of habit, ingrained from hundreds, even thousands, of movements that were performed along with MA drills, and now that the person wants to move "right" or "the best way," even though s/he is interested and can repeat to you exactly what's supposed to be done, the habitual movement pops right back in there. Just tonight, I was taking my JKD class, and one of the drills was what I would call an infighting position, but it was more "in closure" or "inclosure" to the instructor. Well, I was to cover up my head while he was inches from me, whacking me with two focus mitts, and then, at the right time, there would be a pause for me to take advantage of to pop out a lead punch to one upheld mitt, a cross to the other, and then an elbow to that first mitt. Habitually, I kept moving forward into him, but that wasn't the drill as it wasn't to crash and seize. I also didn't cover my head as well as I should have, taking a boxer's guard, but being too close for that (my hands had to protect above the eyes [forehead, temple, front top of head]) so I got whacked a good number of times right where I wasn't protecting, even though I knew what I was supposed to do. (But at least I did catch on.) Then, when the opening came, I'd say half the time I punched both focus mitts with proper power, although I think it was a good hit every time I got that elbow shot in. It was a good session. I concentrated on keeping the body in alignment for this very close infighting position, and if I didn't have it right, I'd never have been able to punch one, let alone both, focus mitts, but I had to be reminded (verbally) about moving forward, as well as how to cover up when so close (whack!). So much is habitual, and what may be missing from the first martial art you're studying may be exactly what is practiced in another.