JohnC

Blink, very, very, slowly.

I'm a little confused by your use of "warm up" as what you describe sounds more like a "work out'. At the risk of sounding like a broken record also, what's your objective in doing these exercises and do you do them just before a class or at other times? (and I'm not being facetious gang, I'm just lazy. I don't do exercise without a firm reason in mind )

Tallgeese, tell her Xmas is coming.

Actually "Complete Kickboxing" by Martina Sprague and Ketih Livingston is a really good all around book, in my opinion.

Although I agree with Tallgeese, your original question limited things to working within the given system's approach (e.g. specific blocking motions, formal stances). Assuming an Okinawan / Japanese Karate based system (as I don't know TKD, Hapkido and the various Kung Fu styles except in passing), then my short answer would be: return to the techniques / applications that were originally taught in Okinawa / Japan and get rid of most / all of the techniques that have been added since generation O and 1. One can look at traditional kata and bunkai to see techniques and applications. Second, use modern sports science and teaching theory to train the content instead of traditional methods where the methods conflict. My two cents. PS. I'd point out however that any art that doesn't seriously address all three segments of the fight (standing, grappling and ground) is incomplete, no matter how wonderfully it addresses the subset, imo.

A way to learn to jump rope is to put both handles in one hand so the rope's only on one side. Make the motions with both hands and do the regular jumping motion timed against when the rope hits the ground. As the rope's on one side you can't trip and it allows you to learn the rhythmn. Switch hands from time to time so your hand / arm doesn't get tired. Hope this helps.

Don't know. Just happened across a story in a magazine about it sometime back. Can't even remember how long ago so I don't know if the program is still offered. Sorry.

Short answer is: My advice would be, if possible, limit your training to a few throws / controls and even fewer applications within those throws (e.g. 3 throws /controls with 2 applications each (i.e. 6 moves)) in each learning segment (much like TKD might teach step up and turning front kicks, side kicks and round kicks to a white belt but no other kicks). Learn those to where they can be done operationally then add another layer. Aikido actually doesn't have that many different throws / controls but the application base is enormous. Background: My fundamental teaching issue with the way most Aikido is trained is that, unlike Karate, there usually is no stratification of the lesson plan. This causes that a student may see a specific technique only once in several weeks even though coming regularly (think of only practicing a turning round kick in one class out of three months of classes). The Aikido boys will tell you that they go over, say, Ikkyu (Ikkajo, first technique) at least every other class. What they don't tell you is that they go over an APPLICATION of Ikkyu every other class. Thus, even though the student sees Ikkyu a lot, he/she is practicing different body movements, lead ins, timing, positioning, etc. This approach greatly inhibits the learning, imo. Hence my advice above. With regards yokomen-uchi, I understand, much of Aiki requires spot-on timing and continuous flow. It's really hard to learn AND do operationally. Hang in there, with practice it'll come. Hope this helps.

To some extent I'd go along with respect to TKD, but even so, I'd argue that the fundamental approaches used for Olympic contest significantly teach / train wrong body mechanics, muscle memory and fight tactics. With respect to Judo, I disagree. In my opinion, they have fundamentally different approaches and foci. For example, contest judo says to get a point on the ground you either lock / choke the opponent or you get him on his back and hold him down for 25 seconds. This second idea leads to a lot of defensive work being based in laying face down and stopping the attacker from turning you over. From an SD standpoint, this is stupid. Similarly, much training for contest judo is based in facing your opponent and then (especially for turning throws) spending lots of time trying to get to the prep position for the throw. In combat judo, one rarely does this as the strategy is to take advantage of what the opponent gives you. Thus, one executes a particular throw BECAUSE the attacker is already in position for that throw (e.g. seio nage (shoulder throw) with attacker doing a forearm choke from the rear). Thus, all the prep set up training done in contest judo is somewhat irrelevant. For combat judo, starting from prep, unbalancing from the prep position and executing the throw are more relevant, but this approach is rarely practiced in contest dojos where, again, the vast majority of focus is on getting to prep position. Other experienced Judo players please chime in here, as, imo, it would be good to get some other prespectives.

I'd suggest that a more effective focus is to work target / distance based rather than technique based. That is, if you are in opposites (classic boxer's approach), then certain targets will be in range. Technique selection is based upon hitting the available targets not I want to use an elbow, now I have to do something so I can use an elbow (or any other technique for that matter). Target based approaches allow you to more easily stay in the flow and make correct attack decisions much more quickly, imo. If an elbow is the correct choice, given target and distance, then power generation, distraction / covering, etc tend to take care of themselves as part of delivery. Joe Lewis (the karate guy not the boxer guy ) used to say it this way "Kata is where you show the perfection of your technique. In fighting the objective is to hit that sucker. Whether your fist is at exactly the right angle doesn't really matter." My two cents.

It's amazing what you can do with legos. My understanding is that LEGO has a program where you can send them a drawing and (for a price of course) they'll send you back a lego kit and instructions to build it. The most complicated one I've put together was a working mock up of a ballistic missle sub. it was suprisingly easy, if you followed the instructions

Now that you mention it, that is the one I saw. Looks like what they're doing is taking a bunch of ProForce sparring equipment and putting it together. Total price tag would probably be in the low hundreds for a complete set. RedMan Suits apparently cost around $1,000 and, as mentioned above, mobility in them is significantly limited. At least this approach puts the price tag closer to what folks might afford. Thanks for the assist, Joe.

I saw a new full body suit in one of the mags. It isn't a RedMan but is put together piecemeal from existing stand-alones (e.g. shin guards, head guards). This means there are gaps in places (e.g. hip joint) so mobility should be increased but still offer adequate protection for training purposes. Off hand it looked reasonably good. Next time I see the ad, I'll try and get a price. I'd hazard it would be significantly less than RedMan, et al.

Should work for rebreakable boards. Usually rebreakables are double thick at two edges to facilitate holding. Make sure you clamp one of the double thick edges. Additionally, make sure you use rubber or plastic liners on the vice jaws so that you don't mar the rebreakable. You can get these inserts (covers) at Home Depot or other such store at a small cost. Similarly, when you use wooden boards, make sure the grain is parallel to the vice jaws so the board can 'snap' in two. Putting the grain the other way forces you to shatter the board to make it break. Not a good idea. Hope this helps.

As an aside, an interesting exercise is to use either one or two blades in reverse grip (outside edge of the blade pointed outward, back of the blade laying against your forearm) and then start in a standard boxing format (knife handle being used like a roll of quarters), bringing the knife (knives) online for slashing, poking and chopping as openings present themselves, while still using punching moves as appropriate. Thing that's interesting is how you'll fall into some of the fancy filipino moves naturally as simply doing 'continuous flow' feelings. Remember to return to boxing guard as you would do normally in a boxing match (the return move enables knife attacks many times). Obviously, punches can many times be replaced with knife attacks also. Don't be too serious, just have a little fun playing with it. Just a thought.

As you and I have talked several times in the past, it all depends on what you want out of it. As I'm combat focused, the current trend doesn't fit my focus very well. Caveat: I'm going to ramble a bit here. Judo was originally focused on the grappling and ground segments of the fight. From a combat standpoint I'd argue that both are important. From a sport standpoint I'd argue that the traditional grappling part (i.e. throwing) was more fun to watch (and to do in the traditional format). However, when Judo moved into the Olympics AND the Russians started to compete a lot of defensive play came on line (e.g. deliberately using grips to stall the action, spending a lot of time shutting down the opponent) which was totally against the traditional approach of randori (and eventually led to changes in the rules outlawing many of these practices) but did increase your odds of winning Olympic competition. However, other defensive measures still crept in (e.g. standing with your hips way back like a Roman-Greco wrestler) that forced the action from leveraged clean throws to much more brute strength sloppy throws. An argument can be made that this type of action is more 'realistic' but this is a sport and isn't realistic from the get go so I don't buy into the argument. Bottom line is that, imo, Judo competition became less fun to watch and do, for that matter, as practice now is much more 'wrasslin' then Kano style Judo. (As bona fides, I currently practice at a dojo that has generated several Olympic winners and live less than a hundred miles from the Olympic Training Camp at Colorado Springs. Folks from the Springs regularly come up to train with us.) Traditionally, Judo's main focus was on the throwing with groundwork kind of an after thought. With the advent and popularity of BJJ, Judo dojos started to add more emphasis on groundwork, probably to stop students from leaving for BJJ schools and because BJJ students were coming into Judo schools to learn more about throwing moves. Again, from a combat standpoint I think this is good. From a sport standpoint I don't think it's much fun to watch (and before all the BJJ folks start lambasting me about how the ground game is like "a chess match", etc. Please understand that I do BJJ regularly and I understand and I agree and I like doing BJJ but there's a difference between doing it and watching it.) So, B96, the short answer is I'm ambivalent. I like the more balanced view of training. I don't like the things that forced the re-balancing. And I think we may have lost as much as we've gained. As to your second point, I agree that many of the downside points on current judo are equally applicable to TKD, imo. Bottom line is that, as a sport, the rules can be anything folks want them to be, and that will sell tickets. From a combat perspective, again in my opinion, both arts are now taught in such a way to make them of dubious value on the street. My two cents.

Perhaps I've been unclear. When saying "grip" I don't mean the formal judo training around various ways of gripping the gi but the more general meaning of grabbing someone. Thus, even in no gi I rarely see folks do holds, etc without using their hands (Rigan Machado not withstanding and on a personal note I think his BJJ is outstanding). I agree that BJJ does have several moves (e.g. rear interlock choke, foot lock, omoplata) that could be done without the use of hands. But, I'd also point out that the vast majority of rolling I've seen by the vast amount of practitioners I've seen uses the hands quite a lot for gripping / pulling / holding / etc. It might be an interesting exercise at purple on up to try to do no hands just to see how higher ranks would fare under the restriction. In any case, I'm not so sure how blue on down would fare given the lower knowledgebase to work from. Your thoughts?

The objective of stretching is to increase the movement of a joint by causing an elongation of the muscle tissue involved in the stretch. "Ballistic stretching uses muscle contractions to force muscle elongation through bobbing movements where there is no pause at any point in the movement. Although the bobbing movement quickly elongates the muscle with each repetition, the bobbing also activates the stretch relex (or knee jerk) response. Since the stretch relex stimulates the muscle groups to contract after the stretch is finished, ballistic stretching is usually discouraged." (Source: "Stretching Anatomy" by Arnold G Nelson and Jouko Kokkonen, p. vi) That is, by activating a contraction the ballistic stretch works contrary to the objective above and doesn't help you become more flexible. Ballistic stretching shouldn't be confused with 'dynamic stretching" which is quickly working the limb through a full range of motion by doing a sport specific movement (e.g. the straight leg front kicking motion from floor to head you see Bruce Lee do in Enter the Dragon (or maybe it was Return of the Dragon, I get confused sometimes )) Bottom line: your instructor is wrong and I have never seen any research that backs up ballistic stretching as a good idea. To minimize damage - don't bounce. Instead do a standard static stretch, relax into it, hold it for a few seconds and then slowly come out of it. Because you do the move slowly the 'knee jerk' response mentioned above doesn't happen. I wouldn't bring this up to your instructor unless he seems VERY open to discussing such things. Most folks in my experience that don't bother to do rudimentary research on what they teach usually aren't real interested in other ideas. If your instructor is wedded to ballistic stretching and fusses at you if you don't do it, then you can refer him to the book above or most any 'sports science' book on stretching (these are normally found in the 'nutrition / health' sections of a book store rather than in the sports section). If he's not interested then get a different instructor, as if he's incompetent in this area then he's probably incompetent in other areas as well. Sorry for the harsh tone but this is a button with me. I really wish folks wouldn't take such trash for granted when so much research is readily available via the internet and popularized technical books. Hope this helps.

I'm not sure I'd focus the question like that. The purpose of a weapon is to essentially extend range and act as a force multiplier. Thus, each weapon has an appropriate range and technique set for its use. For example, a machete doesn't work very well in an ice pick grip due to its size and shape (not to be confused with reverse grip). But, similarly, a Bowie knife wouldn't work well in an ice pick grip if the opponent is really close for the same reasons. Finally, a pocket knife usually won't work very well at distance. Thus, the way it's used is more based in the situational dynamic, objectives and the knowledge / skill of the wielder (critical, as most folks don't 'train' knife fighting skills). First pass response.

What I see both in the dojo and in tournament is Judo has become more focused on the ground game (newaza or katamewaza) over the last few years. No doubt as a response to BJJ's popularity. To my knowledge newaza has been part of Judo practice since the beginning but for a time it wasn't focused on much. As to sport vs. SD, most of what's taught now-a-days is heavily influenced by Olympic competition and its rules. I haven't found a good combat judo school in years, however sometimes a good Japanese style Jiu-Jitsu school will include enough throws, hold-downs and grappling moves to qualify. I'd argue with that Judo, as commonly taught now-a-days, qualifies as a SD art. There're too many moves now that are rule based and that on the street would get you seriously injured or dead. Judo and Jiujitsu's edge on Karate training is that you can go almost all out in training / competition with much less risk of seriously injuring your partner. Additionally, you have to deal with the opponent's inertia, strength, etc all the time which gets you used to the body contact, etc. Dancing won't save you in a Judo match. However, of the down side, Judo (and BJJ, for that matter) are grip based arts, refuse him a grip or break the guy's hands and he's helpless (one of the reasons that finger attacks are verboten in both arts). Just some random thoughts.

If you have a work bench buy a reasonably large bench vice and use it. As it can clamp much more solidly than human hands you shouldn't have a problem with slippage and you need to have the boards to be able to move upon impact or you're liable to break you hand (i.e. if rigidly supported on two or more sides you don't have several boards but a block of wood.) Clamping one side strongly fulfills both criteria. However, obviously, when you break the board(s) the upper part is going to fly off and hit things. If you're in a garage or outside usually this doesn't matter much. Elsewhere, you'll need a backstop of some sort (even a blanket hung from the ceiling will work so long as you're breaking wood). Hope this helps.

Based upon your objectives, I'd suggest traditional Japanese Jiu-Jitsu. However, good schools in this art are usually pretty hard to come by. You list a school that teaches jiu-jitsu but, from the other arts listed, it may be an 'eclectic' place where either the instructor is very experienced (given the mix listed) or is simply selling 'names' of things that he thinks will bring in students. Go to a large book store and look for books by either George Kirby or Wally Jay to get a feel for what kind of techniques I mean. Hope this helps.

To sword grip and ice pick, I'd add blade up or blade down (assuming single edged) as the offensive / defensive moves change a bit, as do the available targets. Similarly, reverse grip (modified ice pick) for hiding the weapon or bringing it online for close work is something we practice against (both offensively and defensively).

Most of what I read when the topic of tactics comes up are really a catalog of techniques (e.g. do a throat strike, kick the knees). In my view tactics are a more general level above techniques. Thus, I'd like to start a topic around folk's offensive and defensive tactics. First, to define the term "tactic" and second to enumerate those tactics. To level set, my art teaches strategically that the main objective is to end the fight as quickly as possible with the least risk of damage to oneself (both in the short term and the long term (i.e. aftermath)). To accomplish this objective, offensively one should attack / disrupt the opponent's: Vision Breathing Balance Structure (e.g. skeleton, nerve system, vascular system) This is tactically accomplished, in part, through use of distance, angular attack, power generation through use of body movement then core strength then limb strength (in that order. Limbs are used more to transfer energy rather than create it), focusing on hitting vulnerable targets rather than using particular techniques and by technical precision. Your thoughts?

There are several options mentioned above that essentially say mount something on the wall and then hit that rather than the wall. That suggestion will work, however, I'd point out you need to be aware of the structural integrity of your wall vs. your punching power. Heavy hitters have punching power measured in THOUSANDS of pounds while wall integrity in measured in hundreds and even in tens when hitting structural members sideways (their weakest direction). Thus, I'd suggest using the wall simply to keep something upright rather than supply structural support (i.e. put some heavy lumber between the striking surface and the wall to spread the impact out). This doesn't begin to talk about kicking power. My two cents.