JohnC

Short answer is no. A wall does not meet any of the needs necessary to improve / train punching power or technique. Is the problem that you don't have enough money / space for more conventional training tools?

I've used CosaminDS ® off and on for years to help cartilage deterioation problems in my knees and it's worked great for me. This product uses top of the line ingredients and has been independently tested. I have tried cheaper brands and they didn't work. Info I've read attribute that to the cheaper brands using substandard ingredients or, in some cases, leaving the expensive stuff out entirely. Just my experience.

An interesting way of doing it. Hadn't thought of that approach.

Assuming relatively consistent practice, in my opinion if someone has a higher rank in an art (e.g. studying karate at a new dojo having studied karate before) AND is in an open tournament (not an intraschool tournament) then they should participate at the highest rank they have been awarded. This doesn't hold if they've switched arts (e.g. a karate blackbelt in a judo tournament. A question comes up around what if someone was a blackbelt 20 years ago and hasn't practiced since until joining the new school, then what rank is more representative of ability?

Be aware of time. Parking in the alley really close to the door of where you work may be fine in the morning when you get there but is probably bad if you leave after dark. Be aware of what's around you. A gimmick being used currently is for the bad guys to park next to your driver side door in a panel van. You come up to open your door, they slide the van's side door open, pull you in, close the door and leave. Time involved 2 -5 seconds.

Wa-no-Michi's profile doesn't list location so maybe one issue is that we live in different countries. Since 9/11 in America, most folks have no sense of humor about such behavior and I'd seriously counsel against it. Not only would it be dangerous but in several locales you might be breaking the law. Perhaps attitudes are different where you are. However, "the trick is not getting caught" is cold comfort if you DO get caught.

One of the things I teach is to go for the prep position hard and fast and then apply the hold slowly to give uke time to react to the pain level. On the vast majority of holds / locks / chokes, if done right, uke can't get out of them once prep position has been achieved. This approach has the added advantage of pointing out bad technique because if uke can get out then tori didn't do the entry correctly. (That is, once tori begins a technique, tori should be in control of uke throughout the technique, not just at the end.) Caveat: I don't teach high flying moves like the typical Kote Gaeshi throw from Aiki. I figure if I can completely control uke to the ground then I can make uke somersault, if need be. But that's just me. 2nd Caveat: I don't teach that every technique should work on all opponents. Thus, I teach that if a properly applied technique doesn't work against a particular opponent (e.g. the iron wrist problem) then the right answer is to move to a different technique rather than continue with the one that isn't working. One finds this problem in many venues where the student refuses to adapt to the situation preferring to keep trying to force a technique that isn't working. By allowing tori to change up, in my opinion, the training is more realistic and focuses tori on finding what will work rather than you must practice this technique. Finally, this does cause me to watch carefully to make sure the change up is necessary and not just caused by bad technique or tori always going for his/her favorite technique. However, people usually play fair and it's not a problem.

I'd offer that your instructors know what they're looking for in the test. As Tallgeese points out, trying to get through a lot of students in a reasonable period of time always forces choices and things tend to get messy. I'd offer that you might want to initially phrase the discussion around where your areas of improvement are (forward looking) and what you need to do to get better. The answer will probably give you what you were graded down on (backward looking) without ever really having to directly bring it up. If it doesn't then you can easily ask more direct / pointed questions. In any case it's probably bad form to question / criticize how the testing was performed as there's probably several factors that caused it that, as a student, you wouldn't be privy to (leading to the 'you think you can do better?' scenario ) Depending on the answers you get above, if you feel that things weren't done appropriately, you would at least have specifics to address rather than the more general ideas you posted. My two cents.

A momentous occasion. Congratulations to your Shihan!

Re. slapping down. This presumes that the attacker is at the wrong distance. If the attacker is at appropriate distance (i.e. close enough to "punch through") then slapping the punch down simply makes him hit you lower down. Thus, I stick with slapping to the side. To me, if he IS at the wrong distance, moving backward in-line slightly to make the attacker overreach the punch is a better tactical decision as it leaves my defense in place and/or allows me to counter without wasting motion on the slap. However, much of my defense is based upon effective use of distance, maneuver and cover rather than active blocking / parrying.

Tiger, I agree with you. I was unclear. I meant that one should level set pain as to being able to function. Once set, there's no need to keep doing it. I think we're on the same page.

I understand and, for the most part, agree. However, we're not too far from the People's Republic of Boulder (where the University of Colorado resides (and of which I'm an alumnus)), a notorious hotbed of ultra liberal activity both now and in the 60s / 70s. Thus, from experience I can say folks coming out of Boulder usually had a hidden agenda and rarely presented balanced views on almost any subject (and they still tend to do that. Oe vay, I could tell you stories that would warp your mind, curve your spine and lose the war for the allies. )

Tallgeese, No offense meant, bro. As I posted, I took your statement out of context. No implications were implied Joesteph, I understand. I'm not sure I agree because, again, imo, the linking of MA and "misconception regarding it" carries with it the assumption I mentioned above (i.e. the primary purpose of MA is SD). Aiki-jutsu folks will tell you their stuff has at least some SD focus but Aikido folks rarely do (and this topic is Aikido focused. It says so on the label. ) However, this might be generalized (and perhaps needs its own topic) to "Should instructors teach what the student wants to learn or what the instructor wants to teach?" To me this question has far reaching consequences that forums talk around on many threads. For example, should traditional styles do away with traditional techniques that have no real application now-a-days? Should styles limit themselves to the techniques that the majority of students are capable of doing and get rid of the 360 degree jump spin back kicks or force students to attempt stuff they'll never be able to do well because it's 'traditional'. I'm sure we've all had the situation where the student voted with his feet and not just took his business elsewhere but quit MA completely because it didn't give him what he wanted. Where's the balance and how does one find it? May be just rambling Your thoughts?

I like them too, if done well. However, in contrast, I don't remember the movie but the dialog was: Girl in passenger seat: "Why are you driving so fast?" Guy in driver's seat: "Because they're chasing us!" Girl: "Well, why don't you just stop?" Guy: "This is a chase, you can't just stop!"

I took it in High School but it wasn't called that. I was told some years later that it was dropped, along with courses that essentially taught critical thinking, rhetoric and argumentative form because: It didn't fit in with the focus on reading, riting and rithmatic. The grading was much too subjective and complaints were received from parents around grading. Parents objected to some of the ideas expressed / taught in the classes. Too many teachers used it as a way to spread their personal views rather than teach philosohy, etc.

T1962 and B96 (you folks should really get together ), In my opinion, as a training objective one needs to at least have / develop a gut feel for the pain one can take and still function, as it matters in surviving the fight. Note, I said pain not damage. However, usually one must risk the latter to get the former. It's a balance very hard to find, especially when dealing with lots of students with different abilities, mindsets, etc. I usually reserve this intensity of training in working with students for myself and my seniors. We have far more experience in judging the balance and, if we're wrong or make mistakes, it's on our heads for the damage done. I tend to put far more controls in place when the students work with each other. I'm not sure if this is the best / only way. What I do know is that we've gone 6 years now without a significant injury.

To bring this back on topic a bit, I'd take out of context one of Tallgeese's comments: "I would say that it wouldn't meet my standard for what I wanted." The segue above has presumed that all / most students want to be able to move their training to the street in short order (i.e. training objective). Question is: are you sure all the folks that take Ki Aikido (a popular Aiki style promoted by Koichi Tohei that, imo, focuses a lot on soft don't hurt the other guy approaches and spiritual development) really have that objective? Is the "street lethal" objective what comes to mind when one visualizes Aiki schools? If not, then is that the fault of Aiki and it's style or is it the fault of the student having unrealistic expectations of what the style teaches?

I'd add that perhaps doing contact sports teaches one the difference between discomfort and damage. The first one can work through, the second means stop. Both can have similar pain but should have different reactions.

Hmmmm. What makes a 'codified' system? RBSD has had books written about it. There are advertised RBSD schools that profess to have curricula. Not fussing just interested in the terminology. Whatever the answer it would have to be retroactively applicable. For example, is Krav Maga a codified system? If so, when exactly did that happen and how did one know? How about Shotokan? Interesting concept.

I think what Shioda Sensei is referring to is the way tori and uke move individually, as well as together, how their energy is linked into, exchanged, blends and is directed, how, once begun, all of this inexorably leads up to the completion of the throw. This specific type of body movement and energy exchange / direction is the heart of Aiki. Without trying to sound too traditional, the understanding of this is difficult and requires much practice. It is multi-layered. I'd suggest that you might begin with the body mechanics themselves. In doing yokomen-uchi (p. 76 of Total Aikido), do the move slowly and focus on how each body is caused to move during the sequence. Note how you don't 'block' the side strike but accept it and redirect it downward and through by dropping your energy underside, not by using brute strength. This redirection completely takes uke, who then cannot resist what follows.By subtle shifts during the turn you can essentially drop uke wherever you wish almost effortlessly. If done properly the throw can be delivered gently or hard, fast or slow, it doesn't matter, once begun it just flows. Much of what I do from an Aiki standpoint is based in Shioda Sensei's approaches. I thoroughly recommend his other books: Aikido - The Complete Basic Techniques and Dynamic Aikido. Also get Westbrook and Ratti's Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere and, in my opinion, you'll have a better research set than most. Hope this helps.

As with all things, it depends on what you're trying to accompllish. Brazilian Jiu-jitsu (BJJ) focuses almost entirely on ground work so if that's what you want to learn, go for BJJ. As the flavor of the month, BJJ schools have a tendency to be pricey. Japanese Jiu-jitsu normally has a broader focus and includes: throws, controls, chokes, locks and sometimes strikes and kicks. As a much less well known art, good Japanese Jiu-jitsu can be hard to find. Judo normally focuses on throws, chokes, locks and groundwork. However, the main driver now-a-days is competition under very strict rules diminishing significantly, in my opinion, its general applicability outside competition. Hope this helps.

You're right, it is a hard balance. One function of "practice this at home" is to help build muscle memory. You can still work out at home but, at this stage, just "walk through" the motions. Keep the pace slow, the kicks low and don't put a lot of effort into it. Instead focus on the body mechanics of getting the body positioning correct, the joints to move smoothly, in the right order and get the balance right (which is much harder to do slow, as you can't use speed and force to cheat. ) The point is don't strain. At this stage, this type of action will help keep your body supple while still letting your body recover from your regular workouts. Bottom line is that one of the learning aspects of MA is to learn to listen to your body and understand its limits. Ultimately only you can know how your body works. Until you get this understanding, try to be a bit gentle with yourself. Hope this helps.

I'd offer that you might learn different arts (e.g. Judo, Jiu-Jitsu) that allow you to bring your superior size / weight to bear (i.e. work from strength). When fighting a significantly smaller opponent, smothering his attack, wrapping him up and sitting on him becomes an option. Similarly, having the reach advantage, many leg throws / sweeps / takedowns work well for the taller opponent. I'm not a big fan of going to your knees because, as B96 pointed out, you lose too much mobility. If I'd use a karate response, I'd probably focus on using knees, elbows, reverse punches and other short range techniques rather than going to my knees (which also can be used to keep the shorter person off you and open up some distance). My two cents.

Comment on BBofC's post. Before jumping in as the hero, I'd caution that you should ask the apparent 'victim' if they want your help / interference. Getting their expressed approval puts you in a better legal position after the fact should things head south. Additionally, note that sometimes these situations can be a setup where either the 'victim' waits for you to turn your back and then attacks or the group essentially lies about the event to the cops and tries to get you in a subsequent civil suit. This doesn't mean one shouldn't engage. It simply means watch your back. After all, in such situations, one rarely knows the players. Just a thought.

Yarp. Recognized my "style" no doubt.