tonydee

Two extremely important practices in my sparring - whether slow or fast - are: 1) Attempting to make a quick and decisive attacks at any arbitrary moment - just exploding or flowing at an opponent, removing, trapping or bypassing the guard, and making a good solid, mechanically-sound strike to a suitable target without getting hit concurrently. 2) Engaging much more than is really necessary: staying squarely in range - in the "danger zone" so to speak - and relying on yourself to spontaneously manifest a suitable reaction to whatever may happen, flowing from attack to attack in an opportunistic way unbound by the traditional stances, tactics or movements. This can be contrasted with safely staying back and picking off the opponent's mistakes in a predictable tit-for-tat fashion. 1) is crucial for learning to finish a fight quickly, especially against multiple opponents, whereas 2 is crucial for developing good instincts, reactions, maintaining the guard in motion, complex footwork etc.. Nothing new or dramatic about either, but given they're at the heart of much of my thinking and practice, I'm curious whether other people see them in the same way, or think it's actually better just to "play it safe" and avoid less controlled and predictable ranges. Cheers, Tony

Nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks this. In the ITF TKD world we've a similar lark going on, and people need to stop wasting their time learning half-baked hapkido moves from people who don't even know them properly - while delivering them from awkward stances and angles just so they very roughly conform to the kata - and actually learn their basic techniques and core applications! The prime advocates tend to be the people whose grip on the subtleties of basic techniques is so slight that they'd run out of things to teach in 6 months, so they wander off into ninja-fantasy land doing bits of anything from the most unlikely positions. Cheers, Tony

It sounds like the best outcome to me, particularly as you said some of the children are senior to you by belt. What happened had no risk of upsetting anyone, though only the master could know how seriously he needed to be off his feet. Then, such an experienced instructor must know ways to minimise his time standing and pick movements that are manageable. All's well that ends well. Cheers, Tony

My point when I discuss this with my students is that it matters to me. It would throw me off, because my face would be "gone." If I get used to it, I'm getting used to a "different" face, not my "real" one. The beard, to me, doesn't mask my face; it isn't a mask at all. Without it, my face would be incomplete. From a Buddhist perspective, this is classic attachment and aversion. What you're emotionally bound to is not the beard itself, but the perception that you believe it gives people of you, the comfort that comes with that expectation. What you're afraid of is having to cope with a change in the way people react to you. I say this not knowing how sincerely you feel these things, and how much it's for arguments sake, but that would be my reading. It'd probably do you good to shave, just for an experience, even if you immediately let it grow back . Cheers, Tony

For traditional taekwondo, the side thrusting kick requires a kind of front splits. That's because the rear foot faces backwards as the kicking leg extends - at right angles to the kicking foot. Only if your technique requires the supporting foot to be facing sideways at contact does the position resemble side splits - to my mind, that's a very awkward kicking position, but some karate systems do use it. So, all I'm saying is make sure you stretch what you need, and don't just assume "flexibility = side splits", or you'll waste a lot of effort without improving so much where you need it (flexibility of different muscles is substantially independent). More generally, with whatever stretching exercises you do need, make sure you stretch in the correct order (I should double-check myself, but am doing back, groin, buttocks, calf, hamstring, quads, psoas), as that will help isolate one resistant muscle at a time. Generally, you want to get leverage and isolation: for example, I like to perform my hamstring stretches sitting on a bench (like a gym chest-press one) with the ball of the foot extended forwards, the other leg out to the side and bent comfortably, and both arms reaching under the bench to pull me downwards while keeping the back straight. Do one leg at a time. And read about breathing and how to tense the muscle briefly and relax into a deeper stretch ("PNF" and variants - google's your friend). Cheers, Tony

Another thing to think about: if you get robotic, forget everything, and trip over your own trousers, bow at the wrong time etc.... will you still be back training just as hard the next class? I'm sure you will, and in a couple years time you'll be just as good a black belt anyway. So, don't think of gradings as a giant wall... instead, imagine you're a river and you've filled up the dam to bursting - it's inevitable, and if it doesn't happen this time then when it does happen, there'll just be more water rushing downstream to hit the next dam. Even as a green belt, think like a soon-to-be black belt and keep your mind on the "sea" - the end-goal. Train every class like it's a grading and they'll get easier and easier as you understand the expectations better. Go get 'em. Cheers, Tony

Another thought: self defense courses - they're not a long term commitment, can volunteer to run ones for worthy causes, a good way to meet people in different environments, and you can plan other activities/holidays around them. And there's a very real challenge in teaching people something that they'll learn so quickly, be able to apply effectively and under pressure, remember and remember/trust to use... quite different to the traditional arts. Cheers, Tony

Even if you've given up taking regular classes, there are so many martial-arts related things that I'd love to have time to do. You could think about writing a book, videos or web pages of technical points, discussion points, stories about your years in the arts, things you've found interesting...? A series of interviews with contacts you've made - exploring their experiences? A statistical analysis of which techniques or tactics have been effective in a particular art or sports context. Or you could collect and develop some of the themes you've brought to KarateForums into a collection of discussions showing the diversity of thought and practices in the arts. Disappointed to hear the other local practitioners are so insecure... . Cheers, Tony

I keep the heel down unless I need to move forwards in a way that prevents it (e.g. reaching a little with a reverse punch). I'd still rather step forward and land the heel before punching if possible. A few thoughts... In those moves that require turning/stretching away followed by a slinging back into the move - like punches, knife hands, ridge hands, side thrusting kicks, turning/roundhouse kicks - excessive stiffness means there's not enough time and distaince to store/unleash a lot of power, but too little means there's no pressure building up to plyometrically sling you back into the move. For my punch, I'm quite flexible in the calves, and ok in the ankles and knees, so I can turn my hips and "sit back" towards my rear foot with my rear leg bent without having to lift my rear heal or turn it outwards. I can form a position where that back leg is perfectly chambered to explode forwards such that I can complete my punch - bringing the back-leg's hip well past the front's, without needing to move either foot on the ground throughout the movement. Still, it's stiff enough to provide a solid core for the looser stretches through the torso and shoulders. If I loosen the base further by turning my feet around during the movement, it makes the overall performance slopier. Whether this is true for other people will partly depend on how flexible they are in the various parts of their body. In the above, I think I'm pretty typical, but some people might be much stiffer or looser in various spots. So, while lifting the heel allows more hip rotation, that's not necessarily good: you just need to reach the right angle with enough stiffness that by the time you've rotated there the body's screaming out to thrust that hip forwards again. Similarly, you only want so much follow-through: if you're able to focus your power, you'll have unleashed it quickly into the target, and any further forced follow-through is needless over-commitment that can get you in big trouble if your strike is blocked, dodged, insufficiently effective, or countered in time. I believe that a landed heel provides better stability during a strike, better ability to resist reaction forces from the target, sweeps or unbalancing blocks, better ability to twist against the ground to help start another movement or begin a step or turn. As soon as I contract the thigh, I want the foot getting a reaction force from the ground: with the heel grounded it's guaranteed, with the heel up, if depends on whether the calf is a weak link in the chain. I also focus on the forwards movement behind the strike. I don't believe in up-down movements for their own sake, as I think a horizontally-forwards hip rotation and a strong reaction force from the floor is much more important in generating power. Cheers, Tony

Certainly can be. Someone using peripheral vision and looking straight through or past you with intense concentration - when you know they're very aware of you - can also be disconcerting... not an everyday experience for most people. Cheers, Tony

Worth analysing the value of that.... If you've learned good body mechanics, all those strikes should naturally be much more powerful than most people's, and you should instinctively - even in a panic - be picking the tools that are sufficiently free to do something. If you can get that far you've already got a big advantage over the panicked untrained person who just struggles to hit with the wrong limb, wrong motion, and at the wrong place.... There are lots of grab situations (e.g. standing frontal strangulation) where you typically have free limbs and unprotected sensitive targets, and it's a great instinct to drive your limbs straight into a cascade of striking attacks rather than grabbing back and necessarily getting into a battle where a strength and size advantage is the dominant factor. Of course that's great too if you can pull it off. That's always a danger with any techniques - finger breaks, a punch or kick etc.. Most people realising they've been hit or injured are going to be moved to some change of tactics, whether it's an escalation of viciousness or an effort to flee. But, if you expect they're going to get too nasty anyway, and sooner or later things will still go awfully wrong, then you might as well get it over and done with. Surprise can be a big factor in scaring someone into doubts that lead to either mistakes or flight, so escalating gradually while monitoring their anger levels and violent tendencies is a particularly dangerous strategy. Cheers, Tony

Ummm... let's say you do a 100 man kumite every morning and afternoon, then after 50 days you've fought 10,000 people. So, you can do 7 cycles per year, which means you'll be done in 1000/7 ~= 143 years. Completely ignoring the wreck your body and brain will be in.... But, the general concept has merit... . Cheers, Tony

Hapkido's worth considering... a few years rounded out my hard-style taekwondo and gave me better tactile sensitivity, explosiveness, footwork, and control of the opponent - even though the techniques are a lot less practical than simple striking. Kyokushin technique and tactics seem pretty basic to me... not sure there's a lot to learn if you've already got a solid foundation in karate, but there's the contact side if you haven't been in a style that concentrates on conditioning and/or knockdown sparring.... Judo looks like great fun to me, but I'm not sure about a martial art. Kendo - might be good for untelegraphed movement and reflexes, footwork...? Could also be frustrating for someone with a martial arts background, as so many things have to be done in the prescribed way irrespective of whether you could affect an equally or more effective strike in some other way... true at least when practiced in Japan, but then Korea has been more flexible in that regard in the martial arts generally....

Well, live and learn - I never expected to hear any vaguely (let alone distinctly) credible explanations for turning without looking, so a big thanks for the thread and all the responses. I agree with Chitsu that you do whatever the kata defines, not because it's acceptable for a kata not to be realistic, but because - as he says - there should hopefully be some other benefits like awareness of other opponents, better body alignment for a stronger strike etc.. Unless you're prepared to give up on the pattern completely, then keep doing it as defined. If you conclude it's nonsense, and you're senior enough in the style to believe there's no hidden depths you're missing, then take responsibility for the decision and study patterns that you're learning from even if it means another style or art. So. I turn and look, with cones and rods (central and peripheral) as the situation allows, as much as seems practical in the movement and hopefully enough to encompass the entire attacker's position and "clock" movements with any limb. Put another way, enough that I don't have a blind spot with respect to the opponent I'm turning towards. Only then can I select a defense or attack with awareness and confidence. Looking early is important - to be a great martial artist (my constant ambition, realised or not), I reason that it's not enough to decide your footwork and body movement ahead of time and just select a hand movement to complement the attack. You have to - as early as is practical - be able to modify your gross movement, footwork, distancing, decide to attack instead of block, smother instead of deflect etc.... Why? Because while you just might be able to turn quickly without making any effort to look early (whether it's significantly quicker or not is another question, but not relevant to this point), but you should be training with the constant assumption that the opponent is at least as quick as you, and may adapt what they do to your movements as they're made. That said, I definitely don't make it a habitual "1) snap the head around", and only then "2) move" sequence. "Snap" is dangerous, and having your chin over either shoulder invites savage consequences from a simple slap to the front-facing side of the jaw. I turn the head quickly but cautiously, sometimes inclining the head slightly forwards if that seems to offer better protection, then move as the attack (imagined for kata) requires. Sometimes that's pretty much overlapping the turn, other times it's pretty much "whenever I feel like it". Hard not to make it sound judgemental of alternatives, but just sharing the ideas... take it or leave it as you like, and thanks again for sharing your own - hope to see more. Cheers, Tony

3 months without food... that would only get you "The Well-known Fact Pretending To Be A Secret That Satiates The Little Secret-Seeker". Better go back and hop to the top of the mountain on your left big toe, then do one finger pushups on the end of a rusty nail until the Grand Master comes back... if he doesn't go senile and forget you and/or the secret in the mean time....

I've lived in Australia (Canberra, Sydney), London and now Tokyo. All have strengths and weaknesses. I've come to the conclusion that most places can be fun as long as you've a circle of good friends to hang out with, find some people who share your passions (training!), and make the most of what is there. I've never lived on the beach though - want to one day. Cheers, Tony

A solid, inspiring read. Well, what can I say except that I better go train . Regards, Tony

"Give me a choice between pleasure and pain, I choose.... pain..." Dio, R.I.P.

The step back is angled to form a more closed/narrow stance, or a wider stance? Former sounds better, if not taken too far, in that the groin isn't opened up and mobility is less compromised, but it also steps into the attack more, making adequate deflection/avoidance more difficult. Still, the move sounds suspect to me... if it's not simultaneously hitting, then you're left in a pretty bad position with your front ribs unprotected, limited ability to hit meaningfully hard with that front hand until after you've first retracted it again, and it's easily grabbed/locked/trapped by the opponent. As toptomcat says, it's hard to even block like that reliably against an attacker whose style and technique is either variable or unknown to you (i.e. you have to tailor your distancing, relative angle and timing carefully in response to the exact punching technique used by your attacker, especially against a larger, stronger attacker). So, I hope that if the technique is taught and practiced much in the school, that it's just a stepping stone to an advanced version that will later be introduced that does strike simultaneously (best) or in a chained movement (marginal), reducing the counterattacking opportunities and giving some reward for the extra difficulty and risk taken. Cheers, Tony

Not saying I agree with them asking for all this (I'm in the middle of filling out employee profile information for my new employer - an American company - and more annoyed with invasive questions than usual), but to give some possible explanations... - photos are obviously useful for instructors to recognise students - in my old school, each grading application would have a photo glued in the corner so the master instructor could quickly check they were making comments against the correct student, whom he might not see between gradings (having been in international and national scale schools). Instructors may want to browse through the students records sometimes before a grading, or just to check enrolement dates and progress etc., make sure they don't embarasingly (and perhaps for the student hurtfully) forget a students' name during a long absence), and the photos can be useful in those respects. - At best, asking about religion may be a ham-fisted attempt to infer whether there could be other issues - unwanted medical treatment, dietary restrictions at any events, etc.. Totally inappropriate though. Age, address, emergency contacts, medical conditions - fair enough I'd say. Prior martial arts experience - can understand why they might worry about that: knowing what techniques might spontaneously occur in the heat of the moment, what kind of contact level someone might expect to be ok etc. can help in tailoring a suitable introduction to the art, as well as be cited in support of rapid promotion. All the address and contact information is a little bizarre though, but the school may have had an incident where they thought it expedient to contact someone's old school - a case of claims based on a false credential, a member prone to violence who proved to have a history of expulsion from other groups etc.. Might not be ill-intentioned, but it's certainly pushing the boundaries privacy wise. Sadly, seems the world's heading this way. I'm having to sign forms saying the company can ask anyone anything they like about me, and I've no right of recourse regardless of whether they tell the truth or not. Do it or don't get the job, which is harsh to find out after you've resigned from the old employer. Cheers, Tony

I've been in a similar situation, but just battled on alone. Sounds like the third option - finding someone experienced from another style - is the only viable one. How much you need or should want them to adopt your style is an interesting point though... if it's just for occasions where someone in your family's really sick, getting married etc., then you can probably introduce someone as a guest instructor every now and then so the students see you teaching together and get used to the person, then have them run an entire class as needed. I don't think it matters that much what the other art is, as long as you respect the person's attitude and ability. It could be a chance for them to learn a little joint locking, break falls & rolls, some throws, chokes, locks, weapons technique etc.. Alternatively, you could get someone to use some of their exercises - stretching, conditioning, outward forms like step sparring or practicing kata their existing kata with different focuses (e.g. speed in sub-sequences, explosiveness of individual movements, peripheral vision and awareness) where differences in the exact execution of techniques won't be the focus for students. If you want someone to take over a regular class, then they really do need to know your style (unless you accept they'll be learning some hybrid). Cheers, Tony

Well, in my original school you weren't an instructor unless you had your own dojang(s). An instructor would have at most one assistant, but many had none. Most instructors weren't paid, but then the student fees weren't high either. To me, this makes sense - why would the adult class be taught by anyone other than the most qualified people available? Why should there be a large pool of half-trained instructors under them? Is the school expecting massive instructor turnover? Massive growth? Probably not on a level that requires that - sounds more like they've found the instructor training profitable and the free assistance with the mundane junior classes convenient... a terrible attitude. Even our master instructor would teach white belts as readily as black. Legally, nothing. Ethically, possibly a lot. If I've got the gist of it from the pieces presented in the thread, seems you're postulating taking a basic level of martial arts knowledge and mixing in some (military?) training psychology and exercises? That's an interesting experiment, and I can only hope that if you proceed one day you inform the prospective students that that is what they'd be signing up for - not a martial arts experience as ever implied by the name "taekwondo", but some hybrid training system you're experimenting with. Frankly, I'd feel reassured if you broadened your training experience massively to see how other schools are already mixing psychological elements and non-traditional training methods - you would probably be better off joining such a school, rather than creating your own. I know nothing about the ITA. Choi did do it, but with the the power of a military dictatorship behind him, and the assistance of many talented people who trained full time. And even low dan ranks in karate at the time were probably worth a lot more than they are in most schools now. Despite that, much was lost in the process - proper hip mechanics, speed and precision in stances and footwork, many of Shotokan's excellent block/attack drills with partners, conditioning exercises, an inestimable wealth of kata, insight and refinement.... You'd know because you'd find yourself master of the art you actually studied, clearly understanding the pros and cons of each aspect of each movement, applying them effortlessly against other instructors and students, eventually seeing gaps and overlooked opportunities either in the technique or the training methods - and that's not one sudden realisation - but a long process that needs to be proven and refined by experience actually teaching and seeing what the students can adopt successfully. Ambition is good, but my honest opinion is that while your intent may seem to make sense in the context of the club at which you train, in the wider martial arts world it would seem very premature to abandon training in other systems and try to create your own. I thought I had a pretty good handle on things when I was a green belt too - little did I know... . Cheers, Tony

I'm having a little trouble following your description. Describing martial arts things in a way others can follow is a real art form! So, we've got a spearhand thrust blocking some kind of same-side punch, finishing just above shoulder height, executed while retreating with the opposite leg. Is the application countering a linear or hooking punch? Are you deflecting/stopping the attack on your inner forearm (i.e. thumb side), outer forearm, triceps or biceps? (All these options can be made to work in specific scenarios). Keeping your body square or angled when you step back? Do you stop your fingertips outside the attackers shoulder, near the shoulder, or already near the throat? (You say you follow it with two thrusts from the other then the same arm, implying that the first thrust isn't simultaneously an attack?) More generally, it sounds similar to the punching block in early/ITF taekwondo, and to many of the intercepting strikes in wing chun and Jeet Kun Do (which I recall you've studied). So, hoping you can explain what's different about this move. My studies of the little-known art of Hwarin-Mu also heavily involved simultaneous counter-strikes that fit your general description, generally delivered concurrently with a second strike with the other hand. Cheers, Tony

Why not judge training methods by the caliber of martial artists they produce, not their degree of adherence to old methods of the Japanese Karate Association? In my opinion sparring-heavy styles of karate have produced some impressive karateka... I consider patterns an indispensable - though of course not the only - foundation of my training. Most martial arts movements require considerable skill to execute well, and patterns encourage serious practice of non-trivial combinations. The repetition in patterns gives people a chance to hone those skills over years. Practicing with partners is good, but less accessible, and more prone to variations or limitations in their actions that can sometimes limit the challenge and consequent progress from training with them. In a pattern, only perfection is good enough, and in that way not having another person as the benchmark helps keep you focused on improvement. The sheer simplicity of a pattern's environment of execution makes it possible to vary the mental and technical focus and seek out other dimensions to the practice (e.g. explosive speed of footwork, untelegraphed movement, body mechanics, mental awareness of surroundings, height in stances etc). I also believe it's important for people to seek a common technical basis in their art, and vary only after making a concerted and sustained effort to become proficient in the "traditional" movement. Too many movements are thrown away by relative novices following their own intuition of what's right for them or seems to work better in some limited partner-training or competition scenario, long before they're any serious insight into the technique. Cheers, Tony

In my own studies and teaching, students tend not to ask many questions. As a beginner, my main instructor wouldn't entertain unsought questions during class, gave minimal explanation but exemplary, inspiring demonstrations. People had to really hang on each word, train their eye to perceive the subtleties of the demonstrations, think hard to understand what made sense, and get good at assessing their own movements (as direct correction from the instructor was limited). Some people were better at that than others, so some never reached a very practical level in their abilities due to being unable to pass those barriers, but for those that acquired these skills they engender an ability to soak up martial knowledge very easily, and critique others in a perceptive way that's equally invaluable as an instructor and in a fight. Despite that, as a teacher I tend to provide information much more freely and in depth, and have introduced specific exercises to target some of the "hidden" mechanics that we - as students - had to struggle to discern and develop. I watch my students carefully and tailor feedback to address what they need to improve, and will talk around a subject and offer different demonstrations and exercises until it "soaks in" and I see the changes I'm looking for. There's little need for them to ask questions - I'm the instructor because I tend to know what they need to know better than they do. Still, as they're refining their conceptual undertanding of techniques questions will come naturally, and I'm very open to being questioned - albeit more so when teaching a smaller class. I see questions as a useful feedback mechanism for honing my own instruction, and reinforcing the knowledge transfer. Another aspect of this is the students' confidence that their instructor is leading them in the right direction. When the instructor's skill is obvious and desirable, and they see the other students forming a steady "ladder" towards that level such that they know the curriculum engenders that skill, they'll have the confidence to fit in to the established teaching style. Cheers, Tony