tonydee

I agree that feeling physically threatened is typically the issue, especially if you've sought and exhausted ways to mitigate the threat (verbal, distancing, distraction, adopting a more defensible position). There are also situations that are physical but not threatening (some fool being too pushy on the Tokyo metro), and situations that someone intends to be threatening but an experienced martial artist couldn't find threatening - in either violence would be an over-reaction. Then there are other more complex scenarios where you might choose to use your skills at some level: enforcing some laws, defence of freedoms/ property, to prevent a perceived probability of future violence which you expect to be unable to handle adequately at that time. Obviously, it works best if we turn to the provisions our society has to handle most such situations, but sometimes they may be inadequate, and even the pros and cons of setting a precedence/example for action - lawful or not - ought to be weighed. Lots of grey areas. Cheers, Tony

I'd say just keep training hard while you can. Knowledge and ability are the important things. Other things will sort themselves out in time. Don't worry about belts per se... even if you have to start something else as a junior, another year or two spent on basic stances and techniques is only wasted if your heart or mind's not in it - keep focused on perfection and there's always work to do. If your interest in martial arts is the kind that will last decades, then finding a good school afterwards is more important than how quickly they "integrate" you at a rank you're chuffed about. Cheers, Tony

I only studied Aikido for about 6 months, a couple years back. My impression is it's got some very neat combat concepts, but because of the emphasis on cooperation during practice and practicing defense against unrealistic attacks, a lot of senior aikidoka couldn't use their skills reliably in a street fight. They might work brilliantly if everything just happened to fall into place, or it all might fall apart. In that respect, I'd say it's a bit like studying judo - you learn to deal with certain situations, but blocking a trained punch or kick isn't your speciality, nor is grabbing someone without leaving yourself vulnerable to a poke in the eye, but if you're lucky you get your throw in first anyway. I'm happy to believe Ueshiba was a terrific fighter - perhaps one of the best ever - but I'm not sure the system he left behind effectively trains people to reach his skill level. Physically, it's not known for being particularly strenuous: while some schools do train intensely enough to be a great workout, other schools adopt a more "senior-citizens doing tai-chi to music" pace. Sitting in seiza position (knees together in front, sitting on your heels) can be tough at first . You can expect a lot of rolling practice, joint locking, possibly some breathing exercises. Anyway, best idea is to visit the dojo. Cheers, Tony

I do not believe there can be any martial art that requires the practitioner follow a specific religion in order for the techniques to be effective, because I don't believe there's any religion granting exclusive access to any power or ability. All techniques of martial arts are accessible to anyone moving correctly and with the right attitude and state of mind, and the latter elements can not be the exclusive domain of any particular religion / meditative practice etc.. As a Buddhist, I believe that whatever Nature really is, interaction with it follows certain rules (as per physics), perhaps malleable based on state of mind/intent, but independent of labels and symbols - even gods. Buddhists don't want to get sidetracked pursuing some esoteric power just for its own sake, any more than they should fixate on seeking everyday physiological power. Even within Buddhism, different schools have different ideas about how likely esoteric practices are to lead to being sidetracked (from advancement towards enlightenment). I'd say it depends on the individual, and their reasons for and attitudes to the experience of practising / learning the chi/ki exercises in bagua and tai chi, but some Buddhist groups may set a guideline based on the lowest common denominator and steer all members away from this. More generally, religions might dictate whether some (possibly empty) subset of martial arts techniques should be studied, and if/when/how they may/should be applied in a conflict, but each actual technique and skill of any martial art is otherwise only loosely correlated with religion, and only to the extent that some religion's practices help train the body/mind to react to conflict situations in a particular way (e.g. fearlessly) - allowing the technique to be applied optimally, and may help sustain directed effort during training. Regards, Tony

Varies widely from school to school, but I'd say there's less than 1% chance. Still, if the idea worries you, nothing to lose and peace of mind to gain from spending 10 minutes beforehand thinking of a few reasons you wanted to train, benefits you've been getting, things you've learned, hopes for the future.... It is indeed good to talk to other students and the instructor about the rough format of the grading. Also, stay calm and watch carefully when you're there, keep an open mind as to what you might be asked to do, so you're ready to adapt. A good school won't ask you to do any techniques you haven't already been practising, but if the venue is unfamiliar, the instructor calling out instructions, it can get confusing. For partner exercises, some of your peers may be a bit hyped up, do an unexpected or unexpectedly rough move, not stop immediately they're told etc., so try to maintain a generally good defence and awareness, and yet don't hold back more than usual with your own attacks. (I expect for yellow belt, it will be step sparring rather than free. There are more than 1400 matches on youtube for "karate yellow belt grading"... maybe try to find a few where the techniques and school seem vaguely similar to yours, and it'll give you a bit of a "superset" of the things you're likely to be asked to do, so you'll doubtless be psychologically ready for even more than you'll be asked for. Cheers, Tony

It's a really tough question... I mean, how many of the people we could list have we ever met, let alone having fought them (if we were good enough to probe their limits)? Miyamoto Musashi, Ueshiba - neither appear to have met their match, despite many challengers. Similarly, there are legendary Chinese fighters amongst the Shaolin styles, tai chi, wing chun; and lots of Okinawan masters quietly training without tournaments or wide-spread fame - I've no idea how they compare. Oyama - again - I'm not overwhelmed by his technique or fighting style, but did anyone beat him? (Some say yes, others no). Malaysia's packed full of very capable martial artists who nobody's likely to have heard of. Vietnam. The best thai boxers get famous because it's a sport and therefore they bubble to the top in an internationally accessible, consumable form. On the sports side, well I don't know much about MMA/UFC etc, but Fedor Emelianenko seems to be up there - not my ideal of martial arts though - gloves and rules and all that. I'm always surprised to find Chuck Norris taken seriously in discussions of the older American fighters, his technique is so lumbering I just can't credit him as much of a fighter. Still, his style is close to mine, I just don't think he is/was-ever especially good at it. Benny the Jet had an amazing record fighting outside his weight class and under so many rules. Bruce Lee's never impressed me as being a stand out. So much was style over substance, and frankly some of the suggested self-defence in his books is plain stupid: women expected to suddenly make large awkward footwork and kicking movements when they're surprised by a man while getting into their car, when there were easy targets that could be struck effectively with much easier, more credible movements. In some ways, standards have changed since then. In terms of martial artist/actors, I do like Jet Li. But again, it's not based on much. I remember watching an early Jet Li film that was obviously very low budget, and the fighting looked so much worse - many films have shown how selective editing, camera angles, changing the speed etc. can make someone who isn't even trained look ok, or someone good look incredible. Cheers, Tony

So far, so good . Cheers, Tony

Thanks for the article... a stimulating read. It sounds like you're describing the front snap kick (you say the knee should be kept high throughout the extension). The distinct front rising kick (e.g. kicking into the groin) really benefits from that tight, hard, knee-like initial lift you're drilling, and front thrust kick is a great one for keeping a closing opponent at bay. I focus on these distinctions more than described in your article, but know there's a lot to be said for not getting students bogged down in detail. Really like your numbering system and #3 / #4 variants... there's a lot of directions and distances that would still qualify kicks using those numbers, so it challenges students to pick something appropriate to their situation while still using a specific footwork and kicking leg: that's incredibly useful drill, and reminds me of the drills Tyson used to practice punches, with each technique similarly numbered: a wonderfully tight, disciplined way to train. Thanks and regards, Tony

Just chipping in with my understanding - pieced together over the years. Tang Soo Do is a translation of the word "karate", in it's original Okinawan meaning of "way of the Chinese hand". Tang is the reference to China, as in Tang Dynasty (famous for vases?). The Okinawan-born Gichin Funakoshi brought his knowledge of a karate system to mainland Japan circa 1917. Sometime afterwards - with the Japanese wanting to distance themselves from acknowledging they were practicing a Chinese art, they picked another kanji (Japanese letter imported from the Chinese writing system), also pronounced "ka", which meant empty. Hence, the Japanese version of the art was still known as karate, but the meaning became "way of the empty hand". With the Japanese military occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945, many young Koreans were sent to Japan to learn Japanese language and disciplines that could help with the administration of Korea. (Others - often children - were kidnapped and effectively made slaves). Some of those Koreans - while studying in Japan - had a chance to learn Funakoshi's style of karate - which has evolved into modern forms we now commonly call Shotokan (or, a little less commonly, Shotokai). One Korean learned another Okinawan style, a couple learned a little judo. These Koreans - to the best of my knowledge the Shotokan stylists were at best 1st and 2nd dans, and the other karate-ka a 4th dan - started teaching in Seoul. One dojo/jang - whose owner had a close and friendly relationship with the Japanese administration - was actually able to teach before the military occupation ceased, while many, many others opened very soon afterwards. The names tang soo do and kong soo do were commonly used, literal translations of the two meanings for karate (kong means empty). Some styles kept the Japanese kata (patterns), while others were forced together through political/military pressure and disowned those kata in favour of rather similar patterns "created" by Koreans (chang hon hyung). Many of the more karate-like styles - especially overseas - may have kept the tang soo do name, while others grouped under taekwondo - the governing bodies for which evolved the style quite quickly away from the karate origins, particular in kata/hyung, sparring, and the biomechanical basis for technique - which was often overlooked. It's overwhelmingly likely that the ancient hwarang have nothing to do with modern Korean martial arts, including the revivalist "hwarang do" schools. They're just cashing in on a name popularised to lend credibility to the claims of taekwondo to be Korean, and have ancient roots. Sorry for not taking the time to provide references, and not covering the way modern tang soo do links to that history, but hope that might give you some ideas re what to look for in the historical period you're interested in. It's worth keeping in mind that modern South Korea is a democracy and enjoys considerable freedom, but for most of its post-WWII history it was a military dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, and the government, military and secret police were pretty much integrated, controlling taekwondo along with all other important aspects of Korean life. Patriotism was used as a tool of control, and control of the media, text books and other information was practically absolute and deliberately directed towards that ends. Regards, Tony

That's probably something the like PVC I mentioned. Exactly how good it is can vary - as can quality and thickness of leather - so as you say finding a brand you know and trust, or someone recommends, is very reassuring. In my experience, these "synthetic leather" fabrics typically last for a couple years of solid use. The bags at my kickboxing gym are the same (i.e. synthetic) - a torn one serves as a makeshift seat, but the others take a lot of abuse without issue. Other synthetic bags I've had at home have lasted well too. Cheers, Tony

Good points. I typically use front thrusting kick to attack the lower torso, which should be quite easy for a taller person often fighting shorter opponents. Cheers, Tony

I disagree with much of this. For a start, the lawyers on the other side won't know or care if you're from a McDojo - they're going to make you out to be a highly trained brute. You're not likely to be believed if you say "oh, my martial art is just a ritual art form" (unless you do tai chi or aikido and their soft forms happen to be familiar to the judge or jury). So, I think that dimension isn't relevant to a judge or jury's prejudices against or differing expectations of martial artists. The issue then relates to excessive force: if you injure someone who attacks you, and you're a martial artist, their lawyers may assert that given your training you were able - but choose not to - handle the situation without seriously hurting their client. The normal self-defence justifications - ala "I was afraid he was going to beat the daylights out of me, so I hit him until I was sure he couldn't keep fighting" - just won't sound as credible. It's true that the average standard of martial artists is nothing to brag about, but the average standard of boxers / kick-boxers / wrestlers etc. is nothing to brag about either. Even accepting that good boxers might benefit from science - in the form of body-mechanical analysis, and statistical analysis of empirical data gathered from fights - their sport is still vastly different from a fight situation, and the utility of their techniques for self defence is highly questionable. In my experience, many professional boxers don't even punch well for self defence, as the gloves they wear spread out the impact in space and time to such an extent that they need to modify the technique to allow them to keep punching without exhausting themselves, but in doing so they massively compromise the body mechanics and peak power in any single punch. They also tend to hold their guard too high - forearms overly vertical - which can be easily trapped by a martial artist. Regards, Tony

Definitely stances can vary from school to school, so do make a point of listening to the specific instructions you've received. Do put markers on the floor for width and length and practice stepping forward, backward, and changing direction. Be aware of the direction of your hips while in the stance: should you be front facing, side facing, or somewhere in between? Is any hip movement required when stepping or settling after a step? Which legs are bent and by how much? Where is your knee relative to your heel (vertically above it, behind, ...)? Which direction should each foot face? These things help you get started. Later, correct stances must be defined by the potentials for defence, offence and mobility that they create, with the first two being heavily influenced by the last. So, don't take all the rules of thumb about lengths and angles too seriously, but do use them as a way to get you in the right ballpark so you can begin to feel what's right, and have a basis for fine tuning things in a year or five. Cheers, Tony

Yes... I'm aware of one martial artist in Australia who has run his own school for 20-odd years, who spent about a year in prison after an incident in a bar. The version I heard indirectly from him is that he was suggesting to two women that they might act in a more ladylike fashion than they had been, and one of them went to throw her drink in his face. He instinctively raised a hand, which broke the glass, and both of them got cut. The women took it to court - two against one, presumably with a slightly different version of events. His rank in martial arts was focused on in court. Cheers, Tony

Can you explain the application? What point on the opponent are you targetting? Hard to imagine how the final position could be of use for anything except the chin, and the way the leg lifts precludes being close enough to attack the chin as the leg would get caught on the opponent during the lift.... Cheers, Tony

Some backs are PVC (vinyl) or similar... seems a good value-for-money option to me, and perhaps a bit easier to clean than canvas? Cheers, Tony

I think it's fine... the two systems are so different that there's not much potential for conflict or confusion. Just don't punch anyone at Judo - even if they're cheating or bullying a bit - and it's likely nobody will mind . Cheers, Tony

Not only could this influence judges, it's likely to even if the judges consciously guard against it, especially if the apparent rank equals or exceeds their own. Unless they're extremely self confident, extremely experienced, or the performer is really obviously bad, then they'll begin to look for ways to reconcile their impressions with the ostensible rank... questioning whether they're missing something... looking to give the performer the benefit of the doubt even if it means assuming their own judgement/conceptions to have been wrong in the past. Cheers, Tony

Interesting question. In 5 minutes (friend waiting to go out) the only ways I could think of that this might be applied to martial arts are: - A consequentialist who tries to act to benefit others (e.g. every Buddhist) may fear their actions having powerful consequences if they're unsure the influence will turn out positive; while this is not limited to MAs practice, it may be than an instructor or senior has a strong position of influence over a student, and even more than usual responsibility to exert it well. - Innate inadequacy gives us a comfortable reason for mediocre performance, but when we find we have the potential to be masterful at something, then we are more likely to judge ourselves, or fear judgement from others, if we fail to realise that potential. - If we obtain the MAs ability to be powerful in a fight, then we have more responsibility for the choices we make and their impact on our opponents, their families, and our community. We can "play god" and decide who lives and dies, who's crippled or spared, and that is a fearsome role to have. Cheers, Tony

You might consider a low section front kick... it's easy to deliver, requires little telegraphing, needs less effort and motion than a roundhouse/turning motion, creates less counter-attack opportunities, and it's easier to keep your body front facing so you can follow up quickly over the top with hand techniques to exploit any opening you've created. FWIW, .Cheers, Tony

Yes - as it says on the video, the two use the same direction of hip movement. Learning back kick first is probably the best way to learn that type of thrusting side kick - train the muscles until they're very familiar with it and then it's easier to reconnect to the motion using other footwork or when starting the kick from the opposite side of the body from which it needs to rotate in.... Cheers, Tony

Discussion's probably long forgotten, but for whatever it's worth I've finally got around to uploading ....Cheers, Tony

Welcome Mark. Glad to hear you're enjoying your training.

Makes a lot of sense for a close fight. Still, not so when you're so much better at fighting than your opponent that they don't pose any real risk when you're both on good ground. In that case, moving to adverse topology (e.g. a slippery, hard surface) may make them even less likely to deliberately, calculatingly get your advantage, but a larger random element comes into play. You might - statistically - be worse off. It's a bit like fighting bare-knuckled, then thinking "shall I pull a knife - I see he's got one pocketed too, but I almost certainly know how to use it better". Upping the anti isn't a good idea unless you're already in trouble, and you think the opponent's not going to leave it at a bloody nose.... Cheers, Tony

My mum laughed at a grading once when one of the other kids tripped on the over-long pants of his do-gi. Earned her a dirty look from one of the other mums. Every now and then the master instructor would want to know whether someone's parents were present, proceeding to congratulate them on some aspect of the child's behaviour or attitude. They were just expected to be polite. I think it's fair to say our instructors (myself included) were more concerned about being polite to the guests, than whether the guests were being polite to them. In my own school, I've been more relaxed again, both with students and guests. Cheers, Tony