tonydee

Assuming a side thrusting kick is actually desired... my approach is to get them so familiar with the mechanics as delivered during a spinning side kick or step-behind kick that it's ingrained, and they're almost addicted to the feeling of thrusting power. Then, giving them time and asking them to kick hard, perhaps reinforced by holding a shield, they'll happily make sure they pull the leg across to chamber it properly so they can reconnect to that feeling, and get the same satisfaction during the lock. Then, very gradually, comes the process of developing the timing and positioning necessary to deliver a fast kick off the back leg. Separately, the side piercing kick should look a bit like a turning kick.... Cheers, Tony

In my original school, at best a couple percent of students made first dan. Of those, locally, for a decade or so only the chief instructor was a 2nd dan. Our Korean 8th dan didn't like the idea of anyone else being senior enough in the eyes of the students and their families to look credible running their own gradings. Maybe 15 years after becoming the local chief instructor - with 20 dojang and 500 students under him, teaching 2-3 hours per day every night of the week and some weekends - he got to grade for 3rd dan, and afterwards a select few of the other instructors got a crack at 2nd dan. The chief instructor did then split off, but applied similar tactics: the best instructors were still 3rd dan after ~25 years, with the only way to 4th dan being heading off somewhere to become a chief instructor of another state.... More generally, in the large international taekwondo organisations it's generally expected that a reasonable talented and conscientious student will get to grade to 2nd dan after a year or two, to 3rd dan after two or three more, 4th dan after 3 or 4 etc.. This approach tends to keep people loyal, as they feel respected, even though any given dan can mean vastly different things in different places. Those supporting the school through teaching, and especially expanding the school into new areas, are most likely to be recognised. In such a system, I think it's likely that many of the 1st dans will drop out before 2nd dan, simply having reached that initial goal and realising that there's still a lot to do, but not so much of it is new and exciting. Once those people are weeded out, people who hang around for a couple years are pretty likely to be training 10 years later, provided personal circumstances don't move them somewhere where they can't train. Cheers, Tony

I'm sorry to say it, but I've learnt to be skeptical about these types of studies. There are just so many complications: - results depends on which variety of punch the subject/s is/are better at, and may even be affected by the results they predict: if the subject already believes a recoil punch has more "snap", and a follow-through more "push", they are likely to deliver them that way even though it may not be inherent in the movements - striking force is such a complicated thing to measure usefully, as it's a curve against time, at each point in the contact surface area, and the forces (and quickly surface areas) vary with the resistance offered. More explosive strikes invariably dissipate more energy local deformations, noise and other shock waves that may not transfer linearly to the sensors, and can actually provide a lesser reading. For example: a snap punch typically does not move a punching bag as much as a pushing punch, even if it has considerably more total power. Instead, the leather is quickly stretched and the ends pull together: if one end is on a chain the bag snaps upwards at the base, rather than swinging backwards. - in this case, if my quick reading was correct, the subject had a G-force measuring device in his hand, and was not striking a target? If so, then only the speed and changes thereto are measured... a punch needs to have more behind it than the mass of the hand, so any such measurement is pretty useless.... - it's very hard to get a representative sample of martial artists, and it's also arguably(*) more useful to get the best exponents of each variety, in which case results may need to be normalised for weight, strength, age etc.. * arguably because some people don't care how good it might be for someone who spent 40 years practicing little else, as they know they won't do the same. - brute force alone shouldn't determine which is used anyway, unless the opponent is helpless: generally techniques are characterised by the amount of time they take to deliver, the time and difficulty in recognising them, the recovery time, the ease of blocking them, the vulnerability to counters during execution, the ease and variety of possible follow up etc. I realise this doesn't help much, but all I'm saying is analysing martial arts scientifically is very difficult to do meaningfully, which is one reason so many arts claim to be scientifically derived while reaching opposite conclusions. My advice is just hit a variety of targets, attempt a variety of breaks, and keep doing your best with each variation of a technique. It's not always best to only have the strongest techniques in your arsenal. Cheers, Tony

I do think it has some use. In order to do it you have to have a strong core, very good sense of balance, and strength in the leg, not to mention you have to be able to pivot properly and demonstrate correct part of the foot used. In the case of Juche (or Kodang which its also now called) I was told it was brought in to make it much more difficult to get to 3rd dan and to keep the standard high. Moon Moo for a similar reason. My instructor actually taught us the first section of Moon Moo as a strength exercise, try doing it with ankle weights on and it absolutely kills the legs. All true in a way, but it's a bit like schools that require their black belt candidates to run a marathon in a specific time before applying. Sure, it's a great experience and will help them with the psychology of goal setting, determination, fitness etc., but should it be mandated in a curriculum? To those who say "sure, it's a great idea", how about adding basic gymnastic routines and XMA moves? Wouldn't hurt to have all your 3rd dans able to do that too.... Or walk a tight rope... Do backflips juggling knives.... I personally think the training to lift your leg and pivot in that fashion doesn't improve the fighting ability significantly. I can do it, and it wasn't something I had to put any significant effort into, but I wouldn't care whether my peers can do it or not. I would prefer some differentiator from 1st dan that was more relevant to self defense ability, as that's the core benchmark of ability in the arts. Perhaps this is where breaking is useful... as difficult breaking requirements do prevent those without good mechanics from progressing inappropriately high. For that, it's important to forego techniques that only require brute use of body weight (e.g. downward stomp kick), and test for power and coordination (e.g. punching several boards without spacers, suspended from a string). To various extents, yes. Though, I believe the main motivation for the ITF forms was anti-Japanese sentiment, a distancing from the Japanese/Okinawan roots of taekwondo. Though I think the forms are reasonable, and am glad to have learnt them, it's hard not to wonder what treasures the Okinawan kata hold with the centuries of experience and many masters who've contributed.... Thanks for the recommendation. Already been interesting just checking up on Mr Anslow, whom I hadn't heard of before. Curiously, he doesn't believe the ITF taekwondo patterns were designed to incorporate the applications his book lists. Rather, the kata Funakoshi taught may have contained such applications - unknown even to him as he hadn't completed his training as a bodyguard to the Okinawan king - and some of the combinations survived the pillaging by which movements were incorporated into the Chang Hon forms. So, in a way, I'd be more interested to get a good book on some of the better preserved Okinawan styles, and see things in their proper context, but having put so much into ITF patterns already it'd be crazy not to hear Anslow's conclusions too. I have a couple other things to order from Amazon shortly, will add this in.... Thanks and regards, Tony

I've been through this process a few times over the years, but perhaps enumerated things at a slightly different level. By way of background, a strategy is an overarching vision of how to solve a problem, while a tactic is a specific action plan for achieving the strategy. So, tactics might indeed be "throat strike, kick the knee", while the strategies might be "attack different heights", "disrupt breathing", "strike vulnerable points", "deliver combinations", "after a technique with stun value, make a decisive strike" etc.... Just to give you a taste for this level of enumeration, and off the top of my head as my old documents aren't to hand (concentrating on the fighting phase of an encounter)... - strategy A: encourage overcommitment, as it invariable creates counter-attacking opportunities - strategy A1: encourage frustration/desparation: - tactic A1.1: stay just out of reach - tactic A1.2: if struck, hide consequences so opponent thinks they have to strike harder for it to be effective - strategy A2: encourage over-confidence - tactic A2.1: stay in/on striking range, but be consistently defensive (possibly only for a certain attack technique); if attacker relaxes monitoring for counter-attacks, deliver one - tactic A2.2: disguise own skill level, physical or mental abilities/health, phychological preparedness/toughness/commitment - strategy A3: exploit strongest defensive patterns - tactic A3.1: feint your most often/nearly-successful attacks, knowing the defense might be over-committed ... - strategy B: attack powerfully when opponent's stance limits mobility - strategy B1: exploit their existing footwork habits - tactic B1.1: if they habitually step one foot away before following with the other, momentarily creating an overly deep stance, then time an attack through their centre off mass for that intermediate position - tactic B1.2: if they habitually pull one foot inwards before stepping out with the other, momentarily creating an overly shallow stance, then time an attack through their centre off mass for that intermediate position - strategy B2: use grasping/limb-throwing blocks to pull them off balance and force them into an over-deep or shallow stance - ... - strategy C: overrotate joints - tactic C1: wait until the opponent brings a joint to the edge of its range of motion during the "backswing" for a technique, then strike preemptively to over-rotate the joint (e.g. opponent turns torso away, back towards you, while preparing knife hand but continues to look at you... strike the "chest" side of their jaw to overrotate the neck) - ... Such lists can get very long, but I found years ago that in practice I can analyse my sparring sessions at the strategic level with a list of 10 or 15 core strategies. Tactics are too numerous to list exhaustively, but it's good to think about them sometimes, as conscious awareness of what one does, what one might do, which strategies they fall into, and how often they work is useful insight for fighting. Cheers, Tony

I practice only the ITF hyung, though I would like to learn some traditional karate kata. I personally think 7 forms is too many... after 23 years in training, I realise how important it is to repeat the simplest movements until all the various levels of realisation about the mechanics and concepts reveal themselves. Many of the flashy things in the patterns - like spinning slowly with your leg raised high in the air - are of no real relevance, but people go to a lot of effort to master them instead of concentrating on a good punch or forearm block. Not only in those excesses, but in all ways and at all levels, I believe the ITF patterns are fundamentally flawed, not ever reaching the core requirement of optimally encouraging good habits for body mechanics and self defence. It's been eating at me more and more over the years, but I haven't yet done the hard yards to work out systematically what exactly's missing, or studied alternatives such as the karate kata or specific grandmaster's formulations to see how they measure up in comparison. I'd be interested to hear if anyone's been through a similar process and come out the other side, but perhaps that belongs in a separate thread. So, at least learning more patterns should give you a chance to work out which ones to put more time into, which might still work out better than being stuck with a set of mediocre patterns.... Cheers, Tony

Buddhism and Confucianism are not inherently compatible. You've already touched on the former being consequentialist, the latter deontological (rules of duty). They might overlap when people following the exhortations of Confucian ethics happen to be acting optimally from the viewpoint of Buddhist ethics, which is vaguely possible if all parties play their assigned parts. As soon as corruption enters the picture, or in myriad edge-cases and complications, the Confucian duties and obligations between people can conflict with Buddhist ethics, and Confucianism itself - as a restriction on people's actions to right wrongs - becomes evil. Sadly, Confuscianism has often been abused by rulers as a way to suppress resistance to the status quo, or at least control the forms of such resistance such that they can be made ineffectual, at all levels of participation. Buddhist ethics exhort everyone to continually assess whether it is necessary to act to establish a better status quo, balancing the short term disruption with the likely period and amount of improvement. The ethics of Qin's acts depend on the practicality of alternatives: was there another way to an equally or more satisfying outcome, or one nearly as good that caused a lot less suffering en route? Could he have simply formed truces with others and encouraged better conditions for people everywhere without so much bloodshed? A detailed study of the history of the period might allow a reasonable guess, but I haven't undertaken one. It seems to me that Chinese government - since Mao - is very keen to portray his decisions as ethical as by analogy that would give the central Chinese government some way to rationalise their seizing power and crushing resistance based on an premise that they bring more net good than harm. The latter is hard to defend, but is at least becoming more true today than it was under Mao. Other dictators like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore have had enough success to be quietly accepted by the international community, while creating a reasonable standard of living for most residents... is that evil? Probably, as there's no reason to think that some other government couldn't have done as well, although in my opinion a stable, self-aware and truly benign dictatorship in which people are able and encouraged to contribute from "inside" - admittedly a mythical beast - would be better than any actual democracy, but then so would a "perfect" communist state... the sad fact is that humans aren't psychologically suited to the selfless service required to make either work. I would suggest that something truly evil is not done with the intent to benefit anyone else, nor a justifiable insistence on one's own rights or those of the group to whom you belong. For example, it is open to question whether killing others in an attempt to protect yourself or others is "evil", but acting only out of hatred and a wish to cause harm is evil (assuming good and evil exist at all, which probably requires that humans are more than the biological equivalent of a computer virus - itself an open question). As for the question of necessary balance: I do not believe in it. I do not believe in the Tao. No evil is necessary for there to be good. They are opposite ends of a spectrum, so are often mixed and compromised to some extent, but that does not mean that one is required for the other to exist. Some actions can be 100% good, or 100% evil. This is a different thing from the oft-discussed question of awareness: one must be aware of the potential lure of evil in order for a choice to do something good to exhibit merit, and one must be aware that an act is causing unnecessary and unwarranted harm for it to become an act of deliberate evil. As a Buddhist, I believe intent is what matters, but it should be tempered with humility in assessing your own ability to discern one from the other - especially when your assessment differs from that of others with more experience. This responsibility mandates a lifetime of sincere and active effort to create the ability to make such determinations with increasing confidence. Tying this in to the "Uncle Bill" scenario... Uncle Bill had the life experience that should have made him the most qualified to handle the news and manage his own life. If his own endeavours during his earlier life were in line with Buddhist preparations for accepting nature and making rational decisions, then he would have been ready for the knowledge of his own impending death. Back to the original post... I think applying duality to martial arts is essential... the deeper one's relaxation, the greater one's explosiveness. The less one forces concentration on whatever seems important, the more one's awareness is open to everything and the more accurate one's assessments of import are, whether for perceiving incoming attacks, counter opportunities, opponent's mental state as projected through body language, aspects of the environment/surroundings, fatigue or injury to one's own body. The more subtle one's defense, the less deviation is required from attack until they eventually become integrated. We must always do "just enough", which is to flow from defense back to offense as naturally as air moving around a thrown stone. Sustaining an effort of strength fatigues the muscles and makes them weak, so the weakness should be invited earlier so we can be strong again sooner, and only the necessary muscles should be taxed. We should give way only so that the opponent brings themselves to us, and so we can utilise their own effort. Where they are weak, we must cut through with strength. It's easy to see all this... harder to do it. The ability to overcome all obstacles one encounters in this way is my idea of martial arts mastery. Cheers, Tony

Hello Ranpu, I've found the forums recently... looking forward to chatting. Cheers, Tony

At the simplest level, chi/ki training encourages the mind to allow the body to relax further, which then creates a potential for more dynamic explosive movement. I believe the training is effective in producing better body utilisation, but to this end I don't see it even matters whether ki is "real". Whether you consciously do exercises for it, or you work on the same aspects of relaxation and explosiveness in another fashion, the results are the same as far as I can tell. At more advanced levels, chi/ki is supposed to allow you to sense changes in your opponent's intent even before they start to move. What your Grandmaster demonstrated - an inter-personal sensitivity - is heading in this direction. I personally have seen nothing to convince me that this is possible. There were some direct tests of this aspect of ki - apparently called satki - in the production by the BBC.Cheers, Tony

I tend to use a thrusting kick, but that may be partly because my habits were formed before I'd really tried to understand and develop the piercing kick. From the fighting stance I use, the thrusting kick is much stronger and better balanced, so I feel more certain of coping with any unbalancing blocks or grabs and stepping down in a controlled fashion, and the hip motion allows a hooking kick to be substituted pretty freely. That said, I personally find the front-leg side piercing kick to be one of the most difficult techniques to avoid when closing aggressively on an opponent. A couple of my juniors in my old school had the requisite flexibility and strength to deliver it without significant telegraphing, and the timing to hit just as I reached the focal distance, and it would be the only technique that either of them had any success against me with, so I do recommend developing it. It's not so good for targetting or chasing a less aggressive opponent, as it has a very small focal range, fairly close in. Hope that helps... Cheers, Tony

I think you expect too much... no martial art or sport practices full contact, no protective gear, and unrestricted technique. Kyokushin disallows face punching to make it relatively safe while keeping the emphasis on contact. Other contact sports might disallow eye gouging, with the techniques employed then free to leave the exponent very vulnerable to it - e.g. tackling around the waist without pinning the arms. My training has generally been non- or controlled-contact, with full power technique pulled short of contact only when it's evident the sparring partner won't block, and junior students not kicking below the belt. Other styles put on gloves or pads that radically change the power vs time vs surface-area characteristics and consequent effectiveness of particular techniques, also producing an unrealistic slant on fighting.... That said, learning to block punches to the face - even more so than throwing them - is necessary for effective self defense, just as my learning more about leg sweeps and low kicks was. I'm sure you'll know what you need to do to practice those skills when the time comes: non-contact drills and/or using gloves, with someone outside the dojo if necessary. Learning the basic techniques, mechanics, timing, distancing, strategies and mental attitude is the bulk of the challenge. I can't recommend the Shotokan over the Kyokushin, or vice versa, without visit the dojos. I would also be concerned by any style that focuses on tournaments, though training for the style of sparring you do internal to the school works out pretty much the same. I note Miura also picked up a 2nd dan in Shotokan in his youth, so at some level I'm sure he will have retained and integrated whatever he found useful. Perhaps look at the style of fighting/sparring practice, and see which school's students are doing something you can relate to more, and imagine yourself doing and feeling good about.... Cheers, Tony

Sometimes you can see in the moment that wearing an attack - albeit diminished for being outside its focal depth - is the best option available, but it's a dangerous thing to actually plan to do as there's a small margin for error, and as always if the opponent is onto you they may have a nasty surprise waiting. As illustrated in the article you linked, it's really a race: if the punching counter-attack can be completed while the kick is still being drawn back prepatory to the thrust, then it's pretty safe. If the kicker already has the leg coming forwards, they can lean back a little and complete a useful kick before the punch arrives: hook-kick the front inner thigh or ribs, side-kick/stomp the front inside knee, kick up to the neck or face - each changing the angle so the kick has more room to develop good power; or, if the thrust is delivered better to begin with, there's ample room to strike the floating rib decisively... The article goes on to explain that it's safe to jam a side thrusting kick because it's only powered by the thigh/quadriceps, whereas the back kick is likely to clean you up because it employs the buttocks/glutes as well. As I've been saying, a side thrusting kick should use the glutes too, bouncing across the body until it reconnects to the motion of a back/spinning-side/front-leg-gliding-side kick. When delivered as I've recommended, you can deliver good power to a surprisingly close target - anywhere from ~50cm in front of the supporting heel - as well as reaching out at long distance. In the article, the opponent is about a metre forward of the kicker's supporting heel, but the hips are not in a position I associate with a thrusting action. The kicker should have been able to drop into a position similar to that illustrated for a back kick. Cheers, Tony

Great... be interested to hear how it progresses. Good point... jamming a side kick is often a good defense, and can set up counter-attacking opportunities or directly trip the kicker. Exactly that is seen against an intended gliding side kick here, with the trap executed so early it might not be obvious to all that a side kick was even planned, but the commitment of bodyweight carried and twisted the attacker into the defender's grasp. The defender will generally be successful if they're reading the kicker well and maintaining their balance and guard. Consequently, for a side kick or any other technique, the attacker should be wary of attacking if they haven't already seen or created a weakness through feints, footwork, angles, combinations etc.. More so if the defender is more capable generally, as you may well be compared to the TKD people you've tried it on. Jamming - like any defense from within or the edge of striking range - requires some commitment and risk, and a savvy attacker who reads the coming jamming attempt may switch to another attacking strategy of their own. There are really too many possibilities to mention, but for example: - either redirecting the side kick before it's jammed, or "bouncing" it back from the jam, to use it for a downward pick onto the jamming leg, a spinning hooking kick etc.... - stepping the leg that was going to kick down and immediately delivering a front kick or turning kick with the other leg to the groin, supporting leg, floating rib etc.... - playing a waiting game, not actually bringing the kicking leg through until the defender extends the jamming kick, then attacking the defender's stability by kicking or stomping on that leg. - employing a backwards movement of the supporting leg so the pivot and chambering is delivered unexpectedly outside the jamming kick's range, then skipping in using the supporting leg during the kick. It very quickly opens up into the whole shades-of-commitment positional-advantage predictability-vs-suprise telegraphing-vs-not who'll-trick-who-how mess that is fighting itself.... Cheers, Tony

Seriously. I think we should try to video ourselves doing the different sidekicks we're talking about. All the text can be difficult to get through, and youtube can be a pain haha. Agreed... I will try again to get my video camera talking to Windows 7. Wish it was a newer one with USB2 or SDHC cards, but it's IEE1394/firewire/iLink and tapes, and I gather support for some older firewire cameras was in XP but removed in Vista. There's some registry hack I'll try. Joe: thanks for explaining the "wrong side" thing... was indeed meant in the sense of being on the wrong side of the centre line, such that rotation had to begin in the wrong direction for the thrust.... Cheers, Tony

I think it's all been said, but to summarise... People are scared of death because: - dying may be physically painful and/or undignified - "wired" to be afraid of death: a self-preservation instinct - things they want to do before they die - death may upset loved ones - death may leave loved ones without emotional/financial/etc support - actions that may result in death could instead cause various levels of injury: being crippled, feeling a prisoner in one's own body, a burden on one's loved ones, unable to have children, brain damaged, unable to continue training in martial arts.... Some of these may be - to some people - less palatable than a "clean" death. - uncertainty about any afterlife, or a pessimistic expectation Death is inevitable, and so it makes sense for everyone to make peace with it eventually. But "premature death", by misadventure rather than natural processes, is another matter altogether, as it defies expectation and may exacerbate some of the negatives above. If a person believes in an afterlife, then they may be afraid of death if they don't feel their potential standing in that afterlife is as good as it might be made to be at some late point in time. Bill's assumption that everyone assumes they're already en-route to heaven is not one that everyone would be comfortable making. Not arguing with the conclusion per se (each to their own beliefs), but as a logical reasoning process Bill's argument that an afterlife implies a just god is not independently solid, but an all-or-nothing argument about some specific religious doctrine (presumably Christian). It's also possible that everyone dies and goes to some eternal limbo, bored beyond measure, or in some manner of pain. The "afterlife" is an unknown, and can only be reduced to the point-list Bill presents by using a specific religion and a presumption of being judged positively by a just god as a premise. Cheers, Tony

Martial arts training engenders certain knowledge and experience that any given individual may or may not have had before: - some people "stronger" than them will choose to help them improve rather than abuse that advantage - they in turn can help people who are "weaker" than them improve - these relationships cross all other barriers that people may feel unable to cross in other parts of their life: a child may be a senior belt to and able to advise an adult, a 25yo "punk" may gain the respect of a 49 yo lawyer etc etc. - they should be able to test the limits of their fighting skills in their controlled training, and hopefully won't feel the need to engage in additional unnecessary fighting - people are joining a community and their behaviours reflect on that community: it's reasonable for people to want to be proud of the community, and hold each other to certain standards of conduct - the experience of being encouraged in a process of long-term development - arguably more meaningful than school in that it's voluntary - and people can feel justifiably proud of continuing effort and progress Personally, I find much of the Confuscian-influenced "ethics" espoused in the martial arts superficial and worthless. But, instructors may be targetting the lowest common denominator (re ethics, intellect, education, life experience) in their classes, and it may be doing them some good even if it rubs the majority the wrong way. People have to start somewhere, and simple guidelines like "don't fight unless you have to" and "respect your parents and teachers" probably do more good than harm.... It's the instructor's right to choose what activities and learning will be covered in their school. That's not to say students can't express the wish things were otherwise, but they should respect the instructor's right. They can leave if they want to, take their business where they get what they want. "Hey Honda, I really like your engineering, so I'll be angry if you don't build me a fridge 'cause I need that more than a car". Interestingly, the two least respectable martial arts "masters" I've met were both keen "preachers", both violent criminals (literally) with clever facades. But there are a lot of genuinely well-meaning and decent instructors too, however naive. While I agree that ethics are required by everyone, and not in any way unique to the martial arts, it's still true that the physical empowerment of martial artists does provide both increased risks to society should they abuse their abilities, and increased benefits should they use them responsibily and courageously, more so than with say tennis or flying kites. Other activities with similar potentials tend to harp on too: doctors, engineers, builders, teachers, accountants... educational courses for each such role will discuss ethics and place in society. Cheers, Tony

Indeed. One of the many exercises I do in nominally full-speed sparring against juniors is to move as slow as I can - in footwork, arm movement, kicks - while still being effective against the faster-moving opponent. It's good practice to make sure you're not relying on superior speed or strength, as there'll always be someone faster and stronger, especially as we get older. Minimalism is essential to efficiency, making the most of the speed you do have/use, and it's good to "purify" your practice by pruning the wasteful, and concentrating on moving into the places and doing the things necessary to dominate the opponent more easily. That said, I do spend a lot of time and effort developing a "twitchy" explosiveness, as near-instant movement from relaxation is a core skill of the arts and part of the perfection I aim at. To be the best fighter you can be, you need the best tools you can hone and more efficient use of them.... Cheers, Tony

I have never taught young children, so can't offer much insight. But, I agree that communicating the purpose and utility of the shout should help. Additionally, kia helps overcome inertia - getting you moving purposefully, and produces a strong tension through the torso and abs which - according to my Hapkido and Taekwondo Grandmaster - was measured to increase power by 30% in one study (not worth taking the percentage too seriously as it'll vary with technique, practitioner etc, but the general point stands). Personally, I'd concentrate on the idea that you kia to get courage, and the more you can kia the stronger and safer you'll feel. Also work it from another angle... take a simple movement that can be learnt well enough to be safely performed at maximum power, such as a reverse palm thrust or elbow in walking stance, delivered into a focus pad. These are safer than a punch, where the body may inhibit power if the wrist is not strong enough. Get her hitting the pad in a stationary position, and putting all her effort into it, working up a rhythm and slamming it hard until she's short of breath. That will force her to concentrate on her breathing, and it will become sharper. As she focuses her will on battling on and striking as hard as she can, the desire to kia will manifest naturally, as it helps get that last bit of effort out of the muscles. Of course, such training might be a little intense for a youngen' . One story that might catch her attention... when I was young and having a bad dream, maybe a monster attacking me, I'd wake myself up determined to kia in my sleep! Again, it's the way to be brave when something scary is happening, the way you make yourself do your best even when it's hard to get started.... Cheers, Tony

It's impressive fitness and conditioning, but what does it really mean? It's necessary to point out that an instructor/senior can never be certain of his students'/juniors' preparedness to attack for real. The instructor/senior must dominate, and will be as rough as necessary, whereas the student doesn't really want to, and this often translates to a lack of commitment behind attacks and hesitation when an opportunity presents. Sometimes for a junior, only attacking full speed will be fast enough to have any chance of catching a senior, but that will also be uncontrolled and the potential consequences less acceptable. I've definitely seen this hesitancy in videos of Oyama-sensei sparring. It's pandemic in Aikido practice. Fighting people with your own experience level where there's no such expectations does make sense and can be meaningful. Fighting seniors or juniors with controlled contact makes sense, but to my mind full-contact doesn't... there's no glory in thumping a junior, irrespective of how many other's you've just fought. Look at Shokei Matsui's test here - he's undoubtedly a great fighter, but at 3:49 he seems to be beating up a kid. At 4:22 he knocks down a green-belt kid with a kick to the head. I'd be ashamed of myself if I did that, but each to their own - I'm sure the kids knew what to expect, and Matsui-sensei didn't cause serious injury. And - in line with my concern above - there are numerous times in the video when other people could have attacked but just stood there waiting to be hit. Of course, there are lots when they attacked pretty savagely too . I think this aspect of sincere commitment in sparring is insidious in intra-school full contact where one side must win by knock-down, and there's a clear winner/loser line that is hard to cross. Which student wants to be known as the one that knocked Oyama-sensei out in his 212th round? More generally, martial arts feats that get discussed often involve breaking, high-flying kicks, and real-world fighting. There are no objective standards in most such things, except jumping which is more athletic than martial, so it's hard to assess them. For example, I heard Oyama-sensei was once attacked by a yakuza with a katana, but caught the blade as it came down towards his head between the palms of both hands, then struck and killed the yakuza... quite a feat of timing and coordination, for something he'd never practiced but just did instinctive. But how savage was the stroke? I heard about some Korean master who fought 50 or so gangsters single-handedly, running through the streets of Seoul, killing many with his head-butt. But did any of these gangsters know how to fight? Some say Ueshiba-sensei managed to teleport out the way of a bullet, but warned each time he did it it took years off his lifespan. Who believes it? Then there's the everyday experiences which most of us old timers will have had: strange things that just happen in the spur of the moment, suddenly moving out of the way of an unexpected danger, shouting with "ki" energy when we really wanted our voice to carry, blocking an unexpected projectile in a way that defies post-facto belief, blowing out a candle from ~two metres away, catching something that just slipped from your hand on route to the ground... lots of little things that signal advancing ability....[/u]

Sorry for the wordy responses, but I'll just talk this around from different angles until we're confident we're on the same page. For a thrusting kick, the hips should indeed be turned over: that's half of getting it right. The other half is the direction of movement/rotation during the acceleration and contact of the kicking leg. Hips should turn over early and far enough that there's time and space for them to change direction and be coming back in towards the target during the leg extension. It's a kind of backswing for the kick, just as essential as the backswing in tennis, golf or baseball. If the hips are still rotating into this backswing as the leg extends - instead of having changed direction back towards the target - then from a power perspective it's worse than not rotating at all. Using the tennis analogy: Federer is will have been front facing then is showing stepping his right leg across to the left - hips necessarily rotating anti-clockwise. As he makes his shot his hips are turning clockwise in support. In contrast, shows a shot without hip rotation, presumably when returning a wide fast serve and consequently lacking time for anything more than a counter-punch. This relies on the stiffened racquet to reflect the incoming speed rather than creating a lot of its own. The former is conceptually akin to a thrusting kick, while the latter shows that if you don't have time to create that motion, you typically try to at least stop the anti-clockwise hip rotation, keeping hips and torso stiff while executing the technique. Having the hips still rotating clockwise while striking forwards tends to make you "fall off" or away from your target: in the case of tennis, it's hard to hit the ball firmly over the net, especially if you use a lot of top spin which reduces the forward power imparted to the ball.Another comparison: many people deliberately question and explore the direction of hip movement in the outward (across your own chest) knife hand strike. If the strike is performed in a stationary position, with the right leg starting in front and right hand striking, then you'd clearly rotate your hips anti-clockwise by something like 45 degrees during the backswing, then come back in a clockwise direction to strike: this feels good, natural and strong. But, if you are moving in to that same stance by stepping the right leg forward as or just before striking, the step itself must involve a ~120 degree anti-clockwise hip rotation. Thinking about it from this hip-rotation perspective, the obvious approach is to simply combine the two motions in sequence: step forwards while rotating the hips ~165 degrees, by which time everything's the ready to rotate clockwise into the strike as for the stationary version. Unfortunately, having to make such large hip movements slows down and telegraphs the technique. The faster you try to step, the more the stepping footwork dictates that anti-clockwise hip movement and the harder it is to get any kind of clockwise movement happening before the strike. Consequently, some people prefer simply to accept that, and see if they can make the best of it. Striking while stepping, or as the right foot touches down, their hips are rotating in what would seem the wrong direction for the strike. Another type of power mechanic must be found if credible power is wanted, though many people get so caught up in the feeling of exerting muscles in stepping and striking that they fail to even recognise that there's any issue with power. The way I generate power in this variant of the stepping strike is by making a small side-to-side motion of the centre of mass - moving it from over the toes to over the heels, and cultivating a "wall" of rigidity across the back, shoulders and striking arm such that the target has to absorb the power associated with the sideways "fall" of the body. Effectively, as I move forwards to strike, I actually perform a controlled sideways fall (over ~10cms), dipping the hips to add bodyweight, and make my back and striking arm rigid so that the target has to stop that fall and hold up much of my falling bodyweight for a tiny fraction of a second to have absorbed the initial impact. The "fall" is basically moving in the same direction that the striking hand hits the target (albeit a little downwards to boot), with the rigidity connecting the two. So, while I prefer to use a more full-bodied hip rotation when time allows, I have this "short-cut" version that suits some situations better, and may still be good enough power wise. Relating this back to the back leg side kick... The big problem with back leg side thrusting kick is that the kicking leg starts on what's really the wrong side of the body. Having to bring the leg across the front of the supporting leg dictates the wrong direction of hip movement. A vastly exaggerated "ideal" would be simply to get the leg in a great place to start the strongest possible hip rotation in the correct direction. That would be: bring the kicking leg across the body while turning your back somewhat towards the target, but keep going until you've stepping it down behind you in a walking stance, with your back very much to the target. Then do something a bit like the post-spin version of a "spinning side/back kick": push off the kicking leg and rip it linearly past the supporting leg, hips rotating in at the target the entire time. As actually stepping down and forward again is clearly too slow, you want to avoid putting the kicking leg all the way back to the floor. Instead, having brought it right around the body, you rock it backwards while it's cocked (line through knee and ankle is towards the target) enough to stretch all the muscles that will be used for the forwards motion, then reconnect to the same kind of extension as in the exaggerated ideal above. With a lot of practice, the subtle timing for the above works very well and is fast enough to be practical in almost all situations where any kind of side kick was practical to begin with. This is the way I deliver my back leg side thrusting kick. Given many people give up on mastering the subtle timing needed to get that to work, there are a plethora of other variants where people do not have the hips having changed direction to support the leg extension. Instead, the hips are either still rotating in the "wrong" direction while the leg extends and contact is made, or they've simple stopped rotating at some time before contact, with the muscles around the hips/torso presumably tensing during contact to provide some rigidity and connection to more body mass.... 1) hips change direction of rotation, and are supporting the kick 2) hips are still rotating during the kick 3) hips rotate and stop, then kick extends In any of these, the amount of hip rotation is a separate issue, and therefore so is the position of the hips at any given point in time, though by definition in anything that is "thrusting" rather than "piercing", the hips will have had to have at least turned over enough for the top/kicking hip to be further forwards (chest side) than the supporting one. You could also rotate the hip over nicely but failed to reverse its direction. In 2 or 3, if you rotate the hips over a long way then the body won't be lined up very well during the kick (as the hips aren't brought back as per 1), and there's more chance of kicking yourself into an even bigger roll of hips until you're rolling away from the target, rather than it moving away from you. I'm sorry that's a bit of a ramble... but hopefully it makes the point clear. Cheers, Tony

Hi John. Welcome to the forums. Congratulations on the 10th dan - sorry to hear it was under such circumstances. Hope to learn more about your techniques and insights in the other forums. Cheers, Tony

Thanks for sharing... was interesting to see. Congratulations on the promotion. Cheers, Tony

Sorry - just the mention of roundhouse kicks from a Shotokan guy... had to . The movement's very different to my style of turning kick, so I can't suggest much, though I'd hazard Kanagawa-sensei must sleep in a side split... It's also worth being aware that different stretching routines have vastly different returns on effort... if you're putting in a couple hours a week and not making huge progress in a couple months, you should do some research or ask for tips in here. A reasonable starting point used to be the Usenet FAQ on stretching and flexibility, though there are certainly more concise and tangible programs suiting specific goals... many of them commercial though. Cheers, Tony

My first TKD school - after it split off from the 400-500 dojang parent body - had about 15 dojang and 500 or 600 students come together for the gradings 4 times a year. There'd be 1 or 2 double-promotions a couple times a year, almost always girls in the 8th to maybe 4rd kyup range. The examiner would typically select aggressive, athletic girls in their late teens, then single one or two of them out to spar guys of the same rank. Spurred on by him, they'd attack like crazy and the guy would block and back-pedal, carefully pulling any attacks so as not to be perceived as a "woman beater" by all the assembled students and families, or the focus on the examiner's disapproval. The girls often ignored attacks anyway, and flung limbs out in the excitement of it all. These girls shot up towards 2nd kyu, then suddenly found their thrashing attacks weren't driving anyone back any more, and - something they'd never had to deal with before - if they charged people without blocking they got hit. I'm not aware of any that didn't quit in confusion. It was really silly, as they'd never actually been the best students - just the ones the examiner wanted to impress the crowd of parents with. "Hey, look what these girls can do against a man, doesn't that show martial arts make the weak strong". Unfortunately, the examiner's misjudgement was one of many, but I won't get distracted.... I've also seen black belts from generally dissimilar striking arts come in - they'd generally have to start from white belt and grade up, as there are forms/kata/hyung/tul/whatever to learn, and we put a lot of emphasis on standardised form. That made sure they were familiar and comfortable with the blocking and attacking tools used in our school, and reduced the chance they'd do something unexpected that would result in injury to themselves or a partner. Once clearly comfortable, they might get double promoted, but one or two caused a little trouble for a while as they kicked around the yellow and green belts a bit more than was necessary. None were too over-the-top, but at times it could be intimidating or unpleasant for the others. Grading them up faster could be tricky too, as they might not have learned the defensive abilities or cooperative elements required for safe sparring at higher levels (e.g. acknowledging attacks, reasonable limits on contact, limitations on juniors using techniques likely to cause serious injury if misjudged, e.g. kicks towards the knees), and under the extra pressure things might degenerate to brawling.... As an instructor, my own students who've been in either of these categories have all been perfectly fine, but it's requires a person-by-person assessment, and I've enjoyed have people with diverse backgrounds, but in that first school I learnt from and taught for, we didn't go out of our way to get other martial artists into our ranks. Students from similar arts - connected through our old parent body or perhaps even the ITF - were slotted in at a conservatively equivalent grade based on skill. Returning students would typically wear an old belt but, as they recovered their skills, be told informally by the instructor to start wearing more and more senior belts until they were back at their graded rank. This might happen over the course of a month, or take the best part of a year. I did things the slow way, and I'm glad. What people forget is that a few months here and there doesn't mean anything in the context of a lifetime of martial study. Let the students learn patience, it won't stop them studying hard. There's no such thing as too much time spent on the basics. Students who get bored practicing them are exactly the ones who aren't ready to be double graded anyway, because that simply endorses an expectation of a roller coaster ride. Such rides come to unexpected stops. It doesn't do the students any favours. Especially when they're still relatively new to things - those junior grades it's most tempting to grade people thorugh - it's good to get them used to being more patient. Saying all this, I am talking about a school where the minimum student age was 12, and most were 15+, with a curriculum reasonably ambitious for the general class. If there are lots of young kids that require an easy-going general pace, then there may be more reason to differentiate the over-achievers, though if money, time and student numbers allow, separate childrens classes are a good thing in my opinion. I got my "teenage" blackbelt having attended and passed every grading along the way, which took something like 26 months. The same day, the two other applicants had been training for 6 and 8 years - more typical - though they'd started younger which means it's hard to progress at the same pace, and I'd been a bit obsessive about my training. Learning to respect, appreciate, assist and cooperate with less-technically-skilled (or less obsessed) people at your rank is also part of becoming a senior student (not just in the black-belt or "standing in the prestige spots in the class lineup" sense - some people max out at blue belt or whatever for purely physical reasons - but in the sense that the instructor knows you're part of the team, someone he or she trusts to be enriching the school in all ways). Slower promotions mean more time at a shared grade, and stronger bonds horizontally through the school. For a younger person focused on their own studies, having a bit more time to soak up the environment and appreciate such things, and act on that appreciation, is as excellent developmental opportunity. Cheers, Tony

Interesting videos. The second "screwdriver" kick is indeed a piercing kick. He brings the leg through like a front kick, while I'm recommending cocking it more to the outside and emphasising the arcing movement, as that really encourages hip rotation and full power, but once you're comfortable with the kick you'll be able to feel out the best course to follow. He lists, relative to the thrusting kick, pros and cons as: CONS - not as powerful (agreed) - technically more demanding (disagree, though it feels bizarre initially, it's not actually hard, and it's massively easier to master than the thrust (which he doesn't get right anyway, so his point of reference is invalid from my perspective)) - not useful at closer distance (agreed: a back leg thrusting kick can hit a closer target without compromising it's power) - hard to control (agreed, in a couple senses: once the kick has started, a small movement of the target forwards or backwards, or even side to side, will frustrate or prevent powerful delivery (a superset of the point above); and, recoil is hard to control, with unexpected resistance - or lack of it - able to put you off balance) PROS - much quicker (disagree - it's less fiddly in the middle, and will be quicker until the thrusting kick's movements are perfected, but after decades of practice the gross back-to-front movement of the leg dominates the overall speed of the kick, and both thrusting and piercing kick end up similar in overall speed) - very deceptive (agree, in the sense that...) - opponent doesn't know what kick you use until it's too late (agreed) Another important reason for learning the kick is so you can use it off the front leg to quickly jam into a charging opponent, as it is definitely less telegraphed than a thrusting kick in that situation (at least from my guard, which keeps the front leg ready for a front kick). Another pro I'll mention - bit of a convoluted one and more relevant when the kick is lifted on the "outside" rather than the front-kick position in his video. Say you're kicking with the right leg, and your opponent has their left leg forward and is standing their ground trying to block with their front/left forearm/hand coming inwards behind your Achilles, deflecting it onto their chest side: if you customise the arc to be a bit more exaggerated than usual, the kick will frustate the usual blocking timing and strike the outside of their forearm or hand, plowing through it to the head. If they're good enough to vary the timing and get outside the arc, then they will have to reach further sideways and block later, pulling the kick inwards while the kick needs to arc inwards anyway, and it's very hard for them to make the deflection sufficient to pull the kick off course. Not sure I've explained that well, but if you drill the kick with a partner, then experiment with trying to kick around and "through" their guard, you'll both find out how hard it can be to block cleanly from that position.... Re the other video, it's not the same as the thrusting: - at 0:39 his supporting foot isn't quite turned far enough - at 0:48 you can see he's only showing the "underside" of his hips - not the back of the buttocks - 0:50-0:53: the actual extension: he's closing the hips (rolling the top/kicking hip over/forwards/down) ala piercing kick rather, than having it brought it back far enough earlier to be now opening/lifting that hip as the source of power for the leg extension. - at 1:00, emphasising this: he's recommending leaning the body away during the kick, which is rolling the hips away from the target: as he says, that would stabilize the kick (into a less resistive target), but only because there's a lot less force going into the target, and consequently less reaction forces to deal with. (Obviously, I don't buy his claim to "gain force"). When the target has a lot of incoming momentum/mass or enormous inertia, you do need to have the hips rotating in behind the kick and deal with the stronger forces or you'll simply be knocked over. So, to correct these issues and get a great back leg side thrusting kick, it's still most effective to develop the simpler , and practice a spinning version, until you just know the feeling and timing of all the muscle movements perfectly. Then, you practice the back leg kick by patiently and slowly bringing the leg across the body, bouncing/swinging it back a little to load/wind-up the kick to thrust, then you're back into the familiar movement. With lots of practice, you find exactly the right medium between turning too far in loading the kick (which wastes time and prevents you getting enough forwards movement of the hips), and not turning enough and failing to engage the hip power, and can finally deliver the kick at full speed.Cheers, Tony