Dark Planet

A bit more to bushido man's post above. Sensei Kano 's Judo was originally called "Kano's Jujitsu" in Japan. Judo didn't come into public eye until a bit after its development. Specifically too BJJ, Sensei Oda, who emphasized a 50-50 over Sensei Kano's 25-75 ground-throw split focus, noted that many of the defenses in the Gracies' work no longer existed in Japan. Which is not surprising since most of the Jujitsu Ryu quickly went downhill in the epoch of the Mejii Restoration due to loss of favor with the public (no students = no school). Peace to you. -Christopher

It might help if you described "new style"! Also, are you looking for something in your town? I think he means an art he has yet to practice.

This was in the news a few months ago. There is some police work done on it, in recent history.

It's stage fright. That's not to say you're a coward, but it's stage fright. It's what occurs when an adrenalean rush causes you to forget how to to do basic things- or being caught off guard causes you to fear. You just have to get used to what's going on or get used to andrenaline rushes. I had a fight like this once in high school. The guy had gone to punch me while I was seated on a wall, lower than he was. Long story short he was on the ground and I was 20 yds. away before I regained fully my aware self-reflexion. You'll hear to things in Self-Defense: 1. No time to think, just reactions, therefore: train. 2. Remain in control and be tactical (Be strong so you don't have to be anxious, as Krav Magna would have). By experiece, I have this to say: Both will hold true. Peace to you. -Christopher

To be honest I've only ever been in a few scuffles and few tournaments up to the time I finished college. As instructors we take ourselves on the premises that we are teaching something that is effective (or at least a traditional art). I can keep myself satisfied that I am teaching MDK because I have seen other practitioners and exhibitions from other grandmasters that teach at least what I know, or less. But, when I think about teaching self-defense, I can't help but ask myself the question: Off all the "scraps" I've been in, I've never used the full repertoire of my skills, and I know that it would be good if that never happened. Even the ones I've been in (though most were the outcome of others not wishing to diffuse the situation despite me attempts) were short, before I was even 18, and nothing that drew attention of authorities. So, how do I know how effective my skills are, in self-defense terms. I know a bit about turning and canting and taking down through some reading on Judo, and football (you may be surprised what you learn in Highschool offensive line if you haven't played), plus some help from some O-line coaches who did Judo and Kempo and old-time wrestling (actually my head coach wrestled an orangutan once, back in the day). But in terms of real gritty self-defense of high level kickboxing, I sometimes wonder if I am deceiving people without even knowing that I am. It is so hard to be confident in one's skills without experience, to the level of having other people trust in you. My experience is that I really haven't been bested in a long while and that I am pretty good, though I always wonder: how much is enough. As an example: A lot of self-defense is for women and anti-rape oriented. But no man ever will have to fight off a rape the same way. How much should we expect others to trust in our methods? Does anyone else have these thoughts? Thanks!

Yes, the style itself would continue to exist, but the unity of its practitioners may suffer. Peace to you.

The Bo staff ought to be your height. a tapered bo staff is lighter and will be a little more flexible, but is not as hardy. If you intend bo to bo contact, I would use a non-tapered. Peace to you.

Definitely but it is way easier to escape or continue to fight on a broken foot over a broken leg. Somethings I wish I couldn't attest to. Though, the initial resilience of the shin does make a big factor to offset this one. It's true and poignant that here's no use in worrying about which break is worse is it doesn't break in the first place. I just would be nervous about my foot dangling out there, and sacrificing that half a foot of reach. Peace.

Thanks, Bushido man. I'm sorry, I didn't intend to imply that the foot is more resilient against damage, but that the foot, when broken, is less serious a problem than the shin when broken. Peace to you.

I'm not sure that I agree with the critique of he instep being a left-over bad technique from point sparring. Though, I think it would be misapplied to use it on the ribs or abdomen, on a whole due to the danger of elbows. Protection Aspect The instep kick is well adapted for any leg attack, especially to the outside leg attack. The toe kick would be great, save that it would be easier to break your toes coming upwards at such an angle to such a low and slanted target. The toes back are better suited to rib and head strikes with a full roundhouse (though due to the knee torque, the instep is still better suited for the 45 to the ribs, but with danger of the elbow block- though this can be considered offset by the additional speed granted by the shorter range and quicker motions of the 45 roundhouse) The shin kick is well suited for any attack, with the following downsides: The shorter length of the striking point from the fulcrum (knee or hip depending on the kick style) means that the striking point is moving slightly slower than the foot. The foot sticking out from the shin offers additional jeopardy to the foot being injured accidentally, or being snagged. The shin, while less susceptible to breaking, is more vital a break than the foot. When the shin is offered, a good strike to the shin may, in fact, cripple you for the fight and some time after (if you survive). Whereas with a defensively balanced foot kick, if the foot is injured, you may be hurt, but the immediate danger and long term damage can be less severe on the whole. Power Aspect: There is more hard force to the shin. There is more speed to the foot. There is more accuracy required with the foot, and less a striking area, meaning the same force is dispersed within a smaller area; it is the opposite for the shin. Training Aspect: With either technique, your foot is exposed to real danger. If you practice foot kicking, it is strengthened. If you practice shin, it is not. Training both would be a great idea. Tactical Aspects: If you are going to sacrifice the distance from shin to foot, you are already close to the range of a jumping knee kick. Ups and downs. I'll stick with my foot, but won't neglect the shin. Peace.