algernon

Seeking assurance in the effectiveness of your training is important, but near-Cartesian depths of questioning would interfere with your own learning. Trust is an integral part of the student-teacher relationship, regardless of whether the subject being taught is a foreign language, a musical instrument, or a martial art. If you genuinely doubt your teacher's competence, then you should find another teacher; at some point, you are going to have to trust your own reason and your instructor's knowledge as proof enough. When my instructor told me this, I simply waited, and my patience paid off. Yes, I paid him to teach me, but I did so because I had confidence in his skills as a teacher. He believed that I would be better served by learning the material in a particular order, and I trusted his judgment as an experienced educator, just as I have with my favorite professors' curricula. When I took my first course in ethics, a classmate asked the professor for his preferred moral theory. The professor responded that we weren't ready to hear it. He answered the question in the last lecture of the course, and he was right to have waited; not only would his answer have fostered bias, we simply lacked the relevant background in ethics to understand it. I agree that martial arts belong to the culture in which they are taught. When Asian martial arts came to the American continents, they became saturated with our culture and ideals. They had to in order for us to accept them. But discipline and obedience to instructors is not exclusive to East Asia; it can be found from high school sports, to universities, to the military. This is because, applied with reservation, it is effective. Most people work harder when they have someone to tell them to do those pushups, and to encourage them continue. We are not obedient to our instructors out of some blind tradition, but because we go to them to provide the coaching that we are looking for.

Yes, everyone has reasons for choosing the things that they do, but it cannot be inferred that those reasons are psychological. They may play soccer because it was the first sport they learned, or baseball because it is popular in their town, or hockey because they have friends who play, or basketball, or they might fish because they like to eat lake trout. The assumption that all of the mentioned examples of physical exercise produce the same results is faulty. Swimming and running, for example, are hardly comparable. If the result of their endeavors was the same, we could expect an Olympic boxer to fare just as well on parallel bars, and vice versa. Yes, some people practice martial arts because of "deep psychological issues," but there is no justification for extrapolating that to include every martial artist.

"Perfecting white belt techniques" is how one earns a black belt. The progress in a martial artist's training is not a sliding scale of "deadliness," but rather of skill. As we advance in our arts, we do not learn techniques that are more lethal, we learn techniques that are more skillfull. Yes, we do become more capable of delivering serious injury, but that comes from the perfection of the techniques that we learned in our first months on the floor, not from learning some secret death-touch. If you still insist on labeling us as warriors, then consider this: Every soldier in the US military learns to use a firearm. Very few even carry guns, let alone ever have to use them. In that regard, are we martial artists not more likely to call upon our skills (unarmed self-defense) than actual soldiers? I also have to agree with GeoGiant; from what, exactly, do you believe that runners flee? It must be some literal persuer, if our "war" must be and actual battle.

I like to do the same, using the horizontal kick as a follow-up to the lead kick.

I do use them, and I seem to have more success with them than with horizontal round kicks. Kicking horizontally adds more body rotation and produces more power, but at the cost of speed.

Knife versus knife fighting, particularly in the United States, is typically studied and practiced only as a curiosity. The purpose of most of these seminars is not to provide practical defensive skills, but rather to explore bladed combat as a topic of recreational interest. Also, the segment was very brief and clearly lacking context. There may have been explanation of his techniques that were missed. That being said, the techniques were lengthy, and did not have any apparent meaningful structure. The worst part was the techniques’ lack of consideration of the attacker's weapons beyond the initial thrust.

Some of the conflict likely comes from trying to mix incompatible systems; any system, after all, is dependent on the ability of its components to function as a complete unit. A good martial art is not the sum of its parts, but rather the relationship between those parts. This is why we have many wildly different, but equally excellent systems. When you take a martial art's basic elements individually, or add them to an art into which they do not fit, you loose the cohesion that made the art function as a system. A Lamborghini's engine and a Maserati's suspension both come from fine machines, but you wouldn't try to squeeze them into a complete Ferrari. Also, while your principles are sound, they are too broad and vague to really be of much use. Don't let Occam's Razor become a trap; more specific principles are involved that inform our bodies of when to employ each of those broader concepts, and how, and to what end. Lifetimes have been spent honing each of our styles into complicated and finely tuned machines; working backward to vague generalizations would accomplish nothing but to undo that work of precision, reducing each art to its skeleton. You are essentially trying to improve the piano by describing it as keys, strings, and mallets. You will be better served by learning to use your various systems together, and lending them whatever innovation you feel would compliment each, rather than compiling them into a single, awkward style. What you are trying is akin to a carpenter making a building from four blueprints; an effective, cohesive fighting style requires an expert architect.

While I have also never read a law that imposes stricter guidelines for use of force on martial artists, I have also never read a law that exempts martial art training from use in a trial. If the case involved a preemptive strike or a death (even if justifiable), I would not be surprised to see it brought up.

Hands are much faster than feet. The only time that I would ever try to kick a knife out of a hand is when the arm is already immobilized, and the kick is intended to damage the hand, rather than cause a release. I've had this tried on me, and it's surprisingly easy to keep a grip on the knife. I was also holding my hand still to allow the kick to find its target; kicking a knife out of a moving hand is much more a matter of luck than speed or strategy. I once visited a potential school, and in my first lesson the instructor suggested an inside crescent kick as a knife disarm. That was my only lesson at that school.

A quick look through the yellow pages should get you what you need. Most schools don't include their style in their name, so you will probably have to make some phone calls. Here's one to get you started. http://www.kenponet.com/studionet/us/missouri/mo_columbia.html If you find a school that teaches Kenpo, make sure it is "good" kenpo. An instructor once or twice removed from Parker (legitimately) would be wonderful, but here are some videos that give you a good idea of the type of movement that you should be looking for in a Kenpo school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juJ3MAFN9J8&feature=PlayList&p=667CD0169C68A335&index=0

The beauty of volunteerism is that anyone may do whatever they like without compensation. If the problem comes from requiring students to teach, it is easily resolved when one stops imagining a division between students and teachers. There is no better aid for learning (both retention and comprehension) than teaching. The student who is teaching is getting much more out of the class than those who are being taught. Using teaching as a promotion requirement for higher ranks is akin to requiring minimum class attendance for lower ranks; the most advanced students have gotten all that they can out of their regular classes, and require a more effective learning mechanism (specifically, teaching) to advance their understanding of their art.

Very good point.

I would just like to mention that I have been punched and kicked in the throat before, and not once did it kill me. The throat is not that sensitive; it would take quite the blow to destroy someone's airway. Has anyone ever had their trachea pinched shut while grappling? It leaves you hoarse, to be sure, but far from dead. For me, elbows wok best when accompanied by the hands (though not necessarily fists). An inward elbow strike to the head, for example, leaves the hand in a perfect position to claw the face or hammer the groin. An "uppercut" with the elbow leaves a good opening for a backfist. Likewise, a hand strike can provide the opportunity to follow with an elbow. You can do much more than punch with your hands, and it would do no good to neglect them.

The bulk of your preparation takes place in your head. As far as physical posture is concerned, the chief factor is your ability to respond from that position. With practice, you will be able to react or preempt from more deceptive stances. Until then, however, protecting yourself will be more important than surprise. While I agree with tallgeese, defending from such a casual posture may be too risky for an inexperienced fighter. It takes a lot of training and experience in aggressive confrontations to be able to confidently protect yourself while leaning against a car. First concern yourself with protection; if you cannot get your hands up in time to stop a punch, any tactical advantage would be wasted. Your strategies should be matched to your abilities. That is why it is difficult to suggest a specific method. As your training progresses, your tactics should evolve to include the skills you acquire.

There really is no "standard" or "basic" preparation. There are some elements that are fundamental to a good defensive posture; your hands should be available and between you and your attacker, you should keep out of reach, and you should keep your aggressor in sight. Beyond that, the rest is up to the individual and the circumstances. There were two very videos on the subject posted in "Psychology of a fight." Here they are again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdU-dcouUrk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shPj5xidsQo The most important preparation you can make right now is an exit plan. However you posture yourself, make sure that your position gives you an easy escape. As a white belt, your feet are greater assets than your hands, and I am not talking about kicking. The beginning stages of martial arts training are particularly dangerous; you know just enough to get yourself hurt. Hopefully you are learning some very simple movements and strategies that you can employ, but the bulk of your training probably consists of techniques that require some skill to be used effectively. Do not consider using movements that still need a lot of practice; if you cannot perform something well in training, it will certainly not be up to par in real application, and that will only worsen your predicament. If you feel threatened, get a strategy in your head, but be very mindful of your limitations.

Yes, and if you focus on your emotions rather than the task at hand, your response will not be optimal. In a situation with such high stakes, you cannot afford to distract yourself with secondary goals. Survive first; punishment and revenge can wait.

Every time the legal boundaries of self defense are discussed here, I read about defenders being restricted to 10% more "force" than the attacker. This crops up often enough to make me wonder where it comes from. I hope that it is a myth, but as I have heard of dumber laws (my state once passed a bill that would require 3 to be used in place of pi in civil construction projects), I have to ask. Has anyone heard of a jurisdiction with such a statute?

Of course the best option for facing such a behemoth would be to get away, but that might not be possible. The advantage of raw strength is the greatest at close quarters, so it would be best to avoid any form of grappling. If even that is unavoidable, I would recommend an unfortunately under regarded tool: the bite. Chomp, gnaw, and tear. I've never felt a pressure point that could match up to a human bite, and biting does not require penetration through their thick muscles. If a hand is free, try to get a digit into their eye; at the least, they will have to briefly devote a hand to protecting their face. If their testicles are within reach, squeeze them until they vomit; this could be more effective inside their pants (particularly if they are wearing heavy jeans), but your hand could become entangled. My point is that close quarters and ground fighting do not have to be limited to joint manipulations, throws, and choke holds. You never see martial artists bite, even when the opportunity and necessity both present themselves. That is because we don't train to. Anyone concerned with self defense should actively practice these "dirty" tricks. They don't require skill, but that's exactly what makes them effective. If your skill is not enough, don't rely on it. Bite and squeeze. Shriek for help, while you are at it.

Because most of us are unarmed. It is great advise for officers, or those who are licensed to carry firearms, but in many states the only legal method of carrying a weapon is to strap it visibly to your hip, and even that can be toeing the line. In Wisconsin, electric weapons are banned outright, and even a folding knife in a pocket can find itself under the umbrella of "carrying a concealed weapon" (see 939.22(10), 941.23 and 941.295). While good articulation of one's perception of the threat will usually suffice for an officer, the rest of us are seldom given that benefit of the doubt. Grabbing impromptu weapons (sticks, rocks, bottles, chairs, books, etc.) is, of course, an option to consider, but one for which it is difficult to train; as you pointed out, one must practice with a weapon to use it effectively.

I sometimes get "can you show me something?" It can be a bit irksome, but I will often oblige with a simple and novel hold or escape. A bit further along the annoyance scale is "does that stuff actually work?" What I find particularly obnoxious is "Well, what would you do if I hit you?" My standard reply: "Bruise, probably." Sometimes, though, showing off a little is just too tempting. One smug individual was convinced that if a man as large and powerful as himself tried to hit me, there was nothing that could be done about it. I suggested that he try, promising that I would only block, and not hit him back. Not realizing what a "block" from a kenpoist entailed, he agreed. He declined the opportunity for a second swing.

Good to hear that it went well!

I returned to my training this August after a one-and-a-half-year absence. I had been meaning to go to go back since May, but, for whatever reason, it just felt weird to go back. At the end of summer I ran into one of my old karate friends, who mentioned that he had just returned to the school after having been away for several years. We talked about the "old days," and I told him that I would practice with him the following week. That was what got me back. It was partly the familiar face to work out with, and partly having someone in a similar position, but mostly I just needed some outside motivation. Ask a friend to make sure you go. If someone is expecting you, it will be harder to put it off. After you get back into the habit of training, keeping it up should come naturally! Good luck!

Yes, there does seem to have been a shift away from "traditional" practices since the surge of so-called "combative" or "reality-based" styles (though I think the scare quotes should convey my opinion of most of them), and with the rising popularity of competitive mixed martial arts. I don't think that the problem is in any danger of extinction though. Many of those senseis from a generation or two ago are still teaching, as are some of their students. Even less traditional (including "combative" or "reality-based") schools can fall into the same habit of propagating faulty or unrealistic training methods. It was always a priority of my instructor's to examine his school for such practices, and there were always new problems to be found cropping up. Anyone who thinks that modernness immunizes their training could probably benefit from taking a closer look.

Yes, this does seem to be a fine piece of satire. Unfortunately, like any decent satirical commentary, its sting comes from truth. Though exaggerated, it does illustrate the effects of allowing tradition to take the driver's seat. Thank you for sharing this, sensei8. Where is it from?

I think that this feeling of immunity is exactly the problem. Rather than addressing the issue directly by examining and adjusting our training and attitudes, we pretend that we are above those inadequacies. We convince ourselves that the mere fact that we are martial artists delivers us from complacency, arrogance, ill temper, and a dozen other forms of hubris. This is exactly the complacent attitude that we need to avoid. When we start saying "A martial artist is humble. I am a martial artist. Ergo I must be humble," we assume that we already have certain attributes, and shut out the potential for improvement in those areas.