Capt Jakk

My response to an instructor living an alternative lifestyle really comes down the the answers of two questions. Do I believe that there is a safety concern and does it negatively impact my training experience? If there is a safety concern, such as teaching class while under the influence, I'm not going to tolerate it. I don't want myself or someone else hurt because of someone else's poor decision making which may or may not include lifestyle choices. Similarly, I'm going to have issues if said lifestyle decisions have a DIRECT negative impact on my MA experience. If sensei chooses to be a nudist on his own time, that's his right. If he chooses to teach in the buff and expects his students to as well, then I would like to know that information before I sign the one year contract.

I realize I'm a little late with my answer, but I think you should go with the art with the better school in your area. Bad instruction will hurt you more than style. On a side note, I looked into fencing once and asked what differences I could expect from karate. Besides the obvious sword thing, the instructor told me that the biggest change was that fencing is only done with one side of your body. i.e. you only use your right arm. Something to think about.

A Kubaton. If I'm going into an area that bans weapons, such as a courthouse, I have found that a small Maglite can serve the same purpose and does not have any problems going through security. Yes, I have felt the need to be armed in a courthouse.

Thanks for all the replies everyone. Looks like sprawling, knowing the dominant positions, escapes, clinch work, and break falls appear to be the minimum needed. I'll have to ask about these things the next time I'm looking at a dojo just to see what kind of answers I get. I must say this also looks like it would be an excellent business opportunity for someone with the correct knowledge. Offer a couple of weeks of classes to go over the basics of grappling. I know I would like to work on my ground game but I have neither the time nor finances to learn two arts at once.

Tallgeese, you might not want to describe it as "rolling with females" when talking to your wife. On topic. I suggest having a serious talk with your mother and working out some kind of compromise so you can compete. Try to understand why your mom feels this way or what her fears are. From the information given it could be anything. Show your mom you understand her point of view then cut a deal.

I believe it has become evident that it is important to have experience at all ranges of fighting. A lack in one area can mean trouble in a self defense altercation where anything could happen. So I ask the good members of the Karate Forums, what are the essential grappling elements that a striker should know? I'm talking about the minimum knowledge a striker should have to increase the chances of making it out of a situation. Please also include your reasoning for why each something should be included. I'll start with the suggestion of break falls. If something goes wrong and I get thrown I want to be able to land relatively safe instead of breaking something important. Thank you in advance for any and all replies!

Drawing conclusions from watching Youtube videos is a bad idea. Why? The videos are not a reflection of he larger picture and can lead to inaccurate conclusions. First, it only represents the small portion of activities that happen to be caught on camera and then uploaded to youtube. Think of all the sparring you do at your dojo. How often do you video tape it? How often does this tape end up online? Probably very very rarely. The second reason I don't think Youtube should be used to judge martial arts is that videos tend to show the extremes of the quality spectrum and I would say it is generally easier to show a crappy martial artist than a really good one. A person has to have the time and motivation to post the video online. This is generally only done when someone is trying to make a point or show something they think is interesting to other people. The choice of video therefore reflects the poster's bias. You are therefore not going to see the views of the majority of people because they are not passionate enough about the topic. The same thing happens with online reviews. You will generally only read reviews by people who either love the product or absolutely hated it. How often have you seen a review say "it works fine" and give it three stars.? Instead you read reviews from people that loved the product and could not live without it or from people who had a horrible experience with it. Ratings will generally be either 5 stars or 1 star with nothing in between.

Evergrey and JiuJitsuNation, your last posts support my earlier point that location can have an effect on how common it is for a fight would go to ground. In one case a person still stood a chance while fighting on the ground due to no interference from bystanders. In the other going to ground meant there was no chance of winning the fight due to everyone bum rushing the guy on the ground. Ground fighting looks like it might be more useful in one of these areas over the other.

I'm fairly certain that you do not need a license to teach martial arts. At least here in the US. I can't really talk about other countries. If a license to teach were required we would see it being advertised. The license would likely be displayed somewhere in the lobby of a dojo and the owner may make it a selling point for new students and parents. I think the guy who approached you is a) grossly misinformed, b) a competitor, or c) someone in the neighborhood trying to intimidate you to stop your sessions in the park because he finds it annoying. Most likely it's "C". The purpose of a license is to show minimum qualification to do something and protect the quality of the activity that is being licensed. This obviously has not happened in the martial arts as evidenced by the frequent allegations that a place is a "McDojo." An organization may decide to license it's affiliated dojos to protect its art but it would only apply to it's dojos. It's my understanding that there is really no legal reason why I can't open a place at the mall, call my style Rex Kwan Do, and teach a really crappy "martial art" with no practical or redeeming value whatsoever.

I always think that location is a factor that is often neglected in these discussions. It's all well and good to say that most fights go to the ground but do most fights go to ground in your specific area? Local culture, training opportunities, etc have an effect on how people fight. For example I am much more likely to come across a wrestler in the US than I am in Hong Kong.

Does it have to be something on the belt or Gi? A certificate given out in front of the class also gives recognition but isn't something a person could easily show off on a regular basis.

I like the emphasis on speed and the higher stances. I'd like to continue training in it at a later date. Unfortunately my sensei never allowed sparring but was very good at showing beginners proper form for techniques. I guess I'll continue to practice Naihanchi until I find a new place to train.

Rouge, that link is not woking for me. I'll try to find it though as any work on this topic is interesting to me. I do have some experience working with statistics and comparing self-defense situations, law enforcement situations, and bar fights would be difficult to do. You have to define exactly what going to ground means. It could include tripping and falling on the ground or it can be narrowed to only when a person is thrown to the ground. Each definition would change the final statistic. You also have to determine where your data is coming from. People self reporting about a fight is likely to have inaccuracies. Police reports represent a small portion of total fights as many are not reported. Video or other media of actual street fights are not representative of all fights, only the ones with some bystander recording it with a camera. All of this is even before someone determines a statistic or comes to any conclusions. This whole area is subjective enough that I just don't believe any statistics about it. There are too many variables that just can't be controlled to get an accurate picture. You,re probably better just going with what ever your gut tells you.

As near as my search fu can tell me this is the abstract of the article that is often misquoted for the 90% statistic. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=164308 A break down of the article's points can be found here. This breakdown appears to be biased though it does appear to be from a journal article. http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html Some interesting points and my observations. 1) The study was done by looking at Use of Force reports from the LAPD about arrests. Not fights in general. It appears only .6% of all arrests resulted in an "altercation" 2) The reports used were from 1988. I'm betting fighting may be a little different now due to different training and new technology. 3) 62% of altercations lead to the officer taking the subject to the ground for a handcuffing. Not the 90% often quoted. 4) Taking a swing at an officer often resulted in being hit with a baton and then being handcuffed. Assuming a martial arts stance would also lead to being hit with a baton. I'm guessing now you are more likely to be pepper sprayed instead of being hit with a baton. In my opinion, people are using an apple to comment on an orange. An officer's goal during an arrest is to subdue the other person. My goal as a civilian in an attack is to run away from my attacker and reach safety. These goals may require different strategies. (i.e. putting someone in a hold vs kicking someone in the groin and running away) I believe it is much more practical to be a generalist in both striking and ground fighting than to focus exclusively on just one or two fighting ranges. I can see two strategies you can take on this subject in class. The first is to talk about where the 90% statistic came from and explain how it is being misused much like I have just done. Appearing as the expert can help your argument, especially if you are already the teacher. Hopefully they will make a good conclusion on their own. The second thing you can do is explain that statistics don't mean crap in a specific situation. Even if 90% of fights went to the ground it wouldn't mean that the fight they find themselves in would end up on the ground. It's better to be prepared and not have to use something than to be unprepared and not able to defend yourself. To probably misquote Mark Twain. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

From the history I have read, it appears the Spartans would choose not to compete unless they felt it was a guaranteed win in this event. Most fights were until one person submitted. Spartans were taught to never submit or surrender. A loss was seen as a huge loss of face for their entire society as they saw themselves as superior to all others and emphasized the group over the individual.