Liver Punch

I'd do terrible things. I mean...terrible.

But we're the same skill level! I agree with groinstrike 100%. Don't let your kid, yourself, or anyone else drink your art's kool-aid. No matter how good a school is, don't assume that it's the best, and always be open minded to learning from other people and at other schools. I think that the second anyone tells you that they're the best and don't test what they do against others on a regular basis, they're a mcdojo.

I'm originally from a small are and now live in a small/medium sized city. I think in both places, I would have a hard time finding quality instruction for a 5 year old. Our school just started a legitimate BJJ class for kids, but other than that...they're few and far between. My first priority would be finding quality instruction. As an MMA/Combative focused person, this would probably fall into either tiny-tot wrestling or BJJ for little kids. But, if nothing else were available, I'd gladly start them in a good TKD, Karate, or other traditional art. If none of that were available, and a semi-McDojo were available, I might very well consider it until they could become enrolled in a legitimate school. At 5 years old, a martial artist should be looking to gain discipline, balance, coordination, be part of physical activity, learn Dojo Etiquette, how to put on a uniform properly, and learn the difference between good touch and bad touch. If a McDojo can provide all of those things for a child between the ages of 5 and whenever another school will accept them, it gives them a leg up. A 10 year old who starts at a quality school and already knows how to behave, stand at attention, tie their belt, and carry themselves properly has a great head start. So, I suppose you might consider making a list of what your family unit as a whole is looking to get out of martial arts, and try to enroll him in the school that best meets everyone's needs.

That's the one. I don't trust that thing one bit...stupid adorable soulless killer. As for Skynet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_%28satellite%29

One of my training partners spends about 50% of his time at that camp. He was there at the time and got to see it 1st hand. Gnarly stuff...

A certain Jim disagrees with you.

I always wondered why - if the sai was used for poking holes in the ground - the three (technical term about to be used) "prongs" were short on the sides with one long one in the middle. Why would the center hole need to be longer? Don't seeds need to be planted at the same general length? Modern planters seem to distribute the seed evenly. I don't recommend being cornered. I also preach against being unarmed. People with swords in the above two circumstances further complicate a bad situation.

I just went through this last summer. I don't know what your day-to-day activity consists of, but one of the changes I made was getting some shoes specifically designed for runners. They watch you run on a treadmill with a camera and then tell you that you run like a half-pigeon, half-penguin. (that was my experience) Anyhow, I got these fancy shoes that compensate for my less-than fluid natural movement. It made a huge difference.

I really enjoy punching people in the liver. I mean, like really...a lot.

I'm excited for it. All my heroes have ended up doing something horrific...I've learned to live with it.

PC World has an article on their website about Qbo, the first self-aware robot. It's pretty much safe to say that we're all in trouble.

I think these two points sum it up completely. In law enforcement, there's a knowledge that every second of a conflict will be scrutinized. Someone will assess every moment and weigh all the variables to ensure that you didn't mess up. In non-law enforcement, there is sometimes an almost unspoken one-way street that doesn't allow the amount of force to be reduced based on the actions of the attacker at that moment. It's the idea that if does "A" I can do "B, C, and D to defend myself. And then if he does "X", I can apply Y and Z. It almost becomes a matter of bringing "bigger weapons" to the fight until it's over. I don't think we always verbalize that if at some point he stops trying to kill you (particularly if you're controlling the situation) that you might want to stop trying preemptively kill him. I'm not claiming that combative arts are producing plagues of people looking to increase their force to the maximum level in any altercation that arises. Rather, from time to time, instead of carving up our training partner with a rubber knife that they attacked us with a moment before, perhaps we might control their actions and give them a talking-to. I think in drills we visualize the other person as a terminator who's only objective is to kill, and won't stop until we crush them in an industrial press. Once control is gained over them, we could downgrade their status to "moron who is no longer a serious threat and would be best dealt with by people with handcuffs." Edit: And yeah - the sound of my voice is horrible. Tallgeese taking a crutch away from someone off camera and then walking around with it doing rifle drills out of pure habit was much funnier than anyone can imagine. Luckily it's on tape.

While watching my black belt test the other day (and complaining about how miserable everything I did looked) I ran into the Q & A session of the test. An answer I gave was in response to a group question regarding when deadly force is a proper response to any given situation. My response was basically that you shouldn't want to use it under any circumstances. I further clarified my point by saying that you shouldn't be looking for excuses to seriously hurt anyone. I was first reminded about how passive I am during tests (vs my normal embrace of aggression) but then started to think about how our normal line of questions during tests may be pointed in the wrong direction. We always discuss "how much force can be used in some random scenario". I think that maybe a more passive/minimalist approach might be appropriate, such as asking "how little force can you get away with in a random scenario". This stresses the idea that you're generally non-violent and aren't looking to hurt someone as badly as the law allows. It further promotes the idea that you should be looking for a way out of combat, not looking for a way to get into it. I once read an article in a 1980's Karate Illustrated or some such publication about a common mistake that point fighters were making with new techniques. It talked about how you'd learn a technique, practice it, and master it. The next step was using it in a tournament. These guys were getting there and becoming so obsessed with landing their new technique that they not only couldn't land it, but weren't landing anything else because they were only focused on that one technique - they had complete tunnel vision. The idea that you become obsessed with using something doesn't seem to be stuck in places like point fighting. Stories about guys wanting to use their martial arts skills on the streets to help someone so badly that they get into unnecessary fights aren't uncommon. This sort of thing happening with concealed carry permits isn't unheard of either. It's part of being human, and tunnel vision isn't something we want anyone to have when determining how much damage to cause someone else. An attitude that "if a, b, and c happens, you get to kill this guy or whatever" isn't an unfathomable place to get. When someone is fresh off the street and a low rank, it's important to drive home the point that you may have to feel and cause pain to survive one day. High ranks in combative systems have usually come to terms with the implications of real life situations. Perhaps at this level, instead of looking for reasons (or even excuses) to elevate your amount of force, our conversations should gravitate toward finding reasons to lessen our outbound punishment as evidence and circumstances allow.

If the military, police, security professionals, and body guards aren't using it...I'm not sure I'd use it in public. Then again, if there isn't anyone around to see my spin kick, I probably wouldn't do it then either. The untold story in action movies where someone spin kicks their way to coolness is the part where they get led off in handcuffs. Regardless of the situation, I want control over this person. I need to tackle, grapple, or get behind them. In a safety or life-threatening situation, I can't gamble on a knocking someone out with a single blow. If they're legitimately stunned or knocked silly, they aren't a big enough threat to me for anything but closing the distance and maintaining control.

I advocate paying someone to attack you when you leave your house from time to time. It's a mental toughness builder.

I was going to advocate shooting him, but...that's not moral. Oh, and illegal - that too.

Yeah, I think that fits the description of suspicious behavior.

Wow - quite the situation...it makes me look forward to having kids. I, personally, would view the situation as a matter of doing the right thing vs. "upsetting others". I've always been of the opinion that the right thing comes first. If it's not popular, legal, or fun is besides the point. If I've weighed the situation in its entirety and the right thing presents itself, that's what must be done. I'm going to assume that you've exhausted all routes involving calm discussion, reasoning, and calmly expressing your feelings. The next step is throwing a fit. If that didn't work, I would probably pull the kid aside and tell him to beat it. I'm sure I'd also strongly "encourage" him not to mention the fact that he'd been told to beat it. If this doesn't work, you could brandish a firearm for the duration of his visit and be quite unfriendly.

Demonstrations are a good start. Rec Centers, YMCAs, existing gyms with an aerobics area are all good places to run classes (even just part time while you run your school. If you're a self-defense related school, you've got to find clients to teach to. Businesses, local law enforcement, and things of the like are good word-of-mouth clients and they've actually got money. If you're a sport-related art, then you have to set up a tournament. If local regulations don't exist, I recommend something like the Gracie Challenge. You know, just fight local people for money to prove the worth of your art. My first investment would be one of those wacky, waving, inflatable, arm-flailing tube men...those rule.

^^I vote for Tallgeese.^^

I work in corrections and have a great deal of offender contact. The amount of time an average employee receives defensive training is about 2-4 hours. Our correctional officers receive less than 2 weeks of self defense and actual offender control. Our ground work is almost non-existent and everyone refuses to teach the weapons material because it's so dangerously wrong. Security, as a whole is much, much too relaxed - it should be better managed and overhauled.

That's was a Joe Z plaque...along with a whole lot of other ones with too much profanity to post here.

There seems to be a general approval. Exposure to this sort of thing for long enough leads to acceptance, and eventually brainwashing. As long as nobody outright ruins the ceremony, we've got free reign to act like idiots. Also, we'll be in proper tuxedos - bow tie and cummerbund, so at least we'll look dignified doing so.

Groin Strike, you get Piper. It's just the way of the universe.

I once read on a plaque in our shop class the following: There In life, there are only two things to worry about: Either you are well or you are sick. If you are well, then there is nothing to worry about. But if you are sick, then there are two things to worry about: Either you will get well, or you will die. If you get well, there is nothing to worry about. But if you die, then there are only two things to worry about: Either you will go to heaven or hell. If you go to heaven, there is nothing to worry about. But if you go to hell, you'll be so busy shaking hands with your friends, you won't have time to worry. I think I'm on board with that. I wouldn't say that I'm reckless, but at this point I don't really concern myself with death. It just doesn't matter - if I do what I'm supposed to do in life, if I make the right decisions and choices and still end up dead...then there wasn't much I could do about it. As for the best way to die, I'd go for slow and painful: it gives you an opportunity to come to terms with it, and have a great deal of feeling before you never feel anything again. Anyhow, I hate surprises - slowly cut me into pieces with a dull chainsaw.