cross

I agree 100%. There is no "one-size fits all" technique that will be best for every part of the body. When it comes to striking above shoulder level, palm offers a much safer option and a number of follow on techniques that can flow straight from the strike. There is a topic along similar lines that can be found here: http://www.karateforums.com/punch-or-palm-vt30090.html

Not a specific technique. But i continually train to maximize power and speed in general. That was it can be applied to any body movement to get maximum force from it. At the moment working specifically on very close range striking (almost one inch punch style but more applicable).

Thats all great. But if you want to learn to grapple you wouldnt go to a tkd school. Just like if you wanted to learn to kick high you wouldnt start training bjj. The training method matters much more than the person or the style. You can take any style and train it against resisting opponents and you will do much better than if you spent your time with inferior training methods.

Agreed. Its mostly your state of mind. Just like you can be unprepared, stub your toe and it will hurt like crazy, then when your prepared in training etc you can hit really hard without noticing it at all.

The only problem with being caught off guard is that your first line of defense will less likely be a powerful well executed block that damages the attacks arm and more likely a "oh crap" style flailing of the arms.

Heres some interesting articles on defence in general: http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2007/03/best-defense-part-i-weak-ones.html http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2007/03/best-defense-part-ii-foundation.html http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2007/03/best-defense-iii.html

I believe they should be taught because it is a realistic threat in current times. To me it doesnt make sense the amount of time people spend learning weapons that have no relation to weapons found in society today, yet they completely avoid common weapons like guns and knives.

To continue with your analogy... Do people spend 3 years writing only in capitals before they are allowed to use lowercase letters? Its the same with combat. Why spend 3 years doing blocks that need to be modified to actually be of any use? Sure you learn body movement etc, but practice the actual technique how it will be used and the lessons learnt will be much more applicable.

Thanks Mike.

Anyone have links to clips of full out bunkai that you consider to be accurate representations of how bunkai should be taught and applied? Thanks.

Excellent post. In my opinion this sort of stuff is far more important than discussion on technique etc. To answer the poll question. I think it would be any of those motives listed depending on the specifics of the attack. The important thing to defending against each type of threat is understanding the underlying motive and playing to that in order to give the aggressor what they want without sacrificing your own safety. And also knowing when you will not be able to meet their demands and will require to defend yourself with physical techniques.

Ive heard that a few times before.

The idea of difussing is to stop a violent confrontation occurring. IF the the difussing doesnt work, then you have NOT stopped a violent confrontation from occurring so of course i am going to hit before i get hit. If ive done everything to difuse the situation and the person is still becoming more aggressive towards me and not leaving, then you can be pretty sure the situation is going to continue to get worse before it gets better. Are you suggesting that you wouldnt try to diffuse a mugging? Giving them your wallet seems like an excellent way to avoid the confrontation escalating. Once again, IF that fails, then being proactive instead of reactive is going to give you a much greater advantage.

Neil, after training all the way to 2nd kyu and you still feel that you cant use the blocks effectively. Perhaps its that the blocks are just not effective. In my opinion anything designed for self defence purposes should be able to be picked up and used effectively in a short period of time. When it comes to defensive techniques specifically, i believe that the bodies reflexive responses when fine tuned a little will provide you will much greater and useful protection than any traditional block that takes 10 years of practice to be able to use. If your really unsure look at how people who deal with full contact strikes deal with them, rarely will it look like traditional blocks. I think you have reached a point that most reach when training in a traditional art. The point where you ask "would this really work?" If you have to ask and cant see it working in training then what are the chances of it working for real? If you are have some attachment to your current style you can continue and try to force the less effective techniques to work, but if you are looking for practicality, perhaps you can look elsewhere and find techniques that are more applicable.

You make some excillent points gzk. For the original poster, wingedMonkey. If you really enjoy doing tkd then why should it matter what other people think?

I agree with Shorin Ryuu's comments. Why wait to see their ability? If they are better than you its over because you wasted your chance to do anything. If by sneak attacks you mean pre-emptive strikes, then they play an equal role has all other areas of self defence training, and to leave them out would take away one of the few advantages you are likely to have in a self defense situation. Its your actions before the fight that are going to save you more than during the fight itself. Correct pre fight posture etc all paints a clear picture to witnesses that you are not the aggressor, because when the fight breaks out chances are it will be difficult to tell who the initial aggressor actually was. Personally my initial response is very similar regardless of the situation. To strike first or not is a very personal thing, no-one can tell you that you should or shouldnt. But keep in mind, if you are about to be attacked physically you increase your chances of walking away by alot if you strike first and take the initiative. To answer your question, if it gets to the "lets fight" stage and any attempt by you to diffuse the situation has failed(i.e they havnt left and are getting more aggressive) then in my opinion its time to make a move. Or if they want something of yours (wallet, money, smokes etc) and you give it to them, but they are still there... then i feel its also time to make a move. I dont think anyone who advocates striking first is suggesting that you hit someone if they walk up to you and start getting aggressive. You have to try and diffuse and avoid the situation, BUT if that fails, then being pre-emptive is going to give you a much higher chance of survival.

Its fine to say that training to fight will teach you to deal with anything. But rarely will schools claim they teach you to fight, nor will they prepare people to effectively deal with anything other than the techniques contained within their style. If your only training is striking, weather you look at it from a fighting perspective or not, you are going to have limited skill in other areas, the majority of traditionally taught striking doesnt directly apply to ground situations or positions other than a fighting stance. So unless you actively train in all areas and are actually doing groundfighting, weapons etc, you can expect striking to cover all areas.

A block is a strike and a strike is a block. I don't get what you're trying to say here. Me neither....

No problem at all. The only reason i knew those ones existed is because i was involved in both. If you read anything from them and want to comment on it, or further question something this might be the place to do it.

Check out these links, the topic is covered in great depth: http://www.karateforums.com/should-you-punch-first-vt29900.html?highlight=strike+first http://www.karateforums.com/will-you-attack-first-or-you-wait-vt16844.html?highlight=strike+first

Sure, but a cross is not a reverse punch. You punch with your rear hand, but thats where the similarity ends. So i dont thinks its has simple has "a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick". Not all are equal.

The practitioner will only be has good as the experiences they have. If a persons only experience is in an average school, then they will likely be average. Sure, things like natural talent, youth and athleticism may make them seem pretty good, but that natural ability would be better nurtured in a high quality school/system.

The problem that I have with kicking the knee is that, although it is a good target, is the possibility of a lawsuit being thrown your way. but if it is truly self defense My goal is making it out in 1 piece Ill worry about the law suit afterward. I agree with you to some extent. However i dont think the "worry about the lawsuit later" method applies to every situation. Has BushidoMan already mentioned if your job places you in dangerous situation you are paid to deal with it appropriately without going over board. And there are alot of other cases where the threat is minimal(but still a threat none the less) and doing 2 much could make the situation alot worse than it has to be for everyone involved.

Probably just a barbell with various size weights.

The only concern i have is that with all the physical and mental aspects you listed, there is a more productive way than kata to develop all of them. To me kata is outdated. I read an interesting analogy once about traditional martial arts. It went something like "doing a traditional art is like driving a vintage car has compared to a new sports car, not everyone can understand the pleasure of driving the vintage." I suppose that vintage cars arnt for me. Doing kata to build strength when you can lift weights is like traveling in a horsedrawn cart when you can drive a car or catch a bus. It seems there will always be a market for people wanting to learn traditional arts. The unfortunate thing is some will learn for a while and then start thinking that all the secrets or fighting are hidden in kata, or that you cant have karate without kata etc etc. I dont have a problem with these people trying to maintain a tradition or doing what they want to do with their life. The problem arises when people come to them to seek training and the majority of what they are offered is a kata that is past its time. In order for a school to be progressive they need to recognise the past, but also live in the now. Kata is not the now, just like horsedrawn carts are not the now. Yet people still try and pass off kata has self defence and fitness training. Sure, you will get some benifits, but there are better ways. And if i wanted to learn self defence i wouldnt go to a school that offered some benifits when i knew there were much more effective ways to learn and progress.