vantheman

Wear your cup. You won't be sorry.

Exactly. My belt goes on the rack next to my other (non-martial arts) belts. I have never really contemplated washing them...

I never thought about it like that. As far as actually washing my belt, I can't say I do it that often. It has never seemed to have become dirty enough to warrant washing it. In related news, I have a new found appreciation for my ability to use my mother's washing machine.

I have heard the whole belt turns black with blood, sweat, dirt, grime, communicable diseases, ect. but don't give any credit to the myth. Japan was a society with a strong emphasis on purity and cleanliness. Would they really promote wearing around a grimy piece of fabric? From what I've heard about the origins for martial arts uniforms, it seems that kimonos were worn as a formal wear, and the belt was simply a component of the garment. The whole belt-color distinction came around with Judo, I believe.

Pressure points are a useful addition to an martial artist (as well as a general understanding of anatomy). Not something I'd primarily rely on, but valuable nonetheless. As far as Dim Mak goes, I have yet to do as my research on it as I would like to. Perhaps my claims will be more refined when that research happens.

Hello all, This September the dojo I train and teach at will be entering it's twentieth year of operation. My sensei and the instructors (of which I am one) are putting together plans for some type of celebration. Catering, seminars with the grandmaster, and a best-of DVD are amongst the things we have considered. Have any of you guys had such celebrations? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,

I think this whole discussion falls under the context of what rank means to a particular person and dojo. Where I train, authority comes from respect, knowledge, and ability more than it does rank (although rank does correlate with those things frequently). We don't really talk much about our rank because to us it isn't of immediate importance. We'll bring it up if we're getting ready for an upcoming test or if someone else asks, but its not something we arbitrarily announce.

I don't think it's a big deal so long as it's done humbly. Like sensei8 said, it makes perfect sense if the instructor is explaining why he (or she) is going to be out of the dojo over the next few weeks. Most kenpo guys have dan bars so hiding a new rank isn't very feasible. Interesting discussion nonetheless

Conditioning before all else. Technique means nothing without the strength, speed, coordination, and control required to effectively pull it off. I would put at least 20 minutes into push-ups, crunches, cardio, weight training, calisthenics, ect. I'd spend the rest of time on a bag.

In today's world, the Martial Arts school is a business. Unfortunately, a person's ability to open and run a school does not have to correlate with actually ability in the martial arts. I have always said that the caliber of instructor matters more than rank, style, ect. As far as judging the caliber of the instructor, I think I have to quote sensei8 in saying "Proof is on the floor".

A six foot staff will work, although traditionally it should be 2 palm widths longer, I believe. The catch is that for most Okinawans, this meant they'd never need a staff longer than six feet, so there generally was never any staff work done with 7 foot bos. Given this situation, most schools are typically okay with a six foot staff, as they are more widely available and practical despite them technically being too short for most Westerners.

From what I've heard and seen, Lee and Norris probably would have done pretty well in MMA careers. Only thing I'd be concerned about is their ground game. This could just be a lack of exposure on my part, but I haven't seen a great deal of ground work in either of their styles. Thanks for sharing

There is something to be said for this. I'm not of the opinion that it holds true all the time, but when you are actively trying to knock someone out that is trying to knock you out, or take you down and defend from the takedown, and all that, it tends to weed out low percentage options pretty quick. But, not every self-defense situation is not synonymous with a ring experience, either. So I think there are some types of techniques you will find in more traditional styles as useful for practicing for self-defense applications. What's important on the "traditional" side of things is to make sure to start training application drills that are as live as possible as soon as possible, instead of always sticking with the traditional class orientation. I agree entirely. It's in no way the same as a self defense scenario (or at least not most of them), but often has the most realistic moves and applications, simply because if it doesn't work against someone resisting and actively trying to hurt you, they won't bother with it. And of course there are exceptions, but that's part of why there is such awesome variety when it comes to martial arts

My style of Kempo, despite whatever roots it has/claims, is probably more American than anything else...

Self Defense is a pretty broad horizon. For example, getting a permit for carrying a hand gun could be just as much self defense training as anything else. And remember physical ability is only one of many aspects of self defense (others being awareness, legal understanding, running away, ect.) Krav Maga will get you the basics within a short period of time. MMA is good at creating a well rounded arsenal whilst getting you in good shape, and nearly every one of its techniques has self defense applications. At the end of the day, any martial art worth training will have some self defense in it. Some may require more training and/or changes in application to be useful in self defense (Tai Chi, for example), and many will not cover every aspect of fighting (i.e. BJJ by itself doesn't having striking, part of why MMA is so versatile), but most legitimate arts will cover enough to help you survive a bout with the average Joe. As far as fighting trained attackers, you would need to look at your strengths and weaknesses as a combatant, and possibly look into weapon training (knifes and guns, that is). As far as superfluous techniques go, my experience generally shows that traditional martial arts tend to have more than MMA will. Not trying to spark any arguments, but generally speaking, MMA practitioners are forced by their nature to use things that are immediately practical and cut out the excess. Not to say that traditional MAs are a waste by any means whatsoever, but TMAs may require more training to get something applicable in uncontrolled situations.

Constructive

In any given scenario, strength and can make up for technique and technique can make up for strength. This is the topic of fairly extensive debate, and that's all i am going to comment as far as the football vs martial arts fight is concerned. A balance of martial arts and conditioning (muscular strength/endurance, cardiovascular endurance, flexibility, ect). With an aggressive opponent, they tend to drive you straight back. As such, your general guideline is to move off their line. Depending on how good the form of the football player's tackle is, they will either leave the back of their neck or their face open, both of which are extremely vulnerable targets.

I wouldn't go so far to say they build falsehoods. While there really isn't too much out there that is going to expose you to true self defense scenarios aside from going around and getting in bar fights (which I do not condone), I think competing gives martial artists invaluable experience that controlled training in class cannot foster. Furthermore, while competitive fighting is not a true representation of an actual self defense situation, its the closest thing you are going to get to while still ensuring the relative safety of those involved. If you can fight well against someone within limitations, all it takes is one seminar to learn the mindset and applications of those techniques in a "real" scenario. Competitions are a great place to demonstrate what works and what doesn't outside of life-threatening street fights. I'm not saying that every martial artist needs to test their skills in combat to be legit, but the competitive aspects of martial arts have showcased the effectiveness of arts such as Muay Thai, BJJ, Judo, Kickboxing and Wrestling in combat. MMA provides a great regimen as far as training in the martial arts is concerned. It doesn't take much to adjust these skills to a self defense situation. You don't need years of training to kick someone in the groin, pull hair, bite, or gouge eyes. Several years of MMA and maybe a few weeks or seminars in Krav Maga or some other basic self defense course can turn any competitive fighter into one of the best suited artists (skill and conditioning wise) for self defense. In short: it is hard to argue that someone that can beat you up in a sparring match isn't suited for real world self defense because you weren't allowed to poke their eyes/snap their neck/kick them in the groin.

Does anyone here think that it's done on purpose with malicious intent, more often or not? I don't know if the intent is ever malicious if the purpose is to try and get students to look into joining. At this point "Karate" has been generalized to refer to almost any martial art, but I don't think anyone is trying to use the term to intentionally convince people they are learning a different art than they actually are. Sure it's exploited in that styles (such as "Kempo Karate" which has VERY limited amounts of Karate in it) will utilize the familiar term to advertise, but I think if a student is unaware of the style they're studying, it is because of their own ignorance (does anyone here think a legit instructor would lie if asked about what style he teaches?). I believe that more malice will come from McDojos calling their watered down art "karate," but I don't think we can say that is the same as taekwondo schools calling it Karate for publicity.

Well my style, Kempo Karate is not really karate at all (save for a few katas, specifically taikyoku shodan, pinans sandan, yodan, and godan, and rohai). I'm fairly certain the term karate was added in early on because people were more familiar with it than Kempo or Kosho Ryu. Kempo Karate, especially the further you go down from Mitose, becomes increasingly American. But to be overly-technical, karate literally means "empty hand" or "T'ang (China) hand" which can kind of apply to any Asian martial art (save those that are Jujitsu based). But I'm sure that's not what most schools are thinking about when they put the big "KARATE" sign in front of their building.

While I could see a variety of reasons to make me leave a specific dojo, it is pretty hard to imagine situations that would make me give up Martial Arts in general. It would need to involve some debilitating injury (serious hip injury, paralysis, blindness, ect.) or a financial disaster in which I could no longer afford lessons (although the latter would not prevent private/individual practice )

Thanks !

Hello all, I have limited Judo/JJJ/Aikido back ground, and I have a stupid question. Is there any difference between a Koshi-Nage throw and an O-Goshi? Thanks,

The only names I have come across for his Kung Fu back ground are Len Chou (whom I have not found any info on) and some man named Soo (same as above). I would agree that his Kung Fu is nothing like the real Chinese stuff (I believe the GM of my offshoot style went back outside of the system to "fix" some of the Kung Fu), but he trained somewhere with other people after leaving Cerio and supposedly reached 5th Dan. 10th+ Dans (to my knowledge) are fairly new concepts. Somewhere along the line, someone self promoted themselves. The 10th Dan didn't just pop up out of nowhere. And Villari wasn't the first. That doesn't make it right, but it's not like he's the first person to do it (although his self-promotion seemed to be publicized more than others). As for calling the art Shaolin and trying to pass it off as traditional, I agree with the points above. There really wasn't any good reason aside from trying to gain popularity. My system actually renamed itself Chinese Kempo Karate, likely for this reason. It's a modern art, but I think with a good instructor, it still works well. And as a side note, solid post sensei8!

Good points! I think part of the problem may just be a general lack of footage of William Chow practicing his art. I have found only two short videos him, one doing some techniques, and one doing a kata. In short, I think that there is a dearth of information regarding it. I believe it was Hung Gar that Chow supposedly trained in, but there is practically no information on his father, Hoon Chow. As for Ed Parker, I doubt there was any significant Chinese elements that he added in addition to what he learned from Chow. Although he did occasionally use the term "Chinese Kenpo" because he found no kenpo in Japan that resembled his art. Who knows? The only other significant Chinese developments come in with Villari, who is a whole other story (I started a thread on him in the Politics forum in case you want to discuss that )