delta1

Agreed, that's why you start with a compliant partner, then work up the force. It takes time. But if it takes too much time to learn, there's a good chance it is too complex to be of real value in a fight. Hopefully, the more experience you get the more you can accomplish in an actual situation. But you'll never keep all those fine motor skills when the adrenalin dumps. Yes and no. You can go full force, but with control. You obviously don't want to kill or injure your partner. The main thing is that you learn to apply those moves under the force you'll have to deal with on the street. I didn't mean to imply that all self defense techniques were worthless. But some are. Further, some will work for one guy but not for the next, due to physical attributes or abilities, or just temperament. The only way to find out is in the crucible of force. I see in your byline that you are a successful competitor, so you know your stuff. But take the moves you know and apply them under force. You'll find that you have to make some modifications to make them work. You are not built the same, nor do you move exactly the same as everyone else, so it stands to reason that optimum ballance and positioning, aquireing leverage or setting up for a power shot is not exactly the same. Further, every opponent you face is not the same either, and your adjustments to his attacks will have to be slightly different. The only way to learn to make these adjustments is to feel the attacks applied and do the technique. Look at history for some answers here. Traditional Jujitsu prior to the late 1800's was taught entirely by kata. It was believed that the applications were just too deadly to apply in training. They had all the moves down patt, but never applied them. When Jigoro Kano came along, one of the things he did was to eliminate any moves that couldn't be practiced full force, and then he had his students train with full applied force what was left. His students dominated open competition and challenges, useing things that were in traditional juijitsu, only less. But they practiced those things under force, and so were able to use them better under force than even seasoned competitors who did not train that way. Again, I'm not putting down competition. I think it is great, and respect the dedication that competitors have. We admire ball players and runners, why not martial arts athletes? But Keezel is asking about reality martial arts, and wanted to know the difference, so I told him. He's also looking for a school, so I gave some pointers on what to look for. Please don't take this as an insult or a put down. But you'll have to admit, there are a lot of schools out there in all styles that will misrepresent themselves to get paying students in the door. And, in my view, a sport school that represents itself as a self defense school deminishes both the reality arts and the sport arts. Same would be true in reverse, though it isn't as common. Getting a little long here. This is what happens when I get too much down time.

Getting out of a fight is what the avoidance, psychology and de-escalation training is about. Most schools will tell you to just walk away. But not many teach you how to do it effectively on the street. Unfortunately, this is one where you may have to compromise and do the research and training yourself. If you find a school that actively trains and practices these skills, though, chances are it's the real deal. As for TKD, a lot of schools teach it just for sport. Many teach point sparing and forms competition only. Some teach a mix of fighting and sport. Many will tell you that if you can compete, you can fight, and a lot of them actually believe this. It is wrong! The only area where sport fighting aproaches reality is fighting in some kind of full contact venue with very few rules. Same with weapons- learning traditional weapons can teach transferable skills and principles, but you need to actually practice with improvised weapons, and with the weapons you will more than likely face 'on the street'(knives and firearms). Most schools don't do this. Another thing, and a real sore point with me since my base is in a technique based system, most self defense techniques out there are bogus. First off, many of them just don't work. And if they are taught as a rote response to a particular attack, they are worthless. You are learning to move under force of an attack, not pass a test by selecting the proper technique. No two attacks are exactly the same, so a one size fits all aproach to defending the attack does not work. You learn the techniques with a compliant attacker initially, but if you aren't drilling those techniques up to full force assaults, you are wasteing your time. Timeing, position, power generation, everything changes as the level of force increases. Then there are the 'what ifs', when things go wrong or don't work like you planned. If you stop the technique/assault to get it right, you are training to be a victim. Next thing about TKD, there is a lot of wasted movement if you don't think about what you are doing. Example: they teach to chamber a backfist prior to striking. Do that in a real fight, you'll get hit before you can launch your strike. But I look at that as a good point to insert an elbow strike, since that is what the chamber looks like. Many of TKD's one steps can be used in close, with some modifications and adjustments. But very few schools do this. I think those one steps were meant to be tweaked, modified, adjusted and used in an unlimmited number of applications. Some schools only require you to memorize them, but never apply them. Example: one one step is a front kick to a punch, followed by another front kick to his face. Does anyone really believe that they are being taught to block a punch to the face with a front ball kick? The challenger is usually at least five feet away when he throws the punch, how realistic is that? But, consider useing this when you have pulled your opponent off ballance and need to get him out of the picture. Front heel kick to his abdomen to bend him forward while moving him back. Then with your trailing foot front thrusting ball kick his chest. In close, modify those kicks to knee strikes. It works, but you have to work it that way. And you need to not only think of it that way, but be able to train it like that with partners. If your school/classmates aren't willing to train like that, it isn't reality, it's show. I'm not dumping on traditional TKD for any reason, or any martial art taught for reasons other than reality. There are a lot of reasons to study martial arts besides fighting/self defense. But if you are going to teach sport, advertise it as sport. If you are going to teach self defense, then you should be teaching in a realistic way and teaching all phases and ranges and types of situations. Training should be as realistic as possible without someone getting seriously hurt. Periodically, that means fighting with contact, but not every class. It means a lot of drills, and a lot of practice of basics. But every once in a while, you have to use these skills. It doesn't mean going nutts and getting hurt. I'm backing off from how I used to train (getting older really bites!). But if you don't go at it hard from time to time, you loose your edge. You are young enough to really get in there and learn an art well. Don't waste this time in something less than what you want. Take your time, look around and find something that you want. Don't let someone talk you into something else with promises or placations. If you can't get to a good reality school, take up something like boxing. Not the best reality art, but not to be underestimated either, and you'll learn to operate under pressure and to take hits and keep on going. Look at grappling arts as well, you may find what you want there. And in the end, you may end up back at the TKD school. But then you'll know, and you won't have to wonder if you made the right choice. Good luck!

Hey, cousin! Good to have you here, and shareing ideas in your style is a good thing. But you'll also find a lot of other stylists with some good points, tips and ideas here. If nothing else, they'll make you think about how your style deals with things, and that is allways good.

What the heck, I said "Defensive Sidekick", just because it is a good kick to interupt his footwork and possibly dammage his base, and a little harder for him to react to. But, I'm assuming that you subscribe to the tennet that 'evefry defense is an offense', since I don't think a fighter should get into a defensive mindset. And, if I do need to 'defend' with a kick, I keep it low and fast.

"I'm a striker but I mix in some basic grappling" I wish it was more 'proper', but you do what you can. I don't think you can train for reality without some clinch work, takedown defense, and even a little ground work. But I am primarily a striker.

It sounds like you want a reality/fighting/self defense art more than sport or self developement. TKD can be taught that way effectively, but the vast majority of TKD is not. Ask the instructor, but if he says it is taught that way don't just take his word for it. Find out: *Do they spar, and periodically with hard contact? The majority of their sparing should be continuous and done with some degree of contact. Don't let them sell you on point sparing for reality training. *Do they work in close? Fights tend to get close, and as you've seen the high kicks that are the TKD trademark are exploitable. *Do they at least defend takedowns? Some groundwork is a good thing for reality training. *Do they study the psychology of an attack or confrontation? Practice talking someone down, teach avoidance methods? Any school that does not do these things, and much more, cannot call itself a reality or self defence school. Look around, see what all is there in your area, and compare. Go with your gut feeling. I don't know about your region of the country, but over $80.00 for a months classes seems pretty high. For that, you'd better be getting outstanding training, unlimmited access to some excellent facilities, opportunitiis for extra training, and more. Ading test fees to those prices seems to me to be an insult. But I'm not there, so I can't say for sure. Again, comparison shop for both quality and price. If you want to take martial arts for sport or spiritual reasons, there is nothing wrong with that. But then some of my responses will not apply. This advice is based on my perception of what you want, and could be wrong. But the suggestion to comparison shop is valid regardless. Also, don't be too impressed with rank. It means different things in different schools, and just look at all the new ranks on this forum today! In some associations or schools, every day is April 1st, and the students are the fools. Don't disrespect rank either, as he may have legitimately earned it. Just be a little skeptical until you know, and don't sign any contracts- especially at those prices.

Good call, WG! Glad someone's awake.

You are correct about tha level of force rules. As for police useing firearms to subdue, yes. It is one of the primary tools of their trade, and often used but not that often fired in actual contacts. If you mean useing it as a club or joint locking or pressure point device, no- though it could be used that way. But the officer had better have a really good reason, and some good witnesses and a video wouldn't hurt either (assuming it was justified). No problem. If you misunderstood it, someone else probably did too. Gave me a chance to clarify. Yes, but I have touch references for that. True enough. But you developed the proper understanding and responses to those references through training. I'm only suggesting that the same approach with firearms will develope the automatic responses and adjustments required to more effectively use a firearm. That is certainly true. Two ways to get hurt in a fight, intentional and unintentional. Standing in front of someone as you uppercut his solar plexus and forgetting to check his head is one example of an unintentional injury, as you are about to eat an accidental head butt. I think getting cut or shot by someone in their death throes would be a good extreme example. Then there's allways the crazed or dedicated opponent who makes that last ditch effort to take you out before his lights go out.

Thanks for sharing that! Makes it all seem more worthwhile. Well done! SCORE ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS! YESSS!!!

Actually, a convulsive jerk usually causes the entire firearm to cant, causing the round to strike high and wide. You can completely miss an amazingly large target at ridiculously close range this way. Furthermore, if you are in panic mode, you tend to focus on all the wrong things. If he has a weapon, often your eyes are drawn to the weapon instead of the opponent. And can you guess where you tend to point your own weapon now? The cure for both mistakes- high stress scenario based training. Sounds a lot like any reality based martial art, doesn't it?

If you want to know what 'karate' was like in the late 60's and early 70's, get ahold of some of the old Bruce Tegner books. That is what many of us 'old pharts' cut our teeth on. I look back at some of that now and shake my head, but it was 'state of the art' back then (unless you were lucky enough to be near a Parker Kenpo school, which was still growing and changing then). I wish I still had those books, just to go back and look at them. I really wish I could have studied with Ed Parker. Other than that, there was pretty much Judo and TKD. Other arts were either little known or unavailable. And everything was "karate". As already said, The Green Hornet, Kung Fu, Billy Jack and Bruce Lee were the major influences that brought the martial arts into the public eye. Casius Clay, later Mohamed Ali, was ther premier fighter. Anyone remember his "fight" against the Japanese Karate guy? It was supposed to prove which was better, boxing or karate. All it proved was the karateka (I don't even remember who it was) could roll into a ball and Ali could grab ahold of the ropes, and they could both make a lot of money doing it (not to mention either angering or disgusting half the world). I'd say Bruce Lee was by far the biggest influence. I remember a lot of guys who never took martial arts buying 'chuks and beating themselves silly while making 'whoooaaaahheeeee' noises! They'd come at you like they were going to attack, trying to look cool or intimidating. But all you had to do was stand there and laugh- before they got close enough to do anything they generally hit themselves in the head hard enough to daze themselves! It was a real hoot to antagonize them. Reality arts were pretty much WWII combatives. I recently found my old copies of 'Get Tough' and 'Kill or Get Killed'. Still good info, and still effective for quickly learned arts. Ah, well- them was th' days that was!

Been talkin to me missus, have yer? Actually, that would be one good use of a firearm. First off, a mugging is a violent crime that too often ends in injury or death. Your life is in danger. Second, if you are carrying and the mugger gets your weapon, you are in real danger. That is another thing to consider when you decide to carry a weapon. There is no longer any such thing as a minor fight or a simple robbery. The presence of the weapon makes any physical altercation extremely hazzardous, and once deployed the level of threat is deadly force. In a mugging, that's justified. In a simple pushing match, you could be in trouble with the law if you raise the threat too soon. Too late, and he may get your weapon and raise the threat himself, with you at a severe disadvantage. Like with your martial arts experience, you have to walk away from a lot more when you are armed.

Depends on the circumstances. If he's trying to kill me, and I allow him to live, then yes. If I'm just angry at him, then no. In between,...? Also, if it is that seriouse and I need to pull a firearm, he's probably dead. It generally isn't worth the risk to try to wound. But every time a firearm is drawn someone doesn't have to die. Let's be realistic here- do you break someones elbow every time you fight just because you learned how to do it in class? Seems good advice for a sniper, but not for someone in a fight. Again, I'll defer if someone can actually cite, but I don't believe that such precise aim is realistically achievable for most people most of the time (in a fight). Hence the "center of mass" argument. If we could accurately target so closely (which way is gravity moving their organs right this moment?) why not just got for the spine shot every time? You are taking my statement to extremes that I did not state or imply. I gave targets that contain many organs and structures- the mediasteinum and the lower brain- I did not say to aim for the spine. But, since you mention it, if you have the time and presence of mind to aim for a small target in an area that has many other good targets around it, you have a better chance of success. The hunters addage of 'aim small, miss small' applies here also. Center mass is for the marginally trained victim who doesn't feel the need to study and practice. Sadly, this includes many police and military personnel. Center mass works in the open and your opponent is squarely facing you. But when he turns, you'd better adjust your aim point if you want to bring him down. You don't have to consider "which way is gravity moving their organs right this moment," but you do need a good idea what's where and aim for it. Again, I'll use an analogy of fighting empty hands. Opponents move, and you pick targets and adjust strikes as he does. In fact, considering that you do Silat, you are having to both attack and defend on multiple planes and levels simultaneously. That is a lot more complex than adjusting your aim point automatically. No, but a heart shot is a shocker, and a lot quicker death than a lung if you were just shooting center mass and perforate an air sack instead of the heart or a major artery. Depends on the angle of incident doesn't it? Of course it does. That's one of the major points I brought up in my post. I was in a hurry and did not develope the point here, but you are correct. Many people have the idea that if you shoot a person between the eyes with a level shot, it's instant death and he'll simply fall over. Death is highly probable, but he may well initiate a serries of randome strikes or other actions. If he has a blade and is close, you may be seriously injured. If he has a semi-auto firearm, he may well spray the area with bullets. Top of the nose up is where you think, nose down is where you live- that is where all your body functions are controlled. If all you have is a head shot, and the gun is already pointed in your direction, this might be a good thing to know. And, if you are standing over him so that you have a good angle of incidence where the bullet enters between the eyes and takes out the medula oblongata, this sounds suspicously like an execution. Another thing about the center mass method of aiming, since you are not shooting for a specific target, you are depending a lot on the shock effect of the first rounds to strike the opponent. Often you find the same people touting this method are carrying something like a 9mm with a high capacity magazine. They are close relatives of the 'spray and pray' folks, and more is better, right? Problem is that whole magazines of this (less than adequate) round have been emptied into people who have subsequently carried out fatal assaults before succombing to their wounds. The incident that finally forced the FBI to drop the 9mm and go to the 10mm occured on a dock in your neck of the woods. It was a few years ago, so I don't remember how many hits the guy took from several agents, but it was phenominal. Look, I'm not saying that someone who shoots center mass with a pellet gun is not a threat, or that an untrained shooter can't kill you, or that you should never kill someone. I am saying that if you choose to carry any weapon, you should train with it and use it responsibly. You'll have a much higher chance of success, much lower chance it will be taken and used on you and others, and a much happier and guilt free life. And there's a lot more to it than than 'point at the middle and shoot!' Edit: Actually, after going back and rereading my post, I see I developed that statement a lot more than I thought: I clearly talked about targeting areas with a high number of vitals, not pinpoint shooting under combat conditions. I talked about ending the confrontation quickly, not about immediate death. And, I did talk about the angle of incidence of the head shot-"But again, as the head turns, the aim point changes."

I assume by that you mean you have to shoot to protect your life or someone elses, that the option to dissuade or control is not available. I wouldn't kill unless absolutely necessary, no matter what art or weapon I used. If crippling or disabling is an option, take it. As for where to shoot him, that would depend on several factors: *First, your targets are all internal. You are targeting organs and internal structure, and your external point of aim must be adjusted in regards to their relative position. For example, the mediastienum containsthe heart and several major vessels, located under the sternum. From a ssquarely front on shot, aiming center sternum is a high percentage shot to end it quick. But if he is quartered away from you, aiming at the sternum may only dammage muscle and might hit a lung. Neither will end it quickly, and more than one bad guy has carried out a deadly assault befoore himself succombing to gunshot wounds. *You need to pick targets that will end it quick, and that have other organs or structure close by in case your aim is not perfect. The mediasteinum is good because it contains a lot of critical organs and structure (the spine lies just behind it- technically not in it, but I doubt he'll argue the point with you). Head shots are ok if you have them, but again you need to know where to aim. A shot 'between the eyes is not good. It may will set of a serries of random impulses that could get you unintentionally injured, especially if he is armed. A shot just under the nose, however, will immediately shut down everything. But again, as the head turns, the aim point changes. Your real target is the medula oblongatta and the 'reptilian brain' that surrounds it- and that lies at the lower back sideof his head. Just popping the head won't do the job, you have to aim internally. There are many other considerations, but I'm late and those should give you an idea of the complexity of the situation you face with firearms for defensive use. They can be, and are, effective in the hands of an ammature. So is a stick or a blade, and even empty hand combat. But all are much more effective with training and practice.

Sounds interesting. So, it is based on the jo staff, and it is meant to be a formal system. Is this primarily a stand alone system, or is it meant to be grafted on to a base? Do you translate the hand movements from staff to empty hands, and/or to other weapons? Are you going to be making any videos, or giving seminars? I don't have much experience with staff work, but I'm allways interested in trying something new; so I'd look at it even if I don't formally study it. Heck fire, you can allways pick up something from watching how the other guy does things.

I picked Chinese based, because my base is American Kenpo. While AK has principles, concepts and moves from a lot of other arts, its primary roots are Chinese. No matter what else I study, I allways bring it back to Kenpo. The stance I use in Arnis is a neutral bow (AK's default stance) turned out on a 45' axis, and my footwork is Kenpo. I drive my Taiji instructor nutts because, while I can start out yielding and soft, I almost allways inadvertantly revert to blasting their backsides away with Kenpo. And I take the TKD one steps and forms, tear them down and rebuild them on AK. In fact, I've been toying with the idea of posting some of the reworked one steps here and asking for critiques, pointers, how different systems would handle the moves. It would be a lot of work, and a lot of explaining. But it might be worth it to get the bennifit of all the different perspectives and experience here. I see I've drifted off topic, so I'll shut up now .

Pretty good! Where'd you get those?

Care to expound on that a little? What is "Jodo"? Did you mean to say Judo? What was lacking in the traditional styles? How has your own style addressed the deficiencies? What qualifies you to make these judgements, and to create your own style? Is this a formal system, or just your personal style? Just curiouse. It's a little difficult to talk about something with no knowlege or information.

Welcome, karate4Christ, from the sin section! I study with a bunch of pagan pugilists, but we still manage to whup th' devil out of each other sometimes!

No comment! Aahhh... shaddup!

Yes, I like it, but I won't be getting any more Right forearm, "USMC". It's a little faded now. Thought about getting it re-done, but decided not. When he was younger, my nephew used to try to pick it off my arm. Provided us with hours of entertainment. It's just a natural part of me now, and I only notice it when someone asks.

Generally speaking, give them the money, but defend your body. Never allow yourself to be taken and isolated, as you are entirely at his mercy then. Think about it, the best that can happen if he takes you is that you'll live with some seriouse emotional scars.

I think I'm in love! Too bad I'm over 50 and married. Oh well, probably for the best. I'm also only 5'9", and can be arrogant at times. Gotta go, I'm late again...

That's pretty common, but not a problem. Your self confidence is growing, and your awareness is developing. Both are good. Running scenarios in your mind is good training also. The problem would be if you were getting overconfident and/or getting an attitude. Your concern indicates that is probably not the case.

http://http.dvlabs.com/adcritic/a/d...tae-kwan-do.mov This has apparently been around a while, but I just saw it. Funny!