delta1

Good one! Does Century sell those ghis?

I guess, when I think about it, I'm more interested in position than range. I like to fight at medium to close range, where I can use all my offensive and defensive weapons. Either inside and open him up, occupy his space and take his will- or outside and on a close oblique, where I have all my weapons but nullify one side of his. Understanding and useing range theory is important to get you there, but it is all part of an overall strategy to win. Your purpose in getting there is not just to hit him, it is to totally dominate him. To do this, you have to understand and use all ranges. A kicker might use his feet to injure or set up his opponent, but realistically, you are going to have to close with and destroy him at some point.

Maestro, I didn't really say anything that the two of you didn't touch on- just expounded a bit. As to your question, it is far easier to close distance than to maintain it. The trick is to do it effectively. Someone who just charges in is easily dealt with positionally by a simple side step. Someone who moves in with a coordinated attack as part of an overall game plan is a different matter. At the extremes, where one fighter only likes it in close and one only at kicking range, I give the in close fighter the edge. It is likely that the fight will probably, at some point, end up in close. I've destroyed some TKD guys who were more experienced than me, and really better martial artists also, by getting inside their comfort zone. And, it really is a shame, since TKD does have in close moves in its techniques. You just have to look and extrapolate them. As to fighting a grappler, count on it getting close. There are ways to deal with them, but odds are they will eventually get inside your zone of comfort. The wrestling cross face, hook and sprawl, ridge hand to the groin, angles and elbows (they like to use elbows to open you up, so you should return the favor is how I look at it ), ... whatever you use, it will definately be in close. One of their weaknesses is that it takes a lot more energy to try and take you down than it does to defend. And, obviously, a stand up artist is better at kicking and striking. But most of them know how to deal with that and close the distance to their range.

You both request debunking, but I have to agree with your assesments. Understanding range is essential in a fight. You have to consider your strengths and weaknesses as opposed to his, and adjust as necessary. The problem with useing range to control the fight lies in depending too much on it. Range can be altered amazingly quickly, and you don't want to get caught being too comfortable in your zone. Also, a lot of fighters get the idea that certain natural weapons are to be use in certain ranges. Knees may be primarily a close weapon, but don't get taken by surprise by a flying knee from 'kicking range'. Same with elbows- it only takes a quick foot maneuver to deliver one from further out. And kicks can be thrown effectively from in close, as well as at distance. So, understand and use range theory, but don't depend too much on it. Another point, you need a strategy, or a goal. You are fighting toward a logical conclusion. Just trying to control range and exchanging blows leaves too much to chance. Not a 'pre-planed fight', but use of range and other factors to dominate and control your opponent to either control, dissuade or destroy him. By the way, the BJJ guys only have three ranges: free movement, clinch, and the ground. And they are good at getting you to their range of proficiency. Those sorry buggers are all too good at going from 'out of range' to 'down and dirty' faster than you can figure just what range they are at. It is a good idea to not only know your own range theory, but the other guys as well. The trick is getting your theory to deal with his in practical application. Good discussion!

JLee, after your second post, it appears I may have spoke too soon. There is a big difference in calling names and 'messing with' your girlfriend. It sounds like they are just trying to get you riled, the kind of harrasment kids often do. The problem is that this sometimes is the assesment phase of conflict, whether intended that way or not. You do need to get a handle on the situation, and the others are right that the first step is getting a handle on your own temper. Stand your ground, but don't respond to verbal taunts with agression. Harrasment of your girlfriend I would take as a direct challenge, but verbal taunts can be dealt with in other ways.

equaninimus, I disagree. From what he's saying, it's time for a little more 'jitsu' and a little less 'do'. Unfortunately, JLee, nothing is going to teach you to defend yourself that quickly. Not that it is not a good idea to get some training, just don't expect quick results. Of the three you listed, I'd say Hapkido is your best bet. Most Judo schools are more sport oriented, though it's a good style. Boxing is good in a lot of ways, but it too is sport. Both are limmited, where Hapkido (from what I understand about it) is more well rounded. Are those the only schools in your area? Another option might be to turn out for the wrestling team yourself. Wrestlers have some good skills, and more importantly, it might expand your circle of friends. That would have more immediate results as far as dealing with these bullies.

Drunk Monk, I've made several dummies. If you want to start a dummy thread, when I get time I'll describe a few. They are great, you can strike full force with targeting and technique. Have someone stand behind them with padded sticks and strike at you for a dose of realism. I used to leave one out on the patio, and every time my wife got up in the night and looked out, she nearly had a heart attack! Dang useful to have around!

Yes, we're an evil, smelly, ugly, mean bunch; and bad to da bone! Cut us some slack, or else!!! Seriously, if this is all you guys have to worry about, your lives are just too dang easy. I personally prefer grey or black, but I don't worry too much about what anyone else wears. As for patches, I think that every thing on the uniform should mean something. Just decorating a ghi is a little overblown, but if that is the immage you want to project, it's ok with me. I have two ghis with insignia (two diferent associations) and one plain grey without any insignia. I dyed the belt grey also, so there is not even any rank shown with it (convenient, since most of what I do is not on a belt system anyhow). The plain one gets the most use, by far. But when I get ahold of a white ghi, it is a good idea not to get between me and the nearest dye vat &/or sewing machine! BARBARIAN TIME!!!!!!!!!!!

I've never refilled a bag like you are talking about, but I have made my own. Rags work ok, but you should put them on the inside, at the core, if possible. They tend to get a little lumpy at the outer edge of the fill. Also, I'd be careful about overfilling a bag, as you'll put more stress on the seams.

Sad to say, I know exactly what you are talking about, White Warlock. And, I agree they are great for those transitional periods. Other times books and tapes can work is when you've had sufficient experience, with good instruction, to handle the new material. Or when you can get with someone knowlegable periodically to clean up. No matter what, you need at least one good, dedicated workout partner. You still need to get somewhere periodically and have your act cleaned up. But no man is a martial island.

My suggestion is to leave it alone. You can't police everyone, so why try? And all any governing body can do is limmit its subjects. That doesn't mean just belts, it means limmitations on every aspect of the arts. You'd destroy the martial arts. Things have a way of working out if left alone. The charlitans will be exposed for what they are. And the market allways has adjusted to meet the needs of the practitioners. Those who want to buy the pretty belts will always buy them. Those who want to get seriouse will allways be able to strangle them with their belt, and there will always be someone to teach them how.

"Several times a day!!", but only because my doctor and physical therapist have both told me I have to. Normally I stretch at least once a day, before and sometimes after workouts.

There are several. But,before you decide to learn Taiji from a book or video, check out this thread: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=11887 My advice is to look around and see if you can get private instruction a couple of times a month. It would be worth the trip if you can do it.

Most Chinese arts/artists don't look down when they bow, though you don't necessarily look the person in the eye. I've always been taught that you bow to an object and salute a person. Both are a sign of respect, not subservience, though teacher, student, and style are servant to each other.

This is handled all the time by most systems now. TKD (at least what I've seen) doesn't require everyone to do leaping kicks or head kicks. Some people just never will be that flexable. American Kenpo was designed to be adapted to the individual, and I know of many people with minor disabilities, and have heard of some with major disabilities, who do well with AK. FMA's are so adaptable they almost go without mentioning. Even Karate, which tends to be very rigid, has disabled practitioners who've successfully altered their style to suit them. Grading, as I said before, is as much subjective as it is objective. It is easy to make allowances in one area or demand more in another. And anyone who would require a person with a bad leg to kick like everyone else has not got the right attitude to be in a martial arts class in the first place. Who in their right mind would hold Bill Wallace back because he can't kick the same with both legs? Who isn't inspired by the stories of some on this forum who've overcome, in at least one case, severe handicaps? You don't have to coddle those with disabilities. You work with them to overcome the problems, and both instructor and all the students learn more about their art than if they just continued going through the motions. It isn't the system that hinders us from excelling in any way. It is our hidebound dedication to a system rather to the art and each other, a legalistic attitude that says 'this is what's required and if you can't do it that way you can't advance', that holds us and others back. I doubt you are that way, so this is not an indictment. In fact, I don't see a lot of that here on this forum at all. But it is out there, and in my view it is destructive both to individuals and the arts. It's also an attitude that gets me riled (who'd have guessed?). My opinion. Any one else need the soap box?

White, I'd go for surgery only as a last option, but definately get treatment from a doctor who understands sport type injuries. That, and a good physical therapist may be all you need. And, if it is weakness to get injured, most of us are pitiful whimps. I'm back in physical therapy myself (my therapist has nick-named me "Cadilac" ). He told me last week that "You are an active guy, and I wouln't want to change that. But you could use a little more common sense." I guess the long and short of it is, if you put yourself in harms way enough times, you are going to get hurt. Train hard, and get help when you need it. Good luck!

Drunk Monk, good post! You explain very well some of the things I was talking about in my post. That is another reason I like the phase idea. No test, you are either ready for (able to handle) the next level, or you aren't. This assesment is as much subjective as it is objective, and in my view the student should be involved in this decission. This gives the student some responsibility for his own training and self evaluation. And, if the student moves up and it becomes obviouse he can't handle the new level, either the material or the intensity, he could be moved back down without the stigma of a demotion. Parting thoughts:

I've studied under both a belt rank system and no rank till black system. Both have pros and cons, and I really don't have a preference. While I've never studied under this system, it seems to me that a phase system would be best. It takes the good in both, without the bad. You get the advancement incentive of the belt system, without it being a continual overrideing goal- the just learn what you have to for the test and get that better color mentality. The class can also be divided into groups of similar abilities, or combined as you wish. Whatever system you choose, it is more up to the student and the instructor as to how well it works.

Checked, and bookmarked. Thanks.

Now THAT was a good post (except where you still disagreed with me ), more what I've come to expect from you! And you are right, when you grow up with omething it can seem like just common sense, something we take for granted everyone knows and understands. I used to be an instructor for firearms safety and practical shooting. That is an education in what people DON'T know, as well as what they think they do know. Why is it that so many people who've never fired a gun are experts on their design and use? It is amazing just how much carries across between all the martial disciplines, including firearms. Feel free to pester me, and I have carried for variouse reasons. But I do want to clarify one thing (I've said this here before, but it has been a while and I don't want to give any false impressions): I'm not a police officer. I've trained and trained with them in variouse capacities, worked for and with them, but never been a serving officer. I do have military experience, as well as other eperience(s). But the vast majority of what I know I learned on my own by either getting training or study and practice. As for Darwin, that was just my dry sense of humor. Yeah, "The Church" has always been good at mongering fear in times of stress, like dieing. But Darwin did draw a lot of wrong conclusions from his observations, and his theories have since been made into a religion of their own. But, that is a topic for a political board. We all have our own religions (beliefs), even those of us who like to think we are so enlightened as to be above all that. I've also said here before, my religion is being a (!). What's yours? (Rhetorical question, don't answer or we're liable to get this thread closed )

Welcome. And Don't believe kanzashi, most of us are better at spreading the bull than actually being informed. But, makes it fun!

'lO, nOOb.

The 1911 was made loose so it was reliable under extremely adverse conditions, like crawling through the mud or snow with it then depending on it to save your life. But, for all that, it is an accurate firearm. The problem most people have with shooting it is that they were taught to carry it in a ready position at the side of their head, muzzle up. It was not designed to be carried like that, rather muzzle down in front of you. This is due to the angle of the grip with respect to the barrel and slide assy. You can see this difference looking at pictures of the 1911 and a more modern semi-auto like the Sig. To see the effect, try this: Hold your arm up like it has a pistol in it in the newer 'safer' position by your face. (As a bonus to this exercise, take a minute to note that your peripheral vision is now blocked- nice thing to do in a gunfight where you are trying to locate your opponent.) Back to the main point- quickly point your arm like you are aquireing a target with a pistol, and freeze. Look at your wrist, it has a natural tendency to break forward. Now hold it down in front of you (take a moment to enjoy the unlimmited view), now bring it up quickly and sight. Look at your wrist- it tends to break upward. With the 1911 this is the proper grip, and the proper way to hold the pistol when searching. Now, think of the effect of shooting from eithre ready carry and you can see why the eyebrow I mentioned in my previouse post. You can learn to compensate with a high ready position, but it takes practice. Edit: to be fair, there are times when you would want to carry your pistol in the muzzle up ready position. One example would be in clearing the stairwell in my previouse post.

Now to the previouse posts. White Warlock, I didn't have much time last night, so I'm sorry if I sounded abrupt. I didn't mean to dump on you, as usually your posts are pretty knowlegable. But this is a subject that has a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there, and it can be dangerouse. If you want to get a firearm, my suggestion is to get some good training before and after you get it. Not correctly and reliably. And certainly not if you just point and click/shoot. There is a lot that goes in to making a good, reliably accurate shot. Proper grip, stance or rest, position, sight allignment and sight picture, effects of trajectory and wind. Proper target selection is an art and science in itself. And, in self defense situations, there is a lot of psychology and physiology involved. In two minutes, you might have been familiarized, but you were not made proficient. That is true of any discipline, including firearms use. A good dose of either could give that result. An untrained or poorly trained person with any weapon, including a gun, is usually a greater hazzard to themselves than any one else. I have several children, and they all grew up with loaded and accessable firearms in the house. Never an accident or mishap. They learned how to safely handle firearms long before they went to school (obviously, this is different for a child than an adult). There was no mystery to attract them, and in fact it was a good opportunity to start grounding them in respect and safety for all weapons and tools. Darwin, before he died,saw and admitted he was wrong. Could this argument be one reason for that? They are considered an equalizer because in the hands of a competant man or woman, even though they are weaker than their opponent, they have roughly the same chance as an armed bad guy of equal skill. Can't say that about other weapons or empty hand combat. But in the hands of an idiot, any weapon is worse than useless. Guns aren't magical, they can't hit a thing. The shooter either hits or misses, and the only guarantee he has is the ammount of training and the quality of care maintenance he's invested in his weapon. Speaking of magical qualities, for some reason many people invest firearms with some supernatural, mystical power. When a person pulls a gun but does not shoot, he usually expects the gun to control the situation. This is a dangerouse assumption. It is not who holds the gun that wins, but who controls it. If your mindset is to let the gun control the confrontation, in order to shoot you first have to change that mental reference. This may give a trained opponent time to succesfully attack, either getting control of your weapon or deploying and useing one of his own. You're dead- should have studied and practiced more. Panic and jerk the trigger and you can miss a large man at less than five feet. Shoot a semi-auto with an improper grip and you may get a smokestack jam, too bad if the first round didn't do the job. At all military ranges there used to be an eyebrow in the dirt in front of the targets at 15 yds, plowed there by hundreds of servicemen who were taught the improper grip for a 1911 pistol. 15 yds, and they wouldn't even have blown off a toe, and this against paper! Lack of proper training is a guarantee of nothing, but that failure is probable. Another good example of improper use is fireing from a vehicle used as a barricade. I allways cringe when I see some supposedly trained officer lean over a car hood for cover and support. You can't move quickly enough to react to a changing threat from this position. Worse, the hood of that car when struck by a bullet may deform and guide the round right to the officer, changing a miss to a hit in the torsoe or head. Could you, with only a basic familiarization with your sidearm, do better? If the bad guy(s) get upstairs to your kids before you, do you know how to clear a stairwell? What about a hall? Or ingress to a room? That, for a martial artist, is part of the package of skills you need to use a firearm for home defense. And, it ain't learned quickly or easily. For anyone that wants to learn to use or to defend against a firearm, I recomend you aproach that training with every bit as much dedication as any other martial training. Don't let emotions, either fear or arrogance, uncertainty or the idea you already have enough skills, cloud your judgement here.

Sigs are a good make. Whatever you get, a double action with decock is the way to go. The .40 is a good caliber, but it does have the problem of overpenetration. I still prefer the .45 ACP- plenty of mass to do the job but without the hyper velocity. The .40 was developed because the FBI had to admit that they had made a major blunder going to the (worse than useless) 9mm. But they couldn't admit they were completely wrong so they put out the word they were looking for a new and improved round for general issue. They still manage to shoot themselves in the foot regularly no matter what they carry. Give them a water pistol and they'd probably find a way to drown themselves. For function, reliability and easy maintenance, there are a lot of good 1911 model .45 ACP's on the market. It's single action, but it has seen more action and performed superbly under more severe conditions than any other combat pistol. I carried one for years, and outshot some pretty good pistoleros with their Sigs, and other newer model pistols, and on some difficult courses. But if you go that route, you need someone to teach you how to use it that knows what they are doing. Most people don't, and that includes those trained by our military after the early '50s.