delta1

That is just a tip on transfering skills. It was originally done with the attacker sitting on Mr Tatum, and it was more effective that way. In fact, it about put him on his nose. It also was harder to see what was going on. Don't read too much into it- it was not meant to say you don't need ground skills against a grappler, but for the average street situation you don't need to just give up either if you find yourself mounted. Some skills transfer. But good luck if you find yourself there with a good grappler on top.

No vote, as I like it all. I agree totally with karatekid1975 and renketsu. I love forms, and tearing them apart for their applications. But I also do the same with techniques and basics, often combining them into applications that are like mini katas that take into consideration the opponents reactions. And, of course, without application (sparing) what's the point? There is also mental and spiritual training, knowlege, and physical conditioning. Martial arts to me are like a puzzle- all the pieces fit and work together to make the pictue complete.

Only things I allways (almost ) use are: *cup *mouthguard For heavy contact, I usually wear: *boxing headgear or... *a cage type headgear (for weapons) *light, open finger gloves, or... *hockey gloves (weapons again) I have shin guards and arm guards and heavy gloves. But I've loaned them out more than I've worn them myself. Boots and instep protection I'd never consider. I either kick with the ball of my foot, side of my foot, heel, or my shin. Only time I use the instep is for something like a scoop, which requires no protection.

Ma'am, I have a problem with that also, no matter what system is being taught. If a school wants to concentrate on sport ma's and bills itself accordingly, that is fine with me. But to teach sport and call it self defense is a lie that reflects badly on all the martial arts. Unfortunately, this occurs all too often in far too many systems. I don't know how prevalent ithis is in other parts of the country, but most TKD schools in my region are a little more honest about what they are doing. Most of the schools in my area teach either pure self defense TKD or a combination of sport and SD. All are non-traditional, most incorporate other systems but have TKD as a base. There is one school in a neighboring town that trains mostly people that actually use TKD in their jobs. These guys go hard contact on a weekly basis, and can hold their own with any body. The school I joined allows me a lot of leeway in interpreting their system to fit my base (American Kenpo). They teach the high kicks for tournaments and because they develope technique and ballance. But no one is forced to do any of the tournament stuff, and it is allways emphasized that high kicks are not for SD situations. I'd be careful about generalizations or lumping all TKD schools into one category. It may have been concieved as a standard, unifying national art, and as the Korean national sport. But over here it is neither standardized, unified, nor allways sportified.

OK, I had a little different idea what you were talking about, due to the context. But it's still a good discussion, and I still need to work on this more. Thanks for the clarification.

Probably not even close to reality! If I can figure out how, I'll try to get a picture on here. But don't hold your breath. My computer skills are somewhere between incompetent and non-existant! ABout the only thing I can really do is check my e-mail and * you guys . Edit: Not only that, I just made brown belt! This forum is a regular belt factory- so, does that make us all members of a McForum?

Centuries before quantum physics, Taoist philosiphers theorized that most of matter was space. Of course, theirs a lot more to quantum physics. Centuries before modern scientists categorized snow into over 60 different types, Eskimoes had over 60 names for snow. But then, we do know more about snow now than then. Centuries before psychologists told us it wasn't their fault, murderers and other degenerate trash were removed from society. On the other hand, psychology can be used for prevention or intervention. Centuries before modern medicine and drug companies, people knew how to get a lot of the same remedies right out of their own garden. But there's a whole lot of drugs you can't get any where else but from a pharmasutical company. Why do we have to be so exclusive in who we trust- especially when modern science so often agrees with and proves ancient 'wisdom'? Not saying take everything at face value. Ancients were wrong about some things, as are moderns. And many things then and now were driven by politics and greed. So use common sense no matter who asks your trust. But centuries of proven effectiveness is a foolish reason to discredit something.

sevenstar, I worked a little bit with this. I could use a little more practice moving with the cover, and it is a worthwhile thing to develope. But I still don't like just leaving a cover type guard up, even in really close. I found, when concentrating on what I actually do in close instead of just doing it, that my hands up guard still is more of a check than the semi-static cover. AK teaches upward elbows (and most elbow strikes as well) as blocks also. They do double duty in close, as this 'cover' is in range for a strike. If his hands come up high, my check also comes up high when we are in close range. The checking hand(s) have sensitivity and follow his hands. From this guard I can simultaneously 'block' and strike with finger techniques or other in close strikes. I can also very quickly launch an upward elbow to clear his guard, cover, and/or strike. And don't forget, I'm still moving and striking with my feet and knees. The difference in what I'm doing as opposed to the typical boxers guard in close is that my versatility and continuous motion is concentrated more in my extremitioes, using both to trap, position, control and strike, as well as defend. The boxers mobility is in his footwork and body movements- slipping and ducking, bobbing and weaving. If that is all you know, it isn't very versatile. On the other hand, I think you are correct that it is a good thing to develope and add to your skills. I think it can be more effective than I gave it credit for. But, I have a question for you: as a grappler, wouldn't you eat someone in the typical boxers defence alive? Seems to me they leave a good grappler way too much open and vulnerable.

Not with the bunch I work out with! But then, they are very non traditional. They train some for tournaments, but are mostly practical/SD oriented. I don't do any of the tournament stuff with them and they are ok with that. In fact, almost all the tournament oriented guys have left. One of their brown belts used to allways get aggrivated when we'd spar- his favorite phrase was "That would get you disqualified!" I'd just tell him "Not where I'd be using it." He finally decided he was never going to convert us so he got involved in some kind of church mission and went elsewhere looking for converts. Incidentally, you can 'recieve' instead of just blocking with your shin also. Sometimes you can get your shin positioned on top of their kicking leg and let them carry you up into a kick of your own. You absorb and dissipate the power of their kick, at the same time borrowing their force for your own kick. Furthermor, your kick lands while they are on one foot. Another one that I like, if you can contact your shin 'block/reception' to the side of their kicking leg, either inside or outside, you can redirect the force of their kick and cause them to over-extend and land in an awkward position. Let your immagination run wild from there! Another advantage to reception instead of blocking, your shins are not nearly as sore afterwards.

Chow left Mitose and studied, and concentrated on, the Chinese arts. Chow learned far more than, and by all accounts did it far better than, Mitose. Actually, what Parker did was radically different to what he learned from Chow. Ed Parker allways spoke and wrote respectfully of W Chows' knowlege and abilities. But his art, American Kenpo, drew from a wide variety of systems, instructors, and friends and individuals prominent in the martial arts. Mr Parker was a geniouse at extracting principles and molding them together into a workable, practical style. Parker did always give Chow credit for getting him started looking at the arts that way. By contrast, Parker did not think much of Mitose or his methods. While he didn't go around bashing Mitose (there were a couple of comments), Parker never spoke of him with the same respect as for Chow. This was not a low opinion of Japanese or other Kenpo systems, just of Mitoses system. I've heard it speculated that Mitose was not taught his art correctly in the first place. He may have been accepted as a relative and taught some in Japan. But, if you think what Japan was like before WWII, it is highly unlikely that he was taught a complete, effective system. Japan was extremely exclusive when it came to teaching anyone anything, especially martial arts. The Japanese disliked and mistrusted anything or any one not Japanese, and any one who left Japan was no longer truly Japanese. It is highly unlikely that they would have taught Mitose the true art. I resisted posting on this before, but it keeps bouncing back up so I thought I'd go ahead and comment.

sevenstar, I'll have to agree with you to the extent that covering has its uses, and that it is a good thing to learn to do correctly. I totally agree about the not being there. I wouldn't want to rely solely on the cover, or even make it my primary blocking/recieving method. On the other hand, it may be more useful than I'd given it credit for. Think I might work on it some, play around and see. It doesn't really lend itself to my fighting style until I get in real close and, depending on who I'm fighting, I may bring my guard up boxer style to use a lot of elbow strikes. Who knows... Thanks for the discussion so far.

ok, that type of block works if you get caught flat footed and can't get out of the way. Better to take it on the arm than in the ribs or head. But better still to not take it on either. That type of blocking is a last ditch effort, not what I'd try to do primarily. Not only do you take the shot (though not as bad), it leaves you open to simultaneouse multi level attacks. Now, I know there are counters to everything. But why risk that you'll be able to counter before he gets a good shot if you don't have to? Example: one good counter to an in close multi level attack is to add a body check or jam (like the hip thrust you mentioned earlier), which robs his power. But, if the high level atack is a finger technique to the eyes, it doesn't require a lot of power to be effective.

Yes, I like that aproach. Some of us have talked about this elsewhere on the forum. I try to think of blocks as "receiving", which implies doing something with it besides just stoping the attack. Hurt him, check him, position him, trap or grab him,... . I also agree with those who say that a block is not your primary defense against a strike. Action (the strike) will beat reaction (the block) unless you move the target. Then you have the time (mere moments) to do something with or to his striking limb.

Maybe we should all post our dreams here and let the forum interpret them. Don't know that we'd learn anything- or maybe we'd learn too much . But it would sure enough be entertaining, you bet! One of you, go first.

azn, this is one way that sparing, where you limmit contact and have padding, can lead to bad habbits. You have to consider the effects of full force attacks on any posture or technique. Leaving an arm out to take strikes is like standing there and blocking roundhouse kicks at 90'- it only works in a controlled environment. Real fights do not fit that description.

Point here is this is a general assumption, allways have to keep the possibility in mind. Friends of his, enemies of yours, accomplices to a 'set up', ... lot of scenarios where multiples could occur. Not reallly. In fact, probably not. Just move and check. Agreed. I don't rule any of that out, though I'm not as likely as you to take it down. Remember, we're talking general possibilities here. I'd also probably move in as I strike a hand or arm, or crane or check or grab it. Just pawing at a limb is a waste as well as an unnecessary risk. Absolutely true! We are talking about moments in time here- fractions of a second where speed and timeing are as or more important than technique. Fights only go static when someone is completely unconscious. Not talking about the temple- there are actually three cavities located at the temple, and in really close proximity. More cavities lie close by also. That's why the temple is such a prime target, but it isn't the one I had in mind for the posture you described. Feel the very top of your head. There is a depression in the skull there, and that is where the cavity lies. I think it is called the BaiHui cavity (trying to remember- if you want to know for sure try asking Jerry love, he probably knows). That is why I specified a thrusting hammerfist strike, it has a good chance of penetrating the guard and won't hurt your hand hitting a hard target. Another thing, you are primarily a grappler, right? We may be using a little different mental picture of the static, crouched, hands up guard here. Earlier I made a distinction between the grapplers guard and the boxing style guard. Most of the boxer style guarders I've spared get the hands up, and when you move in they really come up high. They try to depend on bobbing and weaving, and bouncing footwork. That's ok, but to be totally dependant on that outside the ring is a little risky, in my opinion. Most of the people I've spared who do this get a little too carried away with it and leave themselves open. Again, no absolutes. I've been beaten by boxers, but it's not the norm (not that we have a lot of for real boxers here in my area). You grapplers, on the other hand, have a tendency to do exactly the things you've described. And I want you to know, you really torque me off when you do! When an opponent shows grappling tendencies, I don't use the same guard or tactics. I also tend to get really mean. Remember, "Fear leads to suffering, suffering leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side." Just kidding,but I would rather face a boxer than a grappler, especially one that has good stand up skills also.

True. Be careful you don't take a knee, but that is a good point. You can counterstrike and/or jam, or attack his base, while his leg is still in the air.

SevenStar, In a fight, you will probably get hit no matter how many or few your opponents. And 'on the street', there are allways multiple opponents until it is over and there weren't any others. You are blinded because your hand position covers your peripheral vision. Opponents tend to move and throw strikes from your side. Your view of them is momentarily restricted until you cover step to face them. Hitting a nerve, or especially the back of his hand, is to cause pain and possibly create an opening. If that fails (nothing works 100%), the deadening may be a bonus bennifit. Typically you would strike as you move and roll another strike over the clearing strike from his blind spot. Centerline theory. Move off the central line as you hook his guard and again roll a strike over. Or just move and check as you fire in a low line punch. If I move to the side, I also leg check. His off side weapons are out of play and I control his near side. Nothing open except him. Elbow strikes will both clear and penetrate this guard. They penetrate because they are quick, hard to see developing, and keep your leverage in close where it works for you. And again, nothing is 100%. Against a Thai Boxer, you gave the reason it might not work. They are very familiar with it. 1. Yes. 2. You don't crouch, but you sink? Explain the difference, please. Also, there is a cavity at the top of your head, and a good thrusting hammerfist could stun or drop you in the position you describe. No one ruled out footwork, and I've said before that my guard changes as the fight changes. I also agree that reaching, or overextending is not a good thing. Niether is getting a rythm, or standing still and depending on a block to stop an attack. You may be able to strike, slap down or trap a limb in any position. It is much easier if overextended or tense. I try not to do either. Lastly, the original post was talking about not blocking, just covering. But I think I also mentioned quicker counters and blocks in close as an advantage. Edit: Sorry guys, I hit the submit instead of the preview while I was composing. Bear with me a bit... Edit: ok, that's probably clean enough. Have at me, you verbal sparing maniacs!

Agreed. But the key term there is rarely. Some uses in modern warfare: *CQC still occurs on the modern battlefield. *Warrior spirit. *Escape and evasion. *Taking prisoners. **Defense against same. *Sentry removal. **Defense against same. *Lost or malfunctioning weapons. *Wet ops. Personally, I think H2H skills for service men/women are important. Don't take the worth of what you do lightly.

kk75, agreed. Moving is best against kicks, especially roundhouses. Low kicks, to my base, I often leg check. But for straight kicks or side kicks to the mid section, try this sometimes; angle the block across your body and back toward your side as you step off line (I still move away from kicks- I'm chicken like that! ). It's sort of like a really hard parry, or a strike to position his leg, and because of the angle you are a lot less likely to hurt yourself. You vector the force, and also take it on both the radius and the ulna instead of just the ulna. If you time it right, it will not only move him to your outside, but will pull him in also, causing him to drop in place instead of rechambering. Leaves some pretty tantalizing targets open for your striking pleasure! I never understood downward blocks straight across your body to a kick, especially a roundhouse. I'm not large boned, and I figure my arm will give way before the average leg. Even stepping away, it will probably hurt me more than him. I also leave my elbow bent more than what I see a lot of people doing so that if the kick hits my hand there is some give. To make this relavant to the original topic: you can't do this kind of thing from the static cover that aznkarateboi described. So that would be another disadvantage.

Better yet, just use sand paper or an angle grinder to remove the skin from your knuckles. Seriously, you are only human. Toughening is one thing, but I doubt you'd ever be able to get them to where they stand up to that kind of abrasion.

Ya beat me tu da punch! I'm partial to center knuckle strikes to the backs of his hands. Also works if you hook the knuckle into nerves.

If you are talking about checks, you should allways have a check in place. But checks support active blocking/recieving as well as striking. If you mean just leaving a guard in place by your head and moving it minimally to cover, like a boxer, there are several disadvantages: *Your vision is restricted. *Your arms and hands can be targeted for strikes. *Your guard can be hooked or grabed. *Elbow strikes will both clear and penetrate this guard. *You leave lower targets unguarded. *This guard encourages fighting from a crouch, in which case I'd prefer the grapplers guard. *You have to let them get too close before you block. Advantages: *Easier to bob and weave rffectively. *Quick, effective counter strikes. *In close, where things happen fast, you might need that closer held guard. *Also, in close, this guard supports quick elbow strikes. *It lets you get in closer where knees and elbows can be used. Everything has its place. I change my guard, depending on who I'm fighting and what I am doing, or how the fight progresses. Gives him something different to look at. But you have to know when and how to use any thing or it can get you slammed.

TKD uses hands, and other natural weapons as well. As for whether it's more martial art or martial sport, that depends on how you train it. Classic boxing is a martial sport. But I wouldn't take them for granted on the street. And they may not be trained to kick, but they know they have feet. Because we all have our own conception (or misconception) of other arts. We also like to neatly pidgeon hole everything based on our own opinion. Then, when presented with a contradictory bit of evidence, we have to fight like heck to keep our ideas in their slot. Truth really sucks when it doesn't support my prejudices! Probably the same with most people.