MatsuShinshii

I'm not actively seeking to steal my instructor's students but I've been thinking about this myself this year. I don't like the direction the club is going, have some very different ideas about how to teach and run things and, I think it's the next step in my training and learning. I don't intend to take students and definitely have no intention of issuing my instructor an ultimatum, but I half suspect a lot of the higher grade students would follow me. This is a natural progression in the process IMHO. At first we rely on out instructors, then we become less dependent and then finally have to leave and teach. I find nothing wrong with this way of thinking. In fact I have a long time friend that started in the arts with me and went his own direction back in HS. He joined a local school and over the years it declined into more of a McDojo than the place he started. He eventually left and started his own Dojo and like you and your suspicions many of the students followed him. I do not see anything heinous about leaving and others following you.

Ok. Well lets say there is a person that is more of a business person rather than a MA instructor. Money and greed would be the over riding factor here. If a student that brought in 90% or higher of this instructors student base were to threaten to take them with him, thus leaving the instructor with less students which equals less money, that instructor might be more inclined to bargain with the student rather than loose his cash cow. On the other hand i'll put it in terms of a more honest instructor that just started his school and maybe in the same scenario is promoted, albeit undeservedly, because of his fast growth within the organization and this student gives him the same ultimatum. He may be inclined to deal with the student rather than loose all of his students and thus face his failure with his organization. For me this would never be an issue because I neither need the money (full time job) nor care about retention and do not have an organization pushing for more enrollment. However I am the exception rather than the rule these days. Being that these were true life scenarios that happened in the business world I don't think it would be too far fetched happening in the MA world considering many schools are more business oriented. Just do a google search and you will find mega schools with 1000's of enrolled students and gimmicks that if you follow their methods that "you too could have a successful school". It's rampant and there's one in pretty much every state, city and town across America. Is it really that implausible of a scenario for these type of schools? What if the head instructor had no taste for the business aspects or sales tactics and just wanted to pass on their art? And what if they had a student (maybe even a senior student) that had these ambitions and talents and brought huge numbers of students in? The head instructor, having their heart in the right place and now teaching many, also realizes that cash flow has picked up and they decide to quit their good paying full time job and become a full time instructor to keep up with the demands of his newly found student base. What if at that time, noticing that the head instructor has put himself in a situation of financial vulnerability, decides to pull the same scenario's? Obviously you can see how the student would have some leverage and how the instructor might find themselves in a vulnerable situation where they might consider the students demands even though it goes against their principles. What if they had a family with kids at home? What if their ex-boss took the news of them leaving poorly and told them they would not be hired back? Or what if they already filled this persons position? There are many things to consider in these scenarios. That is why they pose the questions. At first it's just a question minus the possible repercussions. Once you answer they then add in other factors and then again ask you to make a decision. Its a hard thing to do because even though your convictions might be stone solid, once they add repercussions into the mix even the most staunch wain in their views and even if they make the same decision they tend to take it a bit more serious and take more time to come to a decision. Like I said these are true scenarios that have happened so it's not like this is an absurd set of questions although they might seem to be to most of us because we can not see ourselves in this position or had anything like this happen to us.

JR 137, Good points. I get what you are saying. I guess it depends on WHAT Kata you're studying and HOW you are studying it and HOW it is taught. Yes, you would get extremely bored practicing the same Kata for two to three years in the way most practice it. However if the Kata is studied rather than performed, meaning breaking it down to it's individual postures (what most call Bunkai, albeit inaccurately) then it takes that amount of time and since you are discovering something new all of the time you don't get bored. Having said this there are some Kata that do not take as much time as there are fewer applications and others that take years. We learn Pinan Shodan and Nidan, Seisan, Niahanchi Shodan and Nidan through the Mudansha grades. All must be known and understood (that's the key, understood) to test for Shodan. Now that is not to say that the next Kata aren't picked up by the students as they tend to see and or might even start learning the next Kata(s). But the emphasis is on learning the required Kata. Five Kata doesn't seem like much to learn while progressing from Hachikyu through Ikkyu. In most arts I would agree. However just Naihanchi Shodan takes on average two years to learn/study. It typically takes five to seven years for someone to be ready to test for Shodan. Now when you consider that the Kata contains the art and the elements (Atemi or percussive impact, Muto or Tegumi, Tuidi, Chi'gwa, Chibudi, Ti'gwa, and Buki'gwa or Kobudo [yes there are elements and applications of weapons disarming and use contained within the Kata] think Kusanku or Jitte/Jutte) that make up our art and you begin to realize that each posture represents one of more of the elements and possibly many of each, you begin to realize that there are a ton of lessons contained within each Kata. If you research you'll learn that originally each Kata contained the lessons of an entire art. That's right one Kata was the art. When you realize this and consider that most arts today contain up to 30+ Kata as you said, you begin to realize that obtaining any real understanding of the applications contained is slight because the emphasis is not on understanding the postures and movements but rather on learning the Kata itself. I think it really depends on what you're learning and how it is taught rather than how many or few Kata. I think it goes back to the adage Quality vs Quantity. Oh and I forgot to point out that this is not a stagnant process nor is it a dictated process where the teacher dictates and the student does. The student(s) are encouraged to analyze the postures contained within the Kata and try to discover other meanings besides what is taught. There by obtaining a deeper understanding and developing an analytical thought process about how you are attacked and what can be used to defend, counter, or attack. We teach what we call the three types of applications. The founders applications are what the Kata was created from and where passed down directly from the arts that influenced the founder and therefore were used to create the Kata/Hsing. The second type is what we call literal applications. These unlike the founders applications look like the Kata and go with the sequences of the Kata. The third type is what we call created or what most call today practical applications. This is where the student has the ability to discover other uses or meaning of each of the postures. They can be taught (passed down from others) or learned. The instructor will pass down viable applications that he developed or learned to the student as alternative applications. However the student(s) themselves take on the role of self discovery as they go through the process of Bunkai, Bunseki and Oyo in finding viable effective alternatives. This is proofed by the student in two person drills and they further proofed by the instructor as to it's viability and effectiveness. So yes is you only had a few Kata and you learned them via the modern day methods you would be bored stiff. However if they are learned vs. practiced I believe you would find them not so boring. Either way it's up to the individual instructor as to how they teach and how many Kata they require. For us fewer are better. For others there can't be enough. To each there own.

In talking to my friend over the phone (purple belt) he seemed to think this was world wide and not just in Brazil. He also said it was a slap in the face of those that promoted the art via the Gracie Garage Rules. I had no idea what he was referring to and did not ask as he seemed fairly upset by me even asking about this post I read so I had to look it up. Apparently this was a program in which you could teach and promote directly out of your garage (or anywhere really) no matter your grade. It was implemented to spread the art and to increase it's numbers. From what I read blue belts and purple belts were the majority of their instructors in the US and helped spread the art and build it to the heights it enjoys today. Maybe he did not read it close enough but the post I read lead me to believe the same thing. It did not state a certain country, more so it just stated it.

Congrats prototype. Well deserved.

Out of curiosity Bob, what Kata do you teach in your style of Shindokan?

I am not a Jujutsu practitioner nor do I claim to be, but just read an article on another forum that states that a new rule of no one other than black belts can teach Gracie Jujutsu. I find this a bit odd since I know a few guys that teach and are only blue belts and purple belts. That and it takes so many years to reach the BB level that I would think this would hinder the growth of the art in that you would be hard pressed to find a legit BB. Have any of you heard of this? It would be interesting to see if this is true.

I agree, in the position I am in and how I operate. However this could be a plausible issue when it comes to those that depend on their student base being at a certain number in order to keep their doors open. It certainly happens in the business world and as I have heard so many times on KF, this is a business, albeit I do not think of it in these terms most do. Anyway it was a food for thought.

It's bad enough that I can't access it but then you build it up to be hilarious. That's cold man.

Sorry but nothing came up. It said that the link was broken or the page had been removed. Can you try re-posting?

I agree. It's great to hear from you Noah.

I agree with all of you. This was actually a few real events in the business world. I sat through a management and ethics course last week and a few examples of real events were brought before us to consider and decide what we would do. One such situation is as follows; One real situation happened to a small business owner that operated under the umbrella of the company he represented. More or less working our of his office (paid for by him but given front money or down payment by his company) and reporting to the company and giving them a cut of all profits. Pretty standard practice in some parts of the business world. This "student" was a salesman he hired and the "students he brought to him" where customers. This individual went and personally met with his customers. He was dealing with everyone of them after the salesman made the sales. Basically the salesman sold the account and then moved on to the next leaving him to service the customer. He explained what was being done. He asked each one if they were happy with the services he provided and then asked if they would be staying or leaving if he fired the salesman. Once he was assured he was going to retain the majority of his customers he called the salesman into his office and talked to him. He gave him the choice of pursuing his threats or stopping all moves against him and maintaining his job. The salesman (trying to push for a partnership in this case) thought he had the upper hand and issued a final threat. He fired the salesman and told him that he already had spoken with the entire customer base personally. He further explained that in his next job he should realize that selling and servicing are two different things and that yes he was a good salesman and made the initial sale but they were staying because of the service they got not because they like a salesman. He retained 98.4% of his customer base when the salesman left. Obviously this is a brief synopsis of the events. I thought about this in terms of the arts and that of school owners. Thought I would inject a few of these scenarios and make it applicable to school owners to see what type of responses you guys would have. By the way, for my response, in all scenario's the student leaves with my foot print on his backside. Of course not before telling him what a great person they are, wishing them luck in their future endeavors and to have a wonderful life. And if you believe that bit of sarcasm I have a really good investment in a bridge to sell you.

No this is not me. I think we are on the same page and if this were me I'd have already shown the student the wrong side of my personality. No this is an actual event in the business world. It had enough similarities to relate to this happening to a dojo owner that I thought I'd get the KF families input on what they would do.

One of your senior students was responsible for a large part of your student body. They are very popular and other students (friends of theirs and friends of theirs and so on to family members) joined only because they were there. Your class size has grown 10 times and cash is pouring through the dojo doors. This ratio makes up 96% of your student body and many of your original students left do to the changes. Oh and your organization has recognized you for your growth and given you a promotion because of it. What would you do as an instructor if... 1. this student made demands for promotion, threatening to leave and take the other students elsewhere if you didn't comply. 2. went behind your back to gain favor and backing to start their own school and openly told you that they were taking your students. 3. This student thinks that another way is better and uses their influence to get all of their friends to vote against you and force you to change the way you teach. Lets use promotions as an example. More testing times (lets say two a month), more grades (belts) so they can feel like they have promoted faster, easier requirements, less time training in a particular curriculum and more time in another that everyone prefers, etc. 4. goes behind your back and gains favor directly from your organization and tries to take over sighting that 96% of your students side with them over you and if they leave your students will leave with them. 5. wants a position or partnership in your school, again threatening to take your students with them and leave if you refuse to comply and threatens to out you as a fraud who unjustly took a promotion for class attendance that they brought to you. Thus ruining your reputation within the organization and your credibility within the city. I was reading an article about hostile take overs in business and thought this might be an interesting thing to pose to you and see what you would do. I'll hold my comments for a while although I'm sure by now most know what I would say. I'm more interested in hearing what you all would do if put into this type of position. By the way it's a true story with a few changes (although not related to MA or students) and it ended not the way you might think.

Happy birthday sir.

In terms of point sparring, yes, I think your correct.

Funny, I've heard this argument when it comes to Suidi (Shuri-te) vs. Nafaadi (Naha-te). One is for smaller people and one for larger. I think this is a western ideal and not factual in any sense. I started in the Shuri-te arts because a teacher said that they were for small or skinny guys. At the time I was a runt at only 5' and maybe 90 lbs. Funny thing is I've taken both arts and to be honest, I don't see the difference or why one would best suite one body type over another. Your body grows and adapts over time. I disagree. Again with time and training this ceases to be a factor. So your saying a person that is slow can not train in a fast paced style? Then how do you increase your speed? I don't follow this logic at all. So essentially stay within your comfort zone. Why! I'm quick (maybe not as quick when I was younger) and fast on my feet. I guess I should not have wrestled in JH, or taken Judo. The arts are about perfection of oneself. Why would anyone put limits on themselves or on a student? If you're slow you should take a fast paced art. If you're weak you should be taking an art that demands strength. Why? Because it develops it. Again I disagree. The only way you get better is by doing those things that you are not good at. I have taken (I won't say studied) many arts trying to find what works best for me as a young man. I found no art that was best suited for one type of person over another. Yes some arts may have been more of a challenge but there in lies the point. To challenge oneself. When I took Judo I was told I was going to get destroyed by guys that were much larger than me. Not true at all. Many things fall down to technique. Were they stronger? Yep. Did that help them? Nope. I found that huge guys were top heavy and as long as you executed the technique properly they fell just like anyone else. Certain arts are equated with strength because the bigger guys dominate that art. All arts come down to proper technique. Yes strength is a factor as well as speed but without proper technique all your really doing is using your strength. In a fight (real) this is a mistake. Strength only gets you so far. Speed only gets you so far. You have to balance the two with proper technique. I have heard this argument most of my life. If I have a skinny weak student, yes I will teach them how to maximize their strengths but to ignore their weaknesses is folly and not in the best interests of the student. Rather than take the stand point that "I'm weak, so I shouldn't take arts that require strength", why would you not challenge them to take those arts so that they can improve on their weakness? Same goes for any weakness. I agree that not everything will suite a person. However that is not to say that they should not try everything to find what best works for them and more importantly overcomes their weaknesses. This could be because their instructor doesn't know how to teach them or that they are teaching them sport based arts. The student nor the art is to blame in this instance. It's their instructor. On the other hand if the student is the type to roll into a ball at the first hint of danger then the issue is with them. This is a mental thing and not a physical obstacle. Everyone likes to bring size into the picture but it really falls down to mentality. However the instructor in this case shares some of the blame. The instructor should challenge the student and take them outside of their comfort zone. More or less like a DI does to their recruits. True. One of the baddest guys I've ever known grew up on the streets as the wrong ethnicity in the part of town he lived in and grew up fighting every day of his life. He was (since passed about 15 years ago) 5'2" 120 lbs soaking wet and could clean out a bar of bikers without breaking a sweat. He was one person I can honestly say I feared. He absolutely loved to fight and loved pain. He wouldn't hesitate to step to any man no matter size or ability. He had absolutely no training whatsoever. However he learned by doing and out of shear necessity. I think this boils down to two factors; how much you have fought in your life time and your mentality. However this is the exception rather than the rule. We all have some ability to fight and everyone can swing away or wrestle to some degree. However if put up against a trained fighter, other than the rare exception, would get destroyed unless they get a lucky strike on the button. My way of reasoning comes from a lifetime of experience, first hand knowledge, my experience and not yours, therefore I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me, this is all relative to each individual.Belonging to gangs was a way of life, growing up in an urban concrete jungle, fighting as a teenager was entertainment. When having outgrown all that street fighting, then entering the work a day world, a change was needed, otherwise the only option available, would have been a life of crime, not wanting that, I moved deeper in to martial arts and now half a century later, still learning, developing and experiencing. My statements are just that "statements" and "generalizations" as (young fat boys don't usually join a ballet class whereas young skinny girls do) which are not absolute as there will always be exemptions (with which nature likes to make) as with birds that have wings that don't fly, while some fish that don't have wings can. Understood. Sorry if my post came off as directed towards you. It was more directed at the mentality of . It struck a cord with me. I was a late bloomer as a kid and as a result was told I couldn't do certain things or I would get hurt, or your not big enough to participate in this sport or that. The one place I never felt outed was the MA. It's a personal journey and as such only you can determine what is right or wrong for you. Size, strength, speed, etc. doesn't matter. It can all be learned with time. Funny thing is when I shot up in less than half a year and put on 70 lbs the same people that told me no were begging me to do what they said I could not do before.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis. But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter. I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat. As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer... I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response. "The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back? If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive. So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful. Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P. Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses. Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses. Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses. Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses. Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill. Solid post and excellent points.

Congrats to all. It's an honor to be able to contribute and share here.

Funny, I've heard this argument when it comes to Suidi (Shuri-te) vs. Nafaadi (Naha-te). One is for smaller people and one for larger. I think this is a western ideal and not factual in any sense. I started in the Shuri-te arts because a teacher said that they were for small or skinny guys. At the time I was a runt at only 5' and maybe 90 lbs. Funny thing is I've taken both arts and to be honest, I don't see the difference or why one would best suite one body type over another. Your body grows and adapts over time. I disagree. Again with time and training this ceases to be a factor. So your saying a person that is slow can not train in a fast paced style? Then how do you increase your speed? I don't follow this logic at all. So essentially stay within your comfort zone. Why! I'm quick (maybe not as quick when I was younger) and fast on my feet. I guess I should not have wrestled in JH, or taken Judo. The arts are about perfection of oneself. Why would anyone put limits on themselves or on a student? If you're slow you should take a fast paced art. If you're weak you should be taking an art that demands strength. Why? Because it develops it. Again I disagree. The only way you get better is by doing those things that you are not good at. I have taken (I won't say studied) many arts trying to find what works best for me as a young man. I found no art that was best suited for one type of person over another. Yes some arts may have been more of a challenge but there in lies the point. To challenge oneself. When I took Judo I was told I was going to get destroyed by guys that were much larger than me. Not true at all. Many things fall down to technique. Were they stronger? Yep. Did that help them? Nope. I found that huge guys were top heavy and as long as you executed the technique properly they fell just like anyone else. Certain arts are equated with strength because the bigger guys dominate that art. All arts come down to proper technique. Yes strength is a factor as well as speed but without proper technique all your really doing is using your strength. In a fight (real) this is a mistake. Strength only gets you so far. Speed only gets you so far. You have to balance the two with proper technique. I have heard this argument most of my life. If I have a skinny weak student, yes I will teach them how to maximize their strengths but to ignore their weaknesses is folly and not in the best interests of the student. Rather than take the stand point that "I'm weak, so I shouldn't take arts that require strength", why would you not challenge them to take those arts so that they can improve on their weakness? Same goes for any weakness. I agree that not everything will suite a person. However that is not to say that they should not try everything to find what best works for them and more importantly overcomes their weaknesses. This could be because their instructor doesn't know how to teach them or that they are teaching them sport based arts. The student nor the art is to blame in this instance. It's their instructor. On the other hand if the student is the type to roll into a ball at the first hint of danger then the issue is with them. This is a mental thing and not a physical obstacle. Everyone likes to bring size into the picture but it really falls down to mentality. However the instructor in this case shares some of the blame. The instructor should challenge the student and take them outside of their comfort zone. More or less like a DI does to their recruits. True. One of the baddest guys I've ever known grew up on the streets as the wrong ethnicity in the part of town he lived in and grew up fighting every day of his life. He was (since passed about 15 years ago) 5'2" 120 lbs soaking wet and could clean out a bar of bikers without breaking a sweat. He was one person I can honestly say I feared. He absolutely loved to fight and loved pain. He wouldn't hesitate to step to any man no matter size or ability. He had absolutely no training whatsoever. However he learned by doing and out of shear necessity. I think this boils down to two factors; how much you have fought in your life time and your mentality. However this is the exception rather than the rule. We all have some ability to fight and everyone can swing away or wrestle to some degree. However if put up against a trained fighter, other than the rare exception, would get destroyed unless they get a lucky strike on the button.

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis. But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter. I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat. As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer... I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response.

Show us your war face.

I view these two traits differently. I think of brave being someone that does not fear and therefor they are brave. Bravery IMHO is something you are born with. Basically absence of fear. Courage on the other hand is someone that is afraid but do to conviction puts that aside and does what is necessary despite the fear. IMHO this is not a trait that you are born with rather it is a conscious decision despite what your common sense tells you. You choose to do what your brain tells you is a bad idea for the good of others. I have known both types in my life time. I hold the courageous in higher regard and have the utmost respect for them. These are the individuals that fight to save others or charge the hill to save their brothers in arms. True Heroes. Martial arts does build confidence and could lead to courage with the inclusion of moral conviction. To put others above yourself.

Although I understand and sadly know where you are coming from due to those that do not understand how and when to use certain techniques I do not agree that, what most now days call self defense techniques, do not work. It depends on your knowledge of the techniques, how to apply them, when to apply them and against what technique to apply them. I have used what some would call dirty fighting techniques in real situations and I can promise you that they work. Back in my youthful rowdy Marine Corps days they have gotten me out of sticky situations in bar fights. And to your point there are things that work to get loose from a choke. What you're speaking about is really a point of what the attackers pain tolerance is and how mentally intent he is on executing the technique. In this case a simple bite or eye gouge may not work but this is only listing the most basic dirty fighting tactics. Not arguing with your point because I understand that their are less than qualified people teaching less than effective techniques but this does not encompass every teacher, art or technique. Just my 2 cents. First off I would be honored to train with you or anyone here at KF. I love to cross train with others and with your grappling background I think I could learn a lot. Now to your points; I agree that what is taught as "self defense" techniques are not the end all to everything. However there are some techniques that work better than others and a few techniques that you can always count on to work, IF, you know how to use them, when to use them and to what you should use them against. If I'm being tied into a pretzel knot I would use what ever I could. If opportunity presents itself you jump on it. For me and others like me that are well past the bell curve of the newest craze being grappling, you use what you know. I understand attacking the structure, I assume you mean a persons foundation, albeit I may attack it differently than you. I think the overwhelming issue is, the guys that teach "self defense" use this as their answer to every situation when there are so many more tools in the arsenal that you can use and should use with a given situation. Am I saying that me biting your arm to get out of a choke hold will work... NO I'm not. If you did this to me it would, well...I can't say that but suffice it to say getting hurt makes me want to hurt the other person worse. So I understand that a given technique may not be the right one for a given situation. However there is always a solution. You just have to know what that solution is. You speaking the gospel to the choir. You use what you have practiced 1000's of times. It's what works best for you. I think we are saying the same thing. You are a grappler so using the techniques and applications you know makes the most sense to you. My response is based on what works best for me. It's logical that you and I would fall back on what we do best. I get this 100%. If struck it turns the switch on and it's go time. People are different. Some submit immediately to pain or even the threat of pain. Pain flips the fight switch in others. Size has nothing to do with this response. We called it the fight or flight response in the military and I have witnessed this first hand. The guy that you think would be the one to run to danger cowers in a hole crying for mommy and the guy that you think will get the yellow spine award charges directly into dangers path without regard to themselves. I truly believe it boils down to mentality. To keep this on track I'll use commonly used self defense techniques to make my point. An eye gouge will not work well for someone that is not willing to take it to the level that is needed. Example; someone that is appalled at the thought of hurting another person. They will not execute a technique with the intent to maim or kill if needed and thus any technique executed will have minimum impact if any. Someone that is willing to do anything necessary and is fighting like their life depends on it will take it to that level and past if needed. I am not saying that an eye gouge is the end all technique or that any technique for that matter is. However there is a time and a place to use techniques and if done correctly have devastating effects on the assailant no matter their background or skill. If you strike someone in the brachial plexus correctly, I don't care how large or how skilled, they are face planting and eating pavement. It all boils down to knowledge and how far your willing to take it. I think the over riding issue here is those that do not have an understanding of the human anatomy, cause and effect, and are teaching things based on little to no factual basis as self defense "sure things". I have sat through such seminars and walked away knowing that the techniques taught work but not the way they were presented. I think this is why so many say that some of it is useless. And to be honest, under this context, they are absolutely right. The fact is if you understand the body and what certain techniques do to the body and more importantly how and when to do them, then the techniques work (on anyone). If you attack a body builders gut you are essentially wasting your time however if you attack those area's that are vulnerable you do so with maximum effect. The is a right technique for a given situation. That might be to strike, throw, joint lock, grapple, etc. This comes with years of study to know what, when and where to use a given technique. If you do not have this knowledge then, yes your points are valid across the board. So I don't disagree with either of you in terms of what you have seen and what you know. To the contrary I agree. However I agree based on the typical "self defense" techniques as taught by those without the first clue as to how to execute said techniques nor when and how to use them. And to make it clear I do not pretend to have all of the answers nor to I profess to be the end all knowledgeable person to tell you or anyone what works and what doesn't. I just know what works or has worked for me. At 6'2" and 200 lbs I am anything but a menacing figure and without certain dirty techniques I would have been beaten to a pulp years ago when I was a hot headed bullet proof jar head talking smack in bars. Because I am definitely not as bad as I think I am. In fact there has been many a time that my mouth wrote checks my butt couldn't cash and I paid for it dearly. But because these techniques have worked for me in times that were sketchy at best, I defend them and their use. However I do not dismiss your points as to there validity either. It's like I said before, we use what we know best and what we have trained to most.

Yes but the transitions are different in the parenthood Kung Fu forms. The criticism is that Karate katas lack flow. They are punch/kick stop with stiff transitions, whereas Kung fu forms have a stronger "interconnectedness" and a greater overall flow (perhaps footwork as well?). I have had old VHS tapes of legit Kung Fu forms and they are definately more coherent When it comes to flow, I think that's part matter of opinion, and part matter of style. I've seen Karate forms that flow beautifully, and Tae Kwon Do forms that look rigid and dull. I've also seen Kung Fu forms that look like a mess of sloppy motions. This is all a matter of perspective. Let's narrow it down to Japanese Karate, since this is what the overwhelming majority is exposed to. I'm not sure that Japanese Karate has an overwhelming majority, here. Tae Kwon Do probably has a much larger footprint in the Western World than say Kung Fu. Ignoring it might defeat the purpose of the original post. I was referring to Okinawan vs Japanese practices. Most modern day Karate, even Okinawan, have been heavily influenced by the Japanese training methodology. There are very few that have maintained it's founders methodologies. As I stated I know very little about TKD. The only exposure to it was when I took a Hapkido class out of interest and because a student said it had similarities to our Tuidi. To be honest that was as far as my interest went. A lot of high, jumping and spinning kicks is all I could say about it. I can certainly not comment in terms of it's similarities or differences from Kung Fu.