MatsuShinshii

Alan, I don't recall anyone saying that they condone knocking students out. I feel, and maybe it's just me and that's fine, that hitting and getting hit teaches us and prepares us. I find nothing wrong with contact if controlled. Let me ask you, if a student goes 30 years and never has contact, doesn't know what it feels like and how they will react to actually getting socked, how do you think they will react when the time comes that get rocked for the first time? I know how they will react because I've seen it. To each their own but I see nothing wrong with contact. Punching in the air and punching Makiwara is all well and good but it does not prepare you for the real thing. It doesn't teach you how your opponent will react or how to deal with different types of opponents with different skill sets. Point sparring or patty cakes as I like to call it does not prepare you for the real thing. In fact I think it's counterproductive because it teaches you to pull strikes. Just my 2 cents for what that's worth.

I don't know if these individuals are mentally challenged. They do not appear to be. But one video does not dispel the fact that McDojo's exist. I will ask since you gave one example and challenged us to decide whether this was a McDojo or mentally challenged people, does this mean that every video of a so called instructor or their students that show absolutely minimal skills that do not resemble the grade that they are wearing is mentally challenged? I don't know if you asked this to cast a shadow of doubt on the McDojo issue or what the motivation is. But what I will tell you is this... if a person is wearing a grade well beyond their capabilities and is selling their so called skills to unsuspecting students they are a McDojo. If a world renowned master that truly has the skills of their grade but is selling belts like they are candy but doesn't bother to actually teach them, it's a McDojo. If belts are given for doing your homework and getting good grades or anything else that has nothing to do with the curriculum of the art, it's a McDojo. If the instructor and their students couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, that's right, McDojo. If the instructor makes excuses why they can't engage in Kumite or constantly refers to their grade certificates as though this is the only proof anyone needs of what they are teaching you, Yep McDojo! So do these examples indicate mentally challenged or McDojo? I'll let you decide. And to be honest, if these are mentally challenged students, I give them props and bow to them. However I doubt very seriously that every video of some phony fraud trying to sell themselves off as the grade they wear to make money from uninformed students is mentally challenged. Frauds, Liars, Snakes in the Grass... Yes, absolutely.

Yes sir there must be self discovery. That is exactly what I was saying. The students first learn the true applications and are left to their own devises to find ways to make them work and to discover alternative applications. And example would be learning the application from a Kata and then discovering that it not only works to defend against a certian attack but also works to defend against other attacks. Another example would be realizing that although we are taught that a particular posture represents this, it also represents this and this and that. This is not given. This is learned through trial and applying. Proofing the applications in real situations with a resisting non-compliant opponent. Yes we give nudges and will help them down their path but the discovery is theirs and theirs alone. Once discovered they share with others and others will benefit from this as well. This is typical throughout training. The basics or foundation is given and then expanded through training and self discovery. This is mainly through partner drills and free form drills where the proverbial light bulb can come on. Most of what a student learns about themselves is through actual experience. This is the key to growth in our art. Something given is worth less that something earned. Learning by doing and experiencing, in my mind, trumps anything that one can teach to another. However the foundation must first be set in order to guide them on to the path first. I think we are saying the same thing. You come from an old school background so I am sure our training methods are similar we are just saying it in different ways.

If it's a dumb question, I'm just as dumb as you are I've asked that one too. Both karate schools I've been in came from Kyokushin, where hands/elbows aren't allowed to the head, but kicks are. The answers I was given, along with what Wado Heretic stated, was that "it should be easier to block a kick to the head because it takes longer to get there" and "it's too easy to knock someone out with a punch, but a kick is harder to land" meaning if punching to the head was allowed, competition fights would be a lot quicker and the higher skilled competitor wouldn't win nearly as often. I don't agree with those answers. Reading a few things written by Oyama's students in the early days is probably the best reason why it's not in Kyokushin and their offshoots... In the Oyama Dojo days (before he named it Kyokushin and started expanding), punching the head as allowed and was a regular occurrence. Students were cutting up their knuckles on partners' teeth. So they started wrapping their hands in towels and aiming for the chin, like an uppercut. Additionally, students were getting knocked unconscious constantly and missing training time and/or leaving because they just couldn't do it anymore. Oyama reportedly got tired of students not being able to train (but didn't get tired of them leaving), so he stopped punches to the head, but reportedly allowed kicks to the head because he felt students should be able to block those (keep in mind Kyokushin's main kicking target is the legs, not the head, especially back then). And he reported felt kicking the head took far more skill than brawling and throwing punches to the head. Sources to the above were books and interviews of Shigeru Oyama (no relation to Mas Oyama), Tadashi Nakamura, and I think Hideyuki Ashihara; they were all more or less original students of Oyama, and are some of the most reknowned Kyokushin students and teachers before they left. I guess that makes sense. I don't buy it but the reasoning at least has thought put into it. I will say that when I was a younger man and participated in kickboxing, the vast majority of guys that got knocked out were knocked out with kicks and not punches. I get the theory that a kick would be easier to block because you can see it coming but most experienced fighters time their kicks and because of that the opponent either doesn't see it coming or does but it's already too late to react. I hate to admit it but I am in that last classification as I was knocked out twice with a kick and saw it too late to move both times. I was actually never knocked out with a punch while kickboxing. Others may differ and disagree. I did watched a couple of video's last night trying to understand this rule and it's funny you mentioned Kyokushin because most of the videos I was watching where Kyokushin tournaments. The funny thing is there were a lot of knock outs or knock downs using a flipping kick I am not familiar with. Sweet kick! I guess a hybrid of a front flip with an axe kick (I think that is what the TKD guys call it). After seeing that I'd rather get slugged in the kisser than take one of those kicks. They look pretty devastating when they actually connect. Probably 60% of the fights the guy was knocked silly or just knocked completely out. If the ban was focused around limiting knockouts, they missed their mark with this kick. I guess it just goes to show that if you remove something or put an obstacle up, a way will be found to accomplish the same goal with in the rules that have been set up. Love the kick! However I doubt that it would be something to use in a real life altercation. If you miss there would be no ref. to stop the fight and being on the ground, i'd imagine it wouldn't go well from that point on. However it was really neat to watch and definitely effective when it connects.

I agree with your points. However I will say that the original appliactions, that which the Kata was created by are actually written in stone from the stand point that these are the basis of the art and the way it was transmitted down to students. Where it is not written in stone is that the student, after first learning the original or founder's applications is then able to explore and find other applications. There are also, and I may not truly understand the term as it was never used in my training, practical applications. The learning process that I speak of is first understanding the foundation (original or founder's applications), then the student is able to explore other possibilities along with learning very basic or practical applications. As with all applications they must apply and proof them as to their effectiveness. This is what most refer to as the student learning on their own. Creative thought is a major factor as well as partner drills with resistance. There are limitless possibilities and the student is able to add to their box of tricks as they learn. However they all must meet two criteria which are - is it effective (can it be implemented without too many moves) and can it or does it have the potential to end the fight. To be honest all learn from this experience as not everyone thinks the same. Students may see possibilities that the instructor does not see and if effective can be added to the list of viable applications. The sky is the limit but one must first, IMHO and mine alone, learn the foundational applications from which the Kata was created to have an understanding of not only the meaning of the movements within the Kata but also a deeper understanding of their art. I will also point out that not every art has the same applications for the same Kata posture (stance/movement). Not every founder found the same application effective for a myriad of reasons (which is for a different post). This does not mean that one or the other is right or wrong just that they are different. Again the proof of an application is how effective it is and will it end the fight. One must remember when talking about applications of the Kata that all techniques, applications and series of applications had one goal, to end the fight. As you study the applications students should keep this in mind. If it does not have the potential to end the fight with that one application then it is most likely not an original application. That does not mean it is not worth learning and exploring but the original intent of the Kata's applications was to end the fight.

However, their Kumite as their Bunkai still puts a huge hole in the well known maxim...Three K's, down to it missing a very key part. I'm for the Kumite, but it also starves for Kihon and Kata; in equal portions, with not one being more important than the other parts. I'm speaking towards Karate-do, but from a time that seems to be ignored for one reason or another. I can't learn Kumite effectively without learning some of the tools of the trade, and this is where Kihon, and Kata, play into it wholeheartedly. Yet, then is the old school that's akin to how dads taught their children how to swim...being thrown into the pool, and it's at that very moment that their children either sink or swim. Cruel, yet effective. Same with Kumite as the only thing, and as it's own Bunkai. Throw the Jukyu out there with seasoned Karateka's and have at it. Either that student will sink or swim. That too, is cruel, yet effective. The three K's are a proven maxim that I believe to this very day must be embraced by all Karateka's, or they'll either sink or swim, the hard way, and at times, the impossible way!! Sensei8, I have to disagree with you on your statement above. I know we have discussed this before but I do not buy into the three K's as the only way to train or learn to fight. Kihon was never a training methodology, as performed today, in Toudi (Karate). To be honest neither was Kumite as it is performed today. The way I was taught was minus Kihon and Kumite as it's taught in most schools today. Kihon is an invention of the Japanese not the Okinawan's. Kumite was utilized but again not as it is today. Kumite today is a hudge pudge of whatever. Ever watched a class and see the students earnestly learning their Kata and then when it comes to Kumite it looks like boxing with a kick or two thrown in for good measure? It doesn't even resemble the art or what is taught. It's ok to forget everything that was taught, just throw some punches and remember to kick a few times. It's not Karate. If the only way to learn how to fight is to train this way, I would say these are the students that are treading water. Old school is systematic. It's not akin to getting thrown into the deep end and sink or swim. But we are taught per the Kata and our own creative minds in the way we are able to put techniques and applications together, how to utilize them and how to draw and create from them. This is closer to the way the old Okinawan's were trained than the way most are trained today. Kihon comes from Kata. Kumite, unless it's the sport, boxing with a few kicks that we see today, comes from Kata. Without Kata you do not have an art to study. However I respect your view points and agree that the three K's are a systematic way to learn. I am just pointing out that it's not the only or best way. Its a way. Just how boring it would be if we agree all of the time!! Different methodologies/ideologies, even though you and I are well versed in an Okinawan style, we're different, in what we teach, and in what we were taught, as it's suppose to be. The one thing you and I hold sacred is that Kata is the heart, and everything comes from the heart!! Without Kata, what's the reason!? Agreed.

Or a blithering idiot. Depends on what your sources are and what you choose to believe based on your own knowledge. There is just as much junk out there as there is good information and I would actually argue a heck of a lot more junk that what is worth while.

First yes we allow contact to the head. Now I have to ask a possible dumb question; why is it that so many disqualify the use of hands to the head but they allow kicks? I can generate, or used to be able to generate, a heck of a lot more power in my kicks than I ever could with my hands. The legs have the strongest muscles and are capable of generating tremendous power. That and like a golf club it generates more power at impact due to the speed at the foot due to the follow through. Why then is it ok to kick someone in the head but not punch to the head?

I take it your speaking in terms of tournaments and not based on combat effectiveness. I must admit that I do not participate in tournaments and haven't since I was a pre-teen. However as far as technical difficulty goes I personally love Kusanku and Useishi. Admittedly my art does not practice Unsu so I am not sure how these stack up. I would also throw a few others into the mix which is Passai, Rohai, Jitte and definitely my favorite Kata Naihanchi. Honestly I have never seen Unsu performed so I may be way off base. Of course I do not train Kata to win points either so I'm sure I'm off base.

To the bold, agreed!

In a word, YES.

However, their Kumite as their Bunkai still puts a huge hole in the well known maxim...Three K's, down to it missing a very key part. I'm for the Kumite, but it also starves for Kihon and Kata; in equal portions, with not one being more important than the other parts. I'm speaking towards Karate-do, but from a time that seems to be ignored for one reason or another. I can't learn Kumite effectively without learning some of the tools of the trade, and this is where Kihon, and Kata, play into it wholeheartedly. Yet, then is the old school that's akin to how dads taught their children how to swim...being thrown into the pool, and it's at that very moment that their children either sink or swim. Cruel, yet effective. Same with Kumite as the only thing, and as it's own Bunkai. Throw the Jukyu out there with seasoned Karateka's and have at it. Either that student will sink or swim. That too, is cruel, yet effective. The three K's are a proven maxim that I believe to this very day must be embraced by all Karateka's, or they'll either sink or swim, the hard way, and at times, the impossible way!! Sensei8, I have to disagree with you on your statement above. I know we have discussed this before but I do not buy into the three K's as the only way to train or learn to fight. Kihon was never a training methodology, as performed today, in Toudi (Karate). To be honest neither was Kumite as it is performed today. The way I was taught was minus Kihon and Kumite as it's taught in most schools today. Kihon is an invention of the Japanese not the Okinawan's. Kumite was utilized but again not as it is today. Kumite today is a hudge pudge of whatever. Ever watched a class and see the students earnestly learning their Kata and then when it comes to Kumite it looks like boxing with a kick or two thrown in for good measure? It doesn't even resemble the art or what is taught. It's ok to forget everything that was taught, just throw some punches and remember to kick a few times. It's not Karate. If the only way to learn how to fight is to train this way, I would say these are the students that are treading water. Old school is systematic. It's not akin to getting thrown into the deep end and sink or swim. But we are taught per the Kata and our own creative minds in the way we are able to put techniques and applications together, how to utilize them and how to draw and create from them. This is closer to the way the old Okinawan's were trained than the way most are trained today. Kihon comes from Kata. Kumite, unless it's the sport, boxing with a few kicks that we see today, comes from Kata. Without Kata you do not have an art to study. However I respect your view points and agree that the three K's are a systematic way to learn. I am just pointing out that it's not the only or best way. Its a way.

Wow, that is a loaded question and a very loaded answer. Sort answer; they don't know them and have never been taught them or they think it's some super secret thing that can only be taught to the most enlightened student that will some day take over the flock and lead them. Bogus nonsense. There is nothing secret about the applications and they were never meant to be secret or "hidden". Most instructors do not know or understand the applications of the Kata or know only the basic applications. The likely hood that they know the applications but are not willing to teach them because of whatever nonsensical gooby goop is far fetched. Lets face it most Americans are vain and if they have knowledge that no one else does they usually share it to gain notoriety. Having said that I go back to the fact that they do not know them and their teacher, even if they are from Okinawa, probably doesn't know them. The reason that the applications are rarely taught in todays Dojo is because of a few factors. One is due to the changes made by Itosu to be able to teach Toudi to school children. Remember that ALL techniques and applications within a Kata have the aim and potential to end the fight and they were developed for combat. You wouldn't want to teach these to children. Some of these techniques and applications were removed and replaced or were disguised as something else. Example: the block (This has been discussed many times so I will not bore you with yet another explanation of why the block is not apart of Toudi but a modern day technique of Karate Do). Another reason is because some of the instructors that taught Americans held back this information or only taught the most basic applications to them. Another is after the art was introduced to Japan it was changed even further and the true applications were lost or ignored in changing the art from a Okinawan/Chinese art to a Japanese art. Most arts that joined the Butokukai changed their curriculum and adopted the changes and thus lost the original intent. This includes Okinawan instructors at the time. Today some arts are making the effort to re-learn the original applications. This is a noble endeavor. However there are pit falls depending on where they are getting their information. There are many sources out there today and many of them are teaching applications that do not work. Remember we are a society that looks to fill another's need. Whatever sells. And their are those out there that are teaching what looks good but does not work in a real situation unless the opponent will hold still long enough for you to apply it. So how do you find the true applications (Bunkai)? Observe arts that maintained the original teachings and get an understanding of what the postures in the Kata represent. It may not be the same Kata's that your school/art teaches but you can start to see what certain movements represent and what techniques represent. Another source is researching your arts history. Find out what arts contributed and influenced your art and look at their applications. There are also many that teach practical Bunkai. (I think that is what they are calling it). Abernathy comes to mind. Some of what he teaches is spot on to the original applications and some is not but most are effective and "practical". It is at least a good source to start the understanding process. And as Wastelander stated: no one that I have ever met just one day understood the meaning of the Kata without first being shown what at least some of the techniques and applications represented. I know in movies a student learns the form and instantly understands how to fight but in the real world this is not going to happen unless your some kind of phenom. The best way to proof an application is "is it effective" and "could it end the fight". If it does not meet these two criteria then it's not an application or at least not the true original application. If your school does not teach the applications of the Kata find one that does. If you like your school but want to learn the applications there are ways to achieve that as well.

Sorry if I am confused but in one sentence you said steel is expensive but in another you said you have made a bearded axe, a sheild, long swords and daggers. Did you make them from wood. A bokken per-say? If out of steel, what type of steel did you use for these? High carbon between 1045 and 1095? Steel is not that expensive. High carbon steel, at least in my opinion is cheap. Tool steels can be more expensive depending on what your look for and what you want it to do, but they may not be expensive if your trying to get the best performance for a given task out of them. It's more expensive if you use the wrong steel for the job and it fails. Example: 440 SS for a long blade. I cringe just thinking about it. In fact depending on what your skills are and what tools you have or prefer you can forge or stock remove your weapons with minimal expense (files and sand paper). Forging maybe not so much if in residential neighborhoods. If you are in a residential area you not going to be able to heat treat either but you could send it out for HT for not a great deal of money.

Wastelander, Thanks for the post and further explanation. I also appreciate your documentation on the weapons ban. I had heard a bit of what you had pointed out but have never heard the reasons. I guess I need to start reading. Thanks for the insight. It's much appreciated.

I can help with this a bit. A high percentage of gun fights (or violence involving a firearm) in the civilian population happen within 3 to 5 feet from the assailant. I'm sorry, I don't have a number for you, but I think its upward of 80%. Maybe Alex has some better stats. In the Police Krav Maga program I've been through, I've trained both long gun retention and disarms and pistol retention and disarms. They tell us up front in regards to gun disarms that these disarms pertain to the type of attack in which the armed individual is using the gun to intimidate, threaten, or take something from you or take you somewhere against your will. So, its the situation in which a suspect puts a gun in your face and begins talking and threatening you for whatever reason. They have other options for those in which a person draws or presents a gun and just pulls the trigger. With all that said, I would say that situations dealt with in the civilian population would be different than those dealt with in the military, especially during active duty. Good to know both. The problem I see with concealed carry, and I tell this to everyone who is even thinking about thinking about carrying concealed, they have to make sure to they know how they are going to carry it, where at on their person, and they have to train on how to draw and get to threat ready position from where they plan to carry it. Its so much more than just learning how to shoot the gun. It maybe where I live but I've never even entertained carrying a gun except during hunting season and that is just to deal with Coyotes during bow season. That and I don't purposely travel back alleys or go to the local drug hang outs. I don't put myself in sketchy situations. I guess I think of this as common sense that going into a bad neighborhood or walking down dark alleys is probably something that you should avoid. I have never found myself in a situation like this so I have never felt the need to carry a gun or to teach gun disarms. Don't get me wrong, back in the 80's and 90's my association was on the so called self defense kick and they taught disarms. After seeing it from the real side of gun use I have never understood why you would even attempt to disarm someone with a gun. For one the chances of being shot are high because you are essentially taught to trap the hand with the gun but in real life the opponent doesn't hold still to apply your ultra cool technique and it is a fraction of a second and your shot. The other thing I don't understand about disarms is the fact that you are in effect trying to not only get the gun but hold the assailant. Why? If your going to commit to engage, you shouldn't be doing so with locks or stripping the gun, you should be taking them out (I mean dead). Neutralize the threat all together. I'm sure if practiced you could have a margin of success against a percentage of attackers. In my mind this equals shot the other percentage. Unless your life is at risk why would you increase your odds. As soon as you go for the gun you commit that person into defending themselves which mean using it. Maybe I'm wrong but if an idiot actually gets up in my face with a gun, thats to intimidate you to get something, typically your cash. In knowing this I can only think of a few reasons you would engage them rather than letting them have what they want and allowing them to run away. 1. if their demeanor changes - they get upset or become angry. Your life is at risk. 2. if you just want to show off your new disarming skills and be on TV. Hero complex. 3. you have a death wish or like to gamble with your life and those around you. suicidal or thrill seeker. To me there is only one reason to engage someone carrying a gun. My life is in jeopardy. In which case i'm not going to disarm the creep and detain him for police. I'm going to use deadly force and neutralize them. If not I'm going to just allow him to take my wallet and then I'll call my bank to cancel my cards, call the police and make a report and go home to my family, which at the end of the day is all most of us want to do. I also get what you are saying, however if I ever find myself in this type of situation, I think I would just give them the cash. The thing that most MAist's do not consider in this scenario is the fact that rounds (bullets) travel beyond the confrontation area and even if you are successful in disarming the perp someone else may not be so lucky if a round gets squeezed off. That and 95% of the time if I'm out in area's that something like this would occur (Parking lots, sports outings, etc.) it is a high likely hood that my wife or family members would be with me. I don't think it's worth the risk to disarm someone that is desperate enough to rob someone at gun point with the sole goal of taking their cash and running away. I can make more cash but you can't make another family member. And I appreciate the stats and don't doubt them. I guess we have a bunch of stupid criminals in the world. If I were bent on taking someones life I wouldn't walk up on them to within arms reach to shoot them so this scenario never even crossed my mind. I wouldn't think anyone would be this stupid.

To the bold, Exactly!

I would say that experience is important for any instructor. If you do not know how you will react in a real situation how do you teach others what they will face? From what do you draw from? Having said that knowledge can not be down played and is equally important and honestly I think it pretty much goes hand in hand with experience. Does an instructor need ring time to instruct? I would say no. If they have never stood toe to toe with an adversary and fought for their life does that mean they can not instruct. I would say no again. That is not to say that all instructors should go out and get into a fight but it definitely adds credence as to first hand knowledge when instructing others. I have known very good instructors of the art that have never lifted a hand in anger and they produce very good MA'ists. I guess it depends on the perspective of the student and what they are looking for. Some students see this as a benefit and others don't care. I would say experience (Ring or Streets) lends a bit more legitimacy if you are teaching someone to defend themselves on the street or in the ring. Nothing trumps actual experience. You can't read it in a book or watch a video and understand what it's like or how you will react and what you will face, both physically and emotionally, unless you've been there. In my opinion this would be akin to being a shooting instructor having never live fired a gun. Dry shooting has it's purpose but it doesn't actually teach you how to hit the target, what the feel of recoil is like, and how to adjust for windage, etc. You know the theory and nomenclature and can teach the principles but can't draw on actual experience. It's just not quite the same. Can you teach others to shoot? Sure you can. But is it the best instruction one can get? I'll leave that up to the students to decide. But I will make a clarification - Fake in terms of those without experience I think has been taken out of context. There is a difference between someone that has spent decades training under legitimate instructors that may never have been in an actual fight and those that take a week end seminar and announce themselves as a Hachikyu. The later is fake. The former is not.

Alan, To be quite honest I have never taught gun disarms because I am a Marine and not only know it is futile in 99% of situations but as a Marine if it were me holding the gun the trigger would be pulled without giving you the chance to use some fancy disarm. As such I personally see no reason to train for this. If a person has a gun, unless your superman or wearing a bullet proof vest, and has the intended purpose of using it to harm or kill you and is not at zero distance, (ok when does this happen? can our cops here join the conversation? When does a bad guy with the intent to shoot you walk right up on you to zero distance before shooting?) the only chance you have is if the guy can't shoot. In this case run and hope he misses. Adrenalin is coursing in BOTH of you and you have a better chance of leaving unscathed by running than trying to close the distance to try one of the worthless self defense moves most instructors teach you. If the guy does come up on you it's typically to rob you in which case your belongings are not worth the risk of your life trying to be a hero. You are absolutely right that guns shoot a projectile. And it's faster than anyone here or anyone in the world for that matter can move out of it's path. So if your at distance what good does disarms do? If your close range it is doubtful that the guy is intent on shooting you in which case why would you escalate the chances of being shot by trying to disarm him. You have just increased your odds of ending up in the morgue rather than in the news as a hero. Maybe I've not had enough experience with armed thugs on the street and maybe they are stupid enough to walk right up to zero range on their intended target. But not in the world I have experience in. Having said that I personally see no reason to train for disarms when the reality, in my mind (I could be wrong which is why I'd like to hear from our cops on the forum) a guy with the intent to shoot you is going to do so at a distance that a disarm is impossible in the first place. You have a better chance of survival (I didn't say of not getting shot) running away than trying to close the distance and tangle with an armed person holding a gun. Better choice, forget the fancy self defense moves and get your concealed carry and learn how to shoot well under duress if your that worried about it. Other than that you're just wasting your time IMHO.

Has anyone else made their own weapons for training? Obviously we are talking mostly wooden weapons like Tuifa, Nunchaku, Rokushaku, Eku, escrima sticks and the like unless your skilled at blade or blacksmithing and welding. I have made Tuifa from Osage Orange, Hickory and Red Oak. Nunchaku from Osage Orange and White Oak. Eku from Hickory and Osage Orange . A few long and recurve bows from Orange Osage and have made Kama, Yari, Tanto/Aikuchi, Rochin mainly from 52100, 5160, 1095, 1050, W2 and O1 steels. Any other makers? Hobby or out of necessity due to poor quality in the manufacturers market? Do you prefer hand made or manufactured?

I'll entertain your question, but he warned- I'm a harsh critic Firstly he plays on the terminology of mixed martial arts- mixed martial arts requires at least stand up and ground. In short, you need a striking style and a legitimate submission grappling style. He claims to teach karate, Kung fu, and Muay Thai thereby teaching "mixed" martial arts. With no credentials for anything on the ground. I'll bet money the "mma" classes (if offerred) are atrocious at best. While we're on the topic of credentials, he claims to have a "black belt" in Muay Thai. That's an immediate red flag. There are no belts in Muay Thai and by claiming one he's claiming to be a fraud- there are no two ways about that. Then in regards to Kung fu- I was under the impression that Kung fu has sashes and not belts, and that a red sash is the highest rank- but certainly no black belts in Kung fu. 5 year old black belts.... Karate birthday parties... Krav Maga.... This website has it all- yes it screams mcdojo. Dang it TJ-Jitsu, you stole my thunder but I'm in complete agreement. However I must make one correction to your post. I can't speak for other arts of Gung Fu but when I was a kid I took Fu Jow Pai and we wore belts. As far as a black belt or sash is concerned, you'd have to ask someone else as I caught the Karate bug and left before I got to any substantial level.

Update - I got over my senior moment and found the name of the Siamese weapon (Tuifa) in one of my books. It's called a mae sun sawk. It predates the Tuifa (Tonfa). That was killing me that I couldn't remember the name. It stinks getting older.

Agreed except after 30+ years I have my doubts that anyone can truly master the art. After I learn something new, which happens a lot, I realize that it is a never ending process and all we can do is learn as much as we can. Beginners Mind! One should always return to the foundation/beginning. This is where you learn something new about what you thought you had "mastered". One should always practice ALL of the Kata not just the one you are learning. One builds on the next and gives you the necessary tools to understand the next. Great points LLLEARNER.

There is a product, the name is shoe goo, that would fix that and be stronger than when you first bought them. Its not expensive and can be found at most shoe stores and I think I've even seen it at Walmart. I used to use it to prolong my work boot's life and it works. I've had tear outs, souls coming off and have even used it to glue the leather back on the steel toe.

No. Can't help you there.