MatsuShinshii

I'm not saying that one should replace the other. I am just acknowledging that it is definitely a safer alternative. IMHO if you have the knowledge and have utilized a target medium such as Goza or Tatami and understand the power it takes to effect real damage whether slashing or stabbing, I see little difference between a blunt and a marker. However I will preface this with saying that I agree that it can not be learned by theory and must be physically practiced to understand not only how to move, deflect, shift, avoid and counter but also to apply an actual effective strike (slash/cut/stab to a vital target. I'm in complete agreeance with you. I personally do not feel that any student should practice with a live blade and it takes years of training to understand not only how to use one but to develop the peripheral skills and depth perception skills to know where your blade and your opponents blade is at all times in relationship to yourself and your opponent so that accidents do not happen. I say accident but with the severity of what can happen with a live blade it makes it sound like it's no big deal but that's far from the case. I'm all for realism and keeping training alive, as you put it, but this is a tad different than just getting a busted lip or broken nose from a punch. The wrong thing happens and it may not be just a trip to get stitches at the hospital. I always err on the side of caution when it comes to actually putting a live weapon in a students hands.

Alan, Not defending the Aikido crowd as I have never taken the art, but the reason they go with the techniques is so that no one gets hurt as they learn. This is the same with Judo. However I have no idea if they then practice with an unwilling opponent to prove the application works. I can say that Judo is practiced (learned) while Uke allows the technique to be applied during the learning stage. This is so the students learn the proper way to apply and execute the technique first so they can apply it during Randorior when competing. When two participants get out on the mat the object is not to allow the other to throw you or apply a hold, it is to resist. This may be the same for Aikido. It may just be that they were allowing you to teach them the proper method of applying your techniques so that they could learn before applying them against a resisting opponent. But again I am speculating and assuming that it is learned in the same way that Judo is.

Tempest, Depends on the students/instructors understanding of vital targets and the amount of power is needed to contact the target for maximum damage. An example would be a slash to the clavicle. Hurts but does little damage vs a stab down behind the clavicle which severs arteries, veins and nerves. If the instructor understands the severity of the cut/slash/stab then there is a logical way to assess damage. The key is to translate this to your students. I find nothing wrong with Alan's training methods unless the instructor is allowing the students to free for all without proper knowledge of targets.If the student does not understand what the vital targets are and what the damage to said target represents this exercise is nothing more than a count of hits rather than a complete understanding of damage. In that I agree with your assessment. Knowing that a slash/cut to a target does little damage as a apposed to a stab to the same target is key to the exercise that Alan presented. A good instructor giving good instruction in the effects of a given attack method on a given target brings this exercise to a more real life state vs. who can strike their opponent more. It does little good if you slash your opponent 10 times with little damage if your opponent strikes you once with deadly effect. The fight is over and he goes home and bandages his wounds but lives another day where as his opponent goes to the morgue. I agree with your statement that understanding what a live blade can do by actually cutting/stabbing into a target medium is also a primary point of knowledge for a student. It does little good to know targets if you can not transmit the proper power into your thrust/slash to penetrate to cause the expected damage to end the fight. I will end with this statement, it is far less dangerous/risky to the student to be hit by a felt tipped marker vs. a steel practice blade. A lot of damage can be cause by an over zealous student utilizing maximum power and using a steel/aluminum blunt edge even when wearing protective equipment as it doesn't cover the body completely. I have trained the way you suggest with both blunt and live blades. However I see nothing wrong with utilizing a marker vs a blunt or live weapon. You can make it real by understanding the effects of a given strike and the power generated to make if effective.

Worse thing - the lack of integrity and earning what you receive. Seeing very young children walk around with BB's. Seeing overweight out of shape Nanadans, Hachidans, Kudans and Judans, much less Sandans, Yondans, Godans and Rokudans. High ranking instructors that will not demonstrate or get onto the floor with their students (translation = fear of being discovered a liar). Selling for minimum effort what most of us bled, sweated and cried to earn. Changing the art to a ridiculous sport that no one respects as a legitimate combat tested self defense art. Oh and then there's McDojo's, Trophy hunters and those that sell out the art to line their own pockets by teaching ineffective you know what. Best thing - everything not listed above.

The only one I can comment on is Jutte (Jitte) as we do not learn the other three you mentioned but it is my understanding that Jion and Ji'in are about the same. I would go for it if you have the time to really learn the Kata(s). It's not like you have to understand the meaning of the Kata (applications) for this challenge, your just going through the movements. It's easy to learn a Kata with repetition. As long as you have the time to perform the Kata many times before the challenge, go for it. However if you know 1 to 5 (maybe more) Kata well, you may want to perform one or more of these for this exercise. You can always learn these other four later. If you loose your place while performing or forget a portion of the Kata you'll compile your frustration with the fact that you then have to start over... it might be a very long day for you. Good luck and enjoy the experience.

To the Bold. Feeling maybe. Reality?????? Accept mediocrity and that is what you will get. Telling kids lies does not bolster their self confidence especially when they have to use the fuey they have learned in a real life fight. Wanna talk about crushing confidence? That will do it! Fear only exists until you have done it and realize that the fear was unwarranted. Fear exists in those that have not been pushed to overcome it. This is not their faults but rather their parents/instructors/teachers and adult figures in their lives. Confidence is fostered through overcoming the obstacles found in life. This is also how you overcome fear. How then does a student/kid/outcast overcome fear if the obstacles are not present? Kids are not stupid, they may be lazy but not stupid, and they realize when something is given and not earned. Most know that the school they study in (McDojo) are not teaching them anything effective. So is this security, confidence or do they just know that they can get maximum rewards with minimum effort? This is the definition of Lazy not outcast.

Congrats!

Welcome to the Forum.

Sensei8, you hit the nail on the head. Couldn't have explained it better. This outlines the crazy equality agenda that is spreading like wild fire across this county. Everyone gets a trophy and no child left behind only achieves one thing... to hold back the above average and average students for the below average. The concept of winners and losers is foreign to these kids. This, in my opinion does no service to the child as they will not be given this charity in the real world. It also creates what we have been seeing in the last years. These individuals come out of HS or College thinking they are deserving of top pay (equality after all, why not get what someone with 3 decades more experience gets, Right?) but doesn't want to do anything for it. No drive, no ambition. They just expect it because they have been trained to believe that it will be handed to them on a silver plate with no effort whatsoever. Who ever thought this hair brain scheme up is a fool and has only weakened society in stead of lifting it to higher expectations. And teachers wonder why other countries are crushing us in education. Pretty simple if you ask me.

To your Dad, Semper Fi! And thank him for his service. Again I do not disagree with your ideals on alive manner or active resistance. It is fundamental to teaching fighting skills and preparing students. I could not agree more.

Well said sir. And as you put that I totally agree 100% with your assertion. But this fits perfectly if you think about it. No excuses and the buck stops here works for the instructor as well as the student. If you fail to properly prepare your student then you should be the one looking in the mirror. No excuses. However the instructor can only control so much. The Dojo/Gym/School and the Marine Corps are different animals through and through. In the Corps you have complete control over you Marines and their training because you are with them for 60 hrs or more a week, every week. There is also the reality that war/combat is a real possibility and there for the motivation of the "students" is very high to learn all that they can so in the event that they get called up they will be prepared. In civilian life the average person will go their entire life time without an incident. In many this reality is only a distant possibility and there for the motivation factor is lower. Tell a student that in 2 months they WILL have to fight for their lives and that factor would change. What I am saying is this, I agree with you about our responsibility towards our students and that if you haven't done your job then their failure is reflected on you. It should be. However it is also up to your students to apply these lessons to their training outside of the Dojo/Gym/School. As we do not have control over their lives and can not force them to show up and learn, nor can we force them to train outside of class. Yes a degree of responsibility falls on the instructors shoulders and I absolutely understand and subscribe to this mentality but... whats the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink". I get your point but you are talking about two totally different cultures and mindsets. The Marine trains and absorbs every bit of knowledge and strives to develop every skill they can because they have the very real understanding that any day they may be called upon to go and fight for their country. The average civilian does not have this mindset. Not in the least. So the analogy that you are drawing, although I agree as a Marine, is faulty due to the reasons for training and the degree of possibility of threat. This comes back to our discussion about the mentality of the fighter. A cage fighter training to fight in the cage has a different mentality than the guy who is studying an art as a hobby or for something to do. The real threat of violence is real in most of our minds but to the average citizen it's a very remote possibility. How many times have you watched the news and hear the words, "I never ever thought it would happen to me"? It's a different mindset. So I stand on the look in the mirror not only to your point about the instructor but also to the student. We can teach but we can not crawl in their mushy skulls and adjust their mentality about training. By the way Tempest I appreciate your point on the topic. Sounds like you know a thing or two about us Jarheads. We're all stead fast and very stanch in our beliefs and as you could probably tell very opinionated to say the least. Semper Fi!

Simple answer... it's what the public allows the makers of weapons to get away with. That and the fact that, as others have said, there is no reason to make a combat rated weapon that will never be used for that purpose. However I have another theory. Make it just good enough to last for maybe 5 or so years and they will come back for a new one. Make one that lasts for only a year or less and falls apart, you've lost a customer for life. Make one that lasts forever and you have also lost a customer for life because there is no need to ever buy another one. Make a weapon with only adequate durability that will last a reasonable time frame and you'll be selling to that same customer over their life time. Win win for the manufacturer.

The SKKA does have it's requirements. However, the CI has the final discretion. No, not even in the slightest am I ok with that. Crawl...walk...run, in that order, and it's that way for a very good reason(s). Great analogy. And that should be the natural progression when dealing with students and weapons. IMO students should start out with wooden/blunt weapons first. This reduces the dangers to others and themselves due to the lack of coordination, skill, grip strength, body/weapon/object awareness and muscle conditioning. I am not saying that a beginner does not have the bare minimum skills to wield a weapon. Any one untrained can pick up a weapon and swing it around. But that is not what we are talking about. There are specific movements/actions required when learning the Kata and these are not always the bodies natural movements and can be quite foriegn. The body must adjust to moving a specified way just like it must in empty hand Kata. The muscles fatigue faster when performing movement unaccustomed to it's natural movements. If the student is unaccustomed to the length of the weapon and how it moves/reacts they will not have the required spacial awareness of the weapon in relationship to their own body much less the relationship of the weapon and objects or people around them. We have all (or maybe just me ) struck ourselves with Nunchaku while learning how to utilize the weapon. This is in large part to understanding how the weapon reacts when using it to strike or even to transition. This comes with time and constant practice. Can you imagine what would happen if you put Nichogama in a beginners hands just because that was the weapon they picked?????? I think we have all seen a weapon or two fly across the Dojo floor, get stuck in a wall, ceiling or strike a fellow student or even the instructor or strike the user. The reason I feel empty hand training is useful, but I will concede not necessary, is because it starts to develop some of the muscles that will be utilized, starts to develop spacial awareness, develops depth perception in knowing distance, and give a degree of control and skill to the student before putting something in the hands of a novice that could potentially injure themselves or by-standards. And if you do I would implore you to start them with weapons that, at least in the learning phase, will do less damage to the user and others like Rokushaku, Tuifa, and maybe even Nunchaku although I feel this should not be a starting weapon, but that only my opinion. Accidents will happen, the user will loose control of the weapon, they will fatigue or will be unaware of other around them or the relationship of the weapon to themselves or others. This all apart of learning and we all go through this however there is a degree of damage control that I think the instructors are responsible for. Obviously we will all decide when a student is ready for weapons training. But deciding if the student is capable is not the same as whether the student is ready. In my opinion there are many factors to consider as stated but the big one as others have mentioned is maturity. Should you allow them to start weapons training. I feel this is the decision of the instructor and with that they carry the responsibility for not only the student but also those around that student. Meaning if the student lacks coordination in empty hand Kata, has no control or has the maturity level of a 3 year old you probably shouldn't put a weapon in there hands. There is my 2 cents for what that is worth.

This means you have damaged the nerves. Nerve deadening is to be expected over years of training. Like others have said you are hitting way too hard and haven't took the time to build to this level.

Beat me to the punch [pun intended]. 100% agreed! This typically happens when a student strikes too hard starting out or for too long. Start off slow, concentrating on proper technique and body alignment at about 30 to 40% power. Stop when your body tells you too. This means that everyone can take pain but when it passes the point of a dull pain to a sharp pain you need to stop, you're not doing anything but increasing recovery time at that point. It's hard to explain but your body will tell you when it's time to stop so listen to it. Over time you will be able to hit faster and harder. It takes more than a month to hit the Makiwara with full power and speed. The most important thing is to practice good technique and correct body alignment. Nothing worse than spraining your wrist or missing the target and breaking the pinky/ring finger knuckles. Ouch! Been there done that, don't plan on repeating. The mistake most make is that either the instructor doesn't properly instruct the student or the student gets impatient and wants to be able to strike at full power/speed. I've been striking Makiwara for over 30 years and can strike at full power and speed but rarely do because it is not necessary to maintain conditioning. And I couldn't do that after the first year, it took longer than that to get to that point without damaging my hands. Like others have said stop and see a doctor so you do not do permanent damage. Good luck.

Agreed. Appreciate the comments. As I have stated the art is effective. If fault is to be found, it is usually in the instruction (thus training methods as Tempest pointed out) or as you pointed out "look in the mirror". Love that! But it's so true. To thy own self be true. How many people now days actually find fault or weakness within themselves and own up to it? It's way to easy to find a patsy or scapegoat to blame short comings on. Lost the fight? Blame it on the art. Lost at a tournament? blame it on the instructor. Blame it on anything except yourself. Look in the mirror! Sensei8 I think you just discovered the answer to every winy teenagers problems. You're a GENIUS. Wouldn't it be just grand if everyone had just a smidge of integrity to own up to their own short comings? What an innovative, fresh and novel Idea.

Tempest, I think we are saying the same thing but in different ways. So having said that I will say this last thing. I do not agree with the fault lying with the art. However I absolutely agree that training is key, especially reality based training against resisting opponents that pressure you. I also will agree with your statements that it's hard to find this within a typical Karate Dojo. In fact I will even go as far to say that my own art is not like it was 30 or 40 years ago. But heck I'm not what I was 20 or 30 years ago either. The point is we as martial artists shouldn't get caught up in the argument of what style or art is better. It matters little when your top fighter falls from the pedestal. The art that you love is, in your mind, the perfect art because it works for you. This is the very definition of a good and effective art. If it works for you then it's effective. This and the point is null and void when you take into account that very few fighters these days study ONE art. Everything changes with time. New generations with new idea's have the largest impact. What you love today may not be the same tomorrow. Blah, blah, blah, and some more sentimental gobbly goop. Lets just train and agree that our beliefs of what is effective and the reasons that an art is not considered effective is due to things personal to us and that we may not agree on all things but we do agree on a few. Good enough reason to have a beer! Ok I will.

I hate when that happens. and before I start I will apologize for cutting my quotes out. I couldn't figure out how to insert my comments and maintain the previous posts by you and my previous. The quotes weren't in the right places and my un-techness got the better of me. I hope this is legible. So advanced apologies if this makes this too hard to follow. Ok. I'll concede that. I guess there is a reason one seeks out MMA just like we sought out Karate then. I have to agree with your point of folks leaving Karate because these training methods left. However living though those earlier years I will be the first to say that it did cross the line into barbarism from time to time and go a little too far. There is nothing wrong in my mind when it comes to contact. It allows the student to learn a few things about themselves that you do not learn playing patty cakes. One it teaches them that you can move on past getting hit or even rocked. Two it takes the fear factor out of being hit. Three it allows them to build confidence in what they are doing because they see the effect on someone else. I personally feel that hitting and being hit teaches us things that an instructor can never teach us. All the oral and written communication in the world will never teach you how YOU will react when you get rocked or are under extreme pressure with an opponent that won't let you catch your breath. Agree with this 100%. It's the missing factor in most modern Dojo. Agreed. However this goes into other posts about spotting McDojo's or schools that are more interested in trophies rather than teaching their students to defend themselves/fight. To a certain point I'll agree with you. However take Karate since you have pointed this out specifically, if the art has been watered down then the students learning the art will have a watered down version of the art. It does not detract from the original art nor speak to the original arts effectiveness. It speaks to a version or an organization or the individual instructor but not the art. I will be the first to admit that the art of Karate in many cases has been watered down. This is due to many things that I have spoke to in previous posts. Irregardless of this the original intention of the art was combative. Yes many do not teach this aspect or it is not the main focus. Many prefer tournament fighting (which IMHO is useless and means absolutely nothing and does not prove a TRUE winner) and these same schools change the very things that contains the combative techniques to make it appealing for judges and crowds, the Kata. So yes you have a valid point. But the mistake made is judgement of an art based on a student, teacher or organization. This would be akin to judging BJJ based on a phony frauds students all loosing to non-trained challengers. Is it the art or the organization/teacher who taught the individual? Me thinks it's not the art. Well I have to correct you with a few historical facts. First I'll start with my own chosen art of Karate. Karate was created through years of tried and tested methods and of different arts that were in turn tried and tested in battle. Ti (Ti'gwa) was utilized by the Okinawan's to defend themselves and their home land. Later Muay Boran was incorporated into the art which was another tried and tested art in actual combat. Muay Boran to Muay Thai is like Jujutsu to Judo. One is combative and the other is a sport. Since the next progression would be the inclusion of Chinese arts I will just say that the Chinese arts (Quan Fa) developed as a direct result of conflict and as a way to defend. The earliest inception of the Chinese martial arts was before Japan, Thailand, Brazil, or most other countries had even developed a systematized method of fighting. I could go into depth here but it boils down to history which is easily obtainable through oral to written or written documentation of each country and their fighting traditions. And yes even the internet can offer good documentation if you can sift through all of the biased gobbly goop. I can see your point but... I have to bust that modern day bubble. 95% of what we practice and train in today was developed 150+ years ago. Have there been improvements structured more to todays fighters? Yes. Have new methods been invented? Some. But guess what! Most of what me , you and pretty much everyone on this forums learns was developed 150+ years ago. The techniques and applications that have been passed down are still being utilized and taught today. Yes by modern arts and yes by modern teachers but what they are teaching is not new minus a technique here or there. Need proof? Lets take BJJ. I know I'm the last person to speak about this art as I have never trained in it but stay with me, how many techniques and applications are new? I don't actually know to be honest so you or someone else will have to answer this. However speaking strictly of throws and based on my Judo background not much has been developed that was not developed back them. Maybe little changes but the core is still the same. If you really want your mind to be blown check out Jiao Di or it's modern component Shuai Jiao. Way older than Judo, not sure of Jujutsu, but the throws are relatively the same. And it's over 5000 some odd years old. The point is the techniques that MMA or any other art utilizes was created and passed down. It may be modernized to meet a new type of fighter or fighting method but the techniques are still sound. As a Marine I can say you are right. However this is a last resort. If you have been in actual combat the last thing you would ever want to do is to tackle someone and attempt to submit them or attempt a strangle hold. The longer your struglling on the ground the more vulnerable you are to other combatants and the more vulnerable you are to that same guy pulling a knife or another weapon while you struggle to apply a technique. The focus is on speed. Take out the threat as effectively, efficiently and as quickly as humanly possible. Rolling around on the ground with the enemy leaves you very vulnerable to another enemy. Judo is utilized in most military for its effective methods of taking the enemy from a standing position where they pose a threat to dumping them on their heads in a very vulnerable position where you can follow up with your rifle or pistol to dispatch them or if these have been dropped or stripped from you your K-bar (Knife). the point is on the battle field you use whatever is most effective for a given situation. And yes if you are taken down by the enemy in CQC then Jujutsu is the preferred method of defense and this makes all the sense in the world to me. But it woulod not be the first means of methodology against the enemy unless you have the time to roll around with one combatant. As far as Karate goes, no your right the art as a whole is not taught. Components however are. But even if they were not does that alone make it ineffective? Not in my mind. As a side bar - I used to teach my students the skills I learned in the Corps from H2H and CQC. It's very effective. But it's also very much akin to Karate in that it contains elements of striking, throwing, locks, throws, etc. In fact some are like for like. Wonder where they got these? Well I hate to tell you but most arts that influenced Karate also influenced other arts. In fact Karate influenced other arts too. Yep, that's right, good old Karate and arts like it are within other arts and have influenced other arts. Even some that you might have taken in your MMA pursuits. Mind Blown? Duct Tape works pretty good. I would disagree. In those days it's something that very few if any had ever seen and the techniques used are very sophisticated. He also trained to fight and get his families art out into the public eye. I would call him highly trained for that time and day. We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I would also disagree that he took no punishment. Yes I've watch all of the UFC's since the beginning and he has been struck, head butted, you name it while being very patient to get his submissions. At least this is my memory of it. I guess I'll have to break out the library of VHS tapes and DVD's in my library and re-watch them. Maybe my old mind is remembering it all wrong. You are preaching to the choir. I agree 100%. And again most Dojo do not engage in this type of training. They may have at one time when it was an accepted training practice but due to trying to meet the whims of the masses and trying to avoid liability and law suits most if not all have gravitated away from this. To be put into a situation where you feel under duress and are forced to deal with this, to calm yourself and to think clearly and critically under pressure is the only way in my mind to know what you will do in a real confrontation. Putting students against others of varying weights, strengths, speeds, temperaments, and skill is the only way one grows and gets better. It's also the only way one develops the confidence to be able to know what you're capable of and also to know your weaknesses so that you can work on them. If your never put into a situation where you realize there is nothing you can do and you have nothing within your wheelhouse that will meet the threat, how will you ever know what you have to work on? Getting your brains kicked in on the streets? Not really a smart way of training. Actually my answer might surprise you. I wouldn't send them anywhere. I believe that whats right for me is not necessarily right for anyone else. This goes for arts, teachers, organizations, the whole enchiladas. I would simply tell them to try out as many things as they could and find what works for them. Not everyone is cut out for MMA just like not everyone is cut out for sport Karate. Yep that one would be me. To say I would recommend what I call old school would be dishonest as it is not for everyone. To say I would recommend MMA would be equally dishonest as it is not for everyone either. It's up to the individual to discover what works best for them and fits their individual needs. I am not of the mind set that one thing fits all nor am I of the mindset that there is one art that is perfect for everyone. This IMHO is not fact. I use "old school" only to demonstrate arts that are still teaching the original methods without the influence or changes made by Itosu or the Japanese. I also use it to differentiate between these arts that call themselves traditional when what they mean by traditional is by Japanese standards. I also use this to differentiate between the McDojo's that call themselves or what they do traditional. Traditional is a loose term now days and is used to describe arts and schools that are anything but. So I use "Old School", or if you prefer a Japanese term "Koryu", to describe the original intent or as close as you can get to the original intent and to separate those styles that have held true to the COMBATIVE (Jutsu) nature of the art over the new Kumbaya, peaceful, meditative, yogaesque, sport nature of what I would call modern Karate Do. You don't have to travel to Kentucky to find old school dojo's. There are still arts that go straight back to the founders with little or no influence. Having said that all styles/arts of Karate have these roots and if one were to look at the Kata it can be found very easily. As for instructors and individual schools and what they teach and how they teach, well that is something that I can not help you with. Old school simply means, in my words and my definition, teaching the art, ALL of the art. That means those dirty little tactics like head butting, Yes eye gouging too , striking targets like the brachial plexus, hyperextension of joints like the knee and elbow (I know these are Jujutsu techniques but they are also Qin Na and Muto techniques), etc. It means teaching the applications of the Kata and tying them to the arts that they came from and practicing these as individual applications like Muto (grappling, throwing, sweeping, balance breaks, etc.), Ti'gwa and Tuidi (Joint locks, chokes, dirty fighting, etc.), Chibudi (the targeting of weak points and cavities within the body such as arteries, veins, ligaments, tendons and nerve centers), Buki'gwa (learning to utilize weapons [not for the purpose of using said ancient weapons today but to understand how to use them to compliment your empty hand techniques and also to understand the use so that a modern weapon could be substituted]), Ti (percussive art of hands, arms, legs, feet, elbows, knees, head and any other part of the body that can be made into a natural weapon), understanding of anatomy, body and natural weapon conditioning, understanding of the arts that make up Toudi (Karate), understanding of it's history and yes even a little understanding of the language. This and many more things define old school as old school or what we should consider traditional. But I won't go down that road again. Look, I'm not by any means saying that Karate or any other art is the end all art to learning to defend yourself. Again it's what ever fits the individual. Wrestling by itself is a great way to take someone down and to control them once your on the ground. However if you get rocked coming in for the take down it would be ineffective. Karate is, IMHO, a great and very effective means of defending oneself and again, IMHO, well rounded. However if I'm taken to the ground by someone that is skilled in Ne Waza I'm pretty much going to get pummeled into the ground which is why I did not mention our very weak Ne Waza above in my description of Old School. All arts have weaknesses and strengths but if one were to capitalize on the strengths the weaknesses are minimized. Not negated. Yes if a hundred fighters from one art are destroyed in lets say the cage, one could make the logical conclusion that the art is ineffective. However what if one person from that art goes to the top? What then. I still say the art (and I mean most original arts developed as a means of self preservation) is perfectly effective and that it's the individual that looses and not the art. Having said this I will also say I have no art in my mind that stands out as the best. In my mind they all have value and it is up to the individual to learn and maximize that value. Hypothetical question; Lets say that someone were to study TKD (picking an art I have not studied so it's purely for arguments sake) and become proficient, no very proficient, in the art. They maximize their speed, learn how to maximize their power and learn to maximize their foot work. Now lets say that they become so proficient in this art of striking and develop their speed to greater ranges than thought possible. Now lets say they step in the cage with the best grappler that BJJ has to offer. But the TKD guy is exponentially faster than the grappler and the grappler can not get ahold of him to implement what he was taught. The TKD guy is free to strike the grappler at will and ends up knocking him out. Does this negate BJJ? No reverse this hypothetical question. The art is sound based on sound tried and tested techniques and applications. Is the art to blame? Training is, as you have said, key to an individuals success in a conflict. So if teacher A does not practice good sound training practices as pointed out by you above and their student walks into the ring/cage/street and gets destroyed we can't say it's the art. I understand that 90% or maybe even higher of schools do not employ sound training practices but this again does not negate the effectiveness of the art. Lets apply your training practices to (use an art you feel is unfit for the cage or street defense). What then? What if that art defeats all other arts that had been used. Does this prove that this art is the best for fighting/defense? No, as you said it boils down to training and I have said it boils down to the individual. Lets face it there are those that wouldn't raise a hand to defend themselves and no art in the world would change that. Mentality plays a HUGE role in fighting. Like the expression goes "it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog". I strongly believe this. I am not a large individual (6'2" and 205 lbs) and have, in my ill begotten, mislead, rowdy youth had my fair share of brawls with much larger opponents of all sort of back grounds and experience. The difference was always resolve and mental attitude that got me through most of the fights with me walking away and them not. That's not to say my mouth didn't write checks my butt couldn't cash either. My point is any one individual can and will be beaten. It happens with all fighters at the top of their game. In fact I don't know of one that reined for ever, undefeated. So what can you afford their demise? Was it the art? The training? The individual that fought them? Their art? or was it the individual themselves. I feel that the individual (either the defender or challenger) is 50% and 50% is their training. I do not think that one over rules the other when your talking about the top contenders. If your talking solely about the average guy in a local dojo I would agree that training will be the difference but mental attitude, natural ability also play a crucial role.

If you study the arts and do so for a life time does this make you a hobbiest or a pro. What makes someone a pro? Is it strictly fighting, teaching, etc? A MA'ist IMHO is someone that diligently seeks to learn a form of combative art and to improve themselves within that art to the extent that they can effectively defend themselves. Does that make them a hobbiest or a pro? In my mind hobbiest is someone that does something every now and then with no intent on making it a staple component in their lives. Most MA'ists would not fit this description. I'm sure you could also call a person that teaches for the love of it rather than for the money a hobbiest. If so guilty. Being a pro just means you have gone into the fight game full time. That does not mean your successful doing so. So no. Kind of think you feel that those that study the arts are out to hurt others. If so you have not met many MA'ists. However yes the truth is that we learn to stop, hurt, maim and even kill. But that does not mean this is the underlying intention of those that study the arts. It was created for battle so you are going to learn combative techniques. It's what the individual gets out of it that's important not an assumption of sadism or violence that one might put onto the practitioner.

Welcome to KF

Welcome to KF.

Sounds like a blast.

Entertaining. Funny. But what does this have to do with JKD and whether it lives or dies with Bruce? It's parody not real life.

I haven't checked this post in a while. Looks like we are still stuck on styles or training within those styles. I guess based on the last few posts the topic is how one style trains compared to another. Who cares? In the early 70's to the mid 80's most MMA fighters would have walked out of a traditional dojo siting that it was too barbaric. No one left with out a bruise or two at minimum. A busted lip, broken nose, broken fingers, bones, etc. were not out of the question and more normal than one might expect. There were no gloves or pads just knuckle on bone. Now most have gravitated away from this practice siting the loss of students or the liability and law suits that would follow. However now you have MMA gyms in which most walk out with bruises all over again and it is perfectly acceptable because... the student expects this type of training. But what does any of this really prove? In the end your art, style, teacher and peers will be no where to be found and it will be down to you and your personal skills and knowledge. We want to say MMA is the best and all else fails short? Go ahead. It makes little difference because what most here are arguing is the art. The art is perfect and as it was created was the most effective way to fight. The art is not to blame if a fighter studying it loses. It's that students teacher and the methods by which they teach the art to the student. Is it watered down? Did they replace components of the art with techniques from other arts? Do they understand the methods and applications well enough to even pass them on to their students? Did they just giove rank to their students because they paid? Did they lower requirements? Etc. Lets not forget the one important factor... the student! Are they lazy and only put forth a minimum of effort? Are they not naturally athletic? Are they weak, slow, not able to take a hit? etc. etc. etc. The point is it boils down to one factor in the end. The individual fighter. If they train as they would fight and they normally face off with other weight classes, other skill levels, etc. etc. then they should be able to hold their own with the art they study. Again the art was developed as a means of defending ones life in battle when they lost their weapon. On this basis alone the art is effective as it was used in battle and the victor walked away after utilizing it. Are their weaknesses? Yes. All arts have weaknesses. Ours is ground fighting. However that is because it was developed for the battle field. A ground fighting art like Jujutsu is weak when on the battle field because if you go to the ground with multiple opponents around the chances are you're done, no matter how good you are in effectively submitting an opponent. It's hard to submit someone when two others are raining down blows while your tied up with your opponent. So arguing arts/styles is all good and well but in the end it boils down to the individual and how well they apply the art they studied. As in my last post I go back to the fact that if Royce Gracie were someone less proficient we wouldn't even be talking about comparisons between MMA and other arts. The UFC and thus MMA wouldn't exist. But because the individual was highly trained within his art and was able to withstand the punishment he did before getting the submission, we now are comparing arts when the only reason we are is due to the individual fighter. Lets face it, there will always be a next best thing but if you really look at it for what it is, it's sound techniques, pure and simple. Most of which came from traditional arts to begin with. There are very few new techniques/applications because the ones that already exist are the ones that work. Have some been modified? Sure. Could you say they have been improved? Some have. Now...what happens if your teach all of these techniques to someone that is not naturally gifted or has a glass jaw or has no will to win? Lets say he gets destroyed by a fighter from a traditional art. Is that art now null and void because that person lost? Does that mean that the traditional art is the best? No. It means that the winning fighter was able to utilize what they were taught and was able to beat the other with it. Reverse it. Reverse it again. Get where I'm going with this? This goes back to the point that the arts are efficient but the individual using it may not be. Don't argue comparisons when it comes to the arts themselves because as we all have seen, some can walk into the cage and dominate even though they are from a traditional back ground. It comes down to the individual not the art. As far as training goes. I have to side with the MMA guys when it comes to modern Karate training in the majority of arts/styles/schools. Contact is a dirty word that shall not be spoken in the Dojo. The old days of badges of honor (bruises, broken nose, busted lip, broken fingers, etc.) are a thing of the past in most schools. The most one gets now days is an abrasion from a leather padded glove or a few sore muscles from standing in a line with the rest of class throwing a hundred reverse punches. Training in most schools compared to a MMA gym is a joke at best when it comes to actual reality training. I'm sure as a Karateka I'll get blasted for saying this but the truth is the truth. If not, when is the last time you walked into a Modern Karate Dojo and saw the students set loose on each other? And I'm not talking point Kumite, I'm talking full power (with control) full on, all out testing of individual skills. CONTACT with RESISTANCE? I'll answer for you. You haven't. [side bar] - I'm not talking about schools that still teach old school "traditional" methods. Most old school arts still employ hard training methods and test a technique or application for it's effectiveness in a real situation.

I don't think the Elvis or Michael Jackson comparisons are fair in this case. That'd be equivalent to saying anyone who's teaching martial arts is impersonating their instructor. We learn from our instructors so we can in turn pass this knowledge down to others, who will hopefully do the same. Martial arts styles do not die with their creators. They may evolve, but the spirit still lives on. In the long history of martial arts, the instincts to follow and imitate seems to be inherent in most martial artists, instructors and students alike. This is partly due to human tendency and partly because of the steep traditions behind multiple patterns of style. Consequently, to find a refreshing, original, master teacher is a rarity. The need for a "pointer of the way" echoes. Bruce Lee You are right in the beginning of your training but dead wrong in the instructor years. The techniques passed down are as in any art, the foundation of that art. If you do not mimic or imitate the instructor you do not learn the proper way to perform/execute the techniques/applications. This is a natural learning process, to learn the techniques/applications of the art. However once these are learned the student begins to morph (to an extent). They make the applications and techniques there own. In 35+ years I have never met a senior instructor with the exact same style of teaching. The curriculum is the same, the techniques and applications are the same but the way it is transmitted to the student is not. The scenario you are speaking of is found in most Modern Dojo where conformity is mandatory. If you ever travel to Okinawa you will find a much different learning atmosphere where the individuals critical thinking and individual learning process is fostered rather than quelled. Essentially we learn from each other. One student/instructor will see an application totally different from another and instead of penalizing them for this we test it and apply it in real life applications to see if it works. If this is not done the art WILL become stagnant once you reach a certain level and then I would agree that you are just parroting what your teacher taught you. Having said this, the teachings of those that went before us holds wisdom and should not be ignored. If your statement, "refreshing original master teacher" means someone that doesn't teach the arts techniques and applications as it was passed down then I take back my previous statements as we do pass down the founders teachings. However if you mean allowing students to think on their own then my statements stand.