aazaaazaaazaaaza

Thanks for stating your opinion! Thats always what gets conversations started, but allow me to explain where you're wrong. I much agree with you on self defense vs fighting, in regards to how long either may last at least. So lets address your statement that "lethal" striking is better than learning how to grapple. First I need to add the disclaimer that many people take to certain styles as opposed to others- I've known people that take to striking better than grappling, better to thai than boxing, and better to wrestling than jiu jitsu. As it pertains to self defense though, the one option available thats not available in a fight is to run away. In this sense, the only way that someone can keep you from running is to grab and attempt to restrain you- this becomes a grappling situation. Knowing how to grapple is of utmost importance in said situation, moreso than striking. If you're mentality is that your striking is so devestating that someone cant grab you, then you havent seen how modern fighting competitions have destroyed what were preconceived notions regarding martial arts over the past few decades. Theres nothing wrong with striking styles, but you suggest "lethal" striking as if to suggest its a better option. Once again the whole "deadly" thing was dispelled quite convincingly over the past few decades. Interestingly enough you present a scenario where, if there were ever a need or argument for grappling this would be it and yet you argue the opposite. Im going to guess that you havent trained in grappling, because the elevator scenario is one where you're pretty much guarenteed to have a grappling situation no matter who you put in there, and we're back to grappling. The other reason Im guessing you havent trained (at all) in grappling is because of the videos you posted.... let us analyze! So videos 1 and 3 are two guys that have no idea what they're doing. Check that- 4 guys that have no idea what they're doing. Heres the first problem- they've both go untrained unorthodox people who are attempting to do something that they themselves (from the looks of it) have NEVER done before in their lives. I.E. They're demonstrating against someone who has no idea what they're doing. They are both attempting to attack an opponent who has your hips and therefore has control. Hips are everything in grappling and for that matter everything in striking and fighting in general. Because someone has your hips, any strikes you attempt to throw will not have sufficient power to be of any use whatsoever. Its not your choice of attack thats the flaw, its the position you're choosing to attack from- something you learn very soon in jiu jitsu. I should also note the guy in the third video is grabbing with the wrong hand when hes doing a guillotine... Now conveniently you posted the second video which I can use to qualify what Im saying and I dont need to go searching for others. In this video you see the only correct response to a shot/tackle/double leg- a sprawl. Notice the thai fighter sprawls successfully. This is the first and only thing that needs to be done so as to defend your hips. Once his hips are successfully defended, he then transfers to his own grappling clinch and gets control of his opponents posture (notice his opponents hips are far away...). Now he starts delivering his shots. This happens again and again you'll notice the thai fighter sprawling first and after defending the takedown is able to go on the offensive. Sprawling is one of the first things you learn in grappling. Notice those not particularly familiar with grappling arent showing it, because they havent learned it. Because they havent learned it they're doomed to failure unless they fight against the most incapable of opponents. The concludes the point that there is no such thing as "anti-grappling." Anti grappling is grappling, so the very phrase is nonsensical. Again the problem here isnt that hes using the wrong strikes or that hes hitting the wrong areas- the problem is that hes doing it from a poor position. I'm only speaking from personal experience. I've been in three self-defense situations in my life, and each of those three times I successfully neutralized my attacker. Two of those times I used open-hand strikes (the precise details elude me because they were high-stress situations and memory isn't too great in those moments), and in one I used an open-hand strike to the throat followed by o-soto-gari, if my memory is accurate. Here's my belief. The average violent assailant is more likely to be armed than he is to be a BJJ grandmaster. He's also more likely to target weaker individuals, like women and the elderly. These people need realistic self-defense. I've done a lot of research on self-defense situations, and it's so exceedingly rare for an attacker to randomly tackle a victim. Most of the time, the attacker is looking for a quick hit and run; maybe the creep wants to feel up your sister, or maybe he wants to mug your grandpa. Maybe he's high on angel dust and decides to break into your home at 2am, armed and high out of his mind. My take is that wrestling is common in street fights but rare to non-existent in self-defense scenarios. It's also about the law of probabilities. Sure, that guy mugging you might have a black belt in BJJ, but maybe you'll be walking down the street and some lunatic will decide to do a drive-by on you. Does the fact that it "might" happen warrant wearing a bulletproof vest 24/7? Or studying BJJ for a decade? And let's say you wrestle your attacker to the ground. Ok, cool. Now what? The moment you let him go he's gonna hurt you. Maybe he has a nice switchblade or a tazer. Plus, I always carry a concealed pistol these days. Much more reliable for self-defense. EDIT: I know all about sprawling. I work out with some buddies and we often practice takedown techniques in addition to sparring. It's not that I have zero experience with grappling. I just don't see it as a magic bullet.

Bravery isn't the absense of fear but the conquering of it.

In my opinion, there's a difference between fighting and self-defense. A fight is a confrontation that both parties decide to engage in. Self-defense is when you're attacked against your will and you have no choice but to react violently. A fight can last a long time. A self-defense situation will usually last a few seconds. What's your goal? If your goal is to fight people, then of course groundfighting technique is great to have. But if your goal is self-defense...well, you'll do a lot better knowing lethal striking techniques than how to grapple. A woman who's cornered in an elevator by a rapist isn't going to find BJJ useful; a series of open-hand strikes to vulnerable regions like the throat and the temple are far more realistic. PS There are many good techniques against tackling:

I guess I could join as a white belt somewhere. I still practice karate everyday in addition to kickboxing, btw. I practice kata regularly and go through the various drills, and I practice takedowns and ground-based techniques with buddies at the gym. Now that I think about it, maybe I don't need to join a dojo. I'll never want to be a teacher, and if I'm desperate enough to train with other karate guys I'll befriend one or two and do it an informal setting. Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Honesty, I just want to train with other people. I'm no master in karate, but I'm competent and was trained by a well-regarded man in my area. My fear is that I'll be treated as some white belt noob and thrown in with kid classes or something. I certainly don't want to waste $$$ and time learning things I already know. I also don't want to seem like I'm showing anybody up by wearing a white belt and displaying my knowledge of all the kata and all that. I guess my desire is to be able to walk into a dojo and improve my skills. (My stepfather is too old and crippled to continue training with me, and I'm 27. I need guys closer to my age to train with.) The kickboxing guys I spar with had no problem acknowledging my previous training, but I get the feeling that practitioners of a rank-focused martial art like karate would make me jump through useless hoops. So that's my goal: to improve upon the karate I already have and to become the best I can be.

I think you misunderstood me. He stopped teaching professionally around 1992. He didn't meet my mother and me until around 2002, when I was 13 years old. It was at this time that he began teaching me karate in the privacy of our home. The thing is I've never actually stepped foot in a dojo. I hate to use this analogy, by it's as if my mother married Mr. Miyagi and he spent the next several years teaching me karate. I know he's legitimate because he's well-known in the local karate scene. His school was popular and a lot of his students have had success in martial arts. He's got a 4th dan black belt and he says he's taught me everything he knows. Another question: Does this make me qualified to teach others? Is there certification someone needs to acquire, and what does this entail? All my research suggests that there is no universal standard for belts. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm a phony, but how do I prove my legitimacy when I have no affiliation with any organization or school?

I sort of get what you're saying. My martial art, which is Shotokan karate, was taught to me by my stepfather. He ran karate school before I was even born, but by the time he taught me he was retired and didn't see any point in giving me a belt. I suppose a black belt would give me an ego boost, but maybe that's not so great, after all. I know what I can do. I do spar with kickboxers at my local gym, and I've been in a few self-defense situations where my karate training has saved me. But I'm only 27, and I still have ego, and joining a dojo at "white belt" rank would be difficult to endure. EDIT: I suppose there's a practical purpose for rank if you have many students and need to keep track of where they're at. But "rank" should just be something that an instructor develops in his own school for his own personal use. If I'm ever in a position to teach anyone what I know, I won't require them to wear uniforms or belts. They could wear t-shirts and sweatpants, for all I care. If I have several students at a time, maybe I'd just keep a notebook with the students' name and ranks on a chart, and maybe I'd post that same info on a whiteboard in the back of the training hall or whatever.

Hi. My stepfather ran a karate school in the 80s and early 90s. He taught me karate during my teenage years (between roughly 2002-2008) and I've practiced daily since then (including sparring at a local kickboxing gym). He never gave me a belt or a rank of any kind. So if I were to join a Shotokan karate dojo, would I start at white belt or what? Would I be treated as a total beginner? Would I have to "prove" my martial arts training in some fashion? EDIT And do I have to be a member of a school to participate in any karate tournaments? I've done some local kickboxing competitions for fun (nothing serious), but I'd feel like a fraud if I dress up in a karate gi with a black belt and participate in a karate event.

I don't have much to say here. I've studied Shotokan karate and now I'm here.