OneKickWonder

I'm thinking of migrating to muay thai. In my cursory research of the style, it looks like the right path for me given my interests, goals, and body type. I should perhaps throw in at this stage that I have no interest in competition, but I don't think that would be a problem. One thing I notice though is that muay thai folks like to deliver roundhouse kicks to the sides of their opponents knees. From a combat perspective this makes perfect sense. Knees are not built to bend sideways. If they do, then typically that leg is finished, and by extension, the fight is finished as your opponent can't even stand never mind fight. But from a training perspective, I'm wondering how folks manage to train regularly without destroying their knees. I'm sure at this point lots of 20 or 30 year old people will be thinking it's a silly question. I'd be interested to learn how people in their 40s and 50s and beyond get on.

Turnips? Starting this semester with a cold. Had really been looking forward to today’s club dojo session - it’s been so long - but it seems the virus my toddlers have had caught me too. Soon though. Soon. Always a bit nervous going back for the first session after summer, really don’t like missing the first one... Lol sorry, it was a lame joke Swedes and turnips are both vegetables Anyway, I'm glad you are enjoying your training! Osu I see Fun to learn a new word, being an English teacher in a public school here in Sweden I’m always looking to expand my vocabulary For a bit of useless trivia, in England, the vegetable that most people call a turnip is actually not a turnip but a swede, which is part of the beet family along with beetroot. Which reminds me. The thing many know as spinach is actually not spinach at all but the young leaves of the beet. So we eat the roots of the beet and call it beetroot, and we eat the leaves of the beet and call it, spinach. A particularly large kind of beet is the swede which we call, turnip, while an actual turnip is fairly small and often mistaken for white radish. Useless veg trivia I know, but in my defence, I never started it lol. I mentioned that a particularly large variety of beet is called the swede, which most call a turnip. The swede has another colloquial name in the southwest of England. That is the wurzel. A large rather bland variety of which is rarely consumed by humans but is often fed to livestock. This is the mangold wurzel, which has nothing to do with mangolds, but does lend itself conveniently to the name of a cheesy pop/rock tribute band that likes the famous band from the 70s, that is the mangled wurzels, tribute of course to The Wurzels. Although some might say calling a wurzels tribute band the mangled wurzels is in slightly bad taste, considering that the founder of the original wurzels band, Adge Cutler, was tragically killed early in his career in a car accident. Sorry. Massive tangent of veg related tenuous trivia there

Why stop at salutations? Why not get rid of foreign language terms for techniques, kata names, titles, and so on? Because you start to lose the origins and traditions of the system. I personally think some of the terminology and traditions go a tad too far, but I’d much rather keep it than get rid of it. I've come to realise that so many of the folk we put on pedestals and seek guidance from in our training, don't actually know even half of what they might choose to lead us to believe. I think because of this, the Korean / Japanese / Chinese / whatever language terminology has great value. Here's my reasoning. The thing about these eastern languages is that they rarely translate directly to western languages. Most translations are approximate and context based. The very same words in even slightly different contexts can mean something very different. If we switched to the English translation, it would be one translation of possibly many. But it would be the translation we are taught. Whereas if we keep it in its applicable Asian / oriental language, then as well learn, and realise there are other possible translations, we suddenly see that there could be other intentions behind the technique. Let's take a classic example. I'm more recently a Korean style person than Japanese but if I remember right, blocks in Japanese are called something uke. The something being the type of Block. Uke is widely translated as block. That has implications. It implies that the purpose of the technique is to block or stop an incoming technique. This interpretation can lead to the common misconception that we're supposed to simply smash a high speed punch out of the way to block it from getting to us. Very simplistic. Another possible translation of uke is the verb, to receive. Knowing this gives us other possible interpretations of the intention behind a technique. Now, instead of simply blocking an incoming strike from hitting us, now it can mean to receive that strike. The implication now being that you are supposed to do something with it rather than simply knocking it out of the way. It further implies that the arm action is only part of the technique, as to effectively receive an incoming technique, we have to play with body positioning too, rather than statically blocking (and failing if it's fast, and getting knocked out).

Wasn't it Jake Mace that started the horse stance challenge? I think that's a good thing, for a bit of endurance fun. Apart from that, he has so far not impressed me to be honest. But that's not to say he's bad in any way. He does what he does. He seems to enjoy it.

True. But the same applies to absolutely any fighting system. Even a battle hardened soldier is just a human being if he is caught completely off guard. But for me, if I were to pick one single thing that martial arts has done for me I'm terms of self defence ability, it would be that it develops awareness. Every style I've been involved with has free sparring. Sure there are rules and it's nothing like a real fight because of those rules, and because your opponent is your training partner and friend. But as several pairs of people are sparring in the same hall at the same time, you develop good awareness of your surroundings. You have to. If you don't, you end up getting kicked by someone that wasn't even aiming for you because you've backed right into someone else as they were about to kick their opponent. But even if one lands on you out of the blue. Another thing we develop as martial artists is sensitivity. The ability to feel the impact instantly and kind of subconsciously know it's trajectory and source and how to roll with it I guess. Of course none of this is meant to suggest that the martial artist is infallible. Of course not. But it does count for something.

Maybe. But that's not what I hear. What I hear in some circles is people saying oss a lot.

Going back to white belt doesn't bother me in the least, as long as club rules dont exclude people people from certain activities based on belt colour alone. I've come to learn that belt colour means very little.

The kung fu dudes take a different approach to hand conditioning to what many karate dudes do. I personally think the Chinese approach is more sustainable, and they still end up as tough as old boots, but they seem to keep their youth for longer. The kung fu folks like to fill little cloth bags with things, attach said cloth bags to something immovable, and hit that. What they fill the bags with depends on the stage they're at with their conditioning. They'll start with something fairly padded, like straw or dried herbs. Not like the straw rope of a traditional makiwara but straw as in like a cushion. Once they can hit that as often as they like without their knuckles going red or hurting, they'll refill the bag with something slightly more harsh like dried beans. I've heard of people building up to ball bearings or even gravel but that seems counterproductive to me. But in any case, because it's a bag of stuff, whatever that stuff happens to be, the contents can move around the impact, rather than all of the force smashing through your joints. There is something to consider when it comes to any kind of 'traditional' conditioning training. That is that often these historical dudes had no way of knowing any better. The science just wasn't known until fairly recently. Even now there are still folks that say no pain no gain. Sports science has come on in leaps and bounds in recent decades. Traditional is not always best. I think when it comes to hand conditioning, we'd do well to ask ourselves, who has has the hardest punch, and the ability to repeat it over and over, and how do they train? My best guess to this answer would be western boxers. Sure they wear big protective gloves all the time, but I bet the absence of such gloves wouldn't cause them too much trouble if they had to use their skills for self defence one time. In training, they hit really hard, many times, but they are hitting things that will absorb some of the impact rather than chipping away at their joints.

Why did you do that? What were you hoping to achieve? Muscle tissue can take quite a lot of punishment, and repair very effectively as long as the damage is only minor. Cartilage is a very different story. In most cases, the cartilage you have by the time you're about 20 is all you're getting for the rest of your life. Once you reach physical maturity and stop growing, your body changes and your cartilage tissue is effectively starved of a blood supply. That means that with a very few exceptions, it won't heal if it gets damaged. If you want to know what that means in practical terms, it means the following : Osteoarthritis Constant pain A reduction in mobility of the affected joint(s) Weakness around the affected area Sometimes visible deformity If you still want to smash your knuckles up, consider this. What I described above is just the beginning. For reasons that nobody seems to fully understand yet, once the cartilage is injured, the actual bone it is supposed to protect will start to grow around the injured site.only it won't simply replace the missing cartilage with bone tissue. It keeps going. On an xray it looks like little boney spikes. These little spikes grind against everything as the joint moves, causing very significant pain and further injury. This injury of course leads to inflammation. Trouble is, because there's not much room in the area of your knuckles, the nerves that supply your fingers run very close to the bone. Inflammation around there presses on the nerve. Over time this can damage the nerve. Apart from pain, this can also mean your fingers stop working. So you said you're looking for some wisdom. My advice would be, don't smash your knuckles to oblivion. If your training means they'll be out of action even for a day, let alone weeks or months, then you're effectively ruining your own future and any short term gains will quickly evaporate when you can't even do basic things anymore without hurting.

I agree with you. Every now and then, I see some students get particular about where they are in line during line-ups, and I always use that opportunity to tell them exactly that. Its one of the best lessons a student can learn. Agree, with both!! The line is just a line, really, it is. There wouldn't even be a line if there was never the first White Belt to stand there!! Besides, worrying about line positions starkly becomes quite clear when one understands that there's one spot in the line that they'll never ever stand at/on/in... IN FRONT OF THE LINE; that's where the CI's AT/ON/IN, and you, as the student, ARE NOT. Is the goal of your school to destroy student's aspirations? Why will they never ever be the chief instructor? To the bold type above... I'm speaking in present tense, and NOT in future tense!! I'm the CI of my dojo and our Hombu has a CI as well, so, when I'm in house at the Hombu, even though I'm Kaicho, I'm not the CI of the Hombu; there's no room, or reason, for me to stand in front of the line where the Hombu's CI stands. Aspirations are find and all, and I wholeheartedly support them, but until the current CI of wherever steps down, that spot in front of the line is reserved, for the moment. Anyone that knows me on and/or off the floor knows that I'm a staunch proponent for the Student Body, and that I encourage the entire Student Body in whatever their aspirations are, wherever they might be, and that includes becoming the CI wherever that might be. Sorry. My misunderstanding. I took the bit where you said 'they'll never ever', and took that to mean 'they'll never ever' instead of 'they won't at this present time'.

While I agree with this, it does raise a couple of difficult questions. 1. How does one measure and test to see if that mindset and wisdom is there? Age alone can not be a measure. 2. Is a 50 year old ex soldier or doorman or policeman in a white belt less wise and knowledgeable than a 20 year old college graduate in a black belt? I guess the real question is, if age is part of the criteria, how can that be fairly backed up and supported with evidence?

I agree with you. Every now and then, I see some students get particular about where they are in line during line-ups, and I always use that opportunity to tell them exactly that. Its one of the best lessons a student can learn. Agree, with both!! The line is just a line, really, it is. There wouldn't even be a line if there was never the first White Belt to stand there!! Besides, worrying about line positions starkly becomes quite clear when one understands that there's one spot in the line that they'll never ever stand at/on/in... IN FRONT OF THE LINE; that's where the CI AT/ON/IN, and you, as the student, ARE NOT. Is the goal of your school to destroy student's aspirations? Why will they never ever be the chief instructor?

I'm same. I never bothered with grading in previous styles I've done. Kung fu didn't even have formal grades. So although I believe I have a lot to offer, I have yet to attain black belt in anything. I'm quite aware that that means in the eyes of others, I'm not a black belt and therefore not worthy of being a teacher. I used to share this view. But more lately I've come to see it differently. If you have the confidence to spar and really get into the game, then I'd agree, point sparring is pointless. But some people, especially kids, lack the confidence to get stuck in. They often play a defensive game. You can't block forever, so they get knacked. By making it point sparring, it's competitive. There's no points for defending, so I think this might encourage the less confident player to press forward for the strike. That's just a theory. We don't do point sparring, only free sparring, so I'm kind of limited as to how much I can study this where I am at the moment. There are effective karate clubs. I know because I used to attend one. But I think from my own more recent experience and observations, and things I've seen or heard from some others at other clubs, I'm starting to reach the conclusion that if it's fitness and agility and fun you want, you can't go too far wrong with karate. But if you want effective self defence skills, perhaps save your time and money, and sign up for a door supervisor/registered security guard course, making sure it includes the 'physical intervention' module. Wing chun and indeed many styles of kung fu are so effective against the karate practitioner because they learn to use their hands properly. The two systems are perfectly compatible. After all, karate takes a lot from Chinese kung fu. But whereas the kung fu dudes learn to relax and move fluidly from the outset, karate often starts off very rigid and robotic and doesn't loosen up until a certain level of proficiency is gained. I personally think that a few weeks in about any kung fu class would be worthwhile for any karate student. They'll teach you how to relax, breath and move. Then you just take those principles and apply them in your karate.

Remember what evolution has done to us. Your average person can move forward faster than you can move backwards.

If I could only train one part of myself for self defence, what would it be? Tough question. I thought about strong legs. Lots of obvious benefits. But no good if the crest of you is weak. Thinking more, I'm kind of torn between strong neck muscles, or strong hands. I'd probably lean towards strong hands. Here's my reasoning. Neck muscles are so often overlooked. Yet if you are knocked down, guess which muscles have to serve as brakes to stop your head bouncing off the concrete floor. If someone punches your head and lands a good shot, your new kitchen muscles are all that stands between the rotational force and your vertebrate. But that's all a bit defeatist. If you are getting beat up, you can't protect your head and neck for very long without doing something else, whatever that something else might be. So if I could only train one part, it would probably be my hands. With weak hands, I can't punch my attacker without injuring myself. I can't grip him and wrestle/grapple him. If he grabs me I can't apply a wrist lock leading to an arm bar. If I fall forward and instinctively land in my hands, if they are weak, they are finished. Thinking about training, in free sparring (mostly kicking, punching and blocking) I think I've sprained fingers and wrists more often than any other kind of minor injury. In one step, the only thing that can save a technique when you miss the perfect spot is pure strength in the hands and wrists. Likewise said strength can be enough to negate a technique being applied to you, if your opponent doesn't get it perfectly right.

I'm not sure if this is tongue in cheek or a misunderstanding For the avoidance of doubt, I believe board breaking to be The single most ridiculous aspect of the traditional martial arts culture. Pyjamas. OK, strange, but I get it. It's loose fitting and it's a uniform that takes away any class or gender divides by making everyone look kind of the same. Coloured belts that somehow mean a certain level of skill or understanding? Another bizarre notion but OK, it helps both fellow students and instructors understand roughly how far along you are at a glance. Screaming at nobody while you kick things air? Yeah okay but there is science to back the rapid exhalation as you perform a technique, and kicking thin air without falling over has value seeing as when you try to kick an actual opponent, he will want to move and counter and you still want to keep your balance. Bowing and speaking Japanese / Korean to a westerner who speaks the same native language as you and it's not Korean or Japanese? OK. Erm. Yes. OK, it's a cultural thing I guess, and besides, you never know, you might actually one day work with a Korean or Japanese instructor I guess. Breaking small pieces of soft pine that are being held still for you, as a means of demonstrating how hard you are. ....... erm. .... sorry, got nothing lol.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact. It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why. If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation. If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain. Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense. One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street. Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly. Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like. Actually, One Kick, we do. In order to get soldiers prepared for combat (and I am not talking recruits or basic training, I am talking about once they get to their units), we put them through extremely realistic training. This training includes live fire exercises. No, there is no one shooting back at you, but there is a possibility of soldiers getting shot by other soldiers...and it happens, unfortunately, and sometimes soldiers die. This possibility does not stop us from continuing to do hard, realistic training. We don't shy away from this because of the possibility of someone getting hurt. That would be irresponsible. A leader is not doing his duty if he doesn't train his soldiers hard to get them ready for combat. US Army Ranger school is another example. Part of the mantra of the course is to make the students as stressful and as miserable as possible (via food deprivation, sleep deprivation, extreme stress, extreme terrain, and continuously hard missions) in order to have the students prove to themselves that they are capable of overcoming great stress and deprivation and still succeed. Does either one of these training methods perfectly simulate combat? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do. Now I know I am explaining military training, and martial arts schools are not the military. I understand that. I also understand that people train in martial arts for different reasons, which can be as diverse as: wanting to get into shape, join an organization, better discipline, competition, self-defense skills, etc. I personally don't have anything against any of these reasons, but the student must know that sometimes some of these focuses are exclusive of others. If I join a place that teaches cardio kickboxing in order to get into better shape, this is legit. However, I must be honest with myself with the truth that cardio kick boxing is not something that is going to get me prepared to defend myself on the street. Each style is different, and even dojos within the same style can be different. To each his own for what he or she wants to do. My dojo can offer a lot of things: discipline, fitness, joining a larger organization, learning about Okinawan culture, but, admittedly, there may be better dojos out there for these pursuits. My main purpose, and where I focus, is to prepare my students for life protection (self-defense) on the streets. When I teach students how to defend themselves, I am including the ability to take pain as part of this. I put them outside their comfort zone so that they know, when the stress is high, they can overcome. This is not my magical idea--this is proven to be the best way to train by the greatest military in the world (see above). That being said, this training is still controlled. I push things to the limit, but not over the limit. Does this training method perfectly simulate street self-defense? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do. You are right when you say a real life situation is a "lose-lose" proposition. No matter how fast or good you are, you are still likely to get hit or feel pain. Part of being able to defend yourself is to overcome this pain. Can you perfectly simulate this in the dojo...no. But you can give your students confidence that they can overcome, in a general sense, by putting them through hard training in the dojo. Look at some of the Okinawan masters. Morio Higaonna comes to mind. His style is Goju Ryu. This is not my style, but I will say they go through extreme body conditioning with Hojo Undo (Body Strengthening exercises) and Ude Tanren (Forearm Conditioning exercises). His hands are like bricks, plus he is in his 80s and still practicing (as many of the Okinawan masters are). Finally, if I see someone with cauliflower ear, or shins that look like they have been conditioned by kicking a rubber tree, or fists like Master Hagionna’s, well, those are people I don’t want to fight. Regardless of who (them or me) can land a cleaner punch, these guys can definitely take pain, and that is something that makes them hard men (and women) and tough in a fight! One Kick, you train for your own reasons and that is fine. If you don't want to train the way I am proposing, that is also fine. Karate no michi. All good. And I'm aware of live fire training in the military. Us Brits (when I say us, I mean brits other than me, I'm not in the military, have live fire training too. Not being a soldier, I've never experienced it myself. But friends who were in the army describe it as you and your mate at opposite ends of a range. Each takes turns to fire a couple of rounds over the others position before taking cover as your mate returns the favour. I'm told it's to get you used to the sound of bullets buzzing within inches of your head. Sounds terrifying. But I know nothing of that so I'm not going to attempt to debate it. But just to say I have the utmost respect for those brave/crazy enough to train for such conditions to do a job I'm not brave enough or tough enough to do. Having friends who are ex military, who are politely diplomatic about my civilian training, I do sometimes with we could have a sort of hybrid training programme. Imagine any government being told it will take 10 years or more to train as soldier in unarmed combat. But equally imagine the average office working civvy being told to run 20 miles with a heavy back pack on before breakfast. There must be some middle ground where civvies can develop effective real world skills, not to military standard, and not to UFC competition standard, but effective against you're average drunken thug or crazy druggy, in a relatively short time. I was thinking about this today (it's been said that I think too much). We train a lot of kicking combos, often advancing forward as do. Thing is I've witnessed many real scraps, and been in a few myself. I can't say I've ever seen one where someone advances successfully with a kicking combo. Much more typical is a volley of wildly innacurate punches, often followed by both parties grabbing hold of each other with either one or both hands. If they grab with one hand, invariably they use that to try to pull their foe while striking with the other hand. It looks absolutely nothing like anything I've seen in any martial art at any level. I believe soldiers train for this kind of thing, under the guise of crowd control techniques. I know for certain that it's in the UK bouncers (door supervisor) training. But traditional styles don't seem to cover this very much, if are all. Back to the topic of bunkai, I'm familiar with the idea that most styles thoroughly cover various wrist grabs and head locks etc. Great. But they are rarely trained with someone riving you about with one hand while wildly trying to knock your head off with the other.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact. It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why. If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation. If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain. Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense. One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street. Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly. Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like. There is a difference. If you're shot you're done. If you're tagged in the face once, you may still be in the fight. Do you remember the Brock Lesnar vs Cain Velazquez fight? Brock got tagged in the face once and he freaked out, trying to run away, ended spinning like a helicopter, cried and then got KO'd. Turns out Brock didn't know what being punched is like. It is NOT recommended to get punched in the face whilst training, but you do have to experience high impact and some pain from time to time just so you can get the grit necessary to power though them in a fight shall the need arise. A competition dual is very different from a real fight. In a competition duel, there is the expectation that all parties will follow the rules. There is also the knowledge that if you lose, you're probably not going to get repeatedly beaten possibly until unrecognisable or dead. In a real fight there can be no misunderstanding. There is only one rule. Try not to get beaten to oblivion. Try to stay in a state where you can go home to your family afterwards. These two very different situations inevitably result in very different emotions and reactions. I've experienced both. I've called a 'fight' off because I've hurt my leg and I knew that continuing with it would put me out of training for a few weeks. I've also been caught up in real violence, where to be honest I felt no pain at all. None. Zilch. Until some hours later when the adrenaline had worn off, and I realised I had a lot of bruises and a couple of fractures. Yet I was generally still the same shape and in the same number of pieces as before, which is literally the best you can hope for when it's for real. Which brings us nicely to the other difference between competition duel and real fight. The former has a winner and a loser. The latter has a loser and another loser.

are they junior black blets or full black belt? I can't imagin a 10 years old full black belt. No disrespect to your school or any other schools but if I have a school and I give a black belt to 10 years old ( I don't care if he/she is better than Rika Osami) it only means I need money and I can't even wait. They are full black belt. To be fair to them they are good kids, and they definitely have good technical skills. One of them (yes we have several ) can even spar pretty well.

When a complete newbie joins a karate club for the first time, what are they led to believe black belt represents? When a parent puts their child into the trust of the person at the front, what are they led to believe black belt represents? The marketing spiel usually promises self discipline, respect, confidence, fitness, self defence ability. Usually some or all of the above. Are those things age dependent? I really don't know. In our association, the minimum age is 10. We have 10 year old dan grades. We have to bow to them and call them sir. I do this to tow the line but I do worry. Do they have the right to be confident in their self defence ability? At that age, unless they're unlucky enough to have an unusually hard life, their idea of a 'real fight' is a brief exchange of taps until either someone cries or the teacher intervenes.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact. It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why. If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation. If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain. Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense. One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street. Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly. Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

Lol, I was being open and honest when I said that I took a compliment about "being naturally fast" and let it go to my head. Then I explained that this compliment had absolutely no foundation in reality, as I found out this weekend. This was part of a 23andme wellness report that I did mostly to learn more about my ancestry. It's nothing weird. I also have not be dwelling on it. I just learned like two days ago, and basically only talked about it here. How is this dwelling? Paint me up to be a creepy obsessed person who can't take a compliment if you want, but that doesn't make it true. I'm not going to sit here and tell you all of the uncomplimentary things I've been called, because the list is very long and it doesn't much have anything to do with this topic. So you can't really infer whether I am someone who gets complimented more often than insulted. I think it's fair to say that I hear other people's judgements of me (kind or ill) pretty often. I'm small, love to laugh, and enjoy talking to everyone, so people tend to speak freely with me about whatever they are thinking. I think this is a pretty great privilege, even if I have to suffer some cruel words from time to time (again, I haven't mentioned any of said "cruel words anywhere in this post, this post is about compliments). You've clearly taken my positive intention as a negative. I was drawing your attention to your own comment that you receive compliments. Surely that's a good thing is it not?

I agree 100% with this. But just for clarity, 'training the way onekick describes', to be clear and for the avoidance of doubt, I am criticising the orderly sanitised training methods of clinical applications and air kicking. Those things have their place of course, when first learning a new concept, but you can't perform a bunkai drill with compliant partners and then call yourself a fighter. But all this said, for the most part, each to their own. We're all there for our own reasons and hopefully for most one of the biggest reasons is fun. Where I do get a bit frustrated though, and this is not directed at anyone on here, this is a general criticism, is when instructors take money from people who are paying to be trained to fight or defend themselves, and give them a few basic moves that work in isolation against the right kind of attack, and then fill them with false confidence with unsubstantiated claims. If an instructor says 'this works', the student should be able to ask 'how do you know?' But as we all know, in traditional martial arts we are not supposed to question like this. We are supposed to trust the instructor, and carry on giving him money.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact. It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why. If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation. If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain. Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

Not the way that we do it!! The initial is known, but after that, it's not, hence, the battle isn't known by either student, nor is the outcome. And yes, that's the MA...performing a specific action is expected...TECHNIQUES, whatever that might be at that particular moment. Please don't group all of us traditional MAist together on the same cloth and/or with the same broad brush stroke!! I was raised, and am still, a traditional MAist, but the manner of which we/I was/were trained by Soke and Dai-Soke, is very much realistic and practical. Why?? Our lives depend on it each and every time!! The MA is an ongoing testing ground, in which I'm still an active participant of because NOTHING is written in stone...NOTHING!! Therefore, it's up to the student to take what they've been and/or being taught, and greatly expand upon it because, once again, their live depends on it. What the student is taught is how to give that door of opportunity that swift kick to get that door opened, but that student must be willing to have the guts to first go through the open door, and then to bust that door wide open with their own testing grounds. Students are given the tools, but how the student uses them is up to that student, traditional or not!! I'm a Senior Dan, but what I've given to my students is the free will to expand what it is that they've learned from me. But they have to have the guts to accept it or discard it for their MA betterment. I've given them all of the puzzle pieces but it's up to them to put them all together so that their picture becomes much more clearer to them, not for me, but for them!! How will the student learn to use the tools? How will they expand upon what you've taught them? When will they get that opportunity? Should they go out to bars and deliberately cause trouble so as to create the opportunity to practice? Should they beat up random people? Probably not. As students, we pay someone money to train us to fight. I'm sure some might go to learn kata, but very often people go with the exception that having spent many thousands of pounds/dollars and several years saying yes sir and bowing and placing their full trust in the guy at the front, they'll become proficient fighters. The posters and adverts usually imply that too. The reason to keep going to a class rather than just copying YouTube demos is to have an instructor see and correct you, but perhaps even more importantly, to have a room full of like minded people to practice against and with. It's not unreasonable for a paying student to expect to be taught what was promised. To say that kata should be taken literally, then it's up to the student to expand upon it, without creating that opportunity in the training hall, is effectively only given them half of what was promised or alluded to at the time of accepting their money when they first come to train. IMO the only martial arts that should be taken literally are actually fight sports and not traditional martial arts: Boxing, Muay Thai and BJJ. When you're throwing a jab in boxing, that's the way you should use it in the ring. When you're throwing a kick in muay thai, that is how you're supposed to do it in the ring. When you pull an arm bar, that's how you're meant to do it. But any other arts? Not really, no. You're not supposed to chamber the non-punching hand next to your wrist or ribs in a real fight. Who would ever get in a super low zenkutsu dachi or shiko dachi stance in a bar fight? I, for one, would never think "incoming punch! Better put my fist next to my ear so I can then perform an ude uke block!" No karate practitioner out there will tell you "you should chamber your hand next to your hips on a real fight, and you should definitely punch in using zenkutsudachi". And that means... you're supposed to adapt said techniques, making them not literal. That's exactly what several karate folks here and telling us. They are saying that kata and their bunkai are literal. I thought they meant that in the sense of "that age uke is actually an age uke" I made the point earlier that attacks may come from different angles or may be in many ways slightly different to how the kata has you position yourself, and therefore kata can only work if it's principles rather than literal. I was told I was wrong. I sought further clarification in several ways. Same answer each time.