OneKickWonder

This is a solid post. And does well to highlight that when considering lineage, sadly, we must also consider politics. Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts. So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence. But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions. So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

But not fcarrot cake. That is as wrong as pineapple on pizza. Carrot cake, pineapple pizza, fruit curry, these are all life's good things.

Hi all. A thought occurred to me. I wonder if I am a nightmare student. I don't want to be and I try not to be. But I analyse everything. Absolutely everything. I have my own ideas about when I'm ready to grade, in that I get put forward but refuse to grade unless I personally think I'm at the required standard. For example. Classic training tool. One person offers predesignated attack, the other offers predesignated counter. Everyone is happy. Except me. I want to know what if the attack comes from a different angle? What if I fail to get the technique on? What if it goes on OK but the 'attacker' manages to fire off another strike? A million other what ifs. I also don't accept the standard explanations of various techniques. I know that 'blocks' are not blocks. Or some are, but not the way we're taught. So I want to know how they are supposed to work, how come so many people can believe that in the time from seeing a punch setting off, you can extend one arm, twist the body, strike across with the other arm etc. In forms, the standard explanations just don't work. They're often either anatomically impossible, or so convoluted that they could never work under pressure. But I know they represent stuff that does work. Sometimes I find it. Some stuff still puzzles me. Worst of all, sometimes I feel that while my current school can still teach me a great deal, I'm not convinced that my instructors could answer my million questions. That's fine. I don't expect anyone to know everything. But I suddenly wonder if I'm a nightmare for even questioning everything. I should add, I don't question that much vocally. But because I've become a friend to our instructors and we chat informally outside of class, I know they know how I think.

That's the whole point. Martial arts are dirty. They tend to start off with strict clear rules. You do this technique from this stance, you turn like this, etc etc. But all that is just muscle development and balance and coordination, and core principles. As you progress you realise that all of the earlier training was just about making you physically more able to move freely while fighting dirty. I can't say if that's true of the sports oriented styles because that's not my thing. But certainly in traditional martial arts its all about training efficiency of movement and coordinated power delivery that integrates well with our inherent monkey behaviour.

I like this. Many 'blocks' are far too impractical to use as a block. Jodan uke especially so. It's ridiculous as a block. But it has value as a close range strike and various other bits. As a point of interest (or at least it interested me), the term 'block' turns out to be a western mistranslation. As is so often the case, there's no direct translation between the Japanese 'uke' and English. I'm not that up on Japanese but I believe it means something like, to receive and control, or to receive and deflect/redirect', so it became widely translated simply as 'block'. But if we look at it in the wider possible interpretation, suddenly the 'blocks' take on new meaning. Receiving a technique doesn't have to mean getting walloped. It means receiving the incoming in a way over which you have some control.

Not harsh at all. I have worked up a certain ability with 4 years of dedicated training. To start over and learn new bodymechanics does not appeal to me. I have begun a journey and consistently stuck with it all the way to red belt. I am close to a first degree black belt. The techniques seem to fit me too. The options I was concidering was joining a Kyokushin club, but there is none in my city, only a Kyokushin budokai one. You wouldn't really have to learn a whole new set of body mechanics. The think about martial arts is that they tend to have been developed and refined by people who understand how the typical human body works. Gods forbid, if you ever have to be rushed to hospital for emergency treatment, rest assured that the experts there won't be frantically leafing through your notes to fund out what martial art you practiced so they can understand your anatomy. Of course there are subtle differences between styles.my first style was wado. I went from that to a form of kung fu. Fighting stance was a little bit different, and there were more open hand techniques, and the roundhouse kick was toes back instead of instep. But many core principles were common between the two. More recently (last few years) tang soo do became my chosen style. Almost everything is the same as wado, but with subtle changes, and a bit more kung fu style open hand stuff. I did aikido and judo for a while. Guess what, I see every style I've ever studied in every other style I've ever studied. The main difference I've found between the styles I've practiced is the emphasis. Tang soo do has pretty much all the elements of wado, but wado focuses a lot on 'boxing' (by that I mean more closer to Chinese boxing than western). Tang soo do emphasises kicking and joint manipulation and take downs. But I've yet to come across anything unique. One thing that's surprised me in a good way with having a few different styles, is that each 'new' style I try doesn't teach something new, but rather instead, shows me something I already thought I knew, but from a different perspective. I only did aikido for a short while, but that short time added loads to my tang soo do understanding. I recently started tai chi (the meditation kind, not the combat kind). My Tang soo do experience is helping me pick it up quickly, while the tai chi is making a big difference to my tang soo do. Sorry this is quite a long post. What I'm trying to highlight is that martial art is a rich tapestry to be viewed from many angles. Some of the most insightful martial artists I know have tried multiple styles. The fact that you've stuck with one for 4 years shows you have what it takes to commit to study. Maybe have a look about. Keep an open mind. You don't have to quit your current one (unless you want to). You might do one class somewhere else and decide not to go back. Or you might try it and love it, for a while, then get bored and try something else. All good. You might even switch completely. You won't lose anything. As long as you keep an open mind, you're pretty much guaranteed to broaden your skills and understanding. People seem to think every thread is inherently a problem solving request. It is not. I wanted to relay my experience of ITF TaeKwonDo and compare it to other peoples experience. As far as I can see, you've achieved exactly that. Other people, my self included, have shared out experiences within the context of the subject you raised. Your headline question on the thread is whether or not 1% kicking is acceptable. Folks could have answered with simple yes or no. But then that would be worthless, as it would be personal to the person answering. Instead people shared their experiences to allow you to take what you want from it, or leave it. It seems to me your choice is simple. You're clearly not happy with your current training, but nor are you willing to try something new. If that's a fair assessment, and only you can decide if it is or not, then your choice is either put up with it, or walk away. If I'm wrong, then a whole world of opportunity lays before you. It's your choice. Ask yourself what your personal goals are. They are personal. Different for everyone. We each must find a path that helps us to achieve them.

Not harsh at all. I have worked up a certain ability with 4 years of dedicated training. To start over and learn new bodymechanics does not appeal to me. I have begun a journey and consistently stuck with it all the way to red belt. I am close to a first degree black belt. The techniques seem to fit me too. The options I was concidering was joining a Kyokushin club, but there is none in my city, only a Kyokushin budokai one. You wouldn't really have to learn a whole new set of body mechanics. The think about martial arts is that they tend to have been developed and refined by people who understand how the typical human body works. Gods forbid, if you ever have to be rushed to hospital for emergency treatment, rest assured that the experts there won't be frantically leafing through your notes to fund out what martial art you practiced so they can understand your anatomy. Of course there are subtle differences between styles.my first style was wado. I went from that to a form of kung fu. Fighting stance was a little bit different, and there were more open hand techniques, and the roundhouse kick was toes back instead of instep. But many core principles were common between the two. More recently (last few years) tang soo do became my chosen style. Almost everything is the same as wado, but with subtle changes, and a bit more kung fu style open hand stuff. I did aikido and judo for a while. Guess what, I see every style I've ever studied in every other style I've ever studied. The main difference I've found between the styles I've practiced is the emphasis. Tang soo do has pretty much all the elements of wado, but wado focuses a lot on 'boxing' (by that I mean more closer to Chinese boxing than western). Tang soo do emphasises kicking and joint manipulation and take downs. But I've yet to come across anything unique. One thing that's surprised me in a good way with having a few different styles, is that each 'new' style I try doesn't teach something new, but rather instead, shows me something I already thought I knew, but from a different perspective. I only did aikido for a short while, but that short time added loads to my tang soo do understanding. I recently started tai chi (the meditation kind, not the combat kind). My Tang soo do experience is helping me pick it up quickly, while the tai chi is making a big difference to my tang soo do. Sorry this is quite a long post. What I'm trying to highlight is that martial art is a rich tapestry to be viewed from many angles. Some of the most insightful martial artists I know have tried multiple styles. The fact that you've stuck with one for 4 years shows you have what it takes to commit to study. Maybe have a look about. Keep an open mind. You don't have to quit your current one (unless you want to). You might do one class somewhere else and decide not to go back. Or you might try it and love it, for a while, then get bored and try something else. All good. You might even switch completely. You won't lose anything. As long as you keep an open mind, you're pretty much guaranteed to broaden your skills and understanding.

That's your decision. But I and many others have started again from the beginning on switching styles, even when switching between very similar styles. It means you get fresh insights that you might have missed first time round. And would you rather be a black belt with no kicks, or a white belt with a massive head start on the hands and some awesome kicks after just a few months?

You could always break the golden rule, and ask if there could be more emphasis on kicking, or why it appears to be lacking. Beware though, if he is old school, your question may be frowned upon. If you do choose to have a word, I would recommend doing so tactfully and in private. It may even be the frustrating thing of 'everything in due course', where stuff gets withheld until a certain grade. We have that to some extent in ours but really not that much, and certainly not in basics. Basics in our case meaning all the techniques including all kicks, punches and blocks etc done in isolation or very basic combos. How long have you trained where you're at now? Do you have other options in your neighbourhood if you can't get what you're looking for from your current club?

Hand techniques are often neglected in Korean arts. I have the opposite complaint that we focus too much on kicking. I can understand your frustration. But, what if your instructor is the real deal? What if he or she is not interested in the impractical show moves and wants you to learn a combat art? In a real scrap, kicks should be kept fairly low to avoid loss of balance and to reduce the risk of the leg being caught. And they should be simple. The tornado kick for example, perfect it is your youth. Try doing it effectively when you're 40plus and carrying your fair share of old injuries. That's not to say kicks are bad. They are a great training tool and I guess they have real uses. But your hand techniques. Think about your blocks that you're getting bored with. How practical are they as blocks. Imagine a punch or kick is coming in at full speed. Do you have time to do a perfect block? Think about that for a moment. Then think about the movement of the block. What else could they be? While your hand is going up to your opposite shoulder for example, what is your elbow doing? What could it be doing if modified very slightly? Think about where the hand goes when blocking. Is it knocking a punch or kick off course or is it doing something else? Think about what the other arm is doing when blocking. Think about the motion in preparing to block. In a knife hand centre for example, hands come to the hip first. Is that just setting up for the block or is that an action in itself? We're often taught that a block is a block, but as you move up through the grades, if you haven't started to realise it for yourself yet, the instructor should start to reveal, that blocks are anything but blocks.in fact they are useless as blocks. Far too slow. But they are quite forceful actions. Think about how a high/rising block might work if your opponent has hold of you and us too close to punch or kick. Think about what your knife hand block might do to an elbow of somebody that has got hold of you. There's a lot going on in hand techniques. Your instructor no doubt wants you to develop the techniques and the muscles that support them, so that by the time you figure out what they really are, they will be formidable techniques. Not show techniques. Not for competition. But maybe to keep you in one piece in a real scrap. That said, he should be teaching kicks too though. If my instructor feels that way he picked the wrong art. Taekwondo is supposed to have a 60/40 kick/punch distribution, bare minimum. This is more like 10-20% kicking. Kicks are not taught as rigidly either. He might demonstrate a roundhouse kick half heartedly at low heights. No lectures on the proper body mechanics involved in roundhouse kicks. No lectures on how to apply kicks in sparring, that is no tactics lectures. No lectures in sparring tactics at all. Etc Who said taekwondo is supposed to be 60/40 kicking? And what are 'sparring tactics'? There are no tactics in real violence. Just action. Tactics are for sport. Taekwondo is often interpreted and presented as a sport. And that's fine. But at its roots it is very much a martial art. Grandmaster Howard states it here. At 0:52 And was 9th Dan grandmaster Howard trained by any of the founders of Taekwondo in Korea? I mean no disrespect to him, but the idea of attaching actual percentages to aspects of a style is laughable. If you get into a fight and you use Taekwondo, and you manage to land 6 kicks before your enemy closes you down into hands range, are you only allowed to punch 4 times before it stops being Taekwondo? There's a similar bizarre notion in tang soo do. Apparently it's something like 60% karate, 20% northern Chinese kung fu, and 20% southern Chinese. I'm not aware that anyone has ever picked the style apart to say which bits are which. It just sounds good when summarising the style. You're missing the point. It's more about why take TKD classes over Karate and vice versa. The hole point of doing Taekwondo for most people is to have an emphasis on kicks, while still training hands. In Karate, you have an emphasis on hands while still training kicks. With respect, I get the point, but I think you're missing my point. Taekwondo has some epic hand techniques in it as well as kicks. Unless the school promises a particular focus, then surely it is up to the chief instructor of the school to decide where to place the emphasis? It is the up to each student to decide if they like what's on offer. Tang soo do covers the broad range. In ours, our chief instructor loves kicking. Another instructor can't really kick any more due to a past injury, and a third is an epic grappler. We can guess what the focus will be depending on who is standing up front. But it's all one style. If I were at your club, I might love it. I'm not really a fan of kicking too much. A kicker might hate the very same club. It's an individual thing but doesn't necessarily point to a problem with the teacher.

Hand techniques are often neglected in Korean arts. I have the opposite complaint that we focus too much on kicking. I can understand your frustration. But, what if your instructor is the real deal? What if he or she is not interested in the impractical show moves and wants you to learn a combat art? In a real scrap, kicks should be kept fairly low to avoid loss of balance and to reduce the risk of the leg being caught. And they should be simple. The tornado kick for example, perfect it is your youth. Try doing it effectively when you're 40plus and carrying your fair share of old injuries. That's not to say kicks are bad. They are a great training tool and I guess they have real uses. But your hand techniques. Think about your blocks that you're getting bored with. How practical are they as blocks. Imagine a punch or kick is coming in at full speed. Do you have time to do a perfect block? Think about that for a moment. Then think about the movement of the block. What else could they be? While your hand is going up to your opposite shoulder for example, what is your elbow doing? What could it be doing if modified very slightly? Think about where the hand goes when blocking. Is it knocking a punch or kick off course or is it doing something else? Think about what the other arm is doing when blocking. Think about the motion in preparing to block. In a knife hand centre for example, hands come to the hip first. Is that just setting up for the block or is that an action in itself? We're often taught that a block is a block, but as you move up through the grades, if you haven't started to realise it for yourself yet, the instructor should start to reveal, that blocks are anything but blocks.in fact they are useless as blocks. Far too slow. But they are quite forceful actions. Think about how a high/rising block might work if your opponent has hold of you and us too close to punch or kick. Think about what your knife hand block might do to an elbow of somebody that has got hold of you. There's a lot going on in hand techniques. Your instructor no doubt wants you to develop the techniques and the muscles that support them, so that by the time you figure out what they really are, they will be formidable techniques. Not show techniques. Not for competition. But maybe to keep you in one piece in a real scrap. That said, he should be teaching kicks too though. If my instructor feels that way he picked the wrong art. Taekwondo is supposed to have a 60/40 kick/punch distribution, bare minimum. This is more like 10-20% kicking. Kicks are not taught as rigidly either. He might demonstrate a roundhouse kick half heartedly at low heights. No lectures on the proper body mechanics involved in roundhouse kicks. No lectures on how to apply kicks in sparring, that is no tactics lectures. No lectures in sparring tactics at all. Etc Who said taekwondo is supposed to be 60/40 kicking? And what are 'sparring tactics'? There are no tactics in real violence. Just action. Tactics are for sport. Taekwondo is often interpreted and presented as a sport. And that's fine. But at its roots it is very much a martial art. Grandmaster Howard states it here. At 0:52 And was 9th Dan grandmaster Howard trained by any of the founders of Taekwondo in Korea? I mean no disrespect to him, but the idea of attaching actual percentages to aspects of a style is laughable. If you get into a fight and you use Taekwondo, and you manage to land 6 kicks before your enemy closes you down into hands range, are you only allowed to punch 4 times before it stops being Taekwondo? There's a similar bizarre notion in tang soo do. Apparently it's something like 60% karate, 20% northern Chinese kung fu, and 20% southern Chinese. I'm not aware that anyone has ever picked the style apart to say which bits are which. It just sounds good when summarising the style.

Thanks. Could you elaborate on how it's bordering on a back kick concidering that my shoulder and upper body is facing towards the target? One thing that did dawn on me is that the leg seems to have a curved trajectory? I think this might be me trying to kick next the camera lens for a better view of the technique, instead of straight forward (in which case the foot would cover most of the body in the photo). It might be deficiencies too, I just don't know. I rarely see myself kick. As for the extended arm, this is indeed how we have been taught in ITF Taekwondo. I am perfectly capable of side kicking without it, and I don't feel it's necessary. Maybe it's a camera position thing, but it looks to me like relative to the target, more of your back is visible than your front. Out of curiosity, did your instructor give a reason for extending the arm rather than maintaining guard? In tang soo do we have a couple of places in forms where we do that, but it represents grabbing an opponent's wrist while kicking his knee or lower ribs. In basic techniques, we always maintain the guard.

This is meant as constructive criticism. It's mostly a perfectly good side kick, so please take what I say next as possible options for further improvement of an already good kick. You seem to be twisting and little too much, almost turning it into a back kick. I suspect that's either a bit of lack of flexibility at the core, or a slight lack of control in the pivot of the supporting foot. Something that works for me that I've only started doing fairly recently is to ditch the speed and power. Sure, you should develop speed and power, but also balance and coordination. It's a big ask to do it all in one go. So I sometimes practice slowly. Maybe try breaking it down. Pivot to 90 and chamber, extend and pivot further, restract to chamber, and finally back to your stance, in 4 separate, slow steps. If you do that, you may find it difficult at first. Doing that slow will quickly reveal where you might need to work on some of the smaller muscles that stabilise the ankles and such. The other thing is your extended arm. Presumably for counter balance? In combat, that equates to a lowered guard, and something to grab hold of. I believe some styles accept this or even encourage it, and I'm in no position to knock such styles. But in our style, we keep the guard up throughout. It might feel weird at first, but once you get used to it, I feel it gives better control, plus of course it means your face is still guarded in case it goes pear shaped.

Woohoo. Cool.

Hand techniques are often neglected in Korean arts. I have the opposite complaint that we focus too much on kicking. I can understand your frustration. But, what if your instructor is the real deal? What if he or she is not interested in the impractical show moves and wants you to learn a combat art? In a real scrap, kicks should be kept fairly low to avoid loss of balance and to reduce the risk of the leg being caught. And they should be simple. The tornado kick for example, perfect it is your youth. Try doing it effectively when you're 40plus and carrying your fair share of old injuries. That's not to say kicks are bad. They are a great training tool and I guess they have real uses. But your hand techniques. Think about your blocks that you're getting bored with. How practical are they as blocks. Imagine a punch or kick is coming in at full speed. Do you have time to do a perfect block? Think about that for a moment. Then think about the movement of the block. What else could they be? While your hand is going up to your opposite shoulder for example, what is your elbow doing? What could it be doing if modified very slightly? Think about where the hand goes when blocking. Is it knocking a punch or kick off course or is it doing something else? Think about what the other arm is doing when blocking. Think about the motion in preparing to block. In a knife hand centre for example, hands come to the hip first. Is that just setting up for the block or is that an action in itself? We're often taught that a block is a block, but as you move up through the grades, if you haven't started to realise it for yourself yet, the instructor should start to reveal, that blocks are anything but blocks.in fact they are useless as blocks. Far too slow. But they are quite forceful actions. Think about how a high/rising block might work if your opponent has hold of you and us too close to punch or kick. Think about what your knife hand block might do to an elbow of somebody that has got hold of you. There's a lot going on in hand techniques. Your instructor no doubt wants you to develop the techniques and the muscles that support them, so that by the time you figure out what they really are, they will be formidable techniques. Not show techniques. Not for competition. But maybe to keep you in one piece in a real scrap. That said, he should be teaching kicks too though. If my instructor feels that way he picked the wrong art. Taekwondo is supposed to have a 60/40 kick/punch distribution, bare minimum. This is more like 10-20% kicking. Kicks are not taught as rigidly either. He might demonstrate a roundhouse kick half heartedly at low heights. No lectures on the proper body mechanics involved in roundhouse kicks. No lectures on how to apply kicks in sparring, that is no tactics lectures. No lectures in sparring tactics at all. Etc Who said taekwondo is supposed to be 60/40 kicking? And what are 'sparring tactics'? There are no tactics in real violence. Just action. Tactics are for sport. Taekwondo is often interpreted and presented as a sport. And that's fine. But at its roots it is very much a martial art.

I have arthritis in my feet. It means there are lots of things in martial arts and physical activity in general that I can not do as well as many people can. In my martial arts training, I train as normal, I'm that I don't ask for or receive any special treatment. I just make best use of what I have, and adapt some techniques to work better for me if I'm physically unable to do them by the book. I deal with it, and I don't dwell on it. But it does sometimes frustrate me. I know I'm not alone. In our club alone we have people with all sorts of limitations. Not through training I might add. But just through life's little challenges. I'm wondering what folks in here have broken and defective bits, and how you deal with it.

My guess is people practice with cheap pine or even balsa, then use the realistic looking ones for public demos and everyone will applaud and go home thoroughly impressed.

This makes a lot of sense. This is better than talk of kicking patients in the head.

I have great respect for that guy. He has guts, and an open mind. But with respect to him, he is terrible at aikido. That's why his style doesn't work. One of the core principles in aikido is tai sabaki, or body movement. Basically about always positioning yourself in a way that evades or merges with the opponent, rather than directly opposing. This guy does do this. He also isn't comparing apples for apples. Aikido was never developed for sport. It is simply not designed for the classic scenario of two fighters square up for head to head fighting. It is designed for self defence against a civilian aggressor. Not a trained combat sport fighter. Of course that's not an excuse. Most casual amateur karateka or kung fu practitioners or even your casual 4 hours per week muay thai office worker guy will get knacked by someone who routinely competes. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with they style. It just depends what you're training for and how much you train. If you train for the ring, you'll do OK in the ring. If you train to win trophies for kata, you'll do alright at kata. The trouble with Aikido is that because it's about real self defence, you can't really practice it for real with measurable benchmarks in your goals. The MMA guy can test himself regularly in the ring, to see how he does in the ring. The person who competes in kata can get critical feedback from competition. The person that trains for self defence can't really go round goading random strangers into swinging a bat at them, so it's hard for them to measure themselves. So some step out of their comfort zone into someone else's. The results are invariably the same. The person that has trained for the ring defeats the person that has trained for something else, and then we all applaud MMA as the most effective style. That's my problem with the self defense angle of martial arts. I practice them because I like them and I have a deep appreciation for their technique and health benefits, but the problem with any discipline oriented towards self defense is that you cannot properly stress test many of the techniques. A boxer actually practices trying to punch the opponent as hard as he can, while also trying not to get punched. A Muay Thai is truly throwing his best kicks. But one cannot grab a club or glass bottle and just swing it full force against an uke. The uke cannot really just grab your wrist and flip you aikido style full force because he will probably break the attacker's wrist. When people see aikido demonstrations and point out the fact that the ukes are flipping like in an action movie and that's unrealistic I always point out that the ukes HAVE to go with the throw, or else if they resist they could end with a broken limb. The downside is that stress testing will never be as realistic. That is why I also have doubts about karate's ippon kumite when it comes to self defense applications, who punches in zen kutsu dachi in real life? ANd who will stay stationary after punching in so you can pull one of those takedowns? I like Aikido, and I wouldn't mind knowing more about it, but that's because I like martial arts I took aikido for a while because I was interested in learning more about our one step sparring, which I think might be what you call ipon kumite? Ie one attack, specific defence counter? I really enjoyed it and was making good progress with it. It helped a lot with my tang soo do in that I became more relaxed and fluid in sparring, so I could see that aikido really does have value. Sadly class times changed and I could not longer get there on time after work, so I ended up quitting it. But I still keep the principles I learned. With the one step sparring, I hear what you say. When I train with a suitably willing partner, I always try to toughen it up a bit. I will resist and attempt certain counters, if my partner is willing to train the same way. Unfortunately not all appreciate it. It is a little bit sad when you get a second dan grown man getting upset because he can't make something work against resistance after 2 or 3 attempts, but my view is if it doesn't work against resistance in the hall among friends, it's not going to work against resistance outside against people than genuinely want to hurt you and may be drunk or high and gave a high pain threshold and a touch of psychosis.

Hello 20 is too old. Ha, that's brilliant. I'll have to tell that to some of the youngsters in our club. I'm sure they'll appreciate being told they're too old by someone in their mid 40s

I have great respect for that guy. He has guts, and an open mind. But with respect to him, he is terrible at aikido. That's why his style doesn't work. One of the core principles in aikido is tai sabaki, or body movement. Basically about always positioning yourself in a way that evades or merges with the opponent, rather than directly opposing. This guy does not do this. He also isn't comparing apples for apples. Aikido was never developed for sport. It is simply not designed for the classic scenario of two fighters square up for head to head fighting. It is designed for self defence against a civilian aggressor. Not a trained combat sport fighter. Of course that's not an excuse. Most casual amateur karateka or kung fu practitioners or even your casual 4 hours per week muay thai office worker guy will get knacked by someone who routinely competes. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with they style. It just depends what you're training for and how much you train. If you train for the ring, you'll do OK in the ring. If you train to win trophies for kata, you'll do alright at kata. The trouble with Aikido is that because it's about real self defence, you can't really practice it for real with measurable benchmarks in your goals. The MMA guy can test himself regularly in the ring, to see how he does in the ring. The person who competes in kata can get critical feedback from competition. The person that trains for self defence can't really go round goading random strangers into swinging a bat at them, so it's hard for them to measure themselves. So some step out of their comfort zone into someone else's. The results are invariably the same. The person that has trained for the ring defeats the person that has trained for something else, and then we all applaud MMA as the most effective style.

I'm genuinely interested. How do you kick someone in the head while they are choking you? Very carefully. But how. I'm trying to visualise all the positions in might be in if I were being choked, and what position my assailant might be in while choking me. Then while visualising all those positions, I'm trying to further visualise how I might kick to his head from that position. I find it can't visualise it. It seems impossible. The theme of this thread seems to be along the lines of 'work in a hospital, you get to hurt people'. I would love to be in court the day that the defendant is explaining that it was self defence when he kicked the patient in the head. To kick someone in the head, it's best to be in kicking range. That is usually (granted not always) slightly beyond hand technique range on account of legs being approx 30% longer than arms. If you are out of hand technique range, it's hard to see how it is self defence. I'm genuinely interested in guess in a couple things. 1. How are trial might go when someone is explaining that a kick to the head is self defence or necessary force in the context of restraint of a patient and 2. How on earth you kick someone in the head while they are choking you. So far, the conclusion I'm forming is simply that some people get excited at the prospect of hurting people. So a couple of things: 1. Under US law, a choke is typically considered deadly force, as a result you are authorized to do what is needed to stop the threat. Up to and including deploying your firearm. A kick to the head once someone has attempted a choke, if they are still standing, would be no issue whatsoever. May be a policy violation, but no issue with the law. 2. TKD teaches an, albeit not very good normally, defense against front chokes where you break the opponents posture by attacking a wrist or elbow lock and then deploy a head kick once they are in the bent over position to finish the situation. While I personally don't like it, against an untrained attacker that you caught off guard it could work, and would result in you kicking them in the head as part of a choke defense. South this is the classic, primeval, untrained strangle attempt we're on about it guess? Ie attacker is in front of you with both hands gripping and squeezing your neck? In which case, most martial artists, after just a few weeks, will be familiar with approximately one gazillion ways to break the grip and escape or counter, very few of which would be a kick to the head. I'm glad you clarified the jurisdiction as being US law. Here in Britain, the use of violence is highly frowned upon and while it is permitted in self defence, even if it results in the attacker being killed, it always comes under scrutiny and has to be explained in full to determine if the force was justified or not.

When I trained in wado back in the 1980s, full contact was common. I was only a young teenager at the time, so I was only allowed 'semi contact', which was plenty enough to bust a lip or bloody a nose, but not really enough to do lasting damage or a KO. Every class was roughly 50% physical training, comprising line drills, kata etc plus loads of strength and endurance activities, and 50% 'free fighting'. It was termed free fighting because it was really just fighting. Not like modern sparring. It was was dirty. Any technique was allowed. No pads were worn. You just had a scrap. We weren't allowed to strike the kidneys, groin, neck or temples and we weren't allowed to gouge eyes, but apart from that, anything goes. The only difference between our rules then and what you typically see in MMA today was that if the fight went to the ground, it effectively paused and reset. Even today, in a local wado club near me, they practice full contact. Lots of karate clubs do. Although lots more seem to have gone down the watered down point sparring route. Personally, I'm not a fan of full contact. No point training to defend yourself if your training leaves you battered and injured and potentially brain damaged. But for those that want full contact karate, I don't think they'll have to look to hard for it. And this new thing that everyone's talking about isn't really new at all.

I'm genuinely interested. How do you kick someone in the head while they are choking you? Very carefully. But how. I'm trying to visualise all the positions in might be in if I were being choked, and what position my assailant might be in while choking me. Then while visualising all those positions, I'm trying to further visualise how I might kick to his head from that position. I find it can't visualise it. It seems impossible. The theme of this thread seems to be along the lines of 'work in a hospital, you get to hurt people'. I would love to be in court the day that the defendant is explaining that it was self defence when he kicked the patient in the head. To kick someone in the head, it's best to be in kicking range. That is usually (granted not always) slightly beyond hand technique range on account of legs being approx 30% longer than arms. If you are out of hand technique range, it's hard to see how it is self defence. I'm genuinely interested in guess in a couple things. 1. How are trial might go when someone is explaining that a kick to the head is self defence or necessary force in the context of restraint of a patient and 2. How on earth you kick someone in the head while they are choking you. So far, the conclusion I'm forming is simply that some people get excited at the prospect of hurting people.

I'm genuinely interested. How do you kick someone in the head while they are choking you?