OneKickWonder

Indeed. But may I put out this observation as food for thought. Karate, and indeed probably any martial art, is just natural movement and ability. When we are born, straight away we start learning to move. First all we can do is clumsily wiggle our arms and legs. As time passes we will find our own ways to move across the floor. Some babies crawl. Some shuffle on their behinds. Some roll. Most will find lots of variations and combinations thereof. More time passes and we walk and run and jump and climb and play. Then something tragic happens. Our parents, moulded by society, teach us to be careful, to sit still while 'learning', to behave ourselves. Our natural development in strength and agility and coordination almost grinds to a halt. We start to become weak and uncoordinated and inflexible. Those of us that later turn to martial arts are not learning something new. We are simply, perhaps unwittingly, trying to restart that natural development that modern society encouraged us to suspend. Imagine what the modern human would be like, if our natural movement development was never suspended. If we were never told to be careful, get down from there, sit still, behave. Probably many of us would fail to make adulthood. But those that didn't meet a terrible accident would have vastly greater strength and agility than your average modern day martial artist, because such a person wouldn't be training to catch up, they'd be living that strength and agility and movement.

Sounds like a good way to develop achilles tendinitis or plantar fasciitis. The human body is not designed to exert constant force for prolonged periods of time through the tendons you're loading in the way you describe. It might be something you can get away with for a while, but chronic foot pain is almost inevitable in later life if forces are not distributed correctly. Contrary to what you have said this would not put any pressure on the tendons as when your body weight is on the ball of your feet it would your muscles supporting you. I trained that way for nearly 30 years and never had any issues. Your muscles can't support anything without loading tendons. Tendons are the tissue that connect muscles to bones. You might be one of the lucky ones that's not had issues, but that doesn't mean that nobody would get issues from excessively loading their tendons and other soft tissues and joints in ways the body wasn't designed for. If we were meant to spend all our time with our heels off the ground, we'd have evolved that way like many animals have, but we haven't. But each to their own. If it works for you, great. Did you notice I mentioned the hill is a fraction off the floor but perhaps I didn't come across very well, it's off when you are in fighting stance and in transition. Test it, roll your weigh backwards and forwards on your hills and you feel your bones feeling the pressure now do the same on the ball of your feet with knees slightly bend and you feel your muscles supporting your weight and more fluid and faster movement possible. Sorry, I think there may have been some misunderstanding on my part. I agree that in fighting stance the lead foot has no weight on the heel. In TSD this is grossly exaggerated for beginners, with the heel raised right up. This is just to get used to the weight distribution, but as we advance, the lead foot is fully down, but with all the weight on the ball of the foot. The back foot is flat but with a bent knee. Much like a cat stance as found in Chinese styles. Also I agree that when transitioning between moves or stances, the balls of the feet are used. I think my misunderstanding was I thought you were saying you hold the weight off the heels all the time, such that the heels never take any load.

Sounds like a good way to develop achilles tendinitis or plantar fasciitis. The human body is not designed to exert constant force for prolonged periods of time through the tendons you're loading in the way you describe. It might be something you can get away with for a while, but chronic foot pain is almost inevitable in later life if forces are not distributed correctly. Contrary to what you have said this would not put any pressure on the tendons as when your body weight is on the ball of your feet it would your muscles supporting you. I trained that way for nearly 30 years and never had any issues. Your muscles can't support anything without loading tendons. Tendons are the tissue that connect muscles to bones. You might be one of the lucky ones that's not had issues, but that doesn't mean that nobody would get issues from excessively loading their tendons and other soft tissues and joints in ways the body wasn't designed for. If we were meant to spend all our time with our heels off the ground, we'd have evolved that way like many animals have, but we haven't. But each to their own. If it works for you, great.

Sounds like a good way to develop achilles tendinitis or plantar fasciitis. The human body is not designed to exert constant force for prolonged periods of time through the tendons you're loading in the way you describe. It might be something you can get away with for a while, but chronic foot pain is almost inevitable in later life if forces are not distributed correctly.

Interesting find. Years ago I trained in wado. I remember being frustrated that my round house kicks were not that powerful (not a fault of the style, because I know wado practitioners that generate awesome power), and even though I was quite flexible, I couldn't get a roundhouse kick much higher than about my own chest height. It was years later having started tang soo do when I realised I was only turning my supporting foot 90 degrees while everyone else was closer to 180. I started to practice pivoting more. At first I stumbled across lot, and even fell over a few times. But I kept trying. Now, despite being nowhere near as flexible as I was all those years ago, I can get a roundhouse kick comfortably to about my jaw height or at a push, to the top of my head height. I've also found that rather being a 'distraction kick', I can now generate disturbing amounts of power in it too.

TKD - Goju - Ketsugen - And I believe some Shorin and Shotokan, but I cant recall for sure - I know there were seven arts and a good portion of his training was at an authentic TKD monastery in Japan - as the story goes, he was a military son and he helped defend another kid in a street fight who was part of a monastery and was thus invited (as one of very few Americans) to train in the the monastery. I have no idea if this story is true, but it is what I was taught. - It is a shame that not more is shared about this art - That Kata's are beautiful - the core value was (in this order) Respect - Discipline - Intensity - over and over this is what we were taught - I mean no disrespect, but this is just like one of those stories that were written before the Internet ushered in the age of global open communication. I believe such stories were written to add some credibility to a particular style or teacher. It's a shame. Because often the style or teacher is very good, and absolutely doesn't need to be backed by fairytales. We have a similar one within the organisation I'm in (world tang soo do association). We're taught that tang soo do is thousands of years old (the lineage of parent arts might be, but TSD started less than a century ago). There's some story about the founder witnessing an unknown monk defending himself against multiple attackers. Said founder followed said monk and copied him training in secret, before going to China to learn kung fu, and simultaneously learning other styles at school or something. Like most of these stories, ours doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. It probably did when martial arts were still shrouded in mystery and the only sources of information we had available to us were the official club literature and the occasional article in a magazine. But now of course it's all out there for us. These romantic stories are not a bad thing in my opinion. If they inspire people to train, great. If they encourage people to try to be kinder to each other, even better. But from a martial perspective, they're really not necessary. I think most people train for self improvement, not necessarily to honour a legend.

Makes sense. In tai chi the feet are planted most of the time. And in tang soo do we have the 3 point rule. Except when in fighting stance, or when actually executing a technique, 3 points on each foot should be bearing equal load. These are the big toe joint, the little toe joint, and the centre of the heel. Sparring is different. Remembering that sparring is not fighting, here we tend to stay more on the balls of our feet to facilitate faster foot work, but there's less power and stability to be had that way, and you'll waste lots of energy. Fine if you're an athletic youngster, but kind of important when you get older. All of this said, there are lots of exceptions to the rule, so for now at least, I'd go with what your instructor says. Later on, you will start to find your own little adaptations that work better for you. But best learn the 'official' way before attempts to make your own version.

Number one rule of teaching kids anything. If it isn't fun, the only thing you'll teach them is how much they hate it. Life is short. Kids have a natural wisdom that we tend to lose as we grow up. If it's not fun and it's not necessary, then it's a waste of valuable life time. We can learn a lot from kids. To teach them anything of course the discipline has to be there, but mostly we must teach on their terms. They're not interested in our terms. As for 'the spirit of budo', I'm not entirely sure what that means. But I wouldn't try too hard to be Japanese. They don't get everything right, as is evident by the fact that so many of their young people sadly commit suicide because of the pressure they are under.

The diagonal is your friend. Stay just out of range until they attack. The instant they fire a kick or a punch, move diagonally forward and sideways so that their attack goes past your side, and you end up by their side instead of in front of them. Strike and keep doing so rapidly for either as long as your rules allow, or until they compose themselves. Then escape to the rear of them. Unless they have awesome spinning kicks, you'll be out of range again by the time they turn to face you again. 3 things are needed for this tactic to work. 1. Timing. You need to develop a sense of timing that allows you to act at just the right moment. 2. Speed. Once you move, you need to go off like a rocket. 3. Precision. Step out too wide, and you're still out of your range but in theirs. Too narrow and you don't evade their attack. The aikido dudes have an excellent concept for this that might be worth looking up. It's in all styles I bet. I know it's in karate. But the aikido dudes take it to the next level. That is tai sabaki. They also have many drills for practicing it. It's worth a look if you haven't encountered it yet.

Spear hand is an interesting one. I think it's pretty pointless for most people. In the utter chaos of real combat, where everything is at stake, and no refund is going to jump in to save you if you lose, I think it would take a special dose of mental resolve to decide to use spear hand, and attempt to get its very limited range of targets, knowing that if you miss your target and hit an inch either side, there's a high chance you'll break or sprain your fingers and will thus barely be able to use that hand in the rest of the altercation. In the pure animalistic behaviour of self defence when subject to violent attack, I reckon most people will keep things very simple, and all strikes will be made with simple fists, open palms or elbows or basic low kicks. And lots of grabbing and pushing.

RW, I hear what you say. But just to pick up on a couple of points. The chambered hand is nothing to do with powerful punches. That's a lie, or at best misunderstanding, that is prevalent in TMA. It does have value in training. It teaches the hip work for one thing, but it's not for punching in combat. If you train for a while in a Chinese style, many of the truths are laid bare. Same with grossly exaggerated convoluted slow 'blocks', or bizarre open hand strikes. The chambered hand, in Chinese styles, is where it is because it's just done something, not about to do something like we are taught in karate and it's spin offs. Blocks are not blocking anything, they are strikes or joint manipulations or a means of control. Kata are only useless when taught as a self contained unit. Worse when done as we see so often in competition oriented schools, where they replicate a sequence of poses rather than emphasising the transition between those poses. There's some really good stuff in kata. But I know what you mean. We can spend 10 years or more slowly learning these things, only to realise that you don't need that much knowledge in combat. You just need a small number of things that you've become really good at. And even with the really good stuff that is in TMA, do we really have to take so long to get to it? I get that it's a life journey,and that's why I think I'll stick with it to some degree. It has a lot to offer. But in terms of combat readiness for self defence, I think there are far quicker and more effective options.

It does My post was partially tongue in cheek. I know this because there's been a few occasions over the years when I've felt so decrepit after a session, but then there's been a reason for my adrenaline to start pumping, and despite the fatigue and stiffness and soreness, I've suddenly become ready for anything. But that said, I do like to rain sweat and hear my own heart beat when training. Otherwise I come away feeling down, as though I've not had my money's worth so to speak.

I think when most folks start martial arts training, I reckon they have visions of becoming fit and strong and agile and tough. And I reckon we do, for the most part, achieve all those things and more. If I train twice per week, each week I seem to achieve just that little bit more, be it in terms of stamina or agility or focus or quality of technique. I achieve such improvements because I work very hard, and I rest effectively between sessions (resting effectively does not mean doing nothing, it means doing enough to keep everything movingbut without inducing fatigue). But what about spontaneity? After a good but hard session yesterday, today I got into a running race with my son. Bad idea. Despite my best efforts, I simply couldn't command my legs to move any faster than a rather awkward jog. This is not unusual. The day after a good session, I am less fit and agile than before I started training. Many of my peers have similar anecdotes. There is a simple solution. Don't train as hard. Don't get past the first beads of sweat. But then you don't achieve anything. So the paradoxical irony seems to be, train hard to become better, within a rigid framework, or be as good as you can be all the time, by not training hard, in which case as good as you can be used not actually that good.

Our style features kicks with the instep or the ball of the foot for roundhouse. Preference goes to instep. But my feet are not great. There's a number of chronic problems in them. Not bad enough to stop me training, but enough to make me have to adapt certain techniques. As for what I'd I'm a real confrontation, probably very little in the way of TSD kicks.

Hi all I've fastened an old car tyre to a rope in our garden. It doubles as a swing for the kids, and a thing for me to practice low kicks when the kids aren't playing on it. Of course I've kicked pads and my fellow students plenty of times. The former with full force, the latter less so. But the old car tyre is not a nice comfy pad. It's quite harsh to kick with any force. Much like a human leg might be. This got me to thinking. In karate and TSD and the likes, we typically strike with the Instep. The muy thai guys I believe strike with the shin. I can see the logic to the latter. The shin bones are considerably more substantial than the tiny little bones of the feet. So what do we think is best in general terms? Instep or shin? Having never practiced muy thai, I can't say I even know if there's a particular part of the shin they strike with. I know they like to do various brutal conditioning exercises, but for those of us not wanting to inflict self torture, is it worth while kicking the tyre with force despite mild pain developing? Or is that just archaic silliness?

I've trained several styles at several clubs. I've heard of clubs like you describe but never experienced it. Everywhere I've been, there's been a culture of respect and mutual support. If I found myself in the environment you describe, I'd just leave and train in one of the many other better clubs.

I think I've made up my mind. I'm not quitting TSD. For me it is far more than a fighting school. It's like family. And as a martial art it does have a lot to offer. I hear the criticisms of some WTSDA clubs and I get that. I've seen some of the output. But in ours it's not really rigid, in fact we're actively encouraged to keep it as real as we can within the rules. But I will also add in the BJJ at layer date. I have a bit going on at the moment, but maybe in a few weeks I'll have more spare time. I have precisely zero interest in sport, and zero interest in violence. But I am interested in the science/mechanics of combat as defence and restraint. I was watching a video of nightclub doormen in action. Something I've seen in real life plenty of times but had kind of forgotten about. That's the kind of skill I want. Not to knock someone out. But to restrain someone who is trying to knock me or someone else out. From what I saw if the bouncers technique, it looked far more grappling like than TSD offers. I see the striking aspect of TSD as valuable as a distraction in an emergency or to buy time or create an opening. I really don't ever envisage the need to repeatedly punch and kick someone. To me that's not defence or restraint, that's just violence.

Hi all. I love my current primary style of tang soo do. I also love the dear friends I've made there, who are almost like family now. But in terms of my martial arts goals, it's not ticking all the boxes. It ticks all lot if boxes but key boxes remain unticked. * I don't feel that much fitter and stronger than I was when I started it * I don't feel like I'd use much of it in the unlikely event I had to ever resort to violence. Instead I think I'd just fall back to my previous instinctive skill (backed by previous training in other styles) * There's nothing, Nada, cero, nil, zilch for the floor. If I were to have to fight, and it went to the ground, it would be built in instinctive stuff backed by the small amount of judo I did when I was 9 or 10. To this end, I'm thinking of taking myself off to the local BJJ club where they also do MMA. Trouble is, it's something like 25 years since I last played rough. We spar in TSD but not enough and with too many rules. And I have permanent injuries to deal with these days that mean I'm never going to perform well against someone half my age. Any thoughts or advice regarding this planned transition?

Animals train and condition themselves too. We just tend not to call it training because that implies an intelligent plan. Ducks and geese will start doing ever increasing flights around the local area as they prepare for migration. Starlings practice very fancy coordinated manoeuvres to prepare themselves to escape from birds of prey. Dogs and cats and wolves and bears routinely play fight. As do young monkeys. We're not so different. And we're not so inherently weak. Scientists have studied the human skull and concluded it is designed to withstand a solid strike to the face or the front of the head. The back of the head is weaker. Our limbs have more agility in front of us than behind. We've evolved to face danger. Probably just as well considering we can't run very fast. I think the original question, are humans built for combat, is more complex than it first seems. Perhaps we need to ask, combat against what? I reckon the most hardened human fighter would last about 2 seconds in unarmed combat against an elderly arthritic lion, but I reckon the average man could easily knack a cheeky Billy goat as long as he didn't try to run away lol. Perhaps we also need to ask, what kind of combat. I'd say we're not naturally built for combat sport. In a real fight, usually the outcome is decided in the first few seconds. In combat sports, folks will often slog it out for 3 or more minutes per round, for multiple rounds. Are we built for that? Probably not, but then in nature most fights are short but fierce, with one side either yielding or getting killed within seconds. I think this is a really enjoyable philosophical debate, but I think it's far more complex than perhaps it initially seemed.

Folks are comparing weak, domesticated western humans with easy lives to wild animals that live in a perpetual struggle to survive. If that's what we're basing it on, then sure we're not built for combat. Just like a pet dog is nothing compared to a wolf, even though anatomically and genetically they are pretty much the same thing.

I get what you're saying, still see it a little different though. I realize making a fist has been the common way of striking and still is BUT when you make a fist, you're curling a bunch of little tiny bones (capable of intricate action such as writing) into a mass. The hand isn't naturally suited for smashing into stuff. At least not the way the big Curry horns on a ram's head are. This is my path, has been for as long as I can remember, will be forever BUT - I honestly think this is a path that leads us into an area we were not meant to venture. The upside - it further proves human ability to adapt. We have no gills, we make scuba. We have no wings, we make planes. We have a pacifist body, we slowly beat it into a hardened version of its former self. In any animal, combat is extremely dangerous, even for the apparent victor. Humans are no different. That's why we instinctively fear violent encounters. As most animals do. We're as built for it as any other animal. If we hadn't been, we'd never have become the dominant species. What we're not built for is fighting regularly, as happens in martial arts, especially full contact martial arts. It's not that the fighting is unnatural, it's more that we're not meant to do it several times per week.

We are very much built for combat. The human body has the potential to be very tough, and of course we're blessed with a good brain to manage it all too. I've yet to come across any technique or principle of martial arts that isn't simply a refinement of a natural instinctive action. As an example, something as basic as a punch. We train our punches for years and years. But we don't radically change them from what we'd do instinctively without training. The untrained punch is still basically a fist that we throw at our enemy. But here's the twist. You're right. We finely tune our bodies to become more than we were before. But that's only lying necessary because modern luxuries and sedentary jobs and a society that tells us to grow up and behave have all worked against us to make us embarrassingly weak and feeble. The most serious martial artist might train for 15 hours a week to rectify that. Our ancestors would work extremely hard for 15 hours a day. So I think it's not that we're not built for it, but more that we're not really adapted to it now, certainly in the west.

I'd never heard of it before, but it looks impressive. To be honest though I only saw karate in the clips. Not the more common heavily sanitised karate, but what karate is supposed to be. From the description given at the start of this thread, it sounds very much like what tang soo do is supposed to be. In fact in the first YouTube link I saw something very similar to some of our one steps. Except again, unfortunately TSD has become overly sanitised to the extent that some of our syllabus stuff actually got modified to be less effective, on purpose, because some students found them too frightening. For real.

When I was a teenager, I got beat up. One lad initiated the attack. I managed to throw him to the ground quite quickly. I was in a dominant position on the ground for about 2 seconds, before all his friends decided one on one was a bit boring. Had I have used my wits, there's a chance I could have fired off a quick volley of strikes before legging it. A few years later, a fight broke out at a party in was at. One person, a young man with military training and very, very strong, much stronger than I, pinned another lad and was repeatedly punching him in the face. I intervened. It took remarkably little effort to restrain him from above and behind while he was on the floor. Being on the ground is a distinct possibility in a real scrap. Being there by choice, and staying there, is pure insanity. No doubt it works in a strictly one on one unarmed match with two people who are approximately equal in strength and weight, but real situations are rarely so straightforward.

I’d say Royce Gracie (and family) is easily the most current/latest game changer. Enormous impact on MA today. I’d also add whoever brought TKD to the US. There’s easily more TKD schools than any other style. In my area, possibly more than every other style combined. It’s not a stretch to say TKD schools make up at least half of the MA schools here, give or take 10%. The only reason I did not mention the rest of the Gracie family, was that it was Royce who was the face at the beginning. It probably could have been any of that generation at the time. TKD seems to do well in this country. Royce was definitely the face of it all, being the pioneer of it in the octagon. His brothers, I think primarily Rickson and Rorion, and his father Helio did as much outside the octagon to promote the UFC and the like as Royce did inside the octagon. I could be wrong though. But yes, Royce was definitely the original face of BJJ here. The version of events I read was that one of the Gracie bros was too small and weak to make traditional Japanese jujitsu work, so he practiced modifying the techniques til they worked for him. If that is true, then he is a game changer not for inventing a new style, but for saying it's not only OK, but necessary to take what you are taught as a baseline, from which to improvise to develop your own style that works for you.