Tal

I've been doing kendo for a few years now, its great stuff. I did iaido for a few months, but got bored with it. I'd love to learn some medieval european sword forms; broad sword type stuff.

That's basically what i'm thinking. I've just never seen a club that actually does that before.

I've never liked the belt system most martial arts use. I'm not going to go through the reasons why as I think most people know the arguments against belt grading systems. What do you think to the following idea, as a replacement grading system? You have about ten grades below black belt. You train as much as you want, and you take an assessment once a year (maybe once every six months, but I think once a year is better). At the assessment, the grading instructor sees what you can do, how good you are at it, and gives you a grade that fits your skill and understanding. You don't go up the grades one at a time, you just get given a grade that fits your ability at the end of the year. I think this system would have two important advantages: first, students go up the grades at different rates according to how much effort they put in. A student who trains hard every day could be a few grades ahead of a student who trains just once a week but has been doing the art for the same amount of time. Grading instructors are so reluctant to give fails these days, that with the current belt system everyone goes up at the same rate, because no one ever fails. Secondly, it takes the emphasis off just getting to the next belt. Instead of a student training just so he can get to the next belt, he just trains as hard as possible all year. I see too many students who learn all the necessary skills to advance to their next belt, and then stop training hard because they know they're going to get the next belt anyway. Anything beyond what you need for the next belt is not necessary with that system. With the system I've suggested, there is no 'next' belt so you have to train hard all the time to get the highest grade possible at the assessment.

It depends on the style and the organisation you are training under. In my style (traditional japanese ju-jitsu), you can grade for the early kyu grades every three months. Its about a year between 1st kyu and 1st dan.

The best fighters probably aren't famous, so no one would know their names. If the stories are true, Musashi is about the best fighter I've heard about (especially when it comes to duels).

I started jujitsu while I was doing shotokan. Don't be scared by the pictures. The first thing you'll learn is how to fall and get thrown without hurting yourself. Then, the badass throws they show in pictures won't be done on you until you have a bit of experience. You'll only have basic forgiving throws done on you to start with. So no, its not as scary as it looks. Also, jujitsu is designed to be effective no matter what your size. If you get the technique right you can throw people much bigger than you, and this can give you a lot of confidence. And if you're talking about traditional japanese jujitsu, there's plenty of striking and grappling involved too; its not just throwing.

For pure combat effectiveness, I would definately use a sword. Probably a shortish broadsword. Very quick and lethal, but also small enough to use inside a house. A stun grenade could also be useful If guns were allowed, I'd be happy with any SMG in my hands

I know money spent on speed cameras could be used for better things. But money spent on all sorts of needless stuff could be spent on better things. If government money was spent entirely on useful things, we'd live in heaven. A lot more money is wasted in greater amounts on other things (I'm not going to mention what; its probably contraversial and would need a topic of its own to discuss), but few people complain about it. Most people I know who complain about speed cameras do it because they get annoyed when they are caught and fined. If we are bothered about governments wasting money, there are things we should look at before speed cameras. My analogy about the CCTV cameras is not skewed. If you commit a crime and are cought by the CCTV camera, you pay the consequenses. If you don't commit a crime; you're ok. If you speed and are caught by a speed camera. you pay the consequenses. If you don't speed; you're ok. I don't agree with the government's reasoning behind speed cameras. In fact, I don't agree with most of the governments reasoning. Speed cameras are just very low down the list of things I disagree with. If people stopped speeding and just stuck to the limit, no revenue would be generated by speed cameras, and they'll be taken down. Its that simple. Stop speeding and the cameras won't bother you. In fact, they'll dissapear. You could say that by speeding, you are wasting the government's money by encouraging them to put up speed cameras. By the way, an extra 5-10mph is about another 25000J of kinetic energy for a ~1 tonne vehicle, which is big enough to change the outcome of a collision with a pedestrian or other vehicle. If a car hits you at 10mph you'll know about it.

It is a good analogy and both are important. I just think that striking is the best thing to try in the majority of situations, mainly because it allows you to get away faster.

My friend got busted last weak for doing 70mph in a 40 limit. He almost lost his license. The answer is simple though; don't drive faster than the limit. If you don't, you don't get fined. I don't know why people hate cameras and speed traps so much. That's like saying 'I hate CCTV cameras because they get me cought when I burgle someone!'. Just stick to the limit and the speed traps won't bother you.

Sometimes, however, you need to express/release your anger. Punching a wall, for example, is a way of releasing stress and calming yourself. If you keep it all locked up and try to stay calm, you'll eventually explode and let it all out in one go, probably hitting your wife instead of the wall. Its a bit like a volcano (pardon the obscure analogy): If a volcano's vent is blocked up and it doesn't release all the gas inside it, the pressure inside it will build up until the actual mountain literally explodes; an event which is much worse than just gas and lava coming out of the vent. This is different to using anger in martial arts. While practicing martial arts, you shouldn't intentionally get yourself angry. However, if you do get angry for whatever reason, you have to release the anger somehow. I definately agree with that.

I never said anything about 'cookie cutter self defense situations'. I'm quite aware that fights don't follow set patterns. I'm saying that in most self defense situations (i.e. more than half of the situations that occur) I believe striking is the most effective way of ending the situation and getting away with minimum injury. None of these situations will be the same, but in more than half of them, striking will be the best method of defense while striking is possible (if someone grabs hold of you, you have to grapple).

hehe... rubs it in LOL!!

Anything that anger allows you to do in a fight, you can do without anger if you train yourself. You shouldn't need to have to focus anger to be able to achieve something, you should be able to do it with a cool head. However, many of us cannot do that. That is when anger is helpful, when we don't otherwise have the aggression or discipline to do what it takes to get the job done. An 'ideal' fighter would never need anger. No one is the ideal fighter however, so we may need anger in some situations.

The question is which, striking or grappling, is more effective in most self defense situations. Personally, I think that in the vast majority of situations, you should try to win the fight with striking. Some people agree with that view, some people disagree, that's why there is a discussion about it.