White Warlock

There is indeed a conflict with some of the things presented at 'substandard' schools. Just as there is a problem with what is presented by inattentive parents. It is often these selfsame parents that bring students to schools that don't provide age-specific training. So, what do you propose? That we enforce parents be more attentive or that we enforce schools provide age-specific training? Either way, if an adult wishes to abduct a particular child, he will succeed in doing so. The goal should be to try to diminish the opportunities, but there will always be that window... however small.

ahh, i misread your post Eric

well, you didn't indicate how he broke the board. I.e., with fist? I'm assuming fist, in which case, all he did was strike with the line of the bones. He simply softly held the items in his palm and struck with the point of his knuckles, allowing the strike path follow up his arm. Also, doing so would require that he pass 'through' the item he struck. Last, yes... weak boards. As is the nature of any of these things, boards used for breaking are cut against the grain, ensuring that the board break cleanly, safely, and easily. I find board breaking to be the most common parlor trick in the martial arts. I once spent time, when i was 12 years old, with a gentleman who never studied any arts, but was considered one of the best breakers in the U.S.. He honestly explained that it is mainly a show process, although there are some very important concepts to understand. It is those concepts, not the amount of boards or the 'tricks' included with the breaking of the boards, that need to be developed. But, also, always remember that a board doesn't hit back.

In schools, plenty of times. The problems with such sparring sessions is that most participants hold back, for fear of mangling you... and rightly so. In a real setting, multiple opponent training pretty much falls flat on its face if the brunt of that training occurred 'during' sparring, rather than with prior instruction and then sparring. The reason for this is that the dynamics of sparring in a school setting is inherently far different than what would be imposed in a real encounter. For one, you are going against people of 'same or similar' fighting systems. Another is that your opponents are not out to 'mangle' you, so their approach will be somewhat subdued. Yet another is that a dojo does not provide the 'weapon' options available outside of such a test-tube environment. Therefore multiple opponent can be far more deadly. For while you are tied up with one or more opponents, another can disconnect from the confrontation and grab a weapon. Moreso, this weapon could be a projectile weapon, or a series of projectile weapons. Things change dramatically in a real setting, and you must study to understand the dynamics of multiple opponent confrontations in order to understand that investing in a good pair of running shoes is almost always your best option.

np

np

Earlier i made the supposition that there are no lords of war, only men of delusions. I would like to expound upon that: Lords The more commonly understood definition, and the one i believe being referred to here is that of, "a man of renowned power or authority." The problem with this concept is that a merchant, unless he has a monopoly, cannot present power or authority over his clientele. In the case of gun running, it is a competitive market. If the deal offered is not to the liking of the buyer, then the buyer finds another dealer. Only in a few instances is 'monopoly' in existence. Yet, even if such was the case, entrepreneuring gun runners are not in it for the power or authority, they are in it for the profit. Also, anyone willing to buy such illegal purchases would be just as willing to use said illegal purchases on anyone 'attempting' to impose power or authority over them. A merchant of one, or even ten, is no match for an army of a thousand. Indeed, the larger the sale, the greater the ratio.* Gun runners are merely high risk merchants, not definers of protocol or morals. Were they to present themselves as 'lords,' they would be under a delusion, a false perception of the reality in which they are in. A sort of cover-up to their fears. This has a bite. Delusions can interfere with the clarity required in business transactions and any reasonable client would recognize this and 'play to it,' in order to obtain a better deal. * It is only 'governments,' functioning as gun runners under a monopolistic scene, that have the ability to 'lord' over others. Invariably, however, this ends up biting the governments in the butt (recent history presents plenty of examples). War War, under any circumstance, is not a good thing. There could be good intentions, good motives, but not good outcomes. They may even be a necessity, under a given criteria, but this does not default to being good. In wars, children die, women die, families die. In wars, sons are sent out to take lives, and lose their own life. If you look at things from an overall picture, you can see a gain, or a loss... but not a good. Wars cause injury, death, disfigurement, disablement, hardship, an escalation in criminal activity, starvation, poverty, wealth into the hands of unscrupulous merchants; destruction of landscape, nature, ecosystems, landmarks, monuments, relics, etc. War is destruction, chambered through a fine barrel, thrust with excessive force, extreme precision, into the heart of innocence. It is not a good thing that one enters into destruction and death, regardless of the circumstances by which one is brought to such a state. Death in War Combatants are not the only ones that die in a war. Therefore honor, as presented by governments and family, is not a sweeping title. A child who dies because of a stray bullet is not a hero, she is 'collateral damage.' A casualty of war... Yet, were we to dismiss 'collateral damage,' how is becoming a hero a good thing, when to do so means to lose one's life? You are not there to enjoy your death. You are one of a million or so persons who died for a cause, however noble it may seem. Defending your way of life, when in the process you die, is not productive. If, however you die with the intent to defend a way of life for your family and friends, this can be construed as productive and noble if actions committed had made a positively swaying impact on the outcome. On the other hand, noble is but a word and does not give credence to the totality of the picture being presented. This total picture is that of war, not of individuals. War does not differentiate between the noble soldier, the meek soldier, or the child. It does not give medals to the land, the trees, the poisoned waters. Wars indiscriminately kill people, animals, plants, cultures, beliefs, and dreams. Self Defense If I were to take someone's life because he threatened to take mine, it is not a good thing. Yes, i should be happy that i survived, but should i as well celebrate the taking of a life? Being forced to take a life is always bad, even if taking a life constitutes that your life can continue. When presented with a situation where one must choose between dieing or killing, this is not a choice of good vs bad, but of bad vs worse. If you do not act, you die. If you act, another dies. The choice is clear, yet the better choice is still not a good one. Martial Arts This is the study of war, not the profiting off of it. A merchant examines the quickest means to obtain the largest profit. A gun-runner, who is a merchant, examines the quickest means to obtain the largest profit under the 'event' known as war. A martial artist, is not a merchant, but an artisan. He spends an inordinate amount of time perfecting his art, his study into the arts of war. That is not to say a martial artist cannot function as a merchant, but it is not the core goal. Indeed, even if he were to function as a merchant, he ultimately offers a service... not a product. His service is in the action of instruction, of teaching. Teachers The underlying goal of a teacher is to teach. To present information and/or skills that will further develop a person or persons. It is through this process, a lengthy one mind you, that a teacher is able to 'directly' influence a person. In this, as well, a teacher is able to examine his students and determine which are 'worthy' of obtaining the information and/or skills that the teacher holds. A teacher, not a martial artist nor a gun-runner, can function as a lord. A lord of knowledge, not of war. He can lord over his knowledge and not share it, or decide upon whom he grants this knowledge, for the knowledge he holds is unique. However, once he grants this knowledge, he has lost some or all of his lording capabilities.

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Most guns are sitting in stores, people's lockboxes, or in military sheds. Of those guns being used regularly, very few ever see the light of 'real' action. Of those, far fewer are used in crimes. The evils of guns has been overplayed by the politicians working for votes. It is the criminal-minded, having access to a gun and opportunity to wield it, that makes a gun a bad thing.

That would be more for power, not speed. Also, it's not applicable to all types of kicks. Nonetheless, i do prefer the kicks that incorporate hip movement and do think it's a good idea to practice building speed in your actions while utilizing your hips. Otherwise, you could very well be compromising power and functionality for speed.

Well, that and the law, and the friends/relatives of the person you assault. Consequence again...

The ratio of stolen children is overemphasized by the frenzy of the media. Such things are actually very uncommon. As to how to teach a child anything... of course. But self-defense is not one of them. Common sense would be what should be taught, and every parent should do so.

stonecrusher, that was the intent. Wushu was 'choreographed' in engineering under the eye of the Chinese government. It was devised as a means to present the martial arts, with all the flair and little to none of the functionality. Part and parcel to the process of changing the views of the Chinese people that Mao Tse Tung had initiated.

Well, "just" is such a limiting word. Weapons are not just extensions, nor of merely the hand. The hand itself is an extension, an extension of you, but it is not merely just. Indeed, it is a part of you. As well, so should a weapon be a part of you, when you wield it.

* Gary C. Booker is a freelance writer on science and African-American issues. He regularly posts the Mantidote. His books include: "Current Science Issues In The African American Community: An Essayed Approach," "The Seven Laws of Successful Youth Work," and "Sixteen Ways To Improve the Ecology of African American Communities." I've read many of his articles and find him insightful, if not a little extremist at times.

Unfortunately, depending on the region, the State, or the country, such actions can land you in prison. Times have changed. To the better? I'm sure that's debatable.

My father died as well, and i hold him in high regards for what he accomplished, and for what he did not. He presented to me that man is mortal and flawed, and for that i love him all the more. The discussion, however, is not about your father's memory, nor about his expertise... but about the funky names being presented for these various systems that, in all frankness, just don't feel right. We now understand the motive for you calling the system as it is, but because of the way it is hyphenated, it is given the impression that it is a Japanese-birthed style, and thus it is misleading. Unfortunately because of this, it undermines the legitimacy of the art. I don't believe that was what you intended, but that... as you can see, is the outcome. My bigger issues, however, are about these associations that sponsor high belt rankings. I have been studying the arts for well over 25 years, and am aged 42. From what is stated on at least one of those boards (and some of them present even more disturbing information, btw), i could petition and obtain an 8th dan in a system/style/concept/whatever that i never officially studied for an extended period of time. Frankly, i would prefer to remain beltless than to put on something 'contrived' such as this. It's a fundamentally gross misrepresentation of the concepts associated with such things. I mean, it's an organization (actually, a series of associations) that attempt to substantiate peoples' claims to having ranks they never officially earned. My comments above were a legitimate observation. These are not the criterias i consider to be appropriate for obtainment of a belt, especially one of such high rank. However accomplished someone may be, it doesn't substantiate the means by which some of these belts are being given. Thank you for reading.

You are likely referring to the horse bench. There are a few Chinese styles that practice with it, but not many. Choi li fut is one of them. A horse bench, as a weapon, is a reasonable study, since chairs and coffee tables can be found most everywhere. It provides a multitude of offensive and defensive characteristics and can often be seen picked up by people who are attempting to present 'distance' between themselves and an assailant. This distancing effort is a defensive one, but one can study the use of such a thing to develop ones abilities to use it more effectively for defense, as well as use it for offense. Those untrained in the use of the horse bench will find that a chair lifted in self-defense can easily be taken from them. However, one trained in its use can thwart efforts by assailants to disarm you, and inverting the situation so that you become the aggressor. Horse bench attacks include, but are not limited to: Spearing - a linear strike with one or more of the legs, Uppercut - an upward circular strike, with one of the legs again, Roundhouse - a horizontal circular strike... with the legs, Hammer - a downward strike with the base or the legs (base is better), Push - a linear strike/push with the base, Pull - a hooking and pulling of the assailant's head/neck with the base, or with a bench leg's crotch, Hook - a hooking of the assailant's leg with the bench leg, Trap - a trap/lock of an assailant's arm via the use of two or more legs, performed with a windmill-type, or swirling, action. This technique is also useful for disarming a person armed with a long weapon. As you'll note, there's really not much 'new' in reference to how one would fight without a bench. The differences are in adjusting to the 'extension' of oneself,' for the bench is a versatile weapon that requires a good amount of adjusting to. Unfortunately, it is also quite heavy (between 14 and 20 lbs).

lol, just some friendly needling.

I believe you are greatly exagerating. To say that most of the smaller guys beat the bigger guys is pushing it. It was mostly a style vs. style difference. Gracie won, not because he was small, but because his style (almost unknown at the time) dominated the scene. Tank Abbott lost often(bigger guy) because he had no style really, he just slugged it out and relied on his strength and toughness. At equal ability and technique I would always give the bigger guy a better chance of winning the fight. ravenzoom, i'm not exagerrating. At least not in reference to what i presented. Of the UFC fights that occurred before weight classes were instituted, most of the winners were smaller/lighter. I cannot recall the numbers, but it was presented before in either this forum or another. And yes, there were some that entered the UFC that did not have training. But, Tank 'does' have training, he merely opted not to present his background at the onset. Also, if we were to dismiss all the fights that Royce Gracie won in those earlier UFCs, we still end up with a small-man-majority-win ratio. When i first saw the information, i was skeptical, but then i reviewed all the tapes and came to the same numbers, and the same conclusions. It may very well be that all the 'big guys' presented in the earlier UFCs were relatively unskilled, but that was not the impression i was given.

I'm not at all in agreement with that 85%. Indeed, it is far more likely that i will encounter a life-threatening situation than i would a high-school-type confrontation. Why? Well, partly because of my age, partly because of the different types of professions i enter into, and partly because i do a dang good job of avoiding areas where 'high-school' type mentalities thrive. And while that is me, i still don't agree with the 85% stated percentage for everyone else. Then again, we're dealing with unsubstantiated numbers, so my disagreement is reasoned.

Not necessarily true. It depends upon your opposition. Granted, it makes you less flexible, but it also allows you to put twice as much time into perfecting that one particular area, which means you'll be better at it than anyone else. So, if you make it 'your' game, as opposed to 'their' game, you can 'run the ball' all the way, all the time.... or throw the ball, all the way, all the time. Well, that's somewhat of a leap. You are completely dismissing that karate implemented both hand and foot, as well as a multitude of other aspects. So, shotokan already is multi-layered. Also, addiing more doesn't necessarily make something better, at least not due to the problem there's more to learn now.. and thus less time to develop all that is presented.

man, that system stinks.

Agreed, if you are wearing a hard shoe, in the U.S. and some other countries, it could be construed as an attack with a deadly weapon, as opposed to merely a battery charge.

hmm... anyone ever hear of iron-face kung fu? The art whereby you wear out your opponent's fists by interposing your face to block their shots?

Agreed, which is why i said it can be argued. I would argue as you did, but others would argue otherwise, as Egoassassin is doing.