White Warlock

I will say this time and time again, i have found no karate practitioner that utilized his KARATE to present strong groundwork. Invariably they incorporated other styles, be it judo, wrestling, sambo or another... but there are no karate systems that provide inherent substantial coverage or training in groundwork. In fact, consider this. For 100 years Kano jujutsu (judo) dominated the Japanese martial arts community, with its very strong display of takedowns and groundwork, provided primarily because of the 'way' in which they practiced, rather than the material they covered. They covered pretty much the same material that most all the other jujutsu schools covered, but they took out the lethal acts so they could practice full-on to be able to better condition themselves. Now consider this. Gracie jujutsu (Bjj) has since repeatedly demonstrated superior groundwork, yet they were birthed from judo. It is because of judo's initial approach that bjj had a strong foundation to develop. The Gracies focused on groundwork, developing and incorporating other ground-related arts to strengthen its repertoire. Yet, in all this, the difference is in the conditioning. A poorly conditioned bjj practitioner will still quickly and easily lose to a well conditioned judoist. Now, presenting this info... consider that these two arts put a significant amount of attention into groundwork and the development of their grappling skills. Yet that is not enough. Because of the way they practice, the full-on means in which they interact when drilling, they are far better conditioned and far more 'in tune' with what needs to be done on the ground. It is not merely 'techniques' that they've developed, but the 'principles' behind these techniques. Because of this, they don't merely go through the motions... they improvise, adapt, and eventually overcome. Let's try not to deceive ourselves on these issues. It is essential we maintain a firm grasp of our limitations, within our arts and within the manner we condition ourselves in our respective arts, lest those limitations be exploited.

At full fill with sand yes, BOB does topple with my punches on occasion. But, i really haven't found much that can withstand my uber Mike Tyson punch. Hey, is that fight with Mas Oyama and Mike Tyson still on? Seriously though, it's not often and requires a good, firm shot at just the right angle. BOB tends to give with the hits, in many ways like a person would, so when i do cause it to topple i consider this a strike strong enough to cause a live dummy to fall back and over (for it likely is).. and thus follow through with finishing strikes as BOB goes to the ground. Also, if you really do repeatedly deliver power punches that knock BOB over, you can always opt to purchase a bag of lead pellets and put those in the base. But, i found sand to be sufficient and far cheaper. I'm not keen with putting water in these things, especially if you have a wood floor or if you are on the second floor of an apartment. A leak is a leak.

Wow, okay, that's some hokey stuff. Essentially from what i read on those sites, all i need to do is jump through a few hoops and they'll toss me an 8th dan, give me crest and a family lineage. Glad i never got into that whole belt thing. It's clearly gotten out of control.

Agreed on the last part Alucard.

I disagree in the use of it for defense. It is far more exploitable than any other type of block or counter. Combine that with the two limbs vs one limb, and you really have a bad technique there. We add to that the 'small' block area, the other things i noted including the blocking surface (brittle), and it's not merely a bad technique, it's a really bad technique. It is one of the techniques that should have been dropped from the karate training ages ago. As a block it is not about whether it is effective, but whether it is a 'bad' idea. I consider it to be so.

no, lol. I will later. A little friggin' tired right now. Was working all night.

Notice how the foot position in that one is not exposing the side of the knee like the other one was?

lol, i didn't know Mike Tyson and Mas Oyama were members.

Personally, i think there's a lot of tripping up on semantics here.

just 2 cents? I'm ready to drop a quarter.

an X block is actually a reasonably strong block, but it is a horrible one to use. Not only are you using two limbs to counter one, but you are subjecting a sensitive part of your arm as the counter. It also has very little flexibility and requires a significant amount of time to present. The opposition has to be telegraphing for a week and a half in order for you to be able to present this kind of block. To add, it places your arms in an immediate 'trap,' in that the adversary can switch actions and entrap both arms, leaving you vulnerable for a longer period of time. So much wrong with this block it's rather amazing that schools still teach it as a feasible defense.

Well, i think the first thing you need to do... is get rid of your attitude on this. You're taking it all way too personal. It is essentially about business, and what may or may not hurt their business, or their students. A lot of MA school owners are in it for the money, but many are also in it for the satisfaction. To take their students into an 'unknown' arena with an unknown... is to possibly subject them to hardship, and could hurt the school as a whole. These people aren't trying to undermine your efforts, they're trying to protect their assets. If you can't see past this, i don't know what to say. Seriously... it's not a competition. Yes, you are trying to sponsor one, but getting people to go it is not it. It is a cooperative, and cooperatives only work with people you know, or people you entice. If you don't present sufficient enticement... they won't come. If you don't befriend them... they won't come. Frankly, i've ignored many an event. If i don't know the people, or i don't know the specifics about the event, or of others that are going on, i am not going to go, nor am i going to invite anyone... especially not any student of mine. You may have all the answers and be comfortable with the entire setup, but to everyone else it's just a piece of paper in their hands from a noname. I do marketing consultant on the side. One thing you really need to understand here is that in order to gain their trust, you have to gain their respect. I must say you probably have a little patchwork to do now in the local ma community, as this little stunt probably set a bad precedent for u.

lol, actually i did visit that site and was going to join, until somebody pulled me from the computer... and then all hope was lost.

why not, i'll join in. https://www.dragondoor.com

As to the one i presented making noise, i've heard it gives a little bit of sound, but nothing like those monstrosities you presented. Also, if you place a couple of layers of rug or padding under it, that should buffer it almost completely.

The two you presented are horrible. If your only goal is to stand still and hit the bag, they are 'okay,' but the best practice you can obtain is to move about, and the legs of these two get in the way. Also both of them have those two bars sticking up on the fore and aft legs, which are intended to have weights parked on them to hold the object down. If you don't have weights on them, to the top, those bars can seriously injure you while you step, or if you fall. The strap on the bottom is great to hold the bag in place, but it is there mainly because the bag is too light and it hampers your ability to perform knees. As well it doesn't offer the ability to switch the bag to an uppercut bag, which i think is an essential element. Last, without the weights on the legs, the stupid things almost topple over every time i've hit one, causing me to 'hold back' just so i could get a workout. With the weights, the stupid things still creep across the friggin' floor. In my opinion, both of the ones you presented are garbage. The corner bag presented by scottnschelly is far safer and far more versatile. It also doesn't have anywhere to creep to and doesn't topple. If you're hoping for a home bag, get the one of those water dummies or something. Not only are they 'stylish,' but they don't damage the floor, are very safe to use, allow for uppercuts, hold a silhouette similar to a real opponent, are far cheaper, and take little space. You could even have it in your living room. Put a hat on it and call it Joe. http://www.energy-sports.de/images/boxdummyxl.jpg

Hmm, aikido sounds about right for what you're aiming for. Check the yellow pages.

Aye, agreed.

I agree with AngelaG again. The issue here is that techniques can be a 'means' to obtain muscle memory but the 'goal' should not be to memorize the technique, it should be the principle behind that particular technique. Learning a set of actions is following through a set choreography. Dancers are great at this, but the greatest of dancers improvise and bring it all to a higher level. Why? Because they understand, at the muscular and synaptic level, the underlying principles associated with dance. I.e., it is not about going through the motions, it is about 'being' the motion.

Looks contrived. Bad stance (easy kick to the knee will bring him down), insert actions with the sticks are for dreamers (inserting the stick between their stick and their hand, from the inside), and the various takedowns presented require too much mobility (time constraints), a bad action presented with the head leading the action, and also leaving many openings along the way. Sticks are fast, very fast. What is presented in those pics gives me the impression they aren't working full bore, and thus not seeing the fallacy of their approach. I.e., everything works at half speed.

Karate DOES have takedown techniques through the use of locks, sweeps and even leg grabs. Obviously how much depends on the individual style. Once the opponent is down the karate-kai does not have to go to ground with him. Usually they train to hit the opponent as he is going down or as soon as he hits the floor. Which was my point. Karate does not have much to offer on the ground. I.e., 'both' combatants on the ground. There was a large exponent of karate practitioners, as you noted, that cross-trained in judo. I'm of the very strong suspicion that this school you mentioned is presenting that. I've examined goju-ryu, and it inherently provides very little groundwork... no matter how much you try to dissect the katas. ....But we are comparing the two arts individually. I know that in Japan many karatekai have judo backgrounds as well, but that is not the point. Yes, but the point was... bringing them to the ground where both practitioners, even without cross-training, would be at a disadvantage. The logic here is just not strong. If a karate practitioner's strength is standup, then that is where he should maintain if battle. As to taking 'the other person' to the ground, while you remain standing, of course. I'm sure both combatant types would aim for that. However, that is not what was presented, and thus not what i was responding to. I will be there to hold your M60 machinegun while you are shooting at Mas and Mike.

Well, that is simply hyperbole. It is not true. The Chinese government authorized the representation of tai chi, as a healthy exercise, and thus modified the more commonly practiced forms of it. There are no 'hidden' things, except to hide them from the Chinese government, but tai chi has had ample opportunity to maintain its original formats openly outside of China, and behind closed doors inside of China. Mystical, magical, hidden, secret... nice hook words.

I don't know the guy, but you should probably have quoted him by name. Anyway, what he described was what he stated at the 'bottom' of his entire post. It is in reference to defense against 'inexperienced' shooters. He wrote, "Just some tips for those defending against shooters that have no experience." Now, that is exactly the point. Inexperienced essentially means not good. It is not good to shoot leading with your head. It is not good to shoot by putting your face inline with their knee. It is not good to do a shoot from a distance without ensuring the opponent is incapable of presenting an attack like a kick or knee. It is simply not good... That said, what 'can' happen still falls into the what ifs. What if your opponent isn't an experienced shooter? Well, if he is not an experienced shooter, then he's also likely not an experienced grappler... so who cares what you throw at him? He'll go down simply because he's not good. The thing is, i don't consider someone a grappler unless they are an experienced grappler... and that's what this discussion is about, striker vs grappler, not striker versus n00blet.

I'm thinking more along the lines that the assumption is a boxer has not received training to deal with leg attacks. In fact, from my encounters, most boxers are eclectic practitioners. Training and application are two entirely different things. A boxer is more adept at infighting, on the average, because they spend a huge portion of their training time within the infight position. Agreed that a boxer, by default, would not have takedowns, but neither does karate have that much to offer on the ground. The hardship to this is that a vast majority of boxers have also studied freestyle wrestling. How about putting me into the equation. I'll kick both their scrawny butts.

That is a 'foolish' assumption. Both... Counter striking assumes the other is striking at you. As well, it is a defensive posture, not an offensive one. ??? Which i already covered. It is not an effective counter to a leg takedown. Boards don't hit back. Which means you are on the ground, in their element and out of yours. Remember, this thread's argument was about 'puncher vs grappler.' Then maybe you should present these arguments to them and have them show you, with physical example, the fallacy of them. I agree with Karate25. A lot of 'what ifs' being presented here. Every situation is different and there is no 'ultimate' technique.' The best one can do is have an overall 'approach.' At present, i'm not in agreement with the approach you have thusfar presented h2whoa, mainly because it is instead being argued by techniques and 'perfect' scenarios.