White Warlock

The comment you made about samurai is correct, in that they performed many surreptitious actions. Indeed, it was samurai that performed the actions which were later coined as ninjutsu. I find it difficult to communicate these points, and this usually opens up a can of worms... but you did it, so here it is.

Agreed. When i act, i simply do. I don't even remember what it is i do, i merely find the opponent on the ground, tied up against the wall, or shut out and closed-in after being overwhelmed. Of the multitude of incidents i've had, i find it harder and harder to recall specifics in my actions the 'more recent' the incident. This i attribute to going 'beyond' technique. Or, as one of my departed instructors put it, 'beyond the known.'

Well, i'll tell ya, i agree and disagree with all the comments presented about the gloves/no gloves issue. Let me see if i can break it down to the arguments: 1. more surface area - the argument presented is that more surface area increases the likelihood that a vital target will be hit. One problem with this argument is that the 'additional' surface area is secondary, or buffered... not merely by the glove, but by not being 'directly behind' the impact area. The other problem with this argument is that 'more surface area' translates to 'less' pounds pressure per square inch. 2. padding buffers a strike - the argument presented here is that the padding decreases the damage posed by a strike, as it acts like a shock absorber, or buffer. This is true, to an extent. There is still the reverberation, or rebound of the padding that adds a little extra kick to the strike, but this is minimal. The real difference has not been presented and that is... psychological.The reality is, if you take your unpadded fist and strike a rock, you will hit it with less force than you would if you wore a glove. That is because you 'know' that you will obtain damage by doing so... so you 'hold back.' By wearing a glove, the fighter is more likely to use full force. He is no longer hampered by the power of the mind saying, "don't do it!" That, my fellow practitioners, is the main reason why wearing gloves allows for more powerful punches. Now, saying that, many karate practitioners have worked diligently to build up their tolerance to the potential pain associated with injuring the hand, and some have even subjected themselves to archaic punishments to build up calloused, and eventually useless, knuckles. Indeed, there are even a few that have worked very hard to 'ignore' the warning signals presented by the mind, and thus are able to use full force and subject their hands to injury, despite the common sense of the subconscious mind. But, all the training in the world cannot prevent your opponent from shifting on you. That means, your target can change against your will... and you could put all the force you can muster to strike a vital area, only to find that you hit a wall of bone.

Just to touch your comments above Igm, there's more than merely those three: Block: A direct disruption of the path, or a stopping of a strike. Parry: A redirection, or change of path of a strike. Evade: To step out of the line of the path of a strike. Deflect: To change your body's position, or angle, at the moment of impact so as to cause a strike's impact not to penetrate. Resist/absorb: To take the impact head-on and resist the impact's effect. Shift: To change the point of impact, or the target, so as to decrease the injury sustained by ensuring it hits a less vulnerable area. Jam: To prevent a strike from even being committed, or to prevent it from reaching its full potential.Now, each of these have a myriad of approaches. The catch is, learning those approaches that are both economical and viable. There are many concepts to be understood, and in order to gain the most out of ones studies, you need to learn how to 'combine' the various defensive actions and also incorporate, or merge, them with your offensive actions. Merged defense/offense actions include catches, hitblocks, disrupts, imbalance, etc.

Are you kidding, they're grandmasters of one animal form.

There are still those maintaining the studies, for tradition's sake. Japan has a government project to maintain the crafts (tea ceremony, pottery, martial arts, etc), in which they provide financial assistance to those groups, or individuals, who do so. I believe there are two ninjutsu schools that obtain such assistance, being they are able to present lineage and focus on 'traditional,' as opposed to modern. One of them, if i recall, is the Togakure Ryu, through Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi (officially recognized as a living national treasure). The other, i don't remember the name of and, indeed, i am not sure if there are any others.

SenseiMike, your assumption is that they will immediately go for a double-leg takedown, which is a rather n00bish manuever on their part, one of the easiest of takedowns to counter, and basically... only 'one' way they can take you down. The more experienced grapplers that would opt to go for a leg takedown would go from a single to a double, or from a single to a takedown, or from an ankle-up, knee-wrench, etc. Of those who do go for a double-leg takedown, if you are able to get them into a choke hold, it is due to them performing the manuever incorrectly (head thrust forward, rather than pressed against your body) and thus you are dealing with beginners. If you are able to perform a throw on them, as well it would be due to them being beginners, because if done properly... assuming they are silly and do go for a double leg... their stance will be low, yet centered.

Umm, you don't want to try and block a muay thai kick. Properly performed kicks that do not chamber the knee before striking are power-oriented kicks, usually utilizing the entire body to generate velocity... like swinging a baseball bat.* oomyungdoeperson, this is a disturbing comment, in that you indicated you have been practicing oom yung doe for almost 2 years now... and are not aware of this. I urgently recommend you step out of that test tube environment and find out what is 'really' going on out there. As to your request for links, i presented a link to a previous discussion here, which includes links within it. As to sites on various arts, or on books, there are plenty. Please indicate specifically what it is you are asking for. A glossary/dictionary/encyclopedia on the various arts? A breakdown of the types of arts? A comparative of arts? A more detailed article on the system you are studying? ??? * A special note here is that the persons you have in your class could very well be 'posing' as martial artists from other styles... in the hopes such background would enhance their status in that particular school. It's a common behavior, although somewhat juvenile. Anyway, for them to state they are from TKD, and then to present 'non-chambered' kicks... sounds like they learned it wrong or were never really in it for long enough to grasp anything.

good post Sub

Ah, thanks for reminding me Drag'n. I instruct in a particular order. I teach and ensure the student(s) understand, and effectively apply, how to properly attack before i teach them how to defend. Why? Because there is absolutely no logic in learning to defend against things of which you know nothing about.

Yes, but that wasn't my point. I simply stated that you didn't indicate whether the person fought was a grappler... Or that he is suckering you into thinking he is a grappler. I do this on occasion, to cause a person to 'assume' i am not capable of standup fighting. As well, i put on a firm stance on occasion, to sucker grapplers into going for a single leg. I then fold on them and am on top of them. Obviously, since that is his only skills. It's not like he should attempt to 'grapple' a grappler, right? Anyway, the point is not actually to knock down, or knock out, but to cause as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. What you are presenting is what i call the 'big mistake.' It is aiming for the knockout, rather than being relentless and overwhelming the grappler at the striking range. Knocking out your opponent may be fine and dandy, but that is headhunting, and will get you in trouble with a grappler. Aiming for small targets is always a bad idea, especially in the rush of a confrontation. If, during your barrage, you gain the opportunity... sure, take it. But do not make it your end-goal, or primary targets. If anything, they should be targets of opportunity. Umm, the most attempted takedown by bjjers is not the the leg takedown. That is more common with wrestlers. Also, as ^shotokan^ noted, the stances presented in shotokan are actually grade A prime meat for a grappler. Anyway, the repertoire of grappler varies with their background and degree of training. There are many that excell in upper-body takedown, while others excell in leg-takedowns. Others may utilize approaches that can throw off even an experienced grappler. To 'assume' one approach or another is to ask for defeat. To rely on your own system to defeat another system is to stand on a pedestal of glass, a pedestal of ignorance.

The initial strike committed by a person is likely to be a sucker-punch, not a telegraphed show. Because of this, it will likely make contact. To decrease the likelihood of such an assault, it is best to maintain distance, or to go on the offensive if someone enters too close. It is not a matter of waiting until they hit you, but of ensuring they cannot, or ensuring you hit first. The error is in taking turns, or in being sportsmanlike and refraining from initiating the 'physical' aspect of a confrontation. But, it is often assumed that the person who impacts first will be the one to win a confrontation. This is not necessarily true. If the defender is conditioned, and the initial strike is not a 'lucky' hit, then he would easily be able to shrug off the strike and counter. i was struck with full force on the face by an assailant, but because of my training in boxing, i instinctively allowed my head to roll with the punch and the strike had 'virtually' no impact on me. I lost absolutely no time and immediately struck back, later finishing the confrontation with a submission. You clearly underestimate the training associated with boxing, and the skills developed in that art. Boxing presents some of the best means to both attack and defend against strikes, but it is often overlooked because of its sport focus and because much of it looks so easy, when performed by a pro, many erroneously assume it is also easy to learn. It is not. Well, what you don't know... will hurt you. The gaps in knowledge you present, and your statement that you "wouldn't try that," indicate to me you need to be more open to learning. No, it is not wise, nor is it the way a block is performed. What you are presenting is a sacrifice... and a bad idea. Taking a strike in another part of the body, as opposed to the assailant's intended target. It is a desperate action that is 'not' a martial skill. The rope-a-dope, coined by Muhammed Ali, is a good example of a sacrifice.. in that he took a tremendous beating on his arms to protect his head. Its goal was to wear down the opponent, and due to the gloves being worn by the opponent, as well as the conditioning Ali received, Ali was able to endure the beatings and outlast his opponent. However, such a tactic is not altogether effective, nor smart, to use outside of a ring.

Agreed AngelaG A roundhouse is not all that easy to learn, mainly because it needs to be applied properly and at the appropriate targets. Also, generating force with such a strike requires significant practice. But, again, you use the 'one-type' to compare to the 'whole' of blocks. There are different types of blocks, most of which are very difficult to apply in a real life situation. But, that is an inherent trait of blocks, and one of the reasons i do not advocate them. The problem is not the technique, nor of learning it, but of applying it. And, it is not because it is difficult to apply, but because it has to do with 'reacting' and timing, as opposed to merely technique. While many other defensive actions can be committed at or during an assailant's action, an effective block requires that it be performed a split second after the assailant's strike is anticipated. This requires that the strike's trajectory be anticipated, the target be anticipated, the speed/acceleration, force, and angle. From there, one must insert/apply the appropriate block to the oncoming strike, and ensure that the block is not a precise one, but a wide-path one. A block that counters a large area and that is timed to counter the strike while the strike is 'within' said area. Blocks are generally ineffective against linear strikes, and not altogether effective against circular ones. At best, they can do a reasonable job of countering heavily telegraphed strikes.... but so can just about anything else. Jams and parries are far more effective and gear one to a more 'assertive,' or 'aggressive,' stance than a defensive one. Jams are basically that of inserting one's arm, or leg, in the path of the 'potential' assault, preventing/hampering the assailant's ability to perform an attack from that direction. Usually it is performed 'while' an attack is in progress, but it can just as effectively be performed 'before' an attack is initiated. edit - i transposed roundhouse with haymaker in my mind, and thus corrected my comments on the subject.

Which is very much my point, actually. People undergo changes due to what they expose themselves to. In this case, exposure to the martial arts. As you indicated, there is no hard evidence to support the claim that it is the martial arts which made the changes in the person, or whether the person underwent change utilizing the martial arts as a utility, or medium to do so. Or, even whether it is merely that certain persons geared toward certain thinkings merely levitate towards such studies, and thus the characteristics within them that were dormant received the outlet they needed to reach the next phase of their evolution. Of course, this bent is exiting psychology and entering into philosophy but ah well...

Don't hesitate, get in and assail him with a barrage of clinch-applicable strikes. Keep him close and tight. Attempting to counter his leg attacks, without having appropriate training, will merely get you hurt. The best solution is for you to study a system that applies low-kicks, so you can become familiar with the delivery, and thus become familiar with how to counter said delivery.

You can show anyone how to defend properly. Undermining the necessity of learning how to punch, or of how difficult it is to learn how to do so properly, does not give credence to your statement. Defending is a wide topic, while punching is a specific one. A more apt comparison would be that of attacking vs defending, or punching vs blocking. In either case, i would say the formers would be harder to teach, for it is more natural for someone to protect themselves than it is to hurt someone else. blocking and avoiding, as you put it, are two different things. Defense as a whole is important, obviously, but offense is infinitely more important. Without defense, you can lose. But without offense, you cannot win. The topic, as you presented, is about blocking, but i gather you are referring to more than merely blocking. Blocking is merely one approach to counter a strike. Personally, i believe it is the easiest to learn, yet the least effective and the more problematic. Parrying, avoiding/dodging, buffering, going-with, and jamming are far more effective approaches, although they take longer to grasp. So... what exactly are you wanting to discuss?

Igm, thank you for your post. I wish to note that the example you presented does not indicate whether the opponent encountered was a grappler, nor if the opponent had any former training... therefore, in some ways it is relevant, in others not. The mistake a striker can make is to assume he will be able to 'knockout' the opponent, when in actuality he must be focused on causing as much damage as possible, in as short a time as possible. Of this, i think your example presented well. As to the debate about percentages and statistics, who cares. The definer of a confrontation are the persons within the confrontation, not the averages. Of the experienced persons, two grapplers combating will go to the ground, virtually guaranteed. One grappler and one striker... very good chance it will go to the ground. Striker vs striker, a smaller chance it will go to the ground. Of the inexperienced, it will very likely go to the ground, simply because one of the combatants will realize he cannot dominate standup and will therefore attempt to take it to the ground, or they will fumble all over each other and thus fall. Again, who cares what the averages dictate, exceptions exist and that is exactly what we strive to be... exceptions. Now, unless you prop your opponent up on a hook, eventually at least one of you is going to go to the ground. Awake, or unconscious... but someone 'is' going to go there. Except, what is actually being debated here is when both combatants go there, and not merely whether one person hits the ground while the other remains standing. Thus all these talks about statistics and all these analogous discussions on how many, are moot. What matters for these debates is not when and why, but how. So, when you filter out all the other factors, you deal with that aspect. Let's examine 'how' that particular scene happens, and whether actions can be taken to prevent what is presented (in the context of real confrontations): Ranges - from the further ranges to the inner range, the assailant's path is inherently forward, which translates to 'closing the gap.' To close the gap all the way means to enter into a clinch that is likely to go to the ground. Forward/backward - forward motion is our 'normal' movement, and thus we can perform this without conscious thought. However, moving back and away, or to the side, to prevent the gap from being closed is not a normal movement, and thus requires conscious thought. Distraction - when all you need to focus on is in front of you, there is but that... and yet you can still trip over your opponent and fall to the ground. Compare this to moving back or to the side and you see the likelihood of falling, tripping, is substantially increased. Focus - with your attentions pulled to the fore and the aft, or side, your focus is split. You are unable to provide 100% of your attention to your opponent if such is the case, therefore the approaching assailant, the person attempting to close the gap, has the inherent advantage. His/her focus is in front, only. Inherent - now mentioning inherent, we must spend a few moments to examine this. It means that things are 'naturally' of this way or that. Dedicated standup practitioners can train to 'counter' what is natural and develop habits to nullify most 'inherent' factors. However, the blindspot that is inherent in moving backward is not one of them. Thus the trained practitioner learns to move 'to the side' instead, where his/her peripheral vision will allow him to manuever with little loss on focus. Counter - unfortunately, dedicated grappling practitioners are capable of reacting to side motion far more effectively than they are backward motion. I.e., it is easier for them to safely pivot than it is for them to safely charge, while still maintaining the aggressive advantage. Aggressive advantage - this is a big issue. A grappler, when going against a striker, immediately opts to go for the aggressive stance... of going for the takedown, while the striker tends to go on the defensive stance, of trying to prevent the takedown. Being the aggressor is inherently advantageous.The error is in the striker who falls into the defensive stance against a grappler. While this may 'seem' the more effective posture, it is actually fighting the other person's fight. Worrying about what the opponent will do, rather than focusing on what they themselves should do. It is the unwritten rule that one should always fight their fight, not the opposition's fight. To not overly concern oneself with what the other person is going to do, but instead cause them to worry about what you are going to do. It is the prey/predator concept, where you must take the stance of the predator and cause the opposition to take the stance of being prey. They're breakfast... and you're hungry. So, my thoughts are this - The best defense is a good offense, but the best offense is knowledge. Learn what your opponents 'can' deliver, so that you can ensure when you deliver, they cannot exploit it and use it to their advantage. A standup fighter is at an inherent disadvantage against a grappler. However, if they train to avoid the pitfalls and train to be the aggressor in all cases, they will have edged their bets. Again, there is no guarantee. Thanks for reading

Well then... beginners will obviously have a problem. As to the brown belt, well not all practitioners are qualified to wear the belt they've received. The reason for my above statements is that if you attempted to utilize force, it should have easily be converted to energy being used against you. To have 'difficulty' with someone using force means they have not grasped the fundamentals of aikido. As to whether it would work, picture perfect, of course not. As forms do not directly translate into action in a confrontation, aikido practices as well do not. They exist for the same reasons forms, or katas, do... to ensure you grasp the principles underlying the actions that are repeated, ad nauseum.

Yes, you never can tell when you might inadvertently pick someone's nose. Devastating...

i prefer to think of it as 'ego.'

I don't think she is wrong. A clinch and a grapple isn't 'on the ground.' fights do not go to the ground as often as many purist grapplers would like to believe. Indeed, fights go to the ground because either both persons in the fight are n00blets or because at least one of them is a grappler and was able to bring it there. So yes, the majority do go to the ground, but not necessarily 'with intent.' A well-rounded standup fighter can virtually ensure a fight does not go to the ground, or that if it does, it doesn't stay there.

Hmm, first time i saw this thread. Seems a fun discussion that petered out. Well, to add my thoughts to this seemingly dead issue... The human body does not have a single magnetic field, but a multitude of minute magnetic fluxes associated with all the energy emanating within. The energy created in our bodies are chemically induced, initially presented in the form of heat. Some of it is converted into electricity. Signals are generated by mental command, allowing a multitude of small electrical impulses to muscles. In turn, these muscles contract, which allows us do things like type. I can go on with a long list of 'layman' explanations for how the body works, how it generates energy via conversion of matter, and how it then utilizes that energy in very complex ways... but this is not really the point of the topic. The point is, it is attempting to state that ki is this energy, and somehow we can harness this energy and utilize it for some 'alterior' purpose. However, it cannot be. The energy within our bodies is not a single capacitor that can be harnessed and redirected. The energies utilized within are already performing minute functions, of a scale in many cases far more microscopic than that of a motherboard's utilization of electricity to generate unique commands via external utilities. To harness such energy would require rewiring... damaging of the motherboard if you will. When a limb is lost, a bionic prosthesis can be attached, and this device can be connected to nerve endings or functioning muscles, and these can be used to control and manipulate the prosthesis as if it were the missing limb. But, this is not an 'alterior' purpose... as the goal here is merely to 'replace.' Also, these prosthesis have sources of energy of their own that helps to enhance the 'very weak' signals generated by the body and then manipulate hydraulics or other mechanical parts. These examples i present to illustrate a point. The body is already utilizing these energies, electrical impulses, etc... for their intended goal. And while we can definitely attempt to control some autonomic aspects of our body, whilst definitely already being able to control some standard aspects, the limits of all of this is not the limit of the energy... for the energy itself is mostly presented in the body as a means to send signals... direct parts of the body to act this way or that. The limit of our body is our body... the physical limitations posed by the weakness of our muscles for lack of developing them, the fragility of our bones for their stand-alone design, and the vulnerability of our organs for their dedication to a crucial task in maintaining this vessel we reside in. We, as martial artists, must always strive to maintain a firm grasp of reality... lest we believe things that cannot possibly be, and in the process endanger our vessel and, in turn, our very existence. We are fragile, we can die. Let's keep this in mind when striving for answers.

Here is a previous discussion we had on it, inclusive of links i provided: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=21689 Initial poster, what you need to pay attention to is whether you feel at all 'manipulated,' paying more than the 'standard' fees (when compared to other ma schools), pushing for you to spend more money on 'extra' equipment or training, signed a long-term contract, etc. One thing you might want to find out is why those other students left... involuntarily. Was it because they were asked to provide too much money in order to continue their studies, or was there something even more ... ugly? The history of this art you are studying is false, and therefore what you are receiving cannot help but be 'unhealthy,' despite your having a good feeling now. As to comparisons of other arts, i'll be blunt about this. TKD has one of the worst problems out there right now with substandard instruction. There are supposedly some good instructors teaching it very well (allegedly from the ITF), but i have yet to meet one. As to choosing an art, i can tell you right now, OYD is not a very good one. It may look good, but its applicability in a real life situation is so so. I recommend continuing to read articles and discussions here in this forum to obtain insight into various concepts you may find 'missing' in that system, as well as pick up some useful knowledge and gain an understanding of what 'other' systems can provide for you. I'm a 25+ year veteran of the arts, and there are many others here with plenty of experience that are willing to share. Something you mentioned about your instructor... him not liking to repeat things. Well, frankly, if he's an instructor that should not be an issue for him, so i'm somewhat unnerved by that. It sounds to me like you have an 'impatient' instructor, which is a sign he may not respect his students. I don't train under people i don't respect and part of the requirement for that is whether they respect me and others. Something to consider. Obviously the choice is yours to continue studying this system or of finding another system to study... one that has a healthy foundation.

http://www.poekoelan.com/?page_id=3

I'm not going to torture you by repeating what i stated earlier. The error of most 'standup' fighters, when dealing with grapplers (and this is especially notable in the early UFC-type competitions), is that they 'wait' to get physical. They are in their element, and thus should immediately get busy and take over with a barrage of assaults. No sparring, no single-shots here and there, no taking turns, just full-on brutality. Seriously, that's what grapplers do. When they are in their element, they don't just sit there... they get busy. That is one of the reasons non-grapplers feel overwhelmed when they get on the ground... because they ARE being overwhelmed. It's a non-stop series of assaults on your limbs, face, torso, etc. So there it is. Use what you know... but actually use it, don't just hold back for that one-punch miracle and definitely don't spar. Against a grappler, you 'own' range fighting, so take ownership... and own your opponent. Granted, this is far easier said than done, but it 'can' and 'should' be done. Well, the initial poster practices kyokushinkai, a form of karate that emphasizes actually exposing themselves regularly to applying what they know. Although their competitions have been toned down since the early days, with rules about no face hitting and such, there is still plenty of "knowing" what it is like to actually put their fist into someone. Therefore, i don't believe this is the obstacle here. They have the conditioning.